On 5/19/2014 11:34 AM, Frank Kurzawa wrote:
Hello all,
I've shot Nikon crop sensor cameras for years (most recently D7000), but
recently got an OMD-EM10.
In preparation for a June vacation I want to get a telephoto. My priorities
in order (more or less) are long, fast, sharp, fast focus, economical,
small,
Olympus is coming out with their pro level 300 mm f2.8 zoom later this
year, which seems like a dream lens (if I can afford it). But it's not a
current option.
Currently, I can get a 14-150 f4-5.6 (not cheap and not fast, but good
value), or
Olympus 40-150 - slow, medium long, great price - or
Olympus 75-300 f4.8-6.7 - pretty darn long but slow at shorter focal lengths
But there are also non-olympus options
Panasonic 100-300 f4-5.6 - faster than the similar Olympus 75-300
Panasonic 45-200 f4-5.6 - longer and faster than the Olympu 40-150
As Frank W. has mentioned, the 14-150 is also a fine lens, not just a compromise for long focal range. I don't think
either of those Panny's are quite as good as the Oly 75-300. No personal experience with those particular Panny's so
just review reading.
I would like to comment on speed, though. A 300/4 lens can't be very small or light. Lighter materials can be used, but
it can't be smaller than the OM 300/4.5, which is a lens quite out of proportion for a µ4/3 camera.
A 600 mm eq lens has very shallow DOF. A lot of "all at infinity" subject stuff suddenly isn't. When shooting something
miles away, it may not matter much. Then again, it may. This shot, @ 960 mm eq., is from about eight miles, and it's
clear that the foreground trees and most distant rocks are slightly softer that the main subject.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=California/Yosemite/Yosemite_2011/Yosemite_Valley&image=_MG_0382oof80m.jpg>
The fern images illustrate. These are really large ferns, those heads are already a few feet off the ground. I don't
really recall clearly, but I'd guess I'm shooting at 12 ft. or more, not near close focus. (Why don't my cameras include
focal distance in the metadata??)
As you can see, even at f9, the DOF is very shallow, no more than perhaps an inch or so before things start getting
soft. Imagine shooting these at f4. I can only get the whole head in focus with simple focus stacking. (Yeah, I know,
you can't do that with even slightly moving subjects, let alone hand held.)
The ferns are in complete shade, I wanted some DOF and a shutter speed with hope of stopping the slight waving, so they
are shot at ISO 3200, the auto ISO limit I has set, as a quick cheat, to about 6400 with -1 EV. And here's where things
change from film and early digital days. With proper NR, the high ISO has not adversely affected the image for web and
moderate print sizes.
I well remember the days of carrying around a Tamron 80-200/2.8, the Oly 300/4.5 and a monster Tammy 150-500/5.6 - not
altogether fondly. :-) I would never have got these bird shots with them.
So for me, one of the joys of µ4/3 is carrying around smaller, lighter gear with which I can accomplish things I
couldn't with yesterday's heavy gear.
For me, the 75-300 is a far more useful, practical lens than a 300/4.
On 5/19/2014 2:05 PM, Frank (W) wrote:
...
The 75-300mm tested better then the 100-300mm, and is less heavy.
And as I argue above, the slight speed difference is not important. I should also note that LCDs and EVFs make a fast
aperture to see what one is shooting in the dim/dark unimportant.
Both are relatively weak on the long end,
I have more to say about this, in another post.
but hey, we're talking 600mm equivalent
here. You'll need a tripod to make the most out of that.
I gotta disagree. I use the 75-300 @ 300 hand held all the time, as in the examples just posted. Decent higher ISO, IS
and the ease of holding a small, light camera and lens make excellent 600 mm eq. shots a regular thing without tripod. I
really wonder how much of the need for tripods for long lenses was simply due to the size and weight.
Sure, if working where it's dim, in no hurry and wanting the best possible IQ, I've used a tripod and self timer to
shoot long at ISO 200. But when I see birds, or a coyote or wild boar out the car window, hand held gets the shot - and
a good one.
Spore Checker Moose
On 5/19/2014 5:18 PM, Moose wrote:
There have been several posts and threads recently about bird shots, IBIS, long teles, telephoto speed, vacation
lenses and so on. I'm responding to the first here, and will likely be nattering on in specific reply to others.
Here are the images for all so far. All taken with the Oly 75-300, on GX7:
California Jay
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Oly75-300/CaliforniaJay.htm>
Probable first winter Golden Crowned Sparrow.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Oly75-300/GoldenCrowned.htm>
Fern fiddle head I
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Oly75-300/FiddleHead1.htm>
Fern fiddle head II
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Oly75-300/FiddleHead2.htm>
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
