Zuiko Digital (Olympus) 90-250mm f2.8 Super High Grade

[craig]

Focal length: 90-250mm
Lens Construction: 17 Elements in 12 groups
Angle of view: 14-5 degrees
Closest focusing distance: 8.2 feet
Max aperture: F2.8
Min Aperture: F22
Filter Size: 105mm
Dimensions: 4.88D x 10.9L
Weight: 7.21 lbs.
tele 1.4: Yes
Ext Tube: Yes, .32x magnification

Price:


Attachment 4213

[craig]

Pictoral Review:
http://fourthirdsphoto.com/content/view/58/2/
Lens sharpness test:
Attachment 155

[craig]

Other reviews on the web.

Slovenian photography site
manmachine's review of 35-100, 150mm, & 90-250mm
Ozray's review
e-photographia

[craig]

Please use this format, or else you will be deleted!!!
Pros:
Cons:
price paid:
Other info:

[tspore]

Pros:
Because i have already said this a few times, I will again here.
F stop - F2.8 1 stop faster than my old 200-400mm F4.
Built - Excelent. This lens looks like it could take the beating that I will give it.
Auto focus speed - Quick. It focuses right on, for me every time I have used it. It is also fast.
In 35mm this would be a 500mm F2.8 lens.... That would be HUGE!!! So compared to that, this is a small lens. (But I don't think many would want to carry it around with them.)

Cons:
Price - it is way out of the league for many, but even if people could afford it, i don't think many will want to haul this lens around with them where ever they go.
Sharpness - It is a little softer at 2.8 than f 4.0. However, it is still quite usable. (IMO about the same or slightly sharper than OM 50mm F1.8 at 1.8, but that is my opnion, no facts to support this)
NO IS - This is a tripod lens, I have hand held it, infact most of the pictures from the zoo are handheld, but I would say that this lens needs to be on a tripod for maximum clarity.... But I guess you could say that about any lens...

price paid: Choose not to say.

Other info:
Weight - compared to the 50-200mm, it weighs a ton. this is a tripod lens, no questions about it.

I wish that their was a 1.7 or 2.0 Teleconverter... Maybe some day, and then I would be happy.

Would I buy this again?
Yes in a heart beat. I also for a time owned the 300mm 2.8. But for me this is a better lens. It is usually at 250mm, but when I need to zoom out, i can. It is also slightly smaller, and I don't mind carrying this around.
I have never owned a more useful Super telephoto lens in my life.

[jebir]

I just posted some comparative oppinions on the use of the 90-250/2.8 in response to this question in the ZD 300/2.8 Review-thread. However, since most of what I wrote was about the 90-250, I figure I'd re-post it here. I hope that is OK.

[Edit; Sept. -09]I have, since a couple of months started to use a ZD 300/2.8 as well so I have now updated this post with new thoughts which is marked in blue[/Edit]

"I have both the ZD ED 50-200/2.8-3.5 and the ZD ED 90-250/2.8 and a ZD 300/2.8, as well as a Tokina AT-X 300/2.8 (my review) and I'm a wildlife photographer.


The ZD ED 50-200 is a very competent lens if you are out where you get decently close to the wildlife. However, it will in most cases leave you a bit short in reach and it may also cause you some grief if it starts hunting as it takes some time to get back to focus. (The SWD version should have that issue remedied though.) Unfortunately, I have since first posting this post, upgraded to the SWD version and discovered that the hunting issue is no better with the new version. Combining it with the EC-14 or EC-20 (I have both) helps a lot in reach but if you go for the 2x converter, you will instead often find yourself in lack of light - even in bright daylight. Also, one shall not neglet the advantage of having a compact gear - the 50-200 easily fits into one of the pockets of my photo vest.
I was at the Galapagos Islands recently and the ZD 50-200+EC-14 suited 95% of the needs there.

The ZD ED 90-250/2.8 is a whole different beast to bring along. It weighs in at 3.8 kg with the hood and it fills more than all my other lenses together when packed in the backpack. Forget about finding a pocket in the vest! If you get this lens, you will find it significantly more awkward to change lenses on the fly so I advice that you get a second body for the shorter focal length zoom.
The main advantages with the 90-250 over the 50-200 is its superior image quality wide open, better low light capability, and slightly longer reach. At first sight, it doesn't look like any significant difference worth the added price but if adding an EC-20 (which you will want in any case), we are talking 400mm f/7.1 with 'OK' image quality and mediocre AF capability vs. 500mm f/5.6 with very good image quality and very good AF-capability - a significant difference. After having used the 90-250 now extensively with the EC-20, I must say that Olympus have not gotten it quite right yet. Often the AF is visibly off a tad so I have started a the habit of taking a couple of 3-image bursts with a new AF-activation in-between. A con for this lens is that it exhibits a significant vignetting when shot wide open with the EC-14.

Regarding the ZD 300/2.8, I can with my own experience strike-out previous uncertainties regarding image quality, I can't say anything other than everything I have seen from it so far beats any other long focal length lens I have seen. The contrast is clearly superior to the 90-250/2.8 and the image sharpness is nothing but superb.I'll let those who have this lens further comment on the image quality. However, having and using the ZD 300/2.8 as well as the Tokina AT-X 300/2.8, I can say that the added 50 mm compared to the 90-250 is a significant bonus when you are out and can't possibly get any closer to the subject without scaring it off. However, with my 300/2.8, I have many times cursed the lack of a zoom because the subject has been too close for a full figure portrait but too far for a head-portrait. While my Tokina 300/2.8 with its 1.8 kg weighs in at Bantamweight, the the ZD ED 300/2.8 goes matches in Heavyweight against likes of the ZD ED 90-250/2.8. So the same considerations regarding bulkiness, getting extra body, etc., has to be taken with those big boys.

Finally, I'd like to agree with Knight Palm about a good support with the 90-250/2.8 or 300/2.8 - mainly because you won't be able to handhold them steady enough. I'm mostly using a monopod for mobility but a tripod is recommended. The 50-200 is another story and it can be used handheld or, as I prefer, with a shoulder pod."

Cheers, Jens.

[eaa]

Hi jens!

Wasn't there a firmware update for either this lens or the EC-20 addressing that issue?
Or do you still experience this with the latest fw applied?
And what about vignetting with the EC-20, is it less than w/ the EC-14?

Thanks for your useful posting!

- Erik

After having used the 90-250 now extensively with the EC-20, I must say that Olympus have not gotten it quite right yet. Often the AF is visibly off a tad so I have started a the habit of taking a couple of 3-image bursts with a new AF-activation in-between. A con for this lens is that it exhibits a significant vignetting when shot wide open with the EC-14.

[jebir]

Hi Erik,

when the EC-20 came, it couldn't focus at all with the ZD 90-250. A couple of weeks later which they came out with a firmware update for the EC-20 that fixed the problem.

What I'm mentioning here is much more subtle and inconsistent. The camera can focus the 90-250+EC-20 but very often it will be a tiny bit off - not much but definitely enough to be a unacceptable for such an expensive device. This is not the case with the ZD 300/2.8 (which I now also have).

Cheers, Jens.