Reading mode: Light Dark

Oly can't win.

Go to last post
I bought a Sigma 75-300, f4-5.6 for my OM2SP.
I thought it was the best lens out there for the £200+ it cost.
I used it for 5 years, then it got bounced, and wouldn't infinity focus anymore.

But with 300mm I was king of the heap. Everyone I knew had 70-210 lenses.

Now we seem to want 400+, with a 2x factor for FOV??? WTF!

Doesn't it make you respect the guys back then doing wildlife images to beat those taken today, with a QUARTER the focal length?

shakes head
--

http://catmangler.smugmug.com/photos/random.mg?AlbumID=2825269&Size=Thumb&rand=7128.jpg
http://catmangler.smugmug.com/
 
...That Oly manufactured all the lenses for the OM series...Because they did not. They sold at least one re-badged Tokina lens.

Maitani didn't do it all.
RayL said:
When Maitani was designing he did it all right from cameras to
lenses to the whole concept of the camera (OM, Pen F, Stylus). No
firm would let one guy do all that today and now you get the wide
variety we see. Even (gasp) getting Sigma involved.
Click to expand...
--
If you don't talk to your cat about catnip, who will?
 
I agree that Olympus need a longish prime in the 250mm to 400mm with a moderate max aperture. Preferrably with a good close focus. Something similar to the 300mm f4's of the other manufacturers. In other words something that could produce top image quality without the price tag and weight of the ZD 300mm f2.8. Yes it's okay to say that 4/3 doubles the equivalent focal lenght of 35mm. However, very few DSLR's are ff (35mm) and most are APS-c. On an APS-c a 400mm is roughly the same as 300mm on 4/3 i.e. both about 600mm equivalent. And look at nikon and canon plenty find 400mm useful.
 
is driven by the fact that the wildlife I"m most interested in has hunting pressure. It takes reach and stealth in my part of the woods. With 400mm of reach and my shutter noise I get one chance...

Assumptions about other's needs/wants.... shakes head :))))
Tim the Grey said:
I bought a Sigma 75-300, f4-5.6 for my OM2SP.
I thought it was the best lens out there for the £200+ it cost.
I used it for 5 years, then it got bounced, and wouldn't infinity
focus anymore.

But with 300mm I was king of the heap. Everyone I knew had 70-210
lenses.

Now we seem to want 400+, with a 2x factor for FOV??? WTF!

Doesn't it make you respect the guys back then doing wildlife
images to beat those taken today, with a QUARTER the focal length?

shakes head
--

http://catmangler.smugmug.com/photos/random.mg?AlbumID=2825269&Size=Thumb&rand=7128.jpg
http://catmangler.smugmug.com/
Click to expand...
--



'How one responds to failure, not success, could be the better measure of character.'
 
You've hit the nail squarely on its head with this post, Louis. I guess it's easy to let wishful thinking obscure the inexorable reality that one tends to get what one pays for :-) Often the forum discussions remind me of sports talk radio which is quite popular here in Boston.; they both thrive on controversy, whether real or manufactured.

Cheers,
Bob
 
The only way you are getting that lens with those specs and an Olympus label is via Sigma and we already know how you feel about those.

You can't have milk on your wheaties without paying a little extra.
 
The question is, is this lens JUST a straight re-badge, or does Olympus actually add some value beyond their nameplate - because the re-badge WILL end up costing something like $100 more on the street than the Sigma version sells for in other mounts.

Now, if Olympus got Sigma to improve the mechanical spec of this lens before agreeing to OEM it, that's added value that's worth some more money. Or, if Olympus subjects the lens to more rigorous QA than Sigma would on their own, that's added value - and that's also worth some more money. But the problem is, we will never know if this is actually the case.

Indications are that the 14-45, and the 18-180, which are also rumored to be Sigma-origin lenses, are not any better than standard Sigma offerings in terms of their sample to sample consistency.
 
Easy and relatively cheap. Far less lenses in than the 50-200 and with a similar sized front element.

Are you mixing up your pro and top pro designations here?

Canon's L series 400mm f5.6 comes in at $1,024 on the B&H website. I look forward to your other worldly explanation of why the comparison is not valid.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
 
Most of the test reports that I had seen of Sigma's 18-200 seemed to state that the lens actually measured out at an 18-189mm. I don't believe Oly changed anything except the published spec. and the last marking on the zoom ring.
 
and i bought a Nikon D80 and a 300mm f/4 prime lens, the AF is lightning even in low light, i imported the lens from Hong Kong for the princely sum of £545.00 this included shipping, I've just received my 1.4 tc for it so now i have a 420mm f/5.6 that kills the 50-200 and 1.4 for sharpness and AF speed.

I just wirshed i could of done this with the Oly system i have, but i doubt it will happen for a long time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top