Oly lens range weak? You must be joking!

Just trying to put a system together around a D3. Not easy. Oly really do have the best lens range for general purpose work.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

I don't know. Canon has the best offer:

17-40 f/4 USM L (for landscapes) + 135 f/2 USM L (for portraits) + 70-200 f/4 USM L IS (telezoom) + 200 2.8 USM L & 1.4 extender (telephoto)
--
Feel free to visit my photopage: http://tom.st

Louis_Dobson said:

Just trying to put a system together around a D3. Not easy. Oly
really do have the best lens range for general purpose work.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

Click to expand...

We hear all the time that Olympus has too small a sensor, high ISO noise, not enough primes and a poor lense selection! ))))))))))))))))
--
Stay Well,
Pete K.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

for the system, or razor thin dof capabilities. Well it used to be that way when 4/3s came to market, so that's all that counts.....

I'm sure you will find something that meets your needs to continue creating wonderfull landscape photos, even with a Nikon!
--



'How one responds to failure, not success, could be the better measure of character.'

With a D3 in your capable hands we all look forward to view the results.
--
Stay Well,
Pete K.

It is money I haven't got on something I don't particularly want in the hope it will pay for itself, so my hands had BETTER be capable or I'm going to feel a right chump...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

14-24 f2.8. This is the 7-14 competitor, initial reports are excellent, and it fits on a camera the stock agencies expect to see. But no VR. That's annoying.

24-70 f2.8. Designed for the camera and new, I'm taking a leap of faith that Nikon won't screw up this easy to do focal length on a short zoom ratio. I don't use these "normal" lengths much, but I tried working without them before and it was too irritating. Why the heck has this not got VR? What is the point of making a camera with huge ISO capabilities if you have to throw all the advantage away in low light using up ISO where VR would do it?

70-200 f2.8VR It has got VR (at last!) but not the last word in quality, and while Nikonites think of it as a "new" lens it was in fact introduced at the same time as the FIRST of the digital Oly lenses, which are already being replaced. And at 200 it is jut too damn short. The f2.8 is needed so we can add...

Teleconverter 1.7. This turns the 70-200 into a 340 f 4.5, so still shorter and slower than than Oly's 50-200, but no longer woefully under-endowed.

This lot is going to cost the Earth and weigh a ton, and the quality isn't going to be as good as you can easily get with Oly.

So let's have less lens moaning around here - if you want to take photos for your own benefit, to be proud off, to put on the wall and be happy, and to enjoy your hobby, the E3 (as per PDF), 7-14, 12-60 SWD, 50-200 SWD will do a better job than anything else, for reasonable money and a bag you can sling over your shoulder and barely notice.

The only reason to be peering over the fence at anything else is if you have some specific, money making requirement, such as huge MP stock photos, or regular wedding work in dark churches (and even there I'd suggest the 35-100 might be the answer, which at f2 and with in body IS should make up any shortfall in ISO).

Any dual system Nikon shooters want to suggest any alternatives?
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

They have a good range regarding to zooms, but i would like to see more primes; thats the area where Olympus is still weak.

...because i would like a strong wide-angle, but not fisheye, like 17 mm (film equiv.). If i see it right, the only Four Thirds choice is 7-14 - very heavy, very expensive, and the filter diameter might be too big - or is there any filter thread, as i don't see it in any offer. But that wide angle of course needs a polarizer.

Also as a walkabout the Oly 12-60 would be nice indeed - but it's not there when i need it.

So yes, while the E-510 and E-3 (?) do look like nice packages, the lens line-up leaves things to desire.

henrik2000 said:

...because i would like a strong wide-angle, but not fisheye, like 17
mm (film equiv.). If i see it right, the only Four Thirds choice is
7-14 - very heavy, very expensive, and the filter diameter might be
too big - or is there any filter thread, as i don't see it in any
offer. But that wide angle of course needs a polarizer.

Click to expand...

Those requirements exclude any extreme wide angle. If you want a normal wide angle, the 11-22 is there and waiting, and at 11 even THAT is a bit wide for a polariser to work.

henrik2000 said:

Also as a walkabout the Oly 12-60 would be nice indeed - but it's not
there when i need it.

Click to expand...

With you very shortly.

henrik2000 said:

So yes, while the E-510 and E-3 (?) do look like nice packages, the
lens line-up leaves things to desire.

Click to expand...

Well you haven't said what - you've said you want a WA that is not too extreme for filters, and that's the 11-22, and you've said the 12-60 is not available, but it is mere weeks away.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

prime prices, I think the conclusion must be that the Oly zooms do the same job but have the benefit of zooming too.

Long prime lenses for the D3 cost absolutely stupid money. Quite mad.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

Yes, Henrik

It certainly is heavy in weight and in price.

There is no filter thread.

It is, however, of exceptional optical and build quality and I would find it difficult to replace with anything else without having to drown my sorrows. I would have been happy with a 7mm prime though.
--
Fritz Solms
[email protected]

I can agree to most of what you are saying, Louis..
but still would like to see more choice at the shorter focal range,
within the 14 to 50 mm area, especially a fast wide prime would be nice.
I don't doubt the quality of a good zoom but most of the time they lack
speed of a prime, and if they do they become too big and expensive.
I use my old kodak dcs 760(yes its huge...) right now with a 28 1.8 sigma and
a 50 1.4 nikkor .
More choice in the short focal primes would make a return to fourthirds
an option, especially if the E-3's sensor would have a similar exposure latitude
as the dcs 760 but thats another wish again.

Louis_Dobson said:

Just trying to put a system together around a D3. Not easy. Oly
really do have the best lens range for general purpose work.

Click to expand...

I'm with Louis.

I have spent an inordinate amount of time researching and testing the Canon lens lineup, and a not inconsiderable amount of money buying a number of said lenses, only to come to the conclusion that while the grass looks greener over on the Canon side of the fence when you gaze wistfully at the huge list of lenses apparently available to you, in reality, if you're interested in useful working ranges and quality, you can discount the VAST majority of them and what you're left then is a choice that is very often very expensive and very heavy. There are some exceptions of course, but its certainly not the rosy picture one might imagine.

I've done the same extensive reading up on the Nikon lens system and boy is that a confusing one. Its all very well being able to go back since 1977 or whatever and stick any lens on and even further than that it you want to file sticky out bits off, but much of the same argument applies.

However at least Nikon DON'T bombard you with 20 zillion permutations of the same focal length - there is only one 70-200, and its a good one.

Also, Nikon seem to have now done exactly what Oly did with the ZD range - come out with a range of designed for digital lenses. The classic example would appear to be the new 14-24

And now they have a sweet pro range lineup of 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200. All pretty much telecentric and all pro grade quality. Inexpensive isn't a word that comes into any conversation about this glass mind.

But Louis' point is that we've had this quality from Olympus from the start and ALL the oly lenses - even the cheap kit ones - just work. You might be limited in speed or reach with some, but that's clearly stated on the tin when you buy it. You don't have to worry about soft corners or gross softness wide open, and I stifled a chuckle at the recent post showing how much barrel distortion the 14-45 has in comparison to the 14-54. Dear god .... one could consider it PERFECT compared to some of the dross I've personally had the misfortune to come across - and that's including Canon L series lenses for those still gazing over that fence!

Oly lenses rock! There, is that simple enough a conclusion?

G.

the lenses are one of the reasons I moved to oly...
best
--
Geoff Roughton

'Always look on the bright side life...'
http://www.klick-photography.co.uk

A mate of mine made millions (really) on stock and does brochure shots for travel companies (he's paid to go on cruises, to the Antarctic, for example, in order to take pictures). He recently sold all his Nikon equipment and went to Canon. At the time I was astonished because the D200 had just been released and his first body purchase was the 20D just to get the feel of digital. On querying him, he said that he just couldn't find the lenses he needed in the Nikon line-up and Canon had them.

It seems to me, my on-line friend, that you have just run into the same problem.

Louis_Dobson said:

The only reason to be peering over the fence at anything else is if
you have some specific, money making requirement, such as huge MP
stock photos

Click to expand...

hmmm... the D3 isn't "huge" in the MP department. It is in all other departments, though.

Also it seems to me you are continually looking at ways of spending money instead of making money . Spending money on camera-gear is easy, making money as a photographer is not.

Lourens

Geoff_R said:

the lenses are one of the reasons I moved to oly...

Click to expand...

ditto

are very weak at the UWA end. And Nikon's new 14-24, IF it does what people are saying it can, fills 80% of my shooting needs. That wasn't there when your friend had his issues...

But we come back Oly having the best lenses though. Canon either can't design a UWA or there is a problem with the sensor / mount for that sort of thing, and Nikon seem to be stuck offering decent long zooms.

Oly have superb UWAs and WAs and, when the SWD motor is added to the pin sharp 50-200, superb long zooms as well.

If I want to try and make a living out of stock, I need to keep ahead of the pack on MPs (not for quality, but just for EXIF), and that more or less excludes a camera range with a smaller than normal sensor.

But for just taking good photos, at a sane price, and reasonable weight, Oly and especially Zuiko are first, second and show.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam