Reading mode: Light Dark

Which "cheap" tele lens for E-510?

Go to last post
E

egrange

Well-known member
Messages
142
Reaction score
0
Location
Lyon, FR
As I didn't get the dual-lens kit version, I'm now looking for a "cheap" tele lens to complement my 14-42, as I'm not a big tele user and would rather save for a ZD 12-60 & 50mm.

I'm currently hesitating between the 55-200 Sigma and the new 70-300 ZD (but is the price delta worth it?).

I'm not sure I'll need the reach of the 300 over the 200, especially if the IQ @300 isn't so good (as some reviews said for the 70-300 sigma, which the ZD seems based on), but I've had the opportunity to try the ZD 40-150 and found it lacked a bit of reach for me.

Could anyone having used the 55-200 give me some impressions?
(I tried the search function, but it seems to always be updating its index...)
 
egrange said:
As I didn't get the dual-lens kit version, I'm now looking for a
"cheap" tele lens to complement my 14-42, as I'm not a big tele user
and would rather save for a ZD 12-60 & 50mm.
I'm currently hesitating between the 55-200 Sigma and the new 70-300
ZD (but is the price delta worth it?).
Click to expand...
Why not buy the 40-150mm that would have been in the dual lens kit, or even a used older 40-150mm.
egrange said:
Could anyone having used the 55-200 give me some impressions?
(I tried the search function, but it seems to always be updating its
index...)
Click to expand...
It doesn't compare well compare to the 40-150...see this link (and click on the "Other Articles" link while you're there for lots more useful info):
http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/oly-e/si-055-200.html
 
If speed and image quality are important to you, and you are on a budget, the "old" version 40-150 would be my recommendation. It is a very nice lens, and, of for the low prices it commands, an amazing value.
 
The 40-150 version 1 (with the e-500) is excellent and very inexpensive. I find it sharper than the 14-54 lens at the same focal and aperture.

--
Make it a Great day!
 
I have the old 40 - 150 which is great but I would wait for a few weeks and see reviews for the 70 -300 . It looks very promising indeed and has excellent close focus/macro to 1/2.
Regards

Tim Hughes
 
Since you asked for someone with the Sigma 55-200 to respond....

I have several telephoto lenses for my 300/330, including a wonderful Tokina ATX 50-250 PK, a Tokina 500mm mirror OM, a Pentax 135mm and the 55-250. The best of the lot is the old ATX, but I generally travel with the far lighter 55-200.

Whenever I think I am tempted to put heavy cash down for the Oly 50-200 I review my photos with the 55-200 and am constantly surprised and happy with the quality. Except for when it is all the way out, I find the contrast and sharpness perfectly acceptable. When there is softness it's a one minute fix in post processing. Is it a brilliant lens? No. Is it worth the price? Yes. I think it is very good on the price/performance side.

To be honest I am going to be reading the reviews of the new 70-300 pretty carefully, but unless it is a strikingly fine lens I'll stick with my current collection.
 
I have both the old and the new 40-150 kit lenses. I would recommend the old version. It produces images I think are very good with lots of detail, also feels well made. The new version I do not like.
 
I don't think a 200 would be either, unless you added the EC14. Of course, spending the money on an EC14 without getting some good glass (ZD 50-200) to go with it, is kind of a waste. And, if you consider going that route, you are in another price range, so you might just as well consider something like the 70-300 and maybe save some money. It all depends on what you are looking for, price vs IQ.

When I got the 2 lense kit, I thought I'd be all set. After all, 150 was more than I had with my old OM-10. But, now that I have the 150, I want 300 or more. When you are out shooting birds and other animals, how long is enough? 300 seems long and easier to handhold than a 500. If the crop factor is there, then that's probably what I'll settle for. Right now I'm torn between the ZD 70-300 and the Sigma 50-500. One I can probably handhold (and afford), the other will almost certainly require at least a monopod (and is quite expensive).
--
Cheers, Dave
 
Can't judge the 70-300, but I'v seen the 50-500 in action (impressive but indeed BIG) and the Sigma 135-400 fits inbetween, both in weight and price.

I got that one, because I figured the below 150 range was pretty well covered with the satisfactory ZD 40-150 (old make), so the 50-150 part of the 50-500 seemed "useless". The 135-400 seemed like a better match, with plenty of reach for my needs.

You can use it handheld (on an E-330). My results with that lens are not always what I hoped for, but I tend to blame the photographer rather than the lens, because once in a while the results shine. So I am happy with my 135-400 and think is still outmatches my own abilities...

Sometimes when I have it on the camera, I just wish I could go just a little wider (which would well be possible with the 50-500), but hey, those are the compromises made in life... ;-)

Whatever long lens you get, don't forget that in 90 % of the situations, you can get equal results with a shorter lens and using your legs to get closer. I experience that I have on my camera mostly the 14-54 and the 50 mm prime. When I take only that one, I adjust my shooting to not being able to zoom. Challenging and fun.

A very long reached goes in my bag only when I will really need it (to get animals up close, etc.)
Roel
 
My main problem is my wife can't do the hiking and we tend to do things together. I like the advice on the 135-400 and will consider that. If you can handhold on the 330, I should have no problem on the 510. With the 70-300, the 40-150 becomes kind of useless. With the 135-400, I still have the option to use the 40-150 at times and get the extra reach of the 400. I guess it's time to check prices. Thanks.
--
Cheers, Dave
 
the 135-400 is twice as heavy as the 70-300, 2 inches longer, and over $100 more expensive. I'm not sure all that is worth the extra reach. Guess I need to see if I can find some examples of the same image at 300 and 400mm.
--
Cheers, Dave
 
I don't xpect you want low price at the cost of quality

Probably the best value is the OLD 40-150mm The new one is lighter, but slower, and goes for more. but if that's not enough reach for you...

The sigma 135-400 is tempting for the extra reach and slight speed advantage over the 70-300, but sounds like it's not that sharp above 300mm, runs about $200 over the expected price for the Oly 70-300

I keep seeing speculation that the 70-300 is a 'rebadged Sigma' because it shares the same diagram, and because Sigma makes a 70-300 in several mounts other than 4/3. Of course Tamron makes a 70-300 too...

Anyway, on the Olympus japan site, on the page for the 70-300, they have 'Tatsuno Quality' under the lens, which seems to imply it is up to the standards of the best Oly lenses

http://olympus-imaging.jp/product/dslr/accessory/lens/70-300_40-56/index.html
http://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/special/passion/episode19_01.html

For me, it's going to come down to how good the 70-300 really is. If it's not that great at 300, I might just pick up an OMZ 300mm f4.5 instead- sure it's heavier, no zoom and no EXIF, but for around $200 I'll get a faster lens. (already have the 200/4)

The 70-300 would sure fit a lot better in my camera bag tho, especially if it meant I could leave the 40-150mm and 200mm home. With the 135-400, I would still take the 40-150
--
Art P



Select images may be seen here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8131242@N04/
 
I found some other comparisons for 300 vs 400mm and I too am now leaning toward the 70-300 because of weight, cost, and potential IQ. Being able to leave to 40-150 in the car (or sell it) is also a consideration.
--
Cheers, Dave
 
Actually, although I L-O-V-E my E-330 for all its unique capabilities, the only times I am tempted towards the 510 (or the E-3, keep on dreaming...) is when I think I could use the IS for work with my Sigma 135-400.
Roel
 
.. but then I got the Sigma 135-400 because I couldn't wait until the 70-300's release : I needed extra reach last summer.

Now, if I were to choose again, I think the choice would be a tough one, all aspects considered. It is surely a fact that the Sigma does not fit in your average camera bag (say a Lowepro Nova). Especially for the Sigma, I got a Lowepro Trekker for those occasions when I want to take everything with me. So it ends up being left home quite often (alwasy when I think 150 mm will be enough).
Roel
 
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