Is very large aperture important for long tele photo?

Troels L wrote:

I'm have an urge for a 'sniper' (super tele) and I'm therfore trying to decide whether to get the Oly 40-150mm pro + MC-14, Oly 75-300mm II or Pana 100-300mm for my E-M10 II. The cost is not an issue if the price difference gives parallel better results. For me size, weight and AF is important when my girlfriend and friends use it, but of course IQ is crucial. I'm looking for the most fun and versatile super zoom tele lens.

I'm buying used, so the current prices are

• Olympus 40-150 pro, 1:2.8 + MC-14, $1275 (1 year old)
• Olympus 75-300mm, 1:4.8-6.7 II, $275 (3 years old)
• Panasonic 100-300mm, 1:4.0-5.6, $450 (1 year old)

I the know a fast lens is great for a vide verity of situations for sports and dim light situations e.g indoors. But in what situations will a larger aperture be a great benefit/deciding factor for 'sniping' photos in daylight of animals in the zoo and for travel to south America walking around all day with max 2-3 lenses?

It's not just dim lighting where the aperture helps.  With a telephoto, you need to use faster shutter speeds to avoid blur from camera shake.  This can be a problem on cloudy days if you have a slow lens.  You can avoid this problem if you are willing to use some kind of a support in those situations.

There are two type of wildlife photography.

Documenting : Require a lot of depth of focus to the subject and background. The subjects need to be sharp and rich with detail.

Styled?: I don't know the correct word but the image need to pop out at you. This normally require fast lenses to achieve thin depth of focus and the subject don't have to be sharp.

Here is a video you may find interesting and help with your answers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAJkP_CX3EM

larsbc wrote:

Troels L wrote:

I'm have an urge for a 'sniper' (super tele) and I'm therfore trying to decide whether to get the Oly 40-150mm pro + MC-14, Oly 75-300mm II or Pana 100-300mm for my E-M10 II. The cost is not an issue if the price difference gives parallel better results. For me size, weight and AF is important when my girlfriend and friends use it, but of course IQ is crucial. I'm looking for the most fun and versatile super zoom tele lens.

I'm buying used, so the current prices are

• Olympus 40-150 pro, 1:2.8 + MC-14, $1275 (1 year old)
• Olympus 75-300mm, 1:4.8-6.7 II, $275 (3 years old)
• Panasonic 100-300mm, 1:4.0-5.6, $450 (1 year old)

I the know a fast lens is great for a vide verity of situations for sports and dim light situations e.g indoors. But in what situations will a larger aperture be a great benefit/deciding factor for 'sniping' photos in daylight of animals in the zoo and for travel to south America walking around all day with max 2-3 lenses?

It's not just dim lighting where the aperture helps. With a telephoto, you need to use faster shutter speeds to avoid blur from camera shake. This can be a problem on cloudy days if you have a slow lens. You can avoid this problem if you are willing to use some kind of a support in those situations.

Right, I've used both the 75-300 and the 100-300, and both I would categorize as "daylight" lenses, only really usable in good light. Even golden hour light is a struggle to use with these two, especially if using them for wildlife/birds where IS doesn't help you much (still need a fast shutter speed to freeze motion).

Both the 75-300 and 100-300 are weakest on the long end, so you should be able to get away with the 40-150 and cropping, to achieve similar results. I've seen posters who have tried this experiment and the 40-150 with and without 1.4x TC held up very well.

I haven't used the 40-150/2.8, but I have used the 35-100/2.8, and I would say it's a much more useful general purpose tele, and I would expect the 40-150 to be even more useful.

Troels L wrote:

I'm have an urge for a 'sniper' (super tele) and I'm therfore trying to decide whether to get the Oly 40-150mm pro + MC-14, Oly 75-300mm II or Pana 100-300mm for my E-M10 II. The cost is not an issue if the price difference gives parallel better results. For me size, weight and AF is important when my girlfriend and friends use it, but of course IQ is crucial. I'm looking for the most fun and versatile super zoom tele lens.

I'm buying used, so the current prices are

• Olympus 40-150 pro, 1:2.8 + MC-14, $1275 (1 year old)
• Olympus 75-300mm, 1:4.8-6.7 II, $275 (3 years old)
• Panasonic 100-300mm, 1:4.0-5.6, $450 (1 year old)

I the know a fast lens is great for a vide verity of situations for sports and dim light situations e.g indoors. But in what situations will a larger aperture be a great benefit/deciding factor for 'sniping' photos in daylight of animals in the zoo and for travel to south America walking around all day with max 2-3 lenses?

A faster lens allows for lower ISO values. So you'll get cleaner images/less noise. That means more detail. Also means you can edit and crop a bit more before things start falling apart.

But in the end the best lens is the one you have with you. Lusting after an expensive lens and not taking those shots in the meantime, or onwing the fast but heavy lens but finding yourself leaving it home a lot are not the best ways to enjoy photography.

Troels L wrote:

I'm have an urge for a 'sniper' (super tele) and I'm therfore trying to decide whether to get the Oly 40-150mm pro + MC-14, Oly 75-300mm II or Pana 100-300mm for my E-M10 II. The cost is not an issue if the price difference gives parallel better results. For me size, weight and AF is important when my girlfriend and friends use it, but of course IQ is crucial. I'm looking for the most fun and versatile super zoom tele lens.

I'm buying used, so the current prices are

• Olympus 40-150 pro, 1:2.8 + MC-14, $1275 (1 year old)
• Olympus 75-300mm, 1:4.8-6.7 II, $275 (3 years old)
• Panasonic 100-300mm, 1:4.0-5.6, $450 (1 year old)

I the know a fast lens is great for a vide verity of situations for sports and dim light situations e.g indoors. But in what situations will a larger aperture be a great benefit/deciding factor for 'sniping' photos in daylight of animals in the zoo and for travel to south America walking around all day with max 2-3 lenses?

In daytime like from LV 10 to LV 16 you can easily use just something like f/5.6-8 aperture ratios. It ain't problem for fairly stationary animals.

f/5.6 is still usable when subject is like walking around or moving normally.

But once you hit to below LV 10 and you get to LV 7 range, then f/4 is minimum you really want and f/2.8 is gift from a heaven even for fairly stationary subjects. And you anyways are easily at -2EV at then so you are very dependent from RAW performance.

I sold most of my "bazookas" since getting E-M1 as I knew that I can rent those when needed and Olympus is coming with 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO. And I got meanwhile 40-150mm f/4-5.6 R that was very acceptable. I wondered to get the 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II but it just was "meh" because for what I would need is exactly that 200-300mm range and when you hit over f/4 it is very difficult to justify its performance in normal daylight shooting in forest.

So a 210mm f/4 PRO from Olympus is far better choice then. As even as 56mm short end it performs greatly as you get closer to animals (or they get closer to you) the zoom will be worth of gold.

It is just question can you live up that using 75-300mm and 100-300mm by 10-15% from the max focal length, and then lose that 1-1.5 EV by raising ISO?

EarthQuake wrote:

Right, I've used both the 75-300 and the 100-300, and both I would categorize as "daylight" lenses, only really usable in good light.

Please please please... "Good light" doesn't mean "Bright light". Good light can be very dim light, as "good light" is just character of the light and different light levels gives different look and feeling to the user.

Photographing a wolf in a early morning at winter time can be awesome shot because light is good, but light can be just around LV 0 or below!

The bad light is then one that doesn't fit to the look.

Everything else is just question of time spent to get the photo

Even golden hour light is a struggle to use with these two, especially if using them for wildlife/birds where IS doesn't help you much (still need a fast shutter speed to freeze motion).

Most wild animal subjects doesn't fly or run. It is limit that many knows that they then just wait the stationary moments.

And IBIS does help to capture flying birds, as birds doesn't need to be totally frozen. Wings are allowed to flap as long the animal eye is sharp and it is possible to be identified for specific species it is fine.

But where IBIS doesn't help is when you want stationary photo, but the subject is moving. Like a owl on the branch that is moving up/down in a wind and there is a moon lit background.

A flying owl in otherhand can be captured nicely if flight motion can be well panned. It is like shooting motor sports where you want the wheels to have motion blur so it doesn't look car/bike is parked on the road.

Good panning technique will make big difference in wildlife photography as you want as well subject to be in focus but have some motion blur.

nydailynews.com

You mention "zoo's" in you threat...

That means you will mostly be using the lens at daytimes... Probably the f6.3 will be enough. With IS you can use shutterspeeds handheld down to 1/60, if the subject is sitting or standing about still and cooperative every way.

I love the 75-300 as a long travel zoom and for hikes - light,  versatile etc, good enough for me.

I also have the Oly 50-200 F2.8-3.5 (+ TC14 and TC20), which I use in lower light situations. Optically better alone, but with TC's the IQ is very close to 75-300, and the weight is a lot heavier.

In woods ( and rainforests, I suppose) the light can be quite low during the daytimes too, so the faster lens can be a better choise.

If you think the 150mm lens will be long enough, the basic 40-45---150-175 range (F4-5.6) could also be a good option. All good lenses, as far as I know. Don't have that glamour that the f2.8 lens has, not that fast, but serve well. And all are very light.

Jouko
'The best camera in the world is the one you have with you when you need it'
http://lehtokukka.smugmug.com/
http://jouko-lehto.artistwebsites.com/
http://joukolehto.blogspot.fi/ - Lenses for mFT-cameras

I'd get the Pro and TC combo. So very many advantages over the others, not the least of which is the snap-ring MF, which is hugely useful at zoos and the like for shooting through fencing and scratched plastic windows. Also reliably weatherproof.

Cheers,

Rick

Fri13 wrote:

EarthQuake wrote:

Right, I've used both the 75-300 and the 100-300, and both I would categorize as "daylight" lenses, only really usable in good light.

Please please please... "Good light" doesn't mean "Bright light". Good light can be very dim light, as "good light" is just character of the light and different light levels gives different look and feeling to the user.

Photographing a wolf in a early morning at winter time can be awesome shot because light is good, but light can be just around LV 0 or below!

The bad light is then one that doesn't fit to the look.

Everything else is just question of time spent to get the photo

Perhaps you should read the rest of the thread. Yes, by good light I mean more, which should be obvious from the context as the discussion is the difference between lenses with different apertures, not the artistic or aesthetic merits of different types of light/times of day.

Even golden hour light is a struggle to use with these two, especially if using them for wildlife/birds where IS doesn't help you much (still need a fast shutter speed to freeze motion).

Most wild animal subjects doesn't fly or run. It is limit that many knows that they then just wait the stationary moments.

And IBIS does help to capture flying birds, as birds doesn't need to be totally frozen. Wings are allowed to flap as long the animal eye is sharp and it is possible to be identified for specific species it is fine.

But where IBIS doesn't help is when you want stationary photo, but the subject is moving. Like a owl on the branch that is moving up/down in a wind and there is a moon lit background.

A flying owl in otherhand can be captured nicely if flight motion can be well panned. It is like shooting motor sports where you want the wheels to have motion blur so it doesn't look car/bike is parked on the road.

Good panning technique will make big difference in wildlife photography as you want as well subject to be in focus but have some motion blur.

nydailynews.com

Certainty IS is useful if you purposely want to blur your subject to show motion. I never suggested otherwise. It's a trick I frequently use with my EM1. However, I think it's safe to assume most people, most of the time, want to take photos of subjects that are not blurred. How much if any blur is desired or acceptable is extremely subjective, and will vary from shot to shot. Further more, the effects you describe are equally easy to to achieve with any of the lenses discussed.

If we assume IS is good for about 3 stops with long lenses, that means a 300mm lens can be safely shot at around 1/75th, which is not fast enough for much more than a posed, still subject. Even a perched bird is going to make micro-movements that will result in noticable blur at 1/75th.

MarkDavo wrote:

Dear Fri13, what is LV as discussed in LV10 & LV17?

LV stands for "Light Value" and means the amount of light that you get from the scenery reflected to your camera. It doesn't mean the light brightness to the subject, as the black subject will reflect less light than white subject, so to get same Light Value you need to have different light brightness.

EV stands for "Exposure Value" and means just the settings that camera has for shutter speed and aperture and the combination of those for the ISO.

LV 10 is like strong overcast/rainy day. And LV 17 is like a sheet of white paper in direct sunlight (like for WB purposes). And "Sunny 16" is the grey card or typical caucasian skin in the direct sunlight.

Like when someone says "-2 EV" it means you need to adjust camera exposure down by two stops from the nominal exposure (18% grey).

When someone says "-2 LV" it means that the light on scenery is so dim that it is just two stops from full moon lighting.

Or like the common mistake that "This camera can focus in -4 EV" means that it can focus when aperture is closed down by 4 stops instead wide open.

If someone says "This camera can focus in -4 LV" then the camera can focus in full moon lighting wide open aperture. And now you can see why aperture ratios on photographic objectives can give big impact to when it is possible to automatically focus as mirrorless cameras focus aperture wide open, so logically f/1.4 will focus far more easily in -4 LV situation than f/4 as the difference is 3 EV for focus system to handle.