Any telephoto zoom 4/3 Lenses for E-M1 that are much better than similar m4/3?

DonSC wrote:

I wondered whether just uprezzing the image from the 50-200 might be better. However, there are two issues. One is how much better? if it's marginal then it's not worth the trade-off. This is why side by side examples would be nice. Second is whether the C-AF for the 50-200 SWD is on a par with the m.43 75-300. Static images I can manually foucs but BIFs and/or action are a different story.

I'm really only interested in the long end.

Without TC, the uprezzed picture is not much better.

C-AF is quite good in good light (the PDAF needssome light, the CDAF is more tolerant in this respect).

I have never tried but others say that BIF is very difficult with EM1s PDAF. Because it only locks on vertical lines and because it does not like tiny targets against blue sky.

Anders W wrote:

gandalfII wrote:

There is no noticeable image degradation with ec14 and 50-200. There is some using it with the 50 macro at infinity but none in the macro range.

A 1.4 TC takes the resolution down to about 70 percent of what it originally was (if the TC is very good). In a side-by-side test with and without TC at the same subject magnification, that's likely to show. Have you done any such testing? If so, are you willing to share the visual evidence with us?

True the resolution is decreased, but how much resolution and sharpness are lost and how much is the increase in noise using the almost one stop slower 75-300?  I  don't know the answer and it would not be relevant if images were taken at the same aperture on both.   I purchased the E-M1 to gain approximately one stop advantage over my E5, so for me the 75-300 would offer little advantage over the E5 with the EC14+50-200.  However, if I did not have these FTs lenses, I would be tempted to wait until the new f4 300mm is released before I purchased any FTs lens.  The new lens will be faster and almost certainly focus even more quickly.

DonSC wrote:

I wondered whether just uprezzing the image from the 50-200 might be better. However, there are two issues. One is how much better? if it's marginal then it's not worth the trade-off. This is why side by side examples would be nice. Second is whether the C-AF for the 50-200 SWD is on a par with the m.43 75-300. Static images I can manually foucs but BIFs and/or action are a different story.

I'm really only interested in the long end.

OK, here we go.

I searched the old test-pics in lightroom and I found 2 typical candidates. Both shot from a tripod with the same distance (tripod mount).

1. A bookshelf from 4m distance (200mm@f5.6 and 300mm@f8)
2. The moon from xxxxxxxm distance (200mm@f7.1 and 300mm@f7.1)

The books really are in focus for the 75-300, no cheating, I checked it. And no cheating while upscaling: simple export to photoshop as TIFF, scale picture by 150% using bicubic scaling smooth, save TIFF.

While the 7-300 has no perfect focus point, you can be somewhat sloppy when focusing, the 50-200 has ONE point which is very sharp. Unfortunately with my EM5 it was quite a torture to find this perfect focus manually. This has improved drastically with the EM1's PDAF.

And NO, this 75-300Mk2 was not a bad sample, before I had the 75-300Mk1 which was even less sharp.

100% crop: 200mm (bicubic upscale) and 300mm

DonSC wrote:

Thanks for the info. I was thinking that the differences in uprezzing the shorter focal length shot would be marginally better and you're confirming that. I'm just sort of marking time until the 300mm m.43 lens is released. The 50-200mm with TC would need an adapter as well, so I'd be looking at a lot more weight and bulk.

FYI I think the m.43 75-300 is adequate for BIFs. The big problem is that it simply can't produce local contrast aka detail. I'm sure you're right that you need good light for the PDAF, but that's true of all my Canon 1Ds as well. You see some folks shooting BIF with a 400mm f/5.6 but not really the 100-400mm. And at this focal length you don't get anything remotely as good as you would with a lens with a maximum aperture of f/2.8. it's a cruel world!

Sorry I cannot give you an example of a comparison between the EC14+50-200 and the 75-300, but the attached image may help.  Maybe you can compare the feather detail of the attached Red Bellied Woodpecker (f7.1 - the closest I could find to the f6.7 of the 75-300) to ones that you have taken with the 75-300.  I have not had very much opportunity to use it for BIFs, but my preliminary checks seem to show that it works better in portrait mode than landscape for BIFs (PDAF works better on vertical objects).

DonSC wrote:

Super detail. You feel like you could reach out and touch the feathers.

I don't think I could get this detail with the m.43 75-300 but it's hard to know exactly. You managed to get great light on the bird which helps a lot, and the bird has some good and interesting detail. Still think it's better though.

This was with the TC, right? Doesn't seem to lose that much quality if it is.

Thanks for posting even if you're making my life more difficult.

Yes with the TC.  I always want more reach.  I generally remove the TC only if I don't want more than the 200mm or late in the day when there is little light and I need the f3.5 at 200mm to keep the shutter speed up or the ISO down.

drj3 wrote:

DonSC wrote:

Thanks for the info. I was thinking that the differences in uprezzing the shorter focal length shot would be marginally better and you're confirming that. I'm just sort of marking time until the 300mm m.43 lens is released. The 50-200mm with TC would need an adapter as well, so I'd be looking at a lot more weight and bulk.

FYI I think the m.43 75-300 is adequate for BIFs. The big problem is that it simply can't produce local contrast aka detail. I'm sure you're right that you need good light for the PDAF, but that's true of all my Canon 1Ds as well. You see some folks shooting BIF with a 400mm f/5.6 but not really the 100-400mm. And at this focal length you don't get anything remotely as good as you would with a lens with a maximum aperture of f/2.8. it's a cruel world!

Sorry I cannot give you an example of a comparison between the EC14+50-200 and the 75-300, but the attached image may help. Maybe you can compare the feather detail of the attached Red Bellied Woodpecker (f7.1 - the closest I could find to the f6.7 of the 75-300) to ones that you have taken with the 75-300. I have not had very much opportunity to use it for BIFs, but my preliminary checks seem to show that it works better in portrait mode than landscape for BIFs (PDAF works better on vertical objects).

Certainly not bad. I don't have the 75-300 but I do have a 100-300 and my impression is that the 75-300 and the 100-300 are roughly on a par. So what about these, both available at full resolution for your pixel peeping pleasure (click on the image and then on "view original size" to see them properly). Are they inferior sharpness-wise?

Iskender wrote:

Anders W wrote:

A 1.4 TC takes the resolution down to about 70 percent of what it originally was (if the TC is very good). In a side-by-side test with and without TC at the same subject magnification, that's likely to show. Have you done any such testing? If so, are you willing to share the visual evidence with us?

If you do it at the same subject magnification, you're bound to get less useful data. If you test with the camera at different distances to compensate, you're essentially comparing the lens to a lens with a range that does not exist.

The poster I responded to made a claim regarding the loss of resolution due to the TC. The test procedure I suggested (which means shooting at different distances so as to keep magnification constant for easy comparison of detail) is the appropriate one to test that claim.

There will also be problems with the differing amounts of air in front of the subject. If one takes the photo at short range, on the other hand, one will likely use the lens in a way it will seldom be used in real life.

If you perform the test on a clear day and at reasonable distance, this shouldn't be a problem. Besides, I often use my Pany 100-300 at short distances, sometimes very short (with extension tubes). Some examples below. None of these are shot at a distance exceeding 10 meters and most are closer, sometimes much closer. For those interested, all are available at full resolution. Just click on them and "view original" if you like to pixel peep.

The second approach, which is likely what you're suggesting, is to take a photo at a shorter focal length with converter, and then zoom in sans converter for the same magnification.

That's another way of going about it, but not what I had in mind.

This will result in a comparison of two different focal lengths, with non-identical performance. Basically, one can do these comparisons all day and still get contradictory data. After that, one would have to determine how it applies to real life photography.

Yes. Therefore I didn't suggest it. I wanted a test that isolated the loss of resolution due to the TC.

The grandparent poster already has seen how it works out in real life photography: there isn't really a big difference. I seriously doubt the lab approach will give us better data than that.

It would give us the best test data possible for determining the loss of resolution due to the TC.

The technical test which *would* be useful would be 50-200x1.4 versus the M43 zooms at the same magnification.

I have absolutely nothing against such tests inasmuch as this is a practical alternative we are facing: The 50-200 with TC versus the native long MFT zooms.

gandalfII wrote:

Anders W wrote:

gandalfII wrote:

There is no noticeable image degradation with ec14 and 50-200. There is some using it with the 50 macro at infinity but none in the macro range.

A 1.4 TC takes the resolution down to about 70 percent of what it originally was (if the TC is very good). In a side-by-side test with and without TC at the same subject magnification, that's likely to show. Have you done any such testing? If so, are you willing to share the visual evidence with us?

I'm a little surprised by the difference in file size, but pleased that the ec14 has no (measurable) transmission loss.

Not sure I follow you here. Could you please explain exactly what you did and which is which. A small problem when judging the results is that I can't watch the original file, only the DPR 1:1 view, which is not the same as "view original" (the former does not guarantee the same quality as the latter).

drj3 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

gandalfII wrote:

There is no noticeable image degradation with ec14 and 50-200. There is some using it with the 50 macro at infinity but none in the macro range.

A 1.4 TC takes the resolution down to about 70 percent of what it originally was (if the TC is very good). In a side-by-side test with and without TC at the same subject magnification, that's likely to show. Have you done any such testing? If so, are you willing to share the visual evidence with us?

True the resolution is decreased, but how much resolution and sharpness are lost and how much is the increase in noise using the almost one stop slower 75-300? I don't know the answer and it would not be relevant if images were taken at the same aperture on both. I purchased the E-M1 to gain approximately one stop advantage over my E5,

I'd say that you gain even more than that. If we are talking shadow noise (dynamic range), the E-M1 is close to 2.5 EV ahead of the E-5 across the ISO range.

so for me the 75-300 would offer little advantage over the E5 with the EC14+50-200. However, if I did not have these FTs lenses, I would be tempted to wait until the new f4 300mm is released before I purchased any FTs lens. The new lens will be faster and almost certainly focus even more quickly.

The new 300/4 is hopefully worth waiting for. However, I'd also like to see an optically better long zoom at the same bulk/weight as those we already have. It wouldn't have to be faster than the Pany 100-300/4-5.6 but should be optically excellent already wide open. I am pretty sure they could accomplish something like that and I'd be ready to pay for it (say some 1,000 rather 500 dollars). Canon has something like that (70-300L) so why shouldn't MFT have it too.

liviutza wrote:

Oly 50-200 2.8-3.5. Legendary, it seems.

50-200 focus is very good on EM-1, very slow on EM-1
It is faster, and I'd also consider it an excellent alternative with the caveat that it is 1/3 shorter.  Still sharp enough to crop to give 600 EFL, probably no more, though.
This bird was shot with the Zuiko 50-200 - and survived:)
For some reason I didn't bother it, but I moved slowly ...

Anders W wrote:

drj3 wrote:

DonSC wrote:

Thanks for the info. I was thinking that the differences in uprezzing the shorter focal length shot would be marginally better and you're confirming that. I'm just sort of marking time until the 300mm m.43 lens is released. The 50-200mm with TC would need an adapter as well, so I'd be looking at a lot more weight and bulk.

FYI I think the m.43 75-300 is adequate for BIFs. The big problem is that it simply can't produce local contrast aka detail. I'm sure you're right that you need good light for the PDAF, but that's true of all my Canon 1Ds as well. You see some folks shooting BIF with a 400mm f/5.6 but not really the 100-400mm. And at this focal length you don't get anything remotely as good as you would with a lens with a maximum aperture of f/2.8. it's a cruel world!

Sorry I cannot give you an example of a comparison between the EC14+50-200 and the 75-300, but the attached image may help. Maybe you can compare the feather detail of the attached Red Bellied Woodpecker (f7.1 - the closest I could find to the f6.7 of the 75-300) to ones that you have taken with the 75-300. I have not had very much opportunity to use it for BIFs, but my preliminary checks seem to show that it works better in portrait mode than landscape for BIFs (PDAF works better on vertical objects).

Certainly not bad. I don't have the 75-300 but I do have a 100-300 and my impression is that the 75-300 and the 100-300 are roughly on a par. So what about these, both available at full resolution for your pixel peeping pleasure (click on the image and then on "view original size" to see them properly). Are they inferior sharpness-wise?

Very nice.  I like the close up of the face.  Nice eyes.

The problem with lens comparisons is that one needs the same bird in the same place with the same lighting.  My experience with my 50-200 and my inexpensive 70-300, is that both are capable of producing very good images in good light.  Out of the camera EC14 +50-200 images are always better (sharper & more contrast), but if I take more time with PP with the 70-300, then the images are similar.  When the light drops or is not good, then the differences in my lenses are more obvious and I cannot compensate with PP.  The other big difference is that the 50-200 has mechanically linked focus (focus distance shown in lens widow - focus ring stops at 3.9 ft and infinity) which make pre-focusing (which I always do) easy and very fast so I can always pre-focus on the E-M1 even though there is no CAF+MF or CAF+TR+MF on the camera (critical for BIFs).

All I know about the 75-300 and 100-300 mFT lenses is what I have read on the DPR forums and these lenses have the advantage of being smaller, lighter and less expensive.  I would guess that the EC14+50-200 would be somewhat better than the 75-300, but it is also a $1000 more than the 75-300 (price of 50-200+EC14) and over 500 grams heavier.

I have no idea whether the mFT lenses or FT lens would be better for BIFs (after more experience and the spring thaw, I will have a better idea of how good the E-M1 is with FTs lenses).  I can say that I believe that my E5 with the EC14+50-200 is better for BIFs than the E-M1 with the same lenses.  However, I may be one of the few photographers that never had any problem with the E5 and BIFs, so maybe my E5 is better than most for BIFs.

drj3 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

drj3 wrote:

DonSC wrote:

Thanks for the info. I was thinking that the differences in uprezzing the shorter focal length shot would be marginally better and you're confirming that. I'm just sort of marking time until the 300mm m.43 lens is released. The 50-200mm with TC would need an adapter as well, so I'd be looking at a lot more weight and bulk.

FYI I think the m.43 75-300 is adequate for BIFs. The big problem is that it simply can't produce local contrast aka detail. I'm sure you're right that you need good light for the PDAF, but that's true of all my Canon 1Ds as well. You see some folks shooting BIF with a 400mm f/5.6 but not really the 100-400mm. And at this focal length you don't get anything remotely as good as you would with a lens with a maximum aperture of f/2.8. it's a cruel world!

Sorry I cannot give you an example of a comparison between the EC14+50-200 and the 75-300, but the attached image may help. Maybe you can compare the feather detail of the attached Red Bellied Woodpecker (f7.1 - the closest I could find to the f6.7 of the 75-300) to ones that you have taken with the 75-300. I have not had very much opportunity to use it for BIFs, but my preliminary checks seem to show that it works better in portrait mode than landscape for BIFs (PDAF works better on vertical objects).

Certainly not bad. I don't have the 75-300 but I do have a 100-300 and my impression is that the 75-300 and the 100-300 are roughly on a par. So what about these, both available at full resolution for your pixel peeping pleasure (click on the image and then on "view original size" to see them properly). Are they inferior sharpness-wise?

Very nice. I like the close up of the face. Nice eyes.

The problem with lens comparisons is that one needs the same bird in the same place with the same lighting.

Right.

My experience with my 50-200 and my inexpensive 70-300, is that both are capable of producing very good images in good light. Out of the camera EC14 +50-200 images are always better (sharper & more contrast), but if I take more time with PP with the 70-300, then the images are similar. When the light drops or is not good, then the differences in my lenses are more obvious and I cannot compensate with PP.

Sounds reasonable. The 100-300 is certainly not perfect, especially at the long end, and the problems with poor microcontrast become worse in poor light. As I mentioned in another post, I'd much like to see an optically better long zoom for MFT at the same bulk/weight as those we already have. It wouldn't have to be faster than the Pany 100-300/4-5.6 but should be optically excellent already wide open. I am pretty sure they could accomplish something like that and I'd be ready to pay for it (say some 1,000 rather than 500 dollars). Canon has something like that (70-300L) so why shouldn't MFT have it too. In the meantime, what I have will have to do somehow. Here are another couple of samples in less brilliant light, the first backlit in the afternoon sun and the second in very diffuse light.

The other big difference is that the 50-200 has mechanically linked focus (focus distance shown in lens widow - focus ring stops at 3.9 ft and infinity) which make pre-focusing (which I always do) easy and very fast so I can always pre-focus on the E-M1 even though there is no CAF+MF or CAF+TR+MF on the camera (critical for BIFs).

Not sure I follow you here. Did you mean to say the E-M5 rather than E-M1?

All I know about the 75-300 and 100-300 mFT lenses is what I have read on the DPR forums and these lenses have the advantage of being smaller, lighter and less expensive. I would guess that the EC14+50-200 would be somewhat better than the 75-300, but it is also a $1000 more than the 75-300 (price of 50-200+EC14) and over 500 grams heavier.

I have no idea whether the mFT lenses or FT lens would be better for BIFs (after more experience and the spring thaw, I will have a better idea of how good the E-M1 is with FTs lenses). I can say that I believe that my E5 with the EC14+50-200 is better for BIFs than the E-M1 with the same lenses. However, I may be one of the few photographers that never had any problem with the E5 and BIFs, so maybe my E5 is better than most for BIFs.

-- hide signature --

drj3