Doug Brown
Senior Member
No, the one you want in 4/3's mount is the 100-300mm f4. That's a very nice lens. Well built with HSM focusing.
Doug B
Doug B
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
"Olympus only makes ONE body and ONE lens"
- Thread starter talephotos
- Start date
talephotos
Senior Member
Must get some of those kneepads.
Now two ridiculously expensive lenses would just be greedy!
--
'If you ever get a camera up your bum, it'll probably be an Olympus' - nomix
Now two ridiculously expensive lenses would just be greedy!
--
'If you ever get a camera up your bum, it'll probably be an Olympus' - nomix
talephotos
Senior Member
Lol, sorry Mr. Brown. If these forums were better and you could properly edit posts I would get that changed. As you rightly pointed out I meant Red, er I mean Green, Sorry!
--
'If you ever get a camera up your bum, it'll probably be an Olympus' - nomix
--
'If you ever get a camera up your bum, it'll probably be an Olympus' - nomix
Doug Brown
Senior Member
n/t
Doug B
Doug B
talephotos
Senior Member
Three Dougs! We could start a Doug Dpreview readers club 
--
'If you ever get a camera up your bum, it'll probably be an Olympus' - nomix
--
'If you ever get a camera up your bum, it'll probably be an Olympus' - nomix
DougJGreen
Senior Member
As I made the statement that he cited in the original post during a contentious thread yesterday.
I never meant to suggest that a skilled photographer could not deliver outstanding results with equipment that was not optimized to the specific task at hand. But I DID intend to point out that optimized equipment makes the task much easier, and just about nobody shooting sports or wildlife at the professional level chooses Olympus gear, and one major reason for that is that, prior to the Olympus E-3 and the SWD lenses, the AF performance was not close to being competitive with that of Nikon and Canon. In addition, the Burst performance was entirely inadequate. The E-3 is much better on this score, but it is STILL not competitive with the Nikon D300.
The fact is, pros shooting sports and wildlife action require fast aperture, fast focusing LONG glass, fast focusing bodies, and bodies with fast burst performance. The Olympus E-3 was Olympus' first body to address these needs, but, it is, not surprisingly, still not as good as Nikon and Canon's best on these specific criteria - but it is much better than it's predecessors, and it's sufficient. The upcoming E-30 will probably also be good enough, but I don't personally believe that it's feature tradeoff was wise (no weather sealing, vs, articulated LCD).
In addition, the issue of LONG, fast-focusing glass. To Date, Olympus makes EXACTLY ONE lens that serves this market, the 50-200mm SWD. But, it's not long enough to cover the entire needs of the wildlife application. Louis Dobson made a great point, that Olympus has a HUGE theoretical advantage in this space, because of the smaller sensor/2X crop factor, but they have not taken advantage of it. They came out with a couple of early, hugely expensive long fast teles early on, but those lenses do not have ring motors, and they are obsolete as a result, no matter how good they are optically. It's high time that Olympus delivered something longer than 200mm which has a fast AF motor.
Right now, the E-3 is the only body, and the 50-200mm SWD is the only lens that Oly has for this space. They need more, if they want to compete with Nikon and Canon in this space. It's a great irony that they haven't yet addressed this unfilled portion of their product line, because the 2X crop factor gives Olympus a HUGE advantage in this space. It's MUCH easier to make a 300mm f4 that focuses fast and people can afford, than a 400mm f4, due to simple physics.
I never meant to suggest that a skilled photographer could not deliver outstanding results with equipment that was not optimized to the specific task at hand. But I DID intend to point out that optimized equipment makes the task much easier, and just about nobody shooting sports or wildlife at the professional level chooses Olympus gear, and one major reason for that is that, prior to the Olympus E-3 and the SWD lenses, the AF performance was not close to being competitive with that of Nikon and Canon. In addition, the Burst performance was entirely inadequate. The E-3 is much better on this score, but it is STILL not competitive with the Nikon D300.
The fact is, pros shooting sports and wildlife action require fast aperture, fast focusing LONG glass, fast focusing bodies, and bodies with fast burst performance. The Olympus E-3 was Olympus' first body to address these needs, but, it is, not surprisingly, still not as good as Nikon and Canon's best on these specific criteria - but it is much better than it's predecessors, and it's sufficient. The upcoming E-30 will probably also be good enough, but I don't personally believe that it's feature tradeoff was wise (no weather sealing, vs, articulated LCD).
In addition, the issue of LONG, fast-focusing glass. To Date, Olympus makes EXACTLY ONE lens that serves this market, the 50-200mm SWD. But, it's not long enough to cover the entire needs of the wildlife application. Louis Dobson made a great point, that Olympus has a HUGE theoretical advantage in this space, because of the smaller sensor/2X crop factor, but they have not taken advantage of it. They came out with a couple of early, hugely expensive long fast teles early on, but those lenses do not have ring motors, and they are obsolete as a result, no matter how good they are optically. It's high time that Olympus delivered something longer than 200mm which has a fast AF motor.
Right now, the E-3 is the only body, and the 50-200mm SWD is the only lens that Oly has for this space. They need more, if they want to compete with Nikon and Canon in this space. It's a great irony that they haven't yet addressed this unfilled portion of their product line, because the 2X crop factor gives Olympus a HUGE advantage in this space. It's MUCH easier to make a 300mm f4 that focuses fast and people can afford, than a 400mm f4, due to simple physics.
I
illy
Guest
having shot motor sports with an E-1 and a 50-200mm and a Nikon D80 and a sonic motored 300mm/f4 lens it was an absolute dream using the Nikon, The oly worked well but the old micro motor lens has a habit of popping out of focus and then catching up again, usually ending up in a missed shot, i haven't tried the new 50-200mm swd version but it sounds great, i just wish Oly would compliment their telephoto range with some fast swd motors.......oh and big lenses usually cost a lot and weigh quite a lot no matter which system you use.
--
http://illy.smugmug.com
--
http://illy.smugmug.com
talephotos
Senior Member
Glad to get Doug number 3 involved...
Do you have experience of the focusing speed on 90-250mm and 300mm lenses?
--
'If you ever get a camera up your bum, it'll probably be an Olympus' - nomix
Do you have experience of the focusing speed on 90-250mm and 300mm lenses?
--
'If you ever get a camera up your bum, it'll probably be an Olympus' - nomix
Paulo Alano
New member
Some shots I took from Singapore Formula 1 Night Race.
http://swiis.blogspot.com/
All the doubts I have about Olympus were all gone.
I just couldn't believe when I reached home... tons of keepers!
All the doubts I have about Olympus were all gone.
BTW, this is the first time I took high speed action at NIGHT!
http://swiis.blogspot.com/
All the doubts I have about Olympus were all gone.
I just couldn't believe when I reached home... tons of keepers!
All the doubts I have about Olympus were all gone.
BTW, this is the first time I took high speed action at NIGHT!
DougJGreen
Senior Member
Not extensive, but I've handled them on an E-3 in a demo booth. They are nowhere near as fast-focusing as the Nikon 300mm AFS or 200-400mm AFS on a D300. Definitely inadequate for birds in flight, maybe marginally adequate for other sports work.
Nobody is going to spend $5-8K on a lens that is functionally obsolete, as these are.
The fact is, I could do just as well with a manual focus 300mm f2.8 lens and proper focus technique, as I could relying on these lenses - and in fact, that's what I currently use on my Olympus bodies at the long end - a manual Nikkor ED AI 300mm f2.8 that I picked up on the used market for well under $500.
Nobody is going to spend $5-8K on a lens that is functionally obsolete, as these are.
The fact is, I could do just as well with a manual focus 300mm f2.8 lens and proper focus technique, as I could relying on these lenses - and in fact, that's what I currently use on my Olympus bodies at the long end - a manual Nikkor ED AI 300mm f2.8 that I picked up on the used market for well under $500.
DougJGreen
Senior Member
Because you know where the cars are going.
And besides, I am not saying that the 50-200 is the problem. The lack of anything longer in the Olympus system that's not functionally obsolete is the problem.
And besides, I am not saying that the 50-200 is the problem. The lack of anything longer in the Olympus system that's not functionally obsolete is the problem.
talephotos
Senior Member
Donald...a comparison of AF speeds with 90-250 and 300mm v 50-200SWD is required...
(just to check - demo booth = outside, lens aimed at sky with focus limiters on?)
BTW...we're coming back to wildlife again - which I know nothing about really and wasn't my point. Does everyone agree with Mr. Green that for wildlife there are not fast enough focusing long lenses?
I have been trying sports where the 25-200 (50-400 equiv) range has been what's required - how about more experienced sports shooters. How much do you need longer than 200mm (400mm equiv.)?
--
'If you ever get a camera up your bum, it'll probably be an Olympus' - nomix
(just to check - demo booth = outside, lens aimed at sky with focus limiters on?)
BTW...we're coming back to wildlife again - which I know nothing about really and wasn't my point. Does everyone agree with Mr. Green that for wildlife there are not fast enough focusing long lenses?
I have been trying sports where the 25-200 (50-400 equiv) range has been what's required - how about more experienced sports shooters. How much do you need longer than 200mm (400mm equiv.)?
--
'If you ever get a camera up your bum, it'll probably be an Olympus' - nomix
Rich Simpson UK
Senior Member
I agree.
That's the most obvious lens for the 4/3 mount. I used it frequently on a Fuji S3, with excellent results, and was one reason I regretted selling and moving on wholly to Olympus.
How variable quality was with the 100-300 f4 I don't know, but I never heard of any significant issues. The logical Zuiko alternative surely is the 150 f2 with 1.4 TC (450 equiv full zoom vs. 420). Of course the 100-300 f4 can go further with a 1.4x TC, but speed suffers & is it weatherproofed ? ... I don't think so.
I imagine, though have never tested, that the 150 f2 quality would also allow cropping, and if that's not enough, bring on the 2x TC.
Kind regards,
Rich Simpson
UK Photo Safari Group
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/ukpsg-reports/
That's the most obvious lens for the 4/3 mount. I used it frequently on a Fuji S3, with excellent results, and was one reason I regretted selling and moving on wholly to Olympus.
How variable quality was with the 100-300 f4 I don't know, but I never heard of any significant issues. The logical Zuiko alternative surely is the 150 f2 with 1.4 TC (450 equiv full zoom vs. 420). Of course the 100-300 f4 can go further with a 1.4x TC, but speed suffers & is it weatherproofed ? ... I don't think so.
I imagine, though have never tested, that the 150 f2 quality would also allow cropping, and if that's not enough, bring on the 2x TC.
--
Kind regards,
Rich Simpson
UK Photo Safari Group
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/ukpsg-reports/
talephotos
Senior Member
Rich Simpson UK wrote:
The logical Zuiko alternative
--
'If you ever get a camera up your bum, it'll probably be an Olympus' - nomix
The logical Zuiko alternative
I was just thinking of this too - anyone able to report AF speed (150+TC1.4)compared to 50-200SWD lens for Dougs' benefit?
--
'If you ever get a camera up your bum, it'll probably be an Olympus' - nomix
CharlesB58
Forum Pro
Louis,
I always appreciate that you know how to balance the advantages of good gear with the reality that it can compliment a good photographer, but not make one. (And it certainly can't make a good photographer out of a bad one.)
I know the latest set of comments Doug Green made regarding the suitability of Olympus gear for sports and wildlife. IMO, the issue isn't the factuality of his statement so much as he took a subjective opinioin and tried to make it an absolute. For his personal style of shooting, only the E3 and 1 SWD lens meet his requirments. He's completely entitled to that opinion, and in fact would be foolish to try to force himself to use gear in which he lacks full confidence. However, that doesn't automatically mean that his personal technique and preference are so flawless he can make absolute statements about the suitabiiity of gear for everyone else.
Perhaps Doug assumes that readers will know he is speaking strictly subjectively. In over a decade of moderating online forums I have found that is seldom the case, especially when using the sort of language Doug uses to express his opinion. "The fact is" may be his habitual way of granting supposed credibility to his opinion, but unfortunately that invites the sort of OP we have here.
It reached a ludicrous point when he said that photographers with modern equipment would "eat Walter Iooss' lunch" if he used inferior gear. That is supposing that a photographer depending on fast autofocus and a 9 fps burst speed will automatically get better results than a master of the craft using 40 years of experience.
Such statements are evidence of a lack of full understanding of what actually goes into making a good photograph. Not just the technically sound "keepers" that keep popping up on all these forums, which while well exposed, focused and sharpened, don't do much more then demonstrate basic competency in using that particular gear.
What are we to make of photographers who still use "inferior equipment" (such as 35mm film or medium format) for shooting wildlife and sometimes sports. In the mind of someone who speaks in absolutes regarding the relationship between gear and output, such photographers are at best lucky to come up with keepers, much less some of the masterpieces they are known for. If so, someone like Walter Iooss or Robert Glenn Ketchum have been some of the luckiest people on earth.
The point is to show how foolish it is for anyone to take their own subjective experience (that is, apparently,not being competent enough with "inferior gear" to be able to garner a sufficient number of "keepers" without being just plain lucky) to say that their subjective experience is definitive.
That's a big problem on this fourm: people who claim expertise, or pro status insist that their personal, subjective experience is definitive.
One final note: I read an interview about 25 years ago in which Walter Iooss said he almost never used a motor drive on sequencial mode. He kept it in single frame mode for most shots, the MD's purpose being to quickly advande the film so he didn't have to take his eye from the VF. Nearly every pro I met and learned from did the same thing.
But dang, that clickzzzzclickzzzclickzzzzz of a burst sequence sounds so cool, doesn't it? And somewhere in the midst of all those burst sequences are some keepers: just take enough shots. Now, yes, high speed bursts can help a photographer capture images that he might otherwise miss. But anyone who infers-or outright declares-that the great photographers of the past who used "inferior gear" were just "lucky" when they captured a great image is speaking words of ignorance regarding the craft of photography.
I always appreciate that you know how to balance the advantages of good gear with the reality that it can compliment a good photographer, but not make one. (And it certainly can't make a good photographer out of a bad one.)
I know the latest set of comments Doug Green made regarding the suitability of Olympus gear for sports and wildlife. IMO, the issue isn't the factuality of his statement so much as he took a subjective opinioin and tried to make it an absolute. For his personal style of shooting, only the E3 and 1 SWD lens meet his requirments. He's completely entitled to that opinion, and in fact would be foolish to try to force himself to use gear in which he lacks full confidence. However, that doesn't automatically mean that his personal technique and preference are so flawless he can make absolute statements about the suitabiiity of gear for everyone else.
Perhaps Doug assumes that readers will know he is speaking strictly subjectively. In over a decade of moderating online forums I have found that is seldom the case, especially when using the sort of language Doug uses to express his opinion. "The fact is" may be his habitual way of granting supposed credibility to his opinion, but unfortunately that invites the sort of OP we have here.
It reached a ludicrous point when he said that photographers with modern equipment would "eat Walter Iooss' lunch" if he used inferior gear. That is supposing that a photographer depending on fast autofocus and a 9 fps burst speed will automatically get better results than a master of the craft using 40 years of experience.
Such statements are evidence of a lack of full understanding of what actually goes into making a good photograph. Not just the technically sound "keepers" that keep popping up on all these forums, which while well exposed, focused and sharpened, don't do much more then demonstrate basic competency in using that particular gear.
What are we to make of photographers who still use "inferior equipment" (such as 35mm film or medium format) for shooting wildlife and sometimes sports. In the mind of someone who speaks in absolutes regarding the relationship between gear and output, such photographers are at best lucky to come up with keepers, much less some of the masterpieces they are known for. If so, someone like Walter Iooss or Robert Glenn Ketchum have been some of the luckiest people on earth.
The point is to show how foolish it is for anyone to take their own subjective experience (that is, apparently,not being competent enough with "inferior gear" to be able to garner a sufficient number of "keepers" without being just plain lucky) to say that their subjective experience is definitive.
That's a big problem on this fourm: people who claim expertise, or pro status insist that their personal, subjective experience is definitive.
One final note: I read an interview about 25 years ago in which Walter Iooss said he almost never used a motor drive on sequencial mode. He kept it in single frame mode for most shots, the MD's purpose being to quickly advande the film so he didn't have to take his eye from the VF. Nearly every pro I met and learned from did the same thing.
But dang, that clickzzzzclickzzzclickzzzzz of a burst sequence sounds so cool, doesn't it? And somewhere in the midst of all those burst sequences are some keepers: just take enough shots. Now, yes, high speed bursts can help a photographer capture images that he might otherwise miss. But anyone who infers-or outright declares-that the great photographers of the past who used "inferior gear" were just "lucky" when they captured a great image is speaking words of ignorance regarding the craft of photography.
maddogmd11
Senior Member
I don't believe its a fact. I have shot sports a few times. The limitation of the olympus gear (and any other for that mater) is much more the photographer in many situations then the equipment.
As for fast moving wildlife I will provide a link to a lady named Laura Pipkin. She uses a 510 and the 70-300 to get many of her shots. I guess the birds were flying slow. She shows what is capable in quality hands
http://www.pbase.com/pipkin
Jim
--
Olympus E-510 and a bunch of stuff to hang on it.
Rich Simpson UK
Senior Member
Paul Shields has the 150 f2 and 35-100 f2 f2 - I'm sure he would know.
And in terms of price, to anyone that serious in wildlife photography would I'm sure find the premium price for the 150 f2 well worth it.
Consider also the handling of the 150 f2 - its a short, stubby design compared with the Sigma, and with that extra speed I would imagine hand holding is definately easier, whereas the 100-300 is definately a tripod or monopod exercise.
Sigma 1440g, length 227mm http://www.naturephotographers.net/je1001-2.html
Zuiko 1610g incl tripod mount - length 150mm
--
Kind regards,
Rich Simpson
UK Photo Safari Group
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/ukpsg-reports/
And in terms of price, to anyone that serious in wildlife photography would I'm sure find the premium price for the 150 f2 well worth it.
Consider also the handling of the 150 f2 - its a short, stubby design compared with the Sigma, and with that extra speed I would imagine hand holding is definately easier, whereas the 100-300 is definately a tripod or monopod exercise.
Sigma 1440g, length 227mm http://www.naturephotographers.net/je1001-2.html
Zuiko 1610g incl tripod mount - length 150mm
--
Kind regards,
Rich Simpson
UK Photo Safari Group
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/ukpsg-reports/
CharlesB58
Forum Pro
Sorry, Doug, but I'm going to call you on that one. You said, specifically, that Walter Iooss knows that other photographers would "eat his lunch" if he was using inferior gear. (I'll nitpick and say the actually sophistry is "eat him for lunch" LOL)
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=29949335
Doug, while it may seem fine for you to presume to know what Walter Iooss is thinking, and speak on his behalf concerning how he would suffer in the midst of better geared photographers, "the fact is" you wrote your thoughts in a way that leads people to think you are making your subjective views an absolute certainty. That invites flaming.
Now you try to say you never meant to suggesst the very thing you said?
C'mon, just say you spoke rashly and eat the crow pie. I do it all the time...goes down good with root beer.
talephotos
Senior Member
Certainly charles - everything is opinion. Facts just don't exist.
Sport is becoming of special interest for me photographically and I wanted to discuss Mr. Green's opinions to help myself and others understand what options with regards to equipement are worth considering. Many may have concluded there is only 1 body and 1 lens to shoot sport Very strange to me when I've never used it and would be my 5th choice lens for sports (for me personally!!) if enough money was to become available. Perhaps I should change my choice, urgently looking to switch non-swd for SWD.
Funny - somebody just started a thread on the Sigma 300-800 and showed polo shots as examples (sports)...does it even autofocus? lol
--
'If you ever get a camera up your bum, it'll probably be an Olympus' - nomix
Sport is becoming of special interest for me photographically and I wanted to discuss Mr. Green's opinions to help myself and others understand what options with regards to equipement are worth considering. Many may have concluded there is only 1 body and 1 lens to shoot sport
Very strange to me when I've never used it and would be my 5th choice lens for sports (for me personally!!) if enough money was to become available. Perhaps I should change my choice, urgently looking to switch non-swd for SWD. Funny - somebody just started a thread on the Sigma 300-800 and showed polo shots as examples (sports)...does it even autofocus? lol
--
'If you ever get a camera up your bum, it'll probably be an Olympus' - nomix
DougJGreen
Senior Member
Not Olympus gear. And the Canon gear he uses has far superior autofocus speed than any non SWD Olympus gear.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum