Olympus 12-40 easily beats the Canon 17-55 at f/2.8 (but not when stopped down).

Started Nov 3, 2013 | Discussions thread
LTZ470
LTZ470 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,926
Re: If you have experience

ultimitsu wrote:

LTZ470 wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

LTZ470 wrote:

Pany 7-14/4

exact equivalent doesnt exist because no one would buy a 14-28 F8 lens. Tokina 16-28 is very close in overall FOV but 3 stops faster, all for less money. Then there is 14-24 or Samyang 14 F2.8 if you must have 14mm FOV.

Both very soft at f/2.8...

Not sure which "both" you were referring to. 14-24 is very sharp at F2.8, so sharp it made nikon's 14mm prime redundant.

16-28 isnt as sharp at F2.8, but plenty sharp enough for the situations you would use F2.8, certainly far better than any m43 at 16mm FOV at F2.8, let alone non-exstant F1.4.

The samyang could be soft, I cannot say, I was never interested in that lens. But you are comparing it to 7-14 F4, so by the time you stop the samyang down to F8, I am pretty sure it blows the panny at F4 out of water.

You stooed corrected, then.

Oly 40-150/4-5.6

Oly 75/1.8

80-200 F2.8, but that is an overkill.

compare to Panny 35-100 photozone.de

1, anders asked for 40-150 + 75/1.8, why are you bringing in 35-100?

2, do compare 35-100 on pz.

The old nikon beats the panny 2.8 vs 2.8, blows it out of water 5.6 vs 2.8, all for 500 USD less.

Not from what I see on photozone.de....you're obviously talking about a different lens...

Nikkor AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED

dude are you high? You are looking at 80-200 on a 10mp APS-C

No, that Nikon lens seriously suks...and did you see what the 35-100 was tested on?...or are you high...lol...

Pany 100-300/4-5.6

Prove it…lets see your shots...

What do you want me to prove exactly?

The shots that you are claiming are better...but you won't, cause someone will post something to match it from m43...

If you were referring to Canon 70D + 400L with widelife and sports and asking me to provide proof that this combo is far better than anything from m43 and 100-300, I have absolutely no need to post anything to prove it. If you still need to ask then you deserve to stay uneducated.

Lol, of course, you have nothing to post to even compare...let's see it...post them up...we are waiting...let "your" photos do the talking for you for ALL to see...

It depends on the age of 100-400, earlier ones werent very good, newer ones has tighter tolerance, several people in 550D and 7D forum have shown great results from this lens, check mailman88's images.

TOO HUGE and too LARGE without the camera...main reason I dropped mine, pain in the ar$e to carry and to use...100-300 Panny much better or FZ200 with TC...

I am an average build guy, my target rifle weights about 6 kg, I shoot it freehand in standing position, usualy about 100 rounds per practice session. A 100-400 + a 7D weights about about 1/3 of that. I have a hard time imagine any girl who cannot hold it. But hey, I am sure it is possible.

Try it on a Mountain Bike, an ATV, or a 5 mile hike...lol...first thing to remeber is when your in a hole, stop digging...

and a 400 f/5.6 for $1340…a m43 100-300 is much much cheaper...

Of course it is, it is a much much lesser lens. despite its age and 1350 price tage, 400 F5.6 is still one of the best value BIF lens, easily one of the sharpest at 400mm, only beaten by canon's own 400 F4 and F2.8. easily one of the fastest AF 400m, matched only by other canon 400mm primes.

But given its age, it is pretty easy to find very well maintained second hand examples for way less money.

TOO HUGE and TOO LARGE...specialized length, no fun hiking or biking with these lens, much less the cameras that go with them...

It all depends on what you want to do. Like I said in my OP, if you want to do BIF properly, 400L and 70D is the lightest setup you can have. If you just want more reach, get SX50.

And like I said before the FZ200 w/ TC-E17ED does a better job...I have shot them side x side...

Most folks buy m43 for size and convenience…and the IQ is very comparable to 7D...

I am talking about 70D, 7D is a 4 years old camera.

This one:

"The Canon EOS 70D delivers the smoothest Live View focus we've seen in a traditional D-SLR, but it can struggle to lock that focus in dim light."

"When using the optical finder, focus is extremely quick. The 70D can lock and fire in less than 0.1-second in good light, though that figure drops to about 1.5 seconds in very dim conditions. The D7100 locks on in just as short of a time in good light, and manages to focus in dim light in about 0.9-second."

PDAF low light is just fine, a bit slower than D7100, which is one of the best in its class. CDAF struggles in low light. But do you shoot BIF in lowlight. We are talking about BIF lighting here

I shoot birds in good light period, I am not a low light shooter to be honest when i shoot nature shots I love bright sunlight...my favorite no matter which camera I shoot from FF to m43...I shoot for the lowest ISO no matter which format i shoot...

Most folks can't even match the FZ200 shots with a DSLR...

-- hide signature --

--Really there is a God...and He loves you..
FlickR Photostream:
www.flickr.com/photos/46756347@N08/
Mr Ichiro Kitao, I support the call to upgrade the FZ50.
I will not only buy one but two no questions asked...

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow