4/3 users: Good night and good luck.

Tubaman said:

I want a 5mm-500mm bright as the sun at all distances, a 256 point
AF system, clear pictures all the way up to ISO 1,000,000 or at
least very little noise. I want an Auto Compose button that will
set up the perfect picture inside the viewfinder, then I can snap
it remotely from my Olympus recliner under my optional outdoor
umbrella (made by Sigma in the 4:3 umbrella size).

Oh yea and i want World Peace.

Tubaman
--
Tubaman
http://dhsbandman.smugmug.com/gallery/1002372/8/46372850/Large

Click to expand...

Me too please.
--
Dave in Cuxton

This "lens" argument has little to do with price. It has everything to do with value. There are multiple manufacturers and a decade worth of used lenses out there that represent, for me, a much better value for my money.

You do NOT always get what you pay for. Some people get only what they perceive they are paying alot of money for (what they want to believe). You can't tell me that, all things considered, my used 80-200 AFS 2.8 Nikkor (got on ebay for a fantastic $450) is a less capable lens that the $900 50-200 Olympus. Frankly, I think I could argue the opposite (its wicked fast, bright and rugged).

Value (benefit / cost) is greatly impacted by marketplace competition--something that Olympus does not have to respond to (and won't have to unless their market share grows).

For what its worth...

Nevenp said:

Nevenp said:

Please can we have an 8-20 zoom

Click to expand...

I want one 7-7000 zoomy at $19.95 ;-)

Guys... Nikon is great. Okay?

But don't just talk about the price of Zuikos and availability of
super trooper Nikkors... If you wish suer trooper you'll have to
PAY in Nikon ballpark too!

Have you tried comparing some Zuiko high grades to standard lenses?

You probably have not.!

If you would have, you would know that what you pay is what you
get! If you're looking for cheapies, cheapies you'll get! Nikon
will not make a better picture with cheap lenses. Meaning... if you
want a good pic you'll have to pay either way so... Also, Zuiko
started the line barely three years ago... remember E1 and the
first two-three lenses? Now there are some 15 and counting around!

No, I don't find the lenses argument valid!

If you wish to cry after E3, okay, but not the lenses!

Cheers,

Neven Prasnikar @ Art Plus
http://www.artplus.hr

Click to expand...

Dont take yourself or the forum so seriously. The fact is, there are alot of people in the same predicament as myself. Articulating my "journey" is useful to some. I wrote my experience not for you, but for those who are asking the same questions. Hopefully its OK with you if every message on this forum is not specifically tailored to your tastes, needs and viewpoints.

Gregm61 said:

Rob's a shock-jock. Take him for what he's worth...honestly, no
reply would be the best answer, but that would only frustrate him
more, resulting in even wilder statements. There's a robh on most
all forums. After a while it starts sounding like the same crazy
street person I see walking to the office every day. I just make
sure I'm on the other side of the street, the ear phones are in and
the volume is turned up.

An explanation from someone as to why they are moving from one
system to another really isn't necessary. Unfortunately, It's also
usually not the last time we hear from them. That's the real
problem. Just go...really, please, go. Many of these statements are
coming from people who make no more with their equipment than I do,
and that ain't much. I know they'd like to think their statements
hold water with everyone. They don't.

Click to expand...

I would like a 30 year old Nikkormat with a 50mm f/16 and no exposure meter. Driving the discussion to the extremes does not add anything to the discussion.

The fact is, technology helps many, including photographers, do a better job of what they do. Its completely reasonable to expect people to discuss exactly what technology is useful for their photography (i.e. I have never experienced a "dust bunny" and, judging by the lopsideness DSLR sales numbers of Canon / Nikon, I suspect this is off the radar screen of everyone except Olympus users).

BTW, I want World Peace too.

Tubaman said:

I want a 5mm-500mm bright as the sun at all distances, a 256 point
AF system, clear pictures all the way up to ISO 1,000,000 or at
least very little noise. I want an Auto Compose button that will
set up the perfect picture inside the viewfinder, then I can snap
it remotely from my Olympus recliner under my optional outdoor
umbrella (made by Sigma in the 4:3 umbrella size).

Oh yea and i want World Peace.

Tubaman
--
Tubaman
http://dhsbandman.smugmug.com/gallery/1002372/8/46372850/Large

Click to expand...

Could you site a resource that gives data for all of these claims? (seriously), I'm interested...

highsee3 said:

nine44 said:

I'm picking up a highly rated Tokina 12-24
f/4 lens (18-35 equivalent) for about $400. More range than the
4/3 11-22 (22-44 equivalent) and several hundred dollars cheaper to
boot.

Click to expand...

The ZD 11-22 already out preforms the Tokina at f/4 wide open at
f/2.8.

The ZD @11mm feels wider than 22mm due to it's 4/3 ratio. The same
is true for all 4/3 ratio cameras



The Tokina may be cheaper, but you get what you pay for. I'll
stick with the ZD. It is in every aspect a better lens.

The Oly ZD 11-22 is $675
The Tokina 12-24 is $500

For an extra $175 you get:
Less distortion
Not waveform distortion
Less CA
Less vignetting
Less flare
Sharper corners
1 stop faster
All weather build
Metal filter ring
More compact
Lighter weight

Did I mention the ZD 11-22 is much sharper in the corners? The
Tokina isn't really usable wide open, so you are looking at a f/5.6
lens vs. a f/2.8 lens. No contest.

highsee3 said:

Also buying an 80-200 2.8 HSM for $400 compared to more than
twice that for the 50-200. And I'm picking up several fast f1.8
primes (it's so nice to shoot available light indoors again!!).

Click to expand...

You will need an excellent 75-300mm on the 1.5x DX chip to do the
same job as the ZD 50-200. Where is there a 75-300mm f/2.8-3.5
lens?

The 80-200 HSM is larger (67mm vs. 77mm and 1,070g vs. 1270g)
The 100-300 f/4 HSM is much larger (67mm vs. 82mm and 1,070g vs.
1,445g and 157mm vs. 227mm)

Sigma 80-200 f/2.8=$789
Sigma 100-300 f/4=$899
Sigma 100-300 f/2.8=$1,999
Oly ZD 50-200 f/2.8-3.5=$849

I'll stick with the ZD 50-200. It's small, fast and sharp with a
nice reach. With Sigma on a DX, none are small and the only cheaps
ones are slower or don't have as much reach. Futher more, Olympus
has a much tighter QC than Sigma.

--
http://www.highsee3.smugmug.com

'A camera maker that simply copies others' idea has no right to
call itself an original
maker in the first place.' -Mr. Maitani, creator of the OM
photographic system.

Click to expand...

I have read every response in this thread and have enjoyed the discussion. Only your response I would classify as juvenile. Congratulations.

MFK said:

nine44 said:

No need to flame me here--just wanted to share my experience in
case it helps others in the same situation.

This is my fairwell--I have sold all my 4/3 equipment off and I'm
heading back to Nikon. I loved the E-1, but at the end of the day,
lens selection and cost won me back over to Nikon. I am salivating
at the opportunity of picking up all kinds of great optics for my
D100 for far less money than I would have had to lay out for
Olympus. For example, I'm picking up a highly rated Tokina 12-24
f/4 lens (18-35 equivalent) for about $400. More range than the
4/3 11-22 (22-44 equivalent) and several hundred dollars cheaper to
boot. Also buying an 80-200 2.8 HSM for $400 compared to more than
twice that for the 50-200. And I'm picking up several fast f1.8
primes (it's so nice to shoot available light indoors again!!).

I wish Olympus the best, but the range and cost of lenses in F
mount is simply too big a draw for me. Good luck to all!

Click to expand...

You're a troll. Good riddance.

Click to expand...

Exactly my point as well. People in this forum are close to religious when it comes to Olympus. They will never listen to logic. There actually is a japanese due who makes the best cameras in the world and his name is Olympus, amen. The only reason I'm not jumping ship is because I cant afford it.

rob

nine44 said:

Gregm61 said:

Rob's a shock-jock. Take him for what he's worth...honestly, no
reply would be the best answer, but that would only frustrate him
more, resulting in even wilder statements. There's a robh on most
all forums. After a while it starts sounding like the same crazy
street person I see walking to the office every day. I just make
sure I'm on the other side of the street, the ear phones are in and
the volume is turned up.

An explanation from someone as to why they are moving from one
system to another really isn't necessary. Unfortunately, It's also
usually not the last time we hear from them. That's the real
problem. Just go...really, please, go. Many of these statements are
coming from people who make no more with their equipment than I do,
and that ain't much. I know they'd like to think their statements
hold water with everyone. They don't.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

James Pilcher said:

espressogeek said:

BTW, my favorite thing about the Nikon system is the autofocus on
the 24-85mm. WOW. This thing is crazy fast and the 11 AF points are
sure nice.

Click to expand...

Having 11 AF points gives you 11 chances for a wrong focus instead
of the 3 on the Olympus bodies.

Another way to look at it is that, with the Nikon, you have to turn
off 10 points instead of 2 to use the single central point that
everyone should be using anyway.

So, with the Nikon, you have almost 4 times the chance of a
misfocus and 5 times the work to select that truly useful focus
point.

(with a smile, of course)

Click to expand...

But you can always turn that off and Nikon definitively focuses faster than 4/3rd cameras....

Day Hiker said:

--
Cheers,

Jim Pilcher
Colorado, USA

I don't make stupid mistakes. My mistakes are always very clever.

Click to expand...

--
Raist3d
e-volt 300, and some Zuiko lenses. Fuji F710, Panasonic FZ20
Tools/Gui Programmer - vid games industry

nine44 said:

You can't tell me that, all things considered, my used
80-200 AFS 2.8 Nikkor (got on ebay for a fantastic $450) is a less
capable lens that the $900 50-200 Olympus. Frankly, I think I
could argue the opposite (its wicked fast, bright and rugged).

Click to expand...

You can buy the ZD 50-200 for less than $900 new and you can get it used just like the Nikkor. Compairing a new price to a used price isn't realistic. Look at the list price of both. Look at the used price of both.

--
http://www.highsee3.smugmug.com

'A camera maker that simply copies others' idea has no right to call itself an original
maker in the first place.' -Mr. Maitani, creator of the OM photographic system.

nine44 said:

Could you site a resource that gives data for all of these claims?
(seriously), I'm interested...

Click to expand...

Here is the corner resolution

The Toknia hits 1,000 LW/PH at 12mm f/4.
The Olympus hit 1,600 LW/PH at 11mm f/2.8

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/olympus_1122_2835/index.htm
ZD 11-22

"The curve indicates that the lens is basically diffraction limited which exceptional for any lens and more so for an ultra-wide zoom" (this means that they need more than 8mp to see what this lens can really do)
"The resolution figures are exceptional for an ultra-wide lens"
"Highly recommended!"

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tokina_1224_4/index.htm

Tokina 12-24. (Please note that this is the Canon version tested on a 8mp chip. The resolution numbers will be even lower for a 6mp sensor.)

"In absolute terms there're quite a bit of wavy barrel distortions "

"At 12mm @ f/4 the lens shows very high center performance but mediocre borders. The extreme borders are quite poor."

"One of two primary weaknesses of this lens are chromatic aberrations (visible as color shadows at harsh contrast transitions). The CAs remain well beyond 1 pixel in width on the average at the borders at all focals lengths. The peak is at 12mm f/4 with a max. of 2.5 pixels. "

"As mentioned there're two weaknesses - one are CAs the other one is flare. This is rather typcial for Tokina lenses. In strong contra light there's a decrease in contrast and parasitary light will enter adjacent parts of the scene. While this will happen with most lenses it is more pronounced with this (and other) Tokinas."

"The verdict about the Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X DX can't be easy because its quality varies across the different characteristics."
--
http://www.highsee3.smugmug.com

'A camera maker that simply copies others' idea has no right to call itself an original
maker in the first place.' -Mr. Maitani, creator of the OM photographic system.

Louis_Dobson said:

For me at least, whhich is light weight of the overall system.
Means I'm actually happy to take it with me. Just packing my hand
luggage now...

Click to expand...

When you put them side by side, a 67mm filter ring is much smaller than a 77mm filter ring.
--
http://www.highsee3.smugmug.com

'A camera maker that simply copies others' idea has no right to call itself an original
maker in the first place.' -Mr. Maitani, creator of the OM photographic system.

nine44 said:

You do NOT always get what you pay for. Some people get only what
they perceive they are paying alot of money for (what they want to
believe). You can't tell me that, all things considered, my used
80-200 AFS 2.8 Nikkor (got on ebay for a fantastic $450) is a less
capable lens that the $900 50-200 Olympus. Frankly, I think I
could argue the opposite (its wicked fast, bright and rugged).

Click to expand...

Unlike you... I'm not willing to discuss lenses I've never used so... I really don't know if I can or can't tell you anything about your 80-200 AFS 2.8 Nikkor...

I can only discuss 50-200... it's sharp and fast and it works well as a telefoto macro (shooting butterflyes from 2-3m distance) which is a feature I need... also it's splash proof that will be handy when I get a splash proof body which I intend within a year or so... (either new E3 or E1 at a silly price)

NL said:

Dust though is an issue on Canon (and Nikon) and I fall into the
category of people who are really bothered by it and admit it makes
me think twice about swapping lenses, the sensor is the heart of
the camera and I really don't trust myself to clean it.

Click to expand...

NL,

I don't know about their high end lenses, but the lower end Canon zoom lenses are big dust suckers without swapping lenses. Just look at how they are put together next to the low end Olympus lenses. I would end up using only primes on my Canons and would switch without really ever having dust issues.

Mark

Robh3 said:

Exactly my point as well. People in this forum are close to
religious when it comes to Olympus. They will never listen to
logic. There actually is a japanese due who makes the best cameras
in the world and his name is Olympus, amen. The only reason I'm not
jumping ship is because I cant afford it.

rob

Click to expand...

Hey Rob,

Perhaps the reason people think you are a little nutty is because you contradict yourself so much. I couldn't figure out your statement above, you say the best cameras are made by Olympus followed by the only reason you don't sell your Oly is because you can't afford it. Do you see my point?

Sol

Hmmm Coudn't you people just to get together and arrange a Swap meet? Wousl be most effective entire working systems could easily be tested, rented, borrowed, and even (if parties agree) swapped (with some Cash?) ...

JR_Sprawls said:

Good luck with Nikon -- sincerely. Choosing the right system is a
very difficult and personal decision. Hope it works out for you.

In the interest of balance on the forum, I'm in the process of going
the other way -- from Nikon to Olympus. While Olympus doesn't have a
huge lens lineup they do have excellent lenses in the ranges I need,
and at very reasonable prices. My Olympus set will have one less lens
than my Nikon setup and cover a wider zoom range, though I will give
up a fraction of a stop at the long end. It will also cost about
$1200 less -- probably almost enough to buy that 9-18 everyone is
talking about. BTW -- something in that range would be really
nice on 4/3. Are you listening, Olympus -- or Panasonic or Leica?

--
J.R.

Somewhere south
of Amarillo

Click to expand...

You must have used the Search function to drag this thread up, because it had been dead for about a year and a half before you brought it back to life.

If somebody wants to switch camera systems for one reason or another, that's their business, I don't care. I will not try to change their opinion, and I also won't ridicule them.

Focus and zoom ring on these two lenses are different parts. Obvious if you have ever held both lenses. Front element movement as the lens zooms is completely different. The 11-22 reaches a minimum length a little short of maximum FL then extends a bit. The 15-54 is at minimum at shortest FL and reaches maximum length at longest FL.

There is probably no more commonality between the 11-22 and 14-54 than there is between either of these and the 50-200.
--
Pete

--
Zalllon
FUN: http://flickr.com/photos/zalllon/page2/

'If you knew you wouldn't fail, what would you try?' - someone

I will never understand this need to narrate every little thing with a forum post. As if we all care. If you think about it it's a little arrogant. If you're no longer going to use Olympus equipment why even bother with the forum anymore? Just move on. I think it's just as silly to post only to tell as many people as possible that you ordered something (but don't even have it yet!). Did you simultaneously post in the Nikon forum that you bought stuff you don't yet have?

Unfortunately this will probably never stop.

Oly sys 11-22= 22-44 = 22mm diff
Nikon sys 12-24= 18-36 = 18mm diff