Choosing between a budget telephoto zoom and a pro-grade lens isn't always obvious, and the answer depends on more than just image quality. This video makes the case that spending four times more doesn't automatically mean getting four times more usefulness, especially when your shooting style may not demand what the expensive glass actually offers.
Coming to you from Ian Worth, this thoughtful video pits the Fujifilm XF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 R LM OIS WR against the OM System 50-200mm f/2.8 in full frame equivalent terms, roughly 100-400mm for both. The Fujifilm comes in around £750. The OM System lens costs about £3,000. Worth isn't running a formal optical bench test here; he's asking a more practical question: which lens actually serves you better given what you're doing? The OM System lens is sharper wide open, built more solidly, weather-sealed, internally zooming, and includes a tripod collar and assignable function buttons. On paper, it wins every category.
But Worth shoots a lot of landscape work, and he points out something that tends to get glossed over in gear discussions. At the apertures most landscape work demands, somewhere between f/7.1 and f/11, the image quality gap between the two lenses narrows considerably. The OM System lens is still a bit sharper, yes, but Worth notes that a modest adjustment in Lightroom can close that gap further. If you're almost never shooting wide open, you're essentially paying a premium for a capability you're not using. Add to that the weight difference: the cheaper lens is lighter and more compact, which matters a lot when you're hiking with a full kit for hours.
Where Worth argues the OM System lens genuinely earns its price is wildlife. He takes it out to photograph razorbills and guillemots on sea stacks, attaching a 2x teleconverter to push the reach to 80mm in full frame equivalent. As the light fades, f/2.8 becomes the difference between a usable shutter speed and motion blur. Even with the teleconverter dropping the minimum aperture to f/5.6, he's shooting at around ISO 1600 to hold a shutter speed fast enough to freeze birds in flight. That's the scenario where the engineering behind expensive glass stops being abstract and starts being necessary. The video includes the actual images from that session, so you can judge the real-world output of the 50-200mm paired with the 2x converter yourself.
Worth also spends time on a point that tends to get dismissed in gear conversations: the best lens is often the one you actually bring. A lighter, more affordable lens that stays in your bag on every trip will produce more keepers than a heavy pro lens that gets left behind because you didn't want to carry it. That's a trade-off worth taking seriously before spending the extra money.
Check out the video above for Worth's full breakdown, including his field results and his honest take on when the cheaper lens genuinely wins.
2 Comments
I agree. I used to bring Tamron 28-75+70/180, but once the 28-200 came and since for landscape i use 8,11 i rarely use these just because of the total weight.
Shame you did not show the lower priced lens (never cheap) results. always like the compare of the more cost and less cost of lenses!
This subject is at the heart and on the minds of all photographers using any make of camera and lens selections of the costly and not so costly.
Another subject you mention is the aperture as far as SS for steady and sharp images, yes covered but with a teleconverter increasing the aperture also for the landscape of between 7 and 11 getting sharpness better than a f/2.8. Good showing of all...
I am a Sony user and also many expensive and low cost available, the nice thing is telephotos remain mostly low cost where as primes can bite the wallet the most.
I bought a low cost lens back in 2015 the FE 24-240mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS. Sony full frame cameras let you go to APS-C at the press of a selected button, so this lens in APS-C would be 36-360mm in camera crop using the center of the sensor. To remember for all users today most all editing software has upsizing if wanted. Also there are the white lenses with the wider open apertures. The key to this very low price is the cost per MM and reasonable low aperture for nights/ low light. This lens is on my camera in my go bag always and I could take any of my more expensive.
A thing about that super wide aperture everyone is buying, depth of field mainly is about your focus point like portraits if eye AF is on and using a 2.8 or wider you will find the tip of the nose and the ears out of focus, just saying, but in this case you will be using wide focus for clarity near and far for landscapes.
All in all like is pointed out know the camera and lenses ranges.