Is very large aperture important for long tele photo?

There's no comparison. The PRO is head and shoulders above the others.

Troels L wrote:

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

Hello Troels,

My situation is a bit different: Several years ago I had use of a Panasonic 100-300mm for a week and had disappointing results, mainly because the lens is slow.

Not wanting to spend the money for the faster tele lenses just for wildlife, I opted for the Panasonic FZ200 25-600mm f/2.8. While I don't photograph in Zoos, it is ideal for similar outdoor conditions encountered in the wild.

California Mule Deer (79mm = 443mm)

Great Egret (108mm = 600mm)

Mojave Rattlesnake

and for travel to south America walking around all day with max 2-3 lenses?

In addition to wildlife, I began using the FZ200 for everyday outdoor photography, including travels (no changing lenses).

Kern River, California

Birthday party

Historic Mission Inn, California

The newer FZ300 has the same focal length/aperture.

Downsides for you could be the smaller sensor and not so good higher ISO results, which are not a concern for me since I don't print larger than 8x10, and continue to use my m4/3 for indoors.

In traveling, I carry along my small GX7 + 20mm f/1.7 prime for indoors. Both cameras fit into a fairly small carrying bag.

I've since opted for the FZ1000 25-400mm f/2.8-4. Slightly slower and a bit shorter in reach, it still suffices for wildlife for me and is a bit more flexible for other situations.

That is my solution for long telephoto with large aperture.

- Richard

If you want a compact rig with a long lens, and AF is important, then I think you should look outside of M4/3. How about the Nikon 1 system with the CX 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6? It is a fantastic lens for, e.g., birds and wildlife photographers who want to carry a light camera.

My experience with the lens here:

http://nikon1user.blogspot.com/2014/08/birds-in-flight-with-cx-70-300mm-f45-56.html

On the other hand, if size and weight is not an issue, then the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Sports gives you a lot of lens for the money, see a comparison here:

http://nikon1user.blogspot.com/2015/02/cx-vs-dx-for-bird-photography.html

I think these options are better than M4/3 options at the moment, in my opinion. The upcoming Lumix/Leica 100-400mm lens may change this, but I understand it will be rather expensive.

richj20 wrote:

Troels L wrote:

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

Hello Troels,

My situation is a bit different: Several years ago I had use of a Panasonic 100-300mm for a week and had disappointing results, mainly because the lens is slow.

Not wanting to spend the money for the faster tele lenses just for wildlife, I opted for the Panasonic FZ200 25-600mm f/2.8. While I don't photograph in Zoos, it is ideal for similar outdoor conditions encountered in the wild.

California Mule Deer (79mm = 443mm)

Great Egret (108mm = 600mm)

Mojave Rattlesnake

and for travel to south America walking around all day with max 2-3 lenses?

In addition to wildlife, I began using the FZ200 for everyday outdoor photography, including travels (no changing lenses).

Kern River, California

Birthday party

Historic Mission Inn, California

The newer FZ300 has the same focal length/aperture.

Downsides for you could be the smaller sensor and not so good higher ISO results, which are not a concern for me since I don't print larger than 8x10, and continue to use my m4/3 for indoors.

In traveling, I carry along my small GX7 + 20mm f/1.7 prime for indoors. Both cameras fit into a fairly small carrying bag.

I've since opted for the FZ1000 25-400mm f/2.8-4. Slightly slower and a bit shorter in reach, it still suffices for wildlife for me and is a bit more flexible for other situations.

That is my solution for long telephoto with large aperture.

- Richard

I'm not sure why you would think the 100-300 is too slow but the FZ200 isn't. The 100-300 actually has a 1 stop advantage over the FZ200 and FZ300 when both are at 600mm EFL. That's because of the larger sensor area of MFT compared to the tiny 1/2.3" sensor of these compacts.

Even with the FZ1000 and its 1" sensor, when the FZ1000 is at 600mm EFL (using a sensor crop), the 100-300 has more than a 1 stop advantage.

Furthermore, because of the much greater sensor area that the 100-300 is using at 600mm EFL, the images can be expected to be of considerably better quality.

IMO, there's simply no comparison between the telephoto images you'd get out of the 100-300 vs an FZ200.

The FZ1000 is, of course, a more plausible competitor, but it doesn't have the same reach.

What's really needed are relaxed subjects.

E-M1+kit 40-150

Cheers,

Rick

Frasier Krane wrote:

I'm not sure why you would think the 100-300 is too slow but the FZ200 isn't.

With the Panasonic 100-300mm @600mm, I could not hand-hold under 1/500 sec and get good results consistently. 1/500 sec was not feasible under certain lighting conditions when photographing wildlife.

With the Panasonic FZ200 and Panasonic's improved OIS, I could hand-hold down to 1/60 sec @600mm. That combined with the large aperture f/2.8 capability made life easier!

- Richard

Gravi 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?

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.

I would agree 100% with your above comments.  I have been on 4 trips to Tanzania National Parks and Kenya Masai Mara in the last 12 years and taken thousands of pictures with only an effective 75-300mm  range very compact and inexpensive tele lens and been very pleased with the results for most animals but not for birding.  My longer tele less broke after only one accidental fall to carpeted floor while the smaller lenses have survived drops even to concrete.  I used to still shoot both film SLRs and well as DSLRs with tele lens for wildlife  on safaris but the latter results just as good.   I can carry both a small 24-400mm travel cam like TZ series and Pentax Kx with 50-200 tele and std lens all in a small case as small as 8"x 6x"x5" size and have it always with me for travel anywhere.  I also have a Pany GF1 and Oly M43 cams with similar range lenses which would work fine but I prefer use of an optical viewfinder for wildlife photography for speed but newer Oly and Pany M43 cams with higher resolution EVFs would work fine.

For me I prefer a deeper field of focus so my pictures look like I see them so starting with a slower lens not a detriment as usually higher resolution then a very fast lens unless stopped down.  The key is to use a camera with very good high ISO performance so that would can use ISO 1600 and sufficient shutter speed to stop motion.  In fact I take thousands of pictures with my Pentax Kx and 50-200 lens no larger than a standard normal kit lens at my dark HDTV screen and get usable pictures.  So you could even use the inexpensive Oly 40-150 lens for $99 as I do or Pany 45-175 lens at f4-5.6 with a camera like the new Pany GX8 which has good IQ and high resolution and very low noise even at ISO 1600-3200.  M43 tele lenses have an advantage with 2x over 1.5x APSC systems for any reaches over 450mm range for size.

Regards,