Reading mode: Light Dark

6 new lenses for Micro 4/3 in Photokina 2012

Go to last post
Dixa said:
i used tne wrong term. the difference is a matter of magnification.

im going to assume you all have a basic photog book lying around with a section on telephoto lenses

telephoto lenses will bring your subject closer, decrease depth of field, narrow field of view and visually compress the subject relative to the background, bringing it closer to the subject assuming the subject is not focused at infinity.

as an example imagine a silohoutted lighthouse with the setting sun behind it. now imagine a scenario that you can frame the lighthouse with a full frame camera exactly the same with a 24, 50, 85, 135 and 300mm lens, the lighthouse taking up as much frame real estate at every focal length.

the sun will be smaller in the 24mm relative to the 50. as you go longer the sun gets larger and larger as the background gets compressed compared to the foreground. this is a direct function of focal length and has zero to do with recorded media size.

therefore i would be unable to get a giant, half frame filling sun ball behind the lighthouse as i can with a 300mm lens on aps-c and ff if the lens is only 150mm on m43 relative to the fixed size and fov of the darkened lighthouse in this experiment.

i dont remember what the term for this was, and is what i was talking about. the 100mm will not give the same effect of pulling background objects closer to the subject as a 200mm would regardless of its equivalent field of view and depth of field
Click to expand...
Yes it would.

With a 2X crop factor a 100mm would record the exact same picture as a 200mm of a FF camera from the same distance other than DOF.

The distance does the compression not the lens. Crop a wide angle shot and you have the same visual compression as the tele.
It's an easy experiment do do.
--
Brian Schneider

 
Dixa said:
i dont remember what the term for this was, and is what i was talking about. the 100mm will not give the same effect of pulling background objects closer to the subject as a 200mm would regardless of its equivalent field of view and depth of field
Click to expand...
This is all very confused... a 300mm lens, telephoto on FF, super-telephoto on m43, is just a normal lens on a 8x10 film camera. If you were to mount three cameras (m43, FF, 8x10 scanning back) on the rear standard of a bellows with a 300/5.6 on the front, the only difference in the final images would be the crop. You could crop the 8x10 image and get exactly the same framing/image characteristics as the m43 capture. Conversely, if you were to mount a 300mm lens on 8x10, 43mm lens on FF, and a 20mm on m43, you could get the same framing, compression, DOF, ect (everything) when shooting from the same location at equivalent apertures. If a 300mm telephoto effect on FF is what you are after on m43, a 150mm lens will deliver the same perspective compression, and FOV (minus the 4:3 / 3:2 difference), shooting on a m43 camera from the exact same location.

--
-CW
 
neither if you get it.

in two months when there are actually clear sunsets here i will demonstrate it exactly as i believe my brother bought a 75-300 lens for his d3200. but for now look at this



this image was shot with a 300mm lens. it is not a composite

you could get the exact same field of view with a 150 lens on m43. corner to corner you would see exactly the same thing with one large difference - the sun itself would be smaller. why? because it's a 150mm lens cropped to give a 300mm field of view due to the smaller sensor size, not an actual 300mm lens. focal length = The distance between the center of a lens or curved mirror and its focus.

i'm hoping you get it now.
Chez Wimpy said:
Dixa said:
i dont remember what the term for this was, and is what i was talking about. the 100mm will not give the same effect of pulling background objects closer to the subject as a 200mm would regardless of its equivalent field of view and depth of field
Click to expand...
This is all very confused... a 300mm lens, telephoto on FF, super-telephoto on m43, is just a normal lens on a 8x10 film camera. If you were to mount three cameras (m43, FF, 8x10 scanning back) on the rear standard of a bellows with a 300/5.6 on the front, the only difference in the final images would be the crop. You could crop the 8x10 image and get exactly the same framing/image characteristics as the m43 capture. Conversely, if you were to mount a 300mm lens on 8x10, 43mm lens on FF, and a 20mm on m43, you could get the same framing, compression, DOF, ect (everything) when shooting from the same location at equivalent apertures. If a 300mm telephoto effect on FF is what you are after on m43, a 150mm lens will deliver the same perspective compression, and FOV (minus the 4:3 / 3:2 difference), shooting on a m43 camera from the exact same location.

--
-CW
Click to expand...
 
Dixa said:
...
you could get the exact same field of view with a 150 lens on m43.
Click to expand...
No, you are wrong. d3200 is an aps-c camera with crop factor 1.5. You need a 225 mm lens ( = 300 / (2.0/1.5) ) to have about the same FoV with m43 camera (crop factor 2.0). As one is 3:2 format and the other is 4:3, it is not the same picture, only close.
Dixa said:
... the sun itself would be smaller. why? because ...
Click to expand...
Here you have lost it.

You stand in the same spot and no matter which lens or camera, the sun is that size compared to the tower. The camera (any camera, any lens) takes the picture and if you crop it and enlarge it so that the tower is always the same size, then (no matter which camera or lens) the sun will be the same size as well.

Only if you move towards to or away from the view, the relative sizes of object in different distances changes.
 
Dixa said:
you could get the exact same field of view with a 150 lens on m43. corner to corner you would see exactly the same thing with one large difference - the sun itself would be smaller. why? because it's a 150mm lens cropped to give a 300mm field of view due to the smaller sensor size, not an actual 300mm lens. focal length = The distance between the center of a lens or curved mirror and its focus.
Click to expand...
You are so wrong that it is not even funny.
Dixa said:
i'm hoping you get it now.
Click to expand...
I am hoping you will educate yourself.
 
Dixa said:
neither if you get it.

this image was shot with a 300mm lens. it is not a composite
Click to expand...
Dixa said:
you could get the exact same field of view with a 150 lens on m43. corner to corner you would see exactly the same thing with one large difference - the sun itself would be smaller. why? because it's a 150mm lens cropped to give a 300mm field of view due to the smaller sensor size, not an actual 300mm lens. focal length = The distance between the center of a lens or curved mirror and its focus.

i'm hoping you get it now.
Click to expand...
I've got it. There would be slight differences, due to different aspect ratios of the images (W/H: mFT = 1.33, FF = 1.5). However, the image produced by the 150mm lens would be exactly half the linear size (horizontal or vertical dimension) of the 300mm lens, no matter what camera the lens is mounted on.

In the example image that applies to the buildings and the sun. All of the objects would be rendered 2:1, with the 300mm compared to 150mm lens.

Since the mFT image size is ~1/2 the linear size of FF, the rendered image of the 150mm lens on an mFT camera will be proportionately about the same as a 300mm on a FF camera. That is, the objects appearing in the mFT image relative to the total image width or height, will be the same as the relative size in the FF image. The width of the sun ball would occupy the same relative proportion of the width of the image in both versions, mFT and FF.

Mathematically, 1/2 divided by 1/2 is 1. It comes out the same, relatively speaking.

I don't have handy any photos demonstrating this, but I can easily produce them if it would help.

JRA

--
Artists must not only see, but see what they are seeing.
 
mh2000 said:
This is all that really matters!
Click to expand...
In other words, we really don't know a thing about it...

JRA

--
Artists must not only see, but see what they are seeing.
 
DLBlack said:
Steven Wandy said:
as long as it is faster than my 12-50, better IQ (contrast and sharpness) and they keep the weather-sealing. (They can lose the motorized zoom for all I care.)
Steve
Click to expand...
I heard from local camera store salesman who had talked to his Olympus sales rep that the 60 macro will be in the stores by the end of August. This might just be one of the two lens at Photokina.

I do hope to see a 12-60 and would expect it to be faster and better IQ than the 12-50. It would be the logical kit lens for the camera above the E-M5.

I will love to see a fast 17.5. Maybe a f 1.4.
Click to expand...
All three sound good to me, though doubt I'd have the cash to get them all. I've been interested in the macro since it's been mentioned. I probably would use it quite a bit.

However, a 12-60, especially if weather-resistant, f/2.8+, excellent IQ, fast auto-focus, could be very tempting.

OTOH, if new primes are made in weather-resistant form, and otherwise as good as the excellent lenses recently released by Olympus and Panasonic, they would also be hard to turn down.

Once again we have to say, so many interesting mFT lenses, so little time (and money).

JRA

--
Artists must not only see, but see what they are seeing.
 
My wife (and other relatives) are thrilled by the images my E-M5 with kit lens gives. So it might be a hard sell that I need a different lens in the same range to get better image quality...

--
Slowly learning to use the Olympus OM-D E-M5.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .
 
+1 again.

That was a "What the..." moment
 
actually you are right to a degree

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/telephoto-lenses.htm

i was the one who was confused on terminology and completely neglected how field of view actually impacts it
3DrJ said:
Dixa said:
neither if you get it.

this image was shot with a 300mm lens. it is not a composite
Click to expand...
3DrJ said:
you could get the exact same field of view with a 150 lens on m43. corner to corner you would see exactly the same thing with one large difference - the sun itself would be smaller. why? because it's a 150mm lens cropped to give a 300mm field of view due to the smaller sensor size, not an actual 300mm lens. focal length = The distance between the center of a lens or curved mirror and its focus.

i'm hoping you get it now.
Click to expand...
I've got it. There would be slight differences, due to different aspect ratios of the images (W/H: mFT = 1.33, FF = 1.5). However, the image produced by the 150mm lens would be exactly half the linear size (horizontal or vertical dimension) of the 300mm lens, no matter what camera the lens is mounted on.

In the example image that applies to the buildings and the sun. All of the objects would be rendered 2:1, with the 300mm compared to 150mm lens.

Since the mFT image size is ~1/2 the linear size of FF, the rendered image of the 150mm lens on an mFT camera will be proportionately about the same as a 300mm on a FF camera. That is, the objects appearing in the mFT image relative to the total image width or height, will be the same as the relative size in the FF image. The width of the sun ball would occupy the same relative proportion of the width of the image in both versions, mFT and FF.

Mathematically, 1/2 divided by 1/2 is 1. It comes out the same, relatively speaking.

I don't have handy any photos demonstrating this, but I can easily produce them if it would help.

JRA

--
Artists must not only see, but see what they are seeing.
Click to expand...
 
Dixa said:
shoot a similiar image one with 300mm on an aps-c or ff camera, another at 300mm on the m43 (600mm equivalent) but with the same framing. in both images, the sun will be the same size relative to the foreground subject.

slap on the 300mm equivalent m43 lens (150) and the sun will be smaller even though you were able to move so as to keep the foreground image the exact same size in the frame between all three shots.

if you have easy access to a 300mm 35mm lens, an aps-c or ff body and a 150mm m43 lens and clear skies with either moon or sun then go check it out yourself.
Click to expand...
OK. Seeing is believing. Since you are making the assertion, and several others were convinced that your statement was not true, the "burden of proof" is yours. If you have the images convincingly showing the above, then we will see.

It's late in my TZ, and I must arise early tomorrow--you know, earning a living and all. But if I have the time, I'll see what I can do illustration-wise.

JRA

--
Artists must not only see, but see what they are seeing.
 
I would be the first person to see the advantage in a prime if it improved image quality over a zoom, and most (not all) do exactly that. However the Panasonic 7-14 is an exceptional lens and has been described as a reason to buy into the system by people who don't have micro four thirds cameras, in the same way the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 commands the same respect. That said, you have to accept that its magic is made by software correction of distortion (on all bodies) and CA (on Panasonic bodies only).
Hen3ry said:
…Maybe that's too low an aspiration for Oly and Panny to respond. :(

Cheers, geoff
--
Geoffrey Heard
http://pngtimetraveller.blogspot.com/2011/10/return-to-karai-komana_31.html
Click to expand...
 
i edited my post as you are right. i was confusing different terms and effects forgetting about how the narrowing of your field of view affects the optical illusion i'm referring to.

must be nice having a job. having been unemployed for 9 months i'd take a fast food gig at this point. unfortunately even the local mdconald's branches have been laying people off.
3DrJ said:
Dixa said:
shoot a similiar image one with 300mm on an aps-c or ff camera, another at 300mm on the m43 (600mm equivalent) but with the same framing. in both images, the sun will be the same size relative to the foreground subject.

slap on the 300mm equivalent m43 lens (150) and the sun will be smaller even though you were able to move so as to keep the foreground image the exact same size in the frame between all three shots.

if you have easy access to a 300mm 35mm lens, an aps-c or ff body and a 150mm m43 lens and clear skies with either moon or sun then go check it out yourself.
Click to expand...
OK. Seeing is believing. Since you are making the assertion, and several others were convinced that your statement was not true, the "burden of proof" is yours. If you have the images convincingly showing the above, then we will see.

It's late in my TZ, and I must arise early tomorrow--you know, earning a living and all. But if I have the time, I'll see what I can do illustration-wise.

JRA

--
Artists must not only see, but see what they are seeing.
Click to expand...
 
Dixa said:
i edited my post as you are right. i was confusing different terms and effects forgetting about how the narrowing of your field of view affects the optical illusion i'm referring to.
Click to expand...
Staying level-headed when confused is a better than average performance, here especially.

I have a kind of rule of thumb: whenever I'm sure I have an "answer" to anything, wait a day or two, and sure enough I'll be proved wrong.
Dixa said:
must be nice having a job. having been unemployed for 9 months i'd take a fast food gig at this point. unfortunately even the local mdconald's branches have been laying people off.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear that. In my area it's been the same for many, many people I know. I try to help out, if I hear of anything they might be qualified for, I pass it along. I wish I had an answer, but then again, FWIW, see above.

JRA

--
Artists must not only see, but see what they are seeing.
 
tt321 said:
Mike Ronesia said:
Hen3ry said:
…Maybe that's too low an aspiration for Oly and Panny to respond. :(

Cheers, geoff
--
Geoffrey Heard
http://pngtimetraveller.blogspot.com/2011/10/return-to-karai-komana_31.html
Click to expand...
My 7-14 is darn nice at 9-f4 so I don't see this need.
Click to expand...
What if it is 1/5 the price?
Click to expand...
And small? I doubt it would be under $200 though.

Having the 7-14 makes it less of an issue for me but I'd sure like a faster 9 or even 10 if it's fast enough.
--
It's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.
 
Given the prices of the 9-18 and 7-14, I can imagine people for whom WA is not a priority would choose not to get into these, and be satisfied with the wide end of their kit zooms.

However, a 9/4 priced below 300 might be too attractive to ignore. No need to be tiny like the 14 or 17 primes. Just similar price to them would do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
New Clip in filters for Micro 4/3
Replies
3
Views
218
Danielvr
Danielvr
E
Northern Sweden hiking
Replies
9
Views
946
Expat Nomad
E
A_Mist
My little OM-3 review
Replies
19
Views
5K
A_Mist
A_Mist
MEDISN
  • User review User review
Micro FUN Thirds: OM-3
2
Replies
39
Views
7K
3Percent
3Percent
B
100mm Old Bokeh - Nikon vs Canon vs Zeiss
Replies
11
Views
760
Massinissa
Massinissa

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