“Little White as some have called it, the OM System 50-200 is gorgeous, but I will not be buying one, in fact if I had a need, I would replace what I have now.
I reluctantly looked at a few reviews lately. Side by sides with various lenses, with and without teleconverters, some scientific, some field.
A quick grab of a long time spectator. Could it be any sharper and if so, who would care? EM1x, 40-150 f4.
The general consensus is, yes, it is superb, but so are the 40-150 f2.8 ($1500au new, $1000 s/h), 40-150 f4 ($1100au/ $700 s/h) and 300 f4 ($3800au/$2500au s/h) and yes, I have all of these and they serve me perfectly well.
The reality is, to split them is to split the proverbial hair, so value for money wise, it is a poor direction for me to go. The reality is, a camera upgrade would probably do as much.
Taken today at a NWFL match. Cropped to about half no issue.
My standard process is to shoot with the 300 on one shoulder, a 40-150 (chosen by light) on the other. I will hold to the 300 until the subject is impossibly close, then switch to the shorter lens and 150 is about right to get the subject and their surrounds, both models providing images so sharp, I can crop easily to 1/4 the original for most uses (nobody has ever complained).
Same as above. Most reviewers have found that all of the lenses, with or without teleconverters, even some of the cheaper zooms are all much the same, which is to say excellent and more than enough for most uses.
Hope that the new lens could replace both in one is valid, it could, especially with the matched teleconverter, but can it do a visually better job or be more versatile?
Not really, not enough for me to spend enough to buy an OM-1 and replace my 40-150 f2.8.