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

Anders W wrote:

...

How would you say the 50-200 with TC and IBIS compares to the 100-300 with OIS with regard to stabilization/shutter shock? Adding weight in the proper place helps against shutter shock and the 50-200 with TC beats the 100-300 in that regard. On the other hand, the proper place to add the weight is below the shutter, not in front of the body. Weight in front of the body moves the center of gravity outwards and increases the likelihood that the shutter forms part of a moment arm. This in turn increases the likelihood of significant blur.

I would say that the 50-200 does not suffer from shutter shock at all. And as someone who owns the 45-175 I do know what shutter shock looks like and how to test for it. See samples below.

I always try to shoot the 100-300 at 1/500 sec or faster so shutter shock (which is there at slower speeds) isn't an issue. The 50-200 can produce sharp images at quite slow shutter speeds which shows an absence of shutter shock.

Here is my rough and ready shutter shock test subject. It is the printed paper I described earlier in the thread that the 50-200 just will not focus on. The large cross added in pen is there just to get it to focus but the hexagon pattern is the interesting part.

A couple at 1/400 sec.

1/400 sec

1/400 sec

A couple at 1/200 sec

1/200 sec

1/200 sec

At 1/100 sec, IBIS isn't always perfect.

1/100 sec

1/100 sec

A couple at 1/80 sec.

1/80 sec

1/80 sec

And here's a "lucky" shot at 1/40 sec just to show what can happen.

1/40 sec

For comparison, this is what the 45-175 looks like at 1/160 sec on the G3

45-175 @ 175 at 160 sec :-o

Sergey_Green wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Told me what and what does the FL have to do with it?

Longer focal length is less forgiving with closeups then the shorter focal length, as 100mm and plus on mFT is considered to be relatively long for closeups / macro shots lens.

No. That's a misunderstanding. What matters for the DoF is not the FL but the magnification. If we are far from the hyperfocal distance, as in this case, we get the same DoF at the same magnification no matter which FL we use. For example, a 100 mm lens at 1:1 gives the same DoF as a 200 mm lens at 1:1 for any given f-stop and sensor size.

However, the longer FL will give more background blur at the same magnification and DoF since it magnifies the background more. From this point of view, a longer FL is more rather than less forgiving since it makes it easier to avoid a messy background. That's one reason I usually prefer fairly long FLs for close-ups. The other is that it also provides more working distance, which has several advantages: Less risk to scare the bug away and less of a problem with shading the subject from the light. The only downside is that you need shorter shutter speeds to counter camera shake unless you are on a tripod.

Told you that you do not need to stop the lens down anywhere past f/11 on larger formats, as you just showed us.

No I didn't show that. First f/7.1 with extension tubes, as in this case, is effectively about f/9.5. Second f/9.5 on MFT corresponds to f/19 on FF.

Tony Rogers wrote:

Anders W wrote:

...

How would you say the 50-200 with TC and IBIS compares to the 100-300 with OIS with regard to stabilization/shutter shock? Adding weight in the proper place helps against shutter shock and the 50-200 with TC beats the 100-300 in that regard. On the other hand, the proper place to add the weight is below the shutter, not in front of the body. Weight in front of the body moves the center of gravity outwards and increases the likelihood that the shutter forms part of a moment arm. This in turn increases the likelihood of significant blur.

I would say that the 50-200 does not suffer from shutter shock at all. And as someone who owns the 45-175 I do know what shutter shock looks like and how to test for it. See samples below.

I always try to shoot the 100-300 at 1/500 sec or faster so shutter shock (which is there at slower speeds) isn't an issue. The 50-200 can produce sharp images at quite slow shutter speeds which shows an absence of shutter shock.

Here is my rough and ready shutter shock test subject. It is the printed paper I described earlier in the thread that the 50-200 just will not focus on. The large cross added in pen is there just to get it to focus but the hexagon pattern is the interesting part.

Thanks for the report. The lesser sensitivity of the 50-200 to shutter shock conforms to the experiences I have seen others mention.

A couple at 1/400 sec.

1/400 sec

1/400 sec

A couple at 1/200 sec

1/200 sec

1/200 sec

At 1/100 sec, IBIS isn't always perfect.

1/100 sec

1/100 sec

A couple at 1/80 sec.

1/80 sec

1/80 sec

And here's a "lucky" shot at 1/40 sec just to show what can happen.

1/40 sec

For comparison, this is what the 45-175 looks like at 1/160 sec on the G3

45-175 @ 175 at 160 sec :-o

Sergey_Green wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Told me what and what does the FL have to do with it?

Longer focal length is less forgiving with closeups then the shorter focal length, as 100mm and plus on mFT is considered to be relatively long for closeups / macro shots lens.

No. That's a misunderstanding. What matters for the DoF is not the FL but the magnification. If we are far from the hyperfocal distance, as in this case, we get the same DoF at the same magnification no matter which FL we use. For example, a 100 mm lens at 1:1 gives the same DoF as a 200 mm lens at 1:1 for any given f-stop and sensor size.

However, the longer FL will give more background blur at the same magnification and DoF since it magnifies the background more. From this point of view, a longer FL is more rather than less forgiving since it makes it easier to avoid a messy background. That's one reason I usually prefer fairly long FLs for close-ups. The other is that it also provides more working distance, which has several advantages: Less risk to scare the bug away and less of a problem with shading the subject from the light. The only downside is that you need shorter shutter speeds to counter camera shake unless you are on a tripod.

Longer focal length is less forgiving as it magnifies blur faster the shorter lens, whereas DoF may remain the same.

Why would magnifying the background blur make the longer FL less forgiving as long as the DoF remains the same? As I pointed out, it's the other way around. More background blur is usually an advantage everything else equal since it makes the background less distracting.

Told you that you do not need to stop the lens down anywhere past f/11 on larger formats, as you just showed us.

No I didn't show that. First f/7.1 with extension tubes, as in this case, is effectively about f/9.5. Second f/9.5 on MFT corresponds to f/19 on FF.

Ah, I missed the extension tubes part, true. But then again (ignore the ugly shadows please),

I think we have discussed that before. What DoF you can get away with much depends on how flat the target is, or can be made by choice of angle. In the case of the mantis, as I have already told you, I was not at liberty to choose any other angle than the one I actually used.

I too occasionally use pretty wide apertures for close-ups, as exemplified below. But in this case I specifically chose a specimen as well as an angle that would maximize subject flatness.

-- hide signature --

- sergey

Sergey_Green wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Why would magnifying the background blur make the longer FL less forgiving as long as the DoF remains the same? As I pointed out, it's the other way around. More background blur is usually an advantage everything else equal since it makes the background less distracting.

Remember that butterfly I posted somewhere, that was shot with relatively open lens on a full frame camera. If I used longer lens on exactly the same insect, the front and the back blur would be more obvious, almost clipping,

Almost clipping?

But yes, if you want the blurred parts to look less rather than more blurred, then a shorter FL is better. Personally, I usually want max DoF along with strong background blur plus the greater working range provided by the longer FL. So I would typicall shoot close-ups with teles, often pretty long teles.

and then I would not be posting it to tell you that I do not need to stop the lens down much. That's why I call it less forgiving .

Well, unless I changed the framing completely, of course, for the cut-off to be desirable,

I think we have discussed that before. What DoF you can get away with much depends on how flat the target is, or can be made by choice of angle. In the case of the mantis, as I have already told you, I was not at liberty to choose any other angle than the one I actually used.

I too occasionally use pretty wide apertures for close-ups, as exemplified below. But in this case I specifically chose a specimen as well as an angle that would maximize subject flatness.

Cool. Thanks.

-- hide signature --

- sergey

Jeff Tokayer wrote:

In June 2004 I attended a seminar sponsored by Olympus and Henry's. One of the main speakers was a renowned Canadian photographer Al Gilbert.

That evening I received my diploma of "Olympus fanboy".

One comment made by the Olympus rep still resonates in my ears. When asked how good the HG and SHG lenses were in regards of resolution with future bodies (the E-1 had 5mpixels), he replied that they were capable of resolving 20 mpixels. He was right!

It is only that it doesn't make much sense to talk about how many MP a lens can resolve. Regardless of whether a lens is pretty poor or pretty good resolution-wise, image resolution will increase as you increase the sensor resolution. The only difference is that the increase will be greater the better the lens is.

Anders W wrote:

I am not quite sure yet what to do about smaller subjects; EC-14, Canon 500D close-up lens or extension tubes. However, I already know that, at closest focus, the 50-200 provides more magnification that my Pany 100-300.

As a matter of fact, the max native magnification of the 50-200 and the 100-300 is exactly the same (0.21x) according to the data on the official FT/MFT page. Don't know for sure whether a close-up lens or extension tubes would work best with the 50-200. The standard rule is to use close-up lenses with longer lenses and extension tubes with shorter due to the effect difference, close-up lenses changing the magnification a lot at longer FLs but little at shorter, and vice versa for extension tubes.

The manufacturers numbers are all rather approximate. The following images show the smallest subject that will fill the frame at closest focus. Closest focus for the 50-200 is 1.2m vs 1.5m on the Pany 100-300.

Panasonic 100-300 - 83mm

Olympus 50-200 - 76mm

Olympus 50-200 + EC-14 - 55mm

So, the 50-200 has a bit more magnification than the 100-300; .237x vs .217 and the 50-200 + EC-14 has a very useful .327x.

The 50-200 + 16mm extension tube gives the same 55mm across the frame as adding the EC-14. 26mm extension tube yields 46mm.

The 50-200 + Canon 500D yields 33m to 44mm, nearest to furthest.

So, quite a few choices. I think the 16mm tube is a good option and I if I need more magnification than that, I would probably switch to the 500D although I am always dropping it and worrying about scratching the main lens!

But rules are sometimes to be broken and as far as the 100-300 is concerned, this is one of them. I have tried both solutions and extension tubes are clearly preferable to my 500D from an optical-quality point of view. The downside is that I don't get a whole lot more magnification (I get from about 1:5 to about 1:3) but what I get is usually enough. See here for more information about how the 100-300 works (or rather not) with the 500D:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51866366

In case you haven't bought any tubes yet, I can recommend the ones made by Fotga. The build quality is certainly nothing to write home about but they are inexpensive and get the job done. One advantage compared to others is that they have a shape and structure (ridged) on the inside to minimize reflections. See here for further information:

I have the Kenko tubes but I haven't used them yet on the 50-200.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51894532

Here's an example of what the 100-300 can do with the tubes:

Nice pic.

Tony Rogers wrote:

Anders W wrote:

I am not quite sure yet what to do about smaller subjects; EC-14, Canon 500D close-up lens or extension tubes. However, I already know that, at closest focus, the 50-200 provides more magnification that my Pany 100-300.

As a matter of fact, the max native magnification of the 50-200 and the 100-300 is exactly the same (0.21x) according to the data on the official FT/MFT page. Don't know for sure whether a close-up lens or extension tubes would work best with the 50-200. The standard rule is to use close-up lenses with longer lenses and extension tubes with shorter due to the effect difference, close-up lenses changing the magnification a lot at longer FLs but little at shorter, and vice versa for extension tubes.

The manufacturers numbers are all rather approximate. The following images show the smallest subject that will fill the frame at closest focus. Closest focus for the 50-200 is 1.2m vs 1.5m on the Pany 100-300.

Panasonic 100-300 - 83mm

Olympus 50-200 - 76mm

Olympus 50-200 + EC-14 - 55mm

So, the 50-200 has a bit more magnification than the 100-300; .237x vs .217 and the 50-200 + EC-14 has a very useful .327x.

The 50-200 + 16mm extension tube gives the same 55mm across the frame as adding the EC-14. 26mm extension tube yields 46mm.

The 50-200 + Canon 500D yields 33m to 44mm, nearest to furthest.

So, quite a few choices. I think the 16mm tube is a good option and I if I need more magnification than that, I would probably switch to the 500D although I am always dropping it and worrying about scratching the main lens!

Yes, but the max magnification of the 100-300 would be at 300 and for the 50-200 at 200. If you compare them that way, I think you will find that the max magnification is about the same. At the same FL, the 50-200 will have greater max magnification due to the shorter minimum focus distance. The same should be true with the 50-200 plus TC at the long end compared to the 100-300 at the long end.

But rules are sometimes to be broken and as far as the 100-300 is concerned, this is one of them. I have tried both solutions and extension tubes are clearly preferable to my 500D from an optical-quality point of view. The downside is that I don't get a whole lot more magnification (I get from about 1:5 to about 1:3) but what I get is usually enough. See here for more information about how the 100-300 works (or rather not) with the 500D:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51866366

In case you haven't bought any tubes yet, I can recommend the ones made by Fotga. The build quality is certainly nothing to write home about but they are inexpensive and get the job done. One advantage compared to others is that they have a shape and structure (ridged) on the inside to minimize reflections. See here for further information:

I have the Kenko tubes but I haven't used them yet on the 50-200.

If at some point you do a comparison between the tubes and the 500D, let us know how it works out.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51894532

Here's an example of what the 100-300 can do with the tubes:

Nice pic.

Thanks!

Anders W wrote:

Tony Rogers wrote:

Anders W wrote:

I am not quite sure yet what to do about smaller subjects; EC-14, Canon 500D close-up lens or extension tubes. However, I already know that, at closest focus, the 50-200 provides more magnification that my Pany 100-300.

As a matter of fact, the max native magnification of the 50-200 and the 100-300 is exactly the same (0.21x) according to the data on the official FT/MFT page. Don't know for sure whether a close-up lens or extension tubes would work best with the 50-200. The standard rule is to use close-up lenses with longer lenses and extension tubes with shorter due to the effect difference, close-up lenses changing the magnification a lot at longer FLs but little at shorter, and vice versa for extension tubes.

The manufacturers numbers are all rather approximate. The following images show the smallest subject that will fill the frame at closest focus. Closest focus for the 50-200 is 1.2m vs 1.5m on the Pany 100-300.

Panasonic 100-300 - 83mm

Olympus 50-200 - 76mm

Olympus 50-200 + EC-14 - 55mm

So, the 50-200 has a bit more magnification than the 100-300; .237x vs .217 and the 50-200 + EC-14 has a very useful .327x.

The 50-200 + 16mm extension tube gives the same 55mm across the frame as adding the EC-14. 26mm extension tube yields 46mm.

The 50-200 + Canon 500D yields 33m to 44mm, nearest to furthest.

So, quite a few choices. I think the 16mm tube is a good option and I if I need more magnification than that, I would probably switch to the 500D although I am always dropping it and worrying about scratching the main lens!

Yes, but the max magnification of the 100-300 would be at 300 and for the 50-200 at 200. If you compare them that way, I think you will find that the max magnification is about the same. At the same FL, the 50-200 will have greater max magnification due to the shorter minimum focus distance. The same should be true with the 50-200 plus TC at the long end compared to the 100-300 at the long end.

That's what I did! The 50-200 is at 200m and the 100-300 is at 300mm. Both at closest focus (1.2m and 1.5m respectively).

The close focusing distance is a really nice feature of the 50-200.

But rules are sometimes to be broken and as far as the 100-300 is concerned, this is one of them. I have tried both solutions and extension tubes are clearly preferable to my 500D from an optical-quality point of view. The downside is that I don't get a whole lot more magnification (I get from about 1:5 to about 1:3) but what I get is usually enough. See here for more information about how the 100-300 works (or rather not) with the 500D:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51866366

In case you haven't bought any tubes yet, I can recommend the ones made by Fotga. The build quality is certainly nothing to write home about but they are inexpensive and get the job done. One advantage compared to others is that they have a shape and structure (ridged) on the inside to minimize reflections. See here for further information:

I have the Kenko tubes but I haven't used them yet on the 50-200.

If at some point you do a comparison between the tubes and the 500D, let us know how it works out.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51894532

Here's an example of what the 100-300 can do with the tubes:

Nice pic.

Thanks!

Tony Rogers wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Tony Rogers wrote:

Anders W wrote:

I am not quite sure yet what to do about smaller subjects; EC-14, Canon 500D close-up lens or extension tubes. However, I already know that, at closest focus, the 50-200 provides more magnification that my Pany 100-300.

As a matter of fact, the max native magnification of the 50-200 and the 100-300 is exactly the same (0.21x) according to the data on the official FT/MFT page. Don't know for sure whether a close-up lens or extension tubes would work best with the 50-200. The standard rule is to use close-up lenses with longer lenses and extension tubes with shorter due to the effect difference, close-up lenses changing the magnification a lot at longer FLs but little at shorter, and vice versa for extension tubes.

The manufacturers numbers are all rather approximate. The following images show the smallest subject that will fill the frame at closest focus. Closest focus for the 50-200 is 1.2m vs 1.5m on the Pany 100-300.

Panasonic 100-300 - 83mm

Olympus 50-200 - 76mm

Olympus 50-200 + EC-14 - 55mm

So, the 50-200 has a bit more magnification than the 100-300; .237x vs .217 and the 50-200 + EC-14 has a very useful .327x.

The 50-200 + 16mm extension tube gives the same 55mm across the frame as adding the EC-14. 26mm extension tube yields 46mm.

The 50-200 + Canon 500D yields 33m to 44mm, nearest to furthest.

So, quite a few choices. I think the 16mm tube is a good option and I if I need more magnification than that, I would probably switch to the 500D although I am always dropping it and worrying about scratching the main lens!

Yes, but the max magnification of the 100-300 would be at 300 and for the 50-200 at 200. If you compare them that way, I think you will find that the max magnification is about the same. At the same FL, the 50-200 will have greater max magnification due to the shorter minimum focus distance. The same should be true with the 50-200 plus TC at the long end compared to the 100-300 at the long end.

That's what I did! The 50-200 is at 200m and the 100-300 is at 300mm. Both at closest focus (1.2m and 1.5m respectively).

The close focusing distance is a really nice feature of the 50-200.

Sorry. I thought the mm figures referred to the FL rather than to the number of mm on the ruler. I see what you mean now.

But rules are sometimes to be broken and as far as the 100-300 is concerned, this is one of them. I have tried both solutions and extension tubes are clearly preferable to my 500D from an optical-quality point of view. The downside is that I don't get a whole lot more magnification (I get from about 1:5 to about 1:3) but what I get is usually enough. See here for more information about how the 100-300 works (or rather not) with the 500D:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51866366

In case you haven't bought any tubes yet, I can recommend the ones made by Fotga. The build quality is certainly nothing to write home about but they are inexpensive and get the job done. One advantage compared to others is that they have a shape and structure (ridged) on the inside to minimize reflections. See here for further information:

I have the Kenko tubes but I haven't used them yet on the 50-200.

If at some point you do a comparison between the tubes and the 500D, let us know how it works out.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51894532

Here's an example of what the 100-300 can do with the tubes:

Nice pic.

Thanks!