Best telephoto lens for e-500

you don't seem to be able to understand this issue that you have ended up with a very high pixel density camera (about which you continually complain) when everything you say makes it abundantly clear that what you actually need is a very LOW pixel density camera. So why don't just admit you bought the wrong thing, sell it, and buy something that does what you want?

Me, I need a narrow angle of view. And I can get that with a 4/3rds camera and a 50-200, instead of having to hump around a huge 35mmFF and a 100-400 of equivalent speed (which weighs a ton and costs a bomb).
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/

Tripods turn a pleasing occupation (shooting) into a form of bad tempered meccano. I HAVE to use them a lot because I do a lot of night and dawn shooting, but I hate the things with a passion. Awkward to carry (what use is you tripod if it strapped to your back?), tiresome to set up (a minute of my life wasted every time) and forever in one's way.

That extra stop is indeed handy, although the REAL difference with the 50-200 is the breath-taking sharpness.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/

rapick said:

Your pic is TWO f/stop underexposed.
Plus (from the motion blur I see even in your 6:1 downsampled copy)
I'd say you need go not slower than 1/100s, that is 3 f/stop more.
Total: 5 f/stop 'extra' for correct exposure, i.e.:
1/100s f/1.0 (!!!) at 150mm iso400, or
1/100s f/5.6 at 150mm iso12800 (!!!), or
carry a tripod, or
you might get a much more interesting view of the castle under
decent lighting.
Confirmed: 40-150 f/3.5-4.5 is a great lens (when properly used):

Click to expand...

I deliberately underexposed the foreground in PP with a graduated layer mask of the (I thought) correctly exposed castle in an attempt to make the lighting on the castle more prominent. Better lighting would have been great, unfortunately I only decided to go for a walk as the sun was setting, so didn't get to the location in time for the best lighting. To be honest, I'd set the camera wrong. I was in a rush and had meant to set the aperture to the minimum f/4.5, not f/5.6. I do understand the rule of shutter speed should = 1/(2*focal length) for a decent hand held shot on a 4/3 camera but that wasn't possible under the conditions. I didn't want to take a tripod as I was only going for a walk, and didn't want to carry it with me, then spend time setting it up. I was going out for fresh air and some exercise, not to take top quality photos.

The image is perhaps not the best example of where the 50-200 would have helped, it just happened to be the most recent 40-150 shot I had.

I do agree the 40-150 is a fantastic lens for the price, I never said otherwise.
--
Cheers, Neil
http://dodger.photoblog.com/

LMAO said:

Its not 400 the lens is 50 - 200, You are not using it on a 35MM
Film camera. The fact that you get the perceived 100 - 400 35 mm
equivalent to me is just marketing!
A 50 - 200 lens is a 50 - 200 lens PERIOD.
I don’t really know the prices of the competition or if any offer
one that’s both weather sealed and as fast. But doing a quick
search I see
Canon which has both the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and the EF
70-200mm f/2.8L USM which range from 900 to $1300 minus incentives,
and mounted ( if it could be ) on an Oly would be nearly
identical, with slightly less range but 2.8 fixed. They also have a
Fixed F4. Sigma has the 50 - 200? Identical range but slower?
There are also a whole slew of 18 - 200 some with VR some with out
all slower? would you compare it to any of those? or do you try and
find a 100 to 400 which is also available. but that on an oly
would be 200 to 800 using your 35 mm mind set.
But they are all still Exactly what they say and in the case of
Oly its 50 - 200.
What I am trying to express is I ( we) don’t shoot film anymore,
For better or worse Oly has a 2x factor - forget it exists and use
the lenses for what they are , not what marketing tells you they
compare to
happy new year all

Click to expand...

So what your saying is that a Canon with a 70-200 lens set at 200mm, and an Olympus with a 50-200mm set at 200mm, with both cameras set side by side, that both will have the same field of view...
--
Regards... Ken

LMAO said:

Its not 400 the lens is 50 - 200, You are not using it on a 35MM
Film camera. The fact that you get the perceived 100 - 400 35 mm
equivalent to me is just marketing!

Click to expand...

It's a basis for comparison. Why does everyone get so excited over trying to compare fields of view on different sensors? They are different on different sensors, with the same length lens. So people that actually decide to use 35mm-sized sensor cameras for more wide angle coverage are misled?

If you don't take the format into consideration when specifically comparing focal lengths, then you aren't comparing anything.

Nope I am saying 200MM is 200MM is 200MM Period a lens is a lens

the FOV will be different but similiar.Then you have 2/3 vs 4/3 and the difference is so insignificant that to ME its realy doesnt matter

I like that we supposebly get 300 out of a 150 lens and hate that we get 70 from a 35 or 36 from 18 etc..

But to me these are just percived I have 2 feet and I am not hesitant to use them when I have to or can.
If all else fails theres always cropping.

Louis_Dobson said:

you don't seem to be able to understand this issue that you have
ended up with a very high pixel density camera (about which you
continually complain) when everything you say makes it abundantly
clear that what you actually need is a very LOW pixel density
camera. So why don't just admit you bought the wrong thing, sell
it, and buy something that does what you want?

Me, I need a narrow angle of view. And I can get that with a
4/3rds camera and a 50-200, instead of having to hump around a huge
35mmFF and a 100-400 of equivalent speed (which weighs a ton and
costs a bomb).
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/

Click to expand...

Was is comment directed at me??
--
I'm learning...

http://lisaamato.fotopic.net

Why would it be aimed at you? You've said nothing foolish at all, unlike the person it WAS intended for

However, if you used threaded view you'd know who was talking to whom and everything would be far less confusing.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/

Louis_Dobson said:

Tripods turn a pleasing occupation (shooting) into a form of bad
tempered meccano.

Click to expand...

By way of analogy, some people say that condoms turn a pleasing pastime (having sex) into a planned chore. Of course, not wearing a condom matters little so long as you're comfortable with the idea of having ugly children.

And without a tripod, you're going to have ugly children. A lot of them. Especially if you're buying the 50-200 for the extra 50mm reach. Isn't that when you need the extra support the most?

I just bought one for £330 at KEH to replace a 40-150 that the airline destroyed, looking forward to it arriving ( but not to paying the VAT)

it is a lot more convenient to stick to sex with the same person and persuade that person to take the pill.

In the same way it is more convenient to have a reasonably fast lens and plan your photo shoots around not needing a tripod.

However, I've never found any way of managing WITHOUT a tripod, but I try and minimise the requirement because, frankly, they are a nuisance and the enemy of spontaneous work.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/

Tom Bedlam said:

Louis_Dobson said:

Tripods turn a pleasing occupation (shooting) into a form of bad
tempered meccano.

Click to expand...

By way of analogy, some people say that condoms turn a pleasing
pastime (having sex) into a planned chore. Of course, not wearing
a condom matters little so long as you're comfortable with the idea
of having ugly children.

And without a tripod, you're going to have ugly children. A lot of
them. Especially if you're buying the 50-200 for the extra 50mm
reach. Isn't that when you need the extra support the most?

Click to expand...

That is the best/funniest analogy I have read in a while. Perhaps we should institute safe photography classes . . . or encourage parents to talk to their children about using tripods.

--



--
Zach Bellino
'I prefer my lo-mein of the veggie variety.'
--ZJB
'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'
Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881)

Get a monopod - together with a long lens with a tripod mount it becomes so well balanced that it seems to weigh nothing.

A good monopod will also do as a walking pole on tricky accents, but even a $10 walmart one will do wonders.

developed, this seems the equivalent of The Rythm Method - not exactly fooproof and somewhat unsatisfying

No, OK, monopods are Good Things, but when I need a tripod I generally need a tripod
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/

As usual I disagree with everything you say,

Every affordable DSLR has a crop factor and to ME there is no difference between 1.5, 1.6 or 2.0

The differences exist when the marketing depts try and tell people our camera and lens even though it clearly say 50mm realy isnt its like having 100. Its not a 50mm lens is still a 50 mm lens.

If a car company tried to tell you their 4 cylinder was realy like the 8 cylinders used to be because of this technolgy or that would you believe it? or take it for what it is?

What if they supplied you with more techincal info like, - in your old 8 you got 10 mpg and its 1/4 mile speed was 11 flat but in this new made for digital 4 cylinder because of of the weight vs displacement factor you get 20 mpg which in 8 cylner exquivalent is realy like 40 and allthough the the 1/4 is still 11 is realy like 5.5 because we only have 4 cyl.
after laughing would you still beleive it? you probably would.

the other brand because their car is lighter or because its displacement per cylinder is equal is similiar or any other reason would you beleive it?

to the 8? would you believe that to? Or if they told you the horse power is also technically the same because our 4 cylinder with 150HP is the same or better then that 8 with 300 so if it was an 8 it would be like 300.tell them were giving you a 400 equvalent lens when its still just a 200 mm and try and justify that into their price.

what about if they told you you get better gas milage becuse we put bigger tires on our car, therefore they rotate less which decreases fuel usage, and tire wear? Ill bet you believe that too.

the only other difference is to get close to your percieved 100 to 400 with a 50 - 200 in a 1.5 mount I have to buy the 70 - 300 roughly.

as far as if i bought the wrong DSLR or not that shouldnt concern you. I purchased the best value for the dollar at the time. Unlike you I am not hung up on Brand Name. and if iI see something i like better from another brand will buy it without hesitation.

allthough this is an OLY FORUM its encompaased with in a DIGITAL CAMRERA web site. and limiting yourslef to Only Oly users advice or point of views or only knikons etc.. realy shows how lose minded you are.

LMAO said:

Its not 400 the lens is 50 - 200, You are not using it on a 35MM
Film camera. The fact that you get the perceived 100 - 400 35 mm
equivalent to me is just marketing!

Click to expand...

The fact that they mention the focal length equivalency but skip the aperture/DoF equivalency is marketing. But both equivalency considerations are valid.

LMAO said:

A 50 - 200 lens is a 50 - 200 lens PERIOD.

Click to expand...

A camera is a camera. PERIOD.

I can list useless tautologies all day long I you'd like.

LMAO said:

Canon which has both the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and the EF

Click to expand...

I'm sure that you can find lenses for Nikon and Canon that roughly fit almost any category of performance that Olympus has. But there are no perfect matches. That is often why some people choose one brand/combo over another. The lens equivalency thing is beat to death. My summary of it is that Olympus has no overall benefit in size and weight unless they also give up equivalent aperture. The fact that Olympus doesn't mention this often is, IMO, a marketing decision.

LMAO said:

What I am trying to express is I ( we) don’t shoot film anymore,
For better or worse Oly has a 2x factor - forget it exists and use
the lenses for what they are , not what marketing tells you they
compare to

Click to expand...

OK. A 50-200mm lens on a four-thirds has the same FoV as a 100-400 on my older 35mm film cameras. If I had one, I'd use it with that in mind because that's how it behaves on the smaller format camera and because I've spent around 30 years thinking in those terms. Maybe in a few more years it will be easier for me to just skip that step. But for now, it helps me relate to what the lens can do and to communicate capabilities to other people that are using different format cameras.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

The main factor affecting composition is field of view, not focal length. Your (LMAO's) argument is hogswallop.

--
Archer in Boulder, CO

LMAO said:

Nope I am saying 200MM is 200MM is 200MM Period a lens is a lens

Click to expand...

In other words, he's saying nothing.

A bee is a bee. A bug is a bug. A toad is a toad. Fun!

LMAO said:

the FOV will be different but similiar.

Click to expand...

Actually, it will be different by a specific and calculatable amount.

LMAO said:

Then you have 2/3 vs 4/3 and
the difference is so insignificant that to ME its realy doesnt
matter

Click to expand...

I guess factors of two don't matter to you then. They matter to most other people though. That is approximately the difference between 35mm film and the 4/3 format.

LMAO said:

But to me these are just percived I have 2 feet and I am not
hesitant to use them when I have to or can.

Click to expand...

Using your feet changes perspective. So move your feet when you want to change perspective.

LMAO said:

If all else fails theres always cropping.

Click to expand...

Cropping or changing focal length changes FoV. So do that when you just want to change FoV.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

Effzeeone said:

Regardless of the caveats associated with using older MF lenses, I
think you'll always be better off that way than paying rather big
bucks for the 50-200 and then adding a teleconverter or magnifier
of some type.

Click to expand...

It all depends on the lens and how you use it. If your focus is off just a tad with a long lens, you may as well be shooting junk. The E-300/500/330 have pretty dense sensors and are not very forgiving of bad focus or slight camera blur.

Effzeeone said:

The older namebrand lenses should not be overlooked,
and don't think that you have to stick with Olympus OM lenses --
you can go for just about any namebrand and there's a 4/3 adapter
for it.

Click to expand...

I think Canon and Minolta may be problems. The Canon mount has a flange to sensor distance too similar to that of four-thirds. I just don't recall seeing any Minolta adapters. But Olympus, Pentax and Nikon are good bets. And the Koninxa Hexanon mount can be tortured into working without an adapter.

Effzeeone said:

When you find one that looks interesting (eBay ,etc.) do a
little research on it, figure out if it was a nice lens, and then
go for it -- pick up an adapter on eBay for under $20.

Click to expand...

Good long telephoto lenses - even legacy ones - can often cost $500 and more.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

. . . and once compared me to one of those devices.

;-)

--



--
Zach Bellino
'I prefer my lo-mein of the veggie variety.'
--ZJB
'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'
Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881)