wayne collier
Senior Member
Thanks for sharing such a great shot. I use Nikon equipment, but the result is what matetrs.
--
Wayne Collier
--
Wayne Collier
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why I'm toying with a switch to Nikon
- Thread starter Entropius
- Start date
You're not no one.I think he likes more photography than he likes Olympus. Did not Louis move to Nikon lately. I am not very sure, but I think I did see some of his images posts on Nikon forum somewhere.
Too short, too expensive. Although very good for other (than birds) things.
Not that good really.
This is very nice to have, if one can pay for it.Course, there's always the 90-250And there's one at B&H I think for under $4000 right now.
Yes, but they have longer lenses, that one can rent, buy, and sell again, and without much of a loss.
Did you notice, you made two posts, and no-one answered them. Any ideas?
Ideas though? "Man you should have seen them kicking Edgar Allen Poe."
Entropius
Senior Member
The D7000 doesn't have quite the same pixel density as the E-5, but it's close to the E-510. I doubt it has the same per-pixel magic sharpness as the E-5, but its antialias filter is weaker than that on the E-30 or E-620.
Since the pixels are about as big as Four Thirds ones, you'll get Four-Thirds-like image quality at the pixel scale. This is of course no bad thing.
The D7000 will likely be a bit better, just because of its exceptionally low-read-noise sensor.
Some of them can -- in particular, the 300 f/4 I'm looking at. On most of them it will likely be a disaster; my father's attempt to put a 2x on a 70-200 f/2.8 (Canon) showed that pretty starkly.
jim stirling
Veteran Member
I have not used any of the Canon TC's but I have been pleased with the newest Nikon {TC-20E III } . Though I am glad to say birding is not my interest as no matter what system it can work out very pricey
Jim
Sergey_Green
Forum Pro
Sorry I did not have time today to respond properly. Only in bits in pieces, probably came across more out of context than anything. The 150/2, although is said to be a good lens, is simply not a birding lens. It is too short, too expensive for the reach, and too heavy for the same purpose as well. It is simply not what I would ever suggest to consider. That is why I asked you - do you have this lens? Have you ever done any birding with it? And I think I might know the answer.
What you should have suggested is, from bottom up, Sigma 70-300 (as a penny saver), Olympus 90-250, Olympus 300. The last two although good lenses are dangerous to buy for the format that may not live another year. We do not know for sure, but the chances that they will lose more upper demand customers than bring in the new ones are very real, and so the reselling value for such gear could easily turn to be disastrous.
Nikon on the other hand has a very good 300/4 that is not only good but is also affordable. With TC17 it is still not a big lens, but offers quite comfortable reach, and with still excellent output. Of course if someone is very serious about birding, then there is AF-S 400/2,8G ED VR, AF-S 500/4G ED VR, AF-S 600/4G ED VR, and so on. Imagine what a reach you can have with TC in front of it and on the dX format. If anything I would much sooner consider any of the last 3 nikons than the last 2 Olympuses, even if Olympus gave me the deal that no-one would pass.
When people start pushing in 150/2 that really raises the flag for me. Why would anyone spend such money on a birding lens that gives only 300 like FL - pointless. But then on the other hand, if 150 that is, then why not buy Sigma. On dX format it is a bit wider, but from wide open and on it will give you the best sharpness/blur you can only think of. And it can focus very close. Another something for those who love nature.
--
- sergey
Entropius
Senior Member
Yup, that's the deal. And, well, I still like the Olympus system -- it's just solidly reliable and churns out great images.
I've been posting on the Nikon forum asking about their stuff, but haven't posted any images over there (except one, to answer a guy's question about the 70-300 Sigma, which is the same as the 70-300 Zuiko).
This is a 210mm f/2.8, which is not very different than the 200mm f/3.5 I already have.
Yep, that's basically it. The 150 f/2 is an excellent piece of glass, but you pay lots of money for that exotic fast aperture. It's a lens I occasionally wish I had to do something silly like shoot hummingbirds at dusk, but how often do I do that? (I shoot hummingbirds in natural light. Flashing them makes them look silly.)
It seems kind of silly to go to a huge amount of work to make a bright f/2 thing, only to teleconvert it down to a thing with more sensible specs (like 300 f/4). Perhaps it's a good option, but, Elua, just make a 300 f/4 already!
I've heard it is pretty good. Thinking about borrowing/buying/renting a 1.4 and testing it out. I think there is more sample variation in 50-200's than Olympus lets on. Mine is certainly old and has had a nice long life.
I'd rather have a 300/2.8. Sharper, about the same cost, lighter, no? 'Course, it zooms, which would be awfully handy if an owl decides to attack you. (If a bear decides to attack you, you can probably thump him with either of the SHG superteles.)Course, there's always the 90-250
Yeah.
Still trying to figure out how much I want to spend. I've got a new job in September and am moving to the DC area, and will be actually getting paid real money now!Same with Zuiko, though, especially the good glass. Granted, 50-200 prices have been going down by quite a lot lately.
Timskis6
Veteran Member
I'll preface this by saying I'm pretty picky with lenses, sharpness, etc., and I'll call something out if I see it, regardless of make, model, or price paid.
If you think the 50-200mm @200mm f/3.5 is sharp (wide open), you'll also think the 300/4 is sharp wide open. If you think the 50-200 + EC14 is acceptable wide open, you'll also think the 300/4 + TC14 is acceptable wide open. However, I'm a different category, and I can clearly see a difference in the 50-200mm at 100mm and 200mm, and a significant difference with the EC14 attached shot wide open.
So when I say "semi-soft," this is where I'm coming from. Having seen the incredible results you can achieve with Olympus glass in front of Olympus sensors, "semi-soft" is certainly relative.
I have and use the ZD150/2 + EC20 all the time - my favorite long lense combo I pick up when I need reach. It is also semi-soft wide open at 300mm f/4. I would expect the Nikkor 300/4 to be sharper than the ZD150 + EC20 at 300mm f/4, however, they're not the same reach, so you should factor that in, too.
I would also expect the ZD150 + EC20 to be sharper at f/5.6 than the Nikkor 300/4 + TC14 at 420mm f/5.6 (wide open). These two combos give somewhat similar FOV's, with all the pros and cons listed before.
No, but again, you're comparing different FOV's too. The ZD150 + EC20 is acceptably sharp (by my standards, which are high) by f/5.6 (1 stop down). But then again, the 50-200mm is acceptably sharp at f/4 for me, not f/3.5.
I have done all these tests, side by side, with the 50-200mm and 150/2, with and without the EC14 and EC20. I would encourage you to look through the following two threads and judge for yourself:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=32430719
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=33962847
The 150/2 + EC20 is sharp enough (for me) wide open if the subject fills about 3/4 of the frame - that gives the feathers of a bird enough pixel detail to sharpen nicely.
Example @ f/4.5:
@f/5.6:
@f/5.6:
@f/5.6, hand held, soft:
Now, don't forget you're able to take off the EC-20 whenever you please, and have one of the sharpest telephoto lenses ever made for consumer photography.
Please note I'm not at all trying to steer you away from Nikon - their 300/4 is known to be quite good, but everyone has their own opinion of what "sharp" means. To me, the 150/2 is sharp wide open. But it is not sharp wide open with either teleconverter on it. But with a teleconverter attached, it is still sharper than many competing lenses wide open. Likewise, many people will tell you their lenses are sharp with the EC-14 or EC-20 attached. Are they wrong? No, not at all, it's their own subjective opinion. But if they showed me those images, I would not call them sharp.
Hopefully this makes sense.
Cheers,
--
Tim
'I haven't been everywhere, but it's on my list.'
E3/7-14/12-60/35-100/150/25/EC14/EC20
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/
Entropius
Senior Member
Wow, I thought the Sigma was better than that. Perhaps the resolution is being limited by whatever bodies they are using for it?
Of course, MTF-50 does not tell the whole story; this is why manufacturers don't give it but give the whole MTF curve.
No denying that the 150/2 is a stellar lens though.
Of course, MTF-50 does not tell the whole story; this is why manufacturers don't give it but give the whole MTF curve.
No denying that the 150/2 is a stellar lens though.
jim stirling
Veteran Member
Well tens of thousands of Canon and Nikon users seem to get by ok using the lenses in question on crop bodies {including some of the bast nature photographers in the world } and there are plenty examples in the respective forums here on DPreview if you care to look. The new Nikon TC-20E III in particular delivers great results.
Jim
Entropius
Senior Member
I'll probably buy the Nikon stuff, see if I'm happy, and if I am, sell off a bunch of 4/3 stuff. My E-510 is so broken down that it's unsaleable for more than $100 or so; I may keep my 9-18. But I'll sell my 70-300 and 50-200 most likely, and keep the E-510, 9-18, and 40-150 around.
Sometimes you get more than what you pay for, though. I've heard that the Nikon 300/4 is one of those lenses. (So is the Olympus 50-200.)
Makes sense. Both Nikon and Olympus have quite pleasing colors; the Nikons are just different. Canon colors are ugly, IMO.
the problem here is that you give your opinion as facts. They are not.
You seem to present yourself like a god who knows everything.
For a 600mm range, the 150/2.0 + EC20 is an excellent lens. For birding it is better to have 1200mm or even more... but this will be beyond the budget of most mortals...
and these images are published in magazines and with a stock agency as well.
I am not going to respond on the rest of your arrogance... I will hit the ignore button from now on...
You seem to present yourself like a god who knows everything.
For a 600mm range, the 150/2.0 + EC20 is an excellent lens. For birding it is better to have 1200mm or even more... but this will be beyond the budget of most mortals...
who do you think you are to doubt that I own this lens? If I give someone my first hand experience I do this because I own the lens. Period.
and these images are published in magazines and with a stock agency as well.
I am not going to respond on the rest of your arrogance... I will hit the ignore button from now on...
Entropius
Senior Member
If you're in Tucson I'd very much like to meet up sometime -- mostly just because shooting together is more fun and because I've never met anybody else who shoots Olympus. (My father keeps threatening to sell his Canon stuff and switch, though!)
As you suggest I'd also be interested in seeing what some of the high-end Olympus stuff can do. You're welcome to play with any of my junk too, but I doubt I've got anything you don't. :-D (E-510 with half of the Sonoran in the viewfinder, 50-200mk1, EC-20, 9-18, 70-300, Metz 48 flash)
Those pictures of yours are excellent; the cactus wren is a particularly nice combination of natural-looking and tack sharp. I've been shooting many of the same birds lately at Sabino Canyon.
My email is [email protected] -- drop me a line there or via DPReview private message if you want to meet up and go shooting.
and because I've never met anybody else who shoots Olympus. (My father keeps threatening to sell his Canon stuff and switch, though!)As you suggest I'd also be interested in seeing what some of the high-end Olympus stuff can do. You're welcome to play with any of my junk too, but I doubt I've got anything you don't. :-D (E-510 with half of the Sonoran in the viewfinder, 50-200mk1, EC-20, 9-18, 70-300, Metz 48 flash)
Those pictures of yours are excellent; the cactus wren is a particularly nice combination of natural-looking and tack sharp. I've been shooting many of the same birds lately at Sabino Canyon.
My email is [email protected] -- drop me a line there or via DPReview private message if you want to meet up and go shooting.
tinternaut
Veteran Member
I occasionally toy with the idea an FF Canon system for different reasons. As other voices have suggested here, there's nothing wrong with having two systems either .
--
Regards
J
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jasonhindleuk
Blog: http://jasonhindle.wordpress.com
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jason_hindle
Gear in profile
.--
Regards
J
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jasonhindleuk
Blog: http://jasonhindle.wordpress.com
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jason_hindle
Gear in profile
Rriley
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 21,846
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 474
thats not exactly answering the questions though is it
im sure 1,000s of people bought Reliant 3 wheelers, not especially great though were they. Im not really interested in what sells or what the numbers are, but thought you might have a considered reply to my 3 points
alas
--
Riley
any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
Entropius
Senior Member
The original poster is taking into account the greater depth of field and high ISO performance of smaller formats. To first approximation it is correct to simply multiply the f/number by the crop factor to account for this; trying to explain why will create a lot of w@nk in a thread that doesn't need it, so I won't.
When you're looking purely at telephoto reach, though, what you really should do is to divide the focal length and aperture by the ratio of pixel pitch compared to some reference, however.
The pixel pitch of the D7000 is close to the pixel pitch of the E-510, so if all you care about is the ability to put as many pixels on target, then a 300mm on a D7000 is about like a 300mm on an E-510.
...by switching to APS-C anything for birding...
For "casual" birding the E30 & 70-300 is a great combo and for more serious "combat" birding I would have thought the weather sealed E-5 and SHQ or Bigma would be the way to go.
--
Leon T
" Photography is a hobby until you lug around a bunch of heavy lenses...then it is work"
For "casual" birding the E30 & 70-300 is a great combo and for more serious "combat" birding I would have thought the weather sealed E-5 and SHQ or Bigma would be the way to go.
--
Leon T
" Photography is a hobby until you lug around a bunch of heavy lenses...then it is work"
Sergey_Green
Forum Pro
What else is there to know, I give you references,
Olympus 150/2 € 2200
http://geizhals.at/a141677.html
+
Olympus EC-20 € 459
http://geizhals.at/a288976.html
Why not get this instead,
Nikon AF-S 300/4.0D €1207
http://geizhals.at/a44645.html
..and you already have a lens that does better than the one with EC- in front of it. And you can still add TC to reach even further, is that not so obvious?
--
- sergey
CollBaxter
Forum Pro
If I have learnt anything over the last few years is that IS/VR are essential for wild life photograpy. On a Nikon with a 300/F4 and tc14 you would land up with a 420mm f/5.6 non stabilized lens.
I have tried the bigma at 400mm on the E-500 and it’s nearly imposable to use without a mon/tripod. On the E-520 with IS it’s OK. ON The E-30 I recon I get about 4 stops on the long end and 2 stops over the E-520. If you are shooting wild small birds these are shoot hand held so IS/VR is imperative unless you have blinding light and shoot at 800-1600 ISO the whole time.
One of the better no IS lenses for birding is the Canon 400-f/5.6
--
Collin
http://www.pbase.com/collinbaxter
http://collinbaxter.zenfolio.com/
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. (George Carlin)
I have tried the bigma at 400mm on the E-500 and it’s nearly imposable to use without a mon/tripod. On the E-520 with IS it’s OK. ON The E-30 I recon I get about 4 stops on the long end and 2 stops over the E-520. If you are shooting wild small birds these are shoot hand held so IS/VR is imperative unless you have blinding light and shoot at 800-1600 ISO the whole time.
One of the better no IS lenses for birding is the Canon 400-f/5.6
--
Collin
http://www.pbase.com/collinbaxter
http://collinbaxter.zenfolio.com/
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. (George Carlin)
jim stirling
Veteran Member
I am not so sure many professional drivers opted for Reliants, they are worse on corners than FF cameras
.I do think i answered very clearly in relation to how the users of these lenses manage to produce some amazing photography using them on crop cameras. You only need to browse through any of the major nature photography websites to confirm this. I also gave a direct opinion based on my ownership of the Nikon teleconvertor.
Or did you perhaps wish to discuss the technical results from various lens testing websites, the methodologies of which cause no end of 150 post arguements {or as seems the trend 151,152 or even 153 posts } especially when dubious cross system comparisons are made . There are plenty of folk already happy to do exactly that some even prefer to exclude the effect of the camera which the lenses are mounted on when talking about results.
I think that the the simple fact is that the vast majority of long tele shooters manage just fine using these lenses And considering how large a percentage of the profesional markets which favour long teles such as sport or nature are dominated by Nikon and especially Canon I guess that they cannot be too shabby. There is of course no shortage of excellent results from Olympus cameras/lenses and there are many superb bird photos posted in this very forum by a number of regular users.
Jim
My bad, I missed that.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum