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

In general, the HG and SHG ZD lenses are what I'd call 'no compromise' lenses. No real weak points, and as they have a telecentric light path (which makes for a thick lens barrel), they remain sharp towards the low end of their aperture range. Another advantage of them today is price: you're getting Zeiss and Leica IQ at less than Sigma prices.

I have both the ZD 50-200, and the ZD 70-300. The 70-300 compares nicely to the 75-300, it's a bit faster, somewhat larger, and a good value as they tend to go cheap on the used market.

Where the 50-200 really stands out as compared to the 70-300 and 75-300 is consistency, especially in lower light. In bright sunlight, not a lot of difference. But, when the light gets dim or even just heavy overcast skies, the 50-200 maintains good sharpness, whereas the slower lenses start losing a bit of definition. High ISO doesn't seem to overcome this. The 50-200 is also decently sharp wide open or near wide open. In general, as compared to the slower lenses, you worry less about lighting and aperture. I have a lot of faith in the 50-200, because it has earned that faith. High percentage of keepers and 'oh wow' shots.

A few other ZD's I have that get regular use:

ZD 35-100. This is what precision lensmaking is all about, it earns it's nickname of 'a bag full of primes'. Wicked sharp, whether wide open or stopped down. Lovely bokeh. Remains sharp when the light gets really dim, you can capture stunning theater images with this one. The downside is size and weight: it's not a small lens, and not a light lens.

ZD 7-14. Razor sharp, edge to edge. Definitely larger than the Panny 7-14, though not what I'd call a huge lens. What with the MZD PRO 7-14 F2.8 coming, the ZD 7-14 may become a bit superfluous, or it also may be come a bargain for getting into UWA.

I also have the ZD 50 F2 Macro - very sharp. Can't say that it's better than the 60 2.8, but it does have an extension tube option for getting real close. Plus the ZD 8FE - doesn't appear to be noticably better than the Panny 8FE. And the 4/3 PL25 1.4, that's a bit sharper than the µ43 version.

Anders W wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

Anders W wrote:

DonSC wrote:

I've never heard this before and based on my experience with TCs it seems unbelievable. Even a 2X TC wouldn't degrade the image by that much. Just thinking about it, the 50-200mm is only ten or fifteen percent better in the center than the m.43 75-300mm, and when you add the 1.4 TC to the 50-200mm I don't see the image being any worse than what you get from the 75-300mm.

It's the laws of physics. The only thing the TC can do is to magnify the original image circle. When you magnify the image circle (and do it perfectly, all TCs are not perfect regrettably), the resolution of the lens as measured in lp/mm falls in direct proportion to the magnification (and stays constant for the image circle as a whole, but we are using only part of it now). What helps a bit in counteracting the problem is that the crop of the lens image that you are effectively dealing with utilizes the full resolution of the sensor and the image resolution is of course a product of lens as well as sensor resolution.

Many lenses out-resolve sensors today, so magnifying the projection (by less than two) hardly tells on the quality of the image. From my experience at least, with TC's and lenses I used.

Even if the lens "outresolves" (has higher resolution than) the sensor (which is a tricky thing to decide, especially since the lens doesn't have any resolution unless you specify a contrast criterion), a loss of lens resolution affects the image resolution negatively. A good approximation of how lens and sensor resolution actually combine into image resolution is

1/i = sqrt(1/l^2 + 1/s^2)

where i is image resolution, l is sensor resolution, and s is sensor resolution.

I have posted two pictures of dandelion above, one taken with 50-200 with ec14 and the other without, otherwise as close as I could make them.  Anders has asked me in a previous post which is which.  I couldn't tell myself if I didn't know, and though this kind of test is obviously limited, as a practical photographer I find it more useful than theory.

You say physics but you're simply wrong in your interpretation of the physics. First you keep saying the image degrades by 70%. We're talking about a 1.4TC. Even a 2X TC would only degrade the lens image by 50%! Where does the 70% come from?

Secondly, you're missing the most important bit, which is that image quality is based on both the lens image and the sensor. Since the best lenses outresolve the best sensors, degrading the lens image always results in far less degradation of the image. For high quality lenses and TCs the degradation is along the lines of what is observed, which is 10% to 20%, depending on the lens and the TC.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but photographers have been measuring how TCs degrade image quality for decades. "Physics" aside, the first rule of science is "what is, is possible". In this case, "what is" is that a TC will NOT degrade an image by 70% unless you have a really bad lens and a really bad TC.

drj3 wrote:

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).

I have both the 50-200/TC and the m.zuiko 75-300 and use both.  Can't really answer your question. The AF of the 50-200 is OK if you are going from good target to good target, but in the real world I miss a lot of shots while it runs through the whole focus range.  Hard to track a BIF, sometimes even just trying to get a final focus on a bird in water.  I have been using MF with AF on Fn1.

A Pileated Woodpecker in fairly low light withe 75-300 in about the same lighting as yours.  I prefer the bokeh of the 75-300, the 50-200 can be a bit harsh.

This was at 300mm and 1/250 so I am depending on the IS.  Not really a fair lens test.

Detail

I usually pick the 75-300 over the 50-200, unless I think it will rain. It seems like I get better results with the 50-200 at longer distance, but I have never tested it.

I believe your equation is the approximation for how a TC effects a film image. Not an issue. But plug some numbers in and you'll find it refutes rather than supports your claim of a 70% image degradation.

Your claim that the image will degrade by 70% just isn't credible with a lens of high quality. You might be able to find a lens where this happens but you'd have to spend some time in rubbish heaps. LOL

Just give it up. We understand your point. But you've wildly exaggerated the degradation.

Corpy2 wrote:

FWIW, I had the Panasonic 100-300 also, and on both my former GH2 and current e-m5, it focused much slower than the Olympus 75-300.

I agree it's nice and light. I've found the IQ of the 14-150 to be almost comparable to the 75-300, and so in some cases have an incredibly light 28-300 camera combo.

But better IQ is desired. I recently shot a whole bunch with my 45mm 2.8, and 75mm 1.8, and am starting to have worse feelings for both the 75-300 and 14-150.

my 100-300 absolutely flies on my gh3; it was "okay" on gh2 - but at least double on the gh3....also the iq really shines with the gh3...blows away the gh2 for pics.

here's one at 300mm.

Anders W wrote:

gandalfII wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

Anders W wrote:

DonSC wrote:

I've never heard this before and based on my experience with TCs it seems unbelievable. Even a 2X TC wouldn't degrade the image by that much. Just thinking about it, the 50-200mm is only ten or fifteen percent better in the center than the m.43 75-300mm, and when you add the 1.4 TC to the 50-200mm I don't see the image being any worse than what you get from the 75-300mm.

It's the laws of physics. The only thing the TC can do is to magnify the original image circle. When you magnify the image circle (and do it perfectly, all TCs are not perfect regrettably), the resolution of the lens as measured in lp/mm falls in direct proportion to the magnification (and stays constant for the image circle as a whole, but we are using only part of it now). What helps a bit in counteracting the problem is that the crop of the lens image that you are effectively dealing with utilizes the full resolution of the sensor and the image resolution is of course a product of lens as well as sensor resolution.

Many lenses out-resolve sensors today, so magnifying the projection (by less than two) hardly tells on the quality of the image. From my experience at least, with TC's and lenses I used.

Even if the lens "outresolves" (has higher resolution than) the sensor (which is a tricky thing to decide, especially since the lens doesn't have any resolution unless you specify a contrast criterion), a loss of lens resolution affects the image resolution negatively. A good approximation of how lens and sensor resolution actually combine into image resolution is

1/i = sqrt(1/l^2 + 1/s^2)

where i is image resolution, l is sensor resolution, and s is sensor resolution.

I have posted two pictures of dandelion above, one taken with 50-200 with ec14 and the other without, otherwise as close as I could make them. Anders has asked me in a previous post which is which. I couldn't tell myself if I didn't know, and though this kind of test is obviously limited, as a practical photographer I find it more useful than theory.

Before I comment on that, could you please answer the questions I asked, including the question about the testing procedure used. See here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53284442

If you want a more detailed answer, I respectfully request a more detailed question.  The larger, more zoomed-in file is taken with the teleconverter, but now that you know that, I'm afraid you can no longer judge the two images without bias.

There obviously are times when you need a longer or faster lens and you will choose whether or not to use a teleconverter on that basis. What this informal test tells me is that if I happen to have the teleconverter on this lens, I needn't bother removing it unless I need the extra stop.

Here is the actual quote of what you said:

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?

First the use of take it "down to 70%" is confusing. Most people would say "degrades by 30%" since "down to" and "down" are confusingly similar. Is that what you meant? My guess is that this was intentionally misleading but maybe it's just a language problem.

Second, you completely omitted the fact that since the lens is just part of the system, any degradation would be much less than that. That's just being disingenuous by trying to hide the ball in order to overstate a case. An accurate statement would have been "a 1.4TC takes resolution down by 30% but of course the sensor is involved so the degradation could be much less than this". That however would not have helped you make the case you were trying to establish.

Third, your grammar was fundamentally faulty. If you mention "down to 70 percent" in the first sentence and then follow this up with "that's likely to show" in the second, the only reasonable conclusion someone can draw is that the reference is to the "down to 70%". You're now trying to claim that the reference was to something else which you never mentioned. Good luck with that. No idea why you think anyone could do that.

If what you're saying is that a TC will degrade image quality then fine. Of course everyone knows that so it's hardly interesting at all. If what you're saying is that the TC will seriously degrade the image quality, that's not true because it depends on the lens, the sensor, and the TC. It may or may not.

FWIW I wasn't trying to pick a fight. I honestly wanted to know why you kept talking about 70% degradation when that's so obviously not the case.

Anders W wrote:

gandalfII wrote:

Anders W wrote:

gandalfII wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

Anders W wrote:

DonSC wrote:

I've never heard this before and based on my experience with TCs it seems unbelievable. Even a 2X TC wouldn't degrade the image by that much. Just thinking about it, the 50-200mm is only ten or fifteen percent better in the center than the m.43 75-300mm, and when you add the 1.4 TC to the 50-200mm I don't see the image being any worse than what you get from the 75-300mm.

It's the laws of physics. The only thing the TC can do is to magnify the original image circle. When you magnify the image circle (and do it perfectly, all TCs are not perfect regrettably), the resolution of the lens as measured in lp/mm falls in direct proportion to the magnification (and stays constant for the image circle as a whole, but we are using only part of it now). What helps a bit in counteracting the problem is that the crop of the lens image that you are effectively dealing with utilizes the full resolution of the sensor and the image resolution is of course a product of lens as well as sensor resolution.

Many lenses out-resolve sensors today, so magnifying the projection (by less than two) hardly tells on the quality of the image. From my experience at least, with TC's and lenses I used.

Even if the lens "outresolves" (has higher resolution than) the sensor (which is a tricky thing to decide, especially since the lens doesn't have any resolution unless you specify a contrast criterion), a loss of lens resolution affects the image resolution negatively. A good approximation of how lens and sensor resolution actually combine into image resolution is

1/i = sqrt(1/l^2 + 1/s^2)

where i is image resolution, l is sensor resolution, and s is sensor resolution.

I have posted two pictures of dandelion above, one taken with 50-200 with ec14 and the other without, otherwise as close as I could make them. Anders has asked me in a previous post which is which. I couldn't tell myself if I didn't know, and though this kind of test is obviously limited, as a practical photographer I find it more useful than theory.

Before I comment on that, could you please answer the questions I asked, including the question about the testing procedure used. See here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53284442

If you want a more detailed answer, I respectfully request a more detailed question. The larger, more zoomed-in file is taken with the teleconverter, but now that you know that, I'm afraid you can no longer judge the two images without bias.

There obviously are times when you need a longer or faster lens and you will choose whether or not to use a teleconverter on that basis. What this informal test tells me is that if I happen to have the teleconverter on this lens, I needn't bother removing it unless I need the extra stop.

I am sorry,

You don't act like it.

but this is hardly what I'd call a meaningful test.

Suit yourself

I can't see the file size, the originals are not available to me (they may be to you but I am not granted permission to see them),

My sympathies, DPR seems to be squirrely that way.  I posted full size.

the framing is not identical, and the subject unsuitable for judging sharpness, especially sharpness across the frame. Were they shot handheld or on a tripod?

Handheld, IS1. note shutter speed 4x fl.

Why the slight difference in FL?

The zoom indications on that lens don't allow for exact division by 1.4 at the focal length most suitable for the subject.

What was the exact focus point? How did you assure exact the same focus on this problematic subject?

Single, small centerpoint af.  Aperture f/8.  Pretty much how I always shoot under similar circumstances.

Above all: Why not shoot what we really need in order evaluate the sharpness: A flat target perfectly parallel to the sensor

I have never, under the preconditions you describe, found an interesting or meaningful photographic subject.  Knowing exactly how my gear performs at a task I never set it to is of no interest to me. YMMV.

at exactly the same magnification and with exactly the same perfect focus. In short: Something like the test CrisPhoto provided here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53283296

Why do you think sites that test the sharpness of lenses shoot test charts in spite of the fact that no one find this an interesting or meaningful subject for any other purpose than that particular one?

at exactly the same magnification and with exactly the same perfect focus. In short: Something like the test CrisPhoto provided here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53283296

Anders-time to stock up on Tylenol or other of your preferred headache remedies.Thanks for your level headed factual discourse.

Discussion has pretty much gone into a ditch at this point, needs a tow truck. I know the following: