Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 2, 2006, 7:59 AM   #21
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 17
Default

This is how Olympus describes the 50-200mm:

"High performance super-telephoto zoom lens. It is equivalent to 100-400mm on a 35mm camera. It is suitable for from medium-telephoto for portrait and snap shots to super-telephoto area for landscape and sport photography. The F2.8-3.5 brightness makes it ideal for low-light situations or fast shutter speeds.
Luxurious three ED lenses are used to greatly reduce chromatic aberrations to give the high image quality with high-resolution and good contrast."

This is indeed a fast, sharp, high performance lens. I think it is the sharpest one I have. However, I've learned that without a tripod or at least a monopod I don't even think about shooting with it unless it is a very sunny day and even then it is iffy to hand hold.

Like Doug said, shooting birds is probably the most demanding type of shooting.

This is a shot with the Oly 50-200mm:
campoly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2006, 8:49 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
D.Ann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,932
Default

Thanks Campoly for the infomation. I would love to see the pic. Donna
D.Ann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2006, 11:33 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 198
Default

And as I said before, that's not enough lens for Birding. 400mm in the 35mm format is inadequate for that purpose. At a bare minimum, that lens needs a 1.4X TC, and it's still probably not long enough for birding.

Most shooters who use 35mm for birding shoot with 500mm or 600mm lenses with 1.4X or 2X TCs on them, or 800mm or 1000mm lenses without TCs.

You really need MORE than 300mm in the 4/3 system, preferably 400-500mm. That equates to at least 600mm in 35mm, and preferably 800-1000mm.

The bird shots on Pbase using the 50-200mm which are not of very large birds were generally shot from a blind, which is the ONLY situation in which this lens will be long enough for birding.

campoly wrote:
Quote:
*This is how Olympus describes the 50-200mm:

"High performance super-telephoto zoom lens. It is equivalent to 100-400mm on a 35mm camera. It is suitable for from medium-telephoto for portrait and snap shots to super-telephoto area for landscape and sport photography.
DougJGreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2006, 11:51 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
-=edge=-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 220
Default

Okay doug, i think you already established that..it's still an excellent lens, and your opinion isn't the end all, and what's so wrong with using a blind or being close or shooting large birds...seriously get over yourself
-=edge=- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2006, 2:52 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 198
Default

Nothing is WRONG with using a blind, anymore than something is wrong with having a team of assistants there to carry your gear and set up your shots for you. The fact is, it requires a level of resources, time, and dedication to the single-minded task of shooting birds that most users simply don't have. The fact is, for normal purposes, someone who already owns the 40-150mm lens and finds it's reach to be inadequate, will not be satisfied by just moving up to a 200mm lens. And any claims to the contrary show that the person making the claim either didn't read the OP's question, or doesn't understand the task at hand.

I am simply trying to keep Donna from following advice which is ill-informed on the specific question that she asked. Which was, quite simply, that GIVEN that the 40-150 was NOT adequate for her birding requirement, would the 50-200 be adequate. The answer is plain and simple, NO. It's not an opinion, it's a FACT, that moving from a 150mm lens to a 200mm lens won't make much of a difference for her. Any claims to the contrary are wrong, bad advice, and ought not to be followed. She will need to AT LEAST double the focal length to get enough of a difference to matter. That means a jump to AT LEAST 300mm. And given that, there are only a few of options in the 4/3 system. And the 50-200 is not one of them.

The 50-200mm lens is a fine lens. But it is not a 300, or a 400, or a 500mm lens. Which is what she will need.
DougJGreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2006, 4:41 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: south west pennsylvania
Posts: 415
Default

i too peacefully agree with doug, although i don't use a blind persay, i hunted many years before replacing it with image capture, right now my focal limit is my 200m sigma, and being able to get within 30 yards of deer size animals i am still not getting frame filling images i would like to get. on birds, i don't even think i would get 50 % of the frame at 10 yards. 200 mm is just not enough if you plan on just shooting birds with the lens.
cshanaberger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2006, 5:11 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
jorgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 200
Default

Dough is absolutely right. I use an old 350mm f5.6 Tamron lens and it is barely enough. However, I can just about do my shots handheld with this lens.

I have a 500mm f8 Tamron but would have to use a tripod; I haven't tried it yet - I don't really have the patience to sit for hours waiting behind a tripod. Maybe a monopod would do?

jorgen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2006, 9:15 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
D.Ann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,932
Default

Jorgen,

Do you use an adapter with that. And manually focus? Unless I get a Katzeye I don't think manual focus is for me...I have been practicing on the e-500 but ...and how do you manually focus quick enough for birds...the ones I see move a the speed of a nanosecond. I have moved some of my feeders outside my den window and plan on hiding behind the curtains with the window open a bit and seeing what I can snag...

Donna
D.Ann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2006, 9:18 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
D.Ann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,932
Default

Campoly, beautiful shot! Donna
D.Ann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2006, 9:19 PM   #30
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 17
Default

Doug,

I get it. For serious in-the-wild birding, the longer the better is the rule.

I included the excerpt from the Olympus description because I thought that Donna should see that even they describe it as a medium telephoto. I know full well that if someone is a serious bird shooter they should go for the longest lens that they could spring for. I'm not trying to push her or anyone else to buy the Oly 50-200mm. I'm only saying that performance wise (sharp, crisp, built quality >weather sealed&lt it is a fine lens that is going to be a bit easier to lug around with out the need for a sherpa with a rolling cart and a massive tripod (because stabilizinga 60mm+ lensis no small task). In the end, only Donna knows how serious about bird shooting she is and only shecan decide what is best for her situation.

I don't know anything aboutmodernSigma lenses. In my 35mm days, I had two different Sigma lens that left a bad taste in my eye.Both developed problems related to build quality and neither were the sharpest knives in the drawer.My best advice tosomeone thinking about investingthis kind of money in a lens is: Take a long hard look at what you really need, check out what pro birderssay aboutit- research, research and research.
campoly is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:48 PM.