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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 15, 2007, 6:48 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,534
Default

Made a dash during a very late lunch to cameraworld just off Oxford street today to have a look at the 11-22 when I spotted that they had both the 50-200 and the 35-100f2. I had a quick look at all three lenses. This is ,my completely unscientific impressions of the 35-100F2:

(a) smaller than I thought it would be but its still no street shooters lens, and that big 77mm front element just says "helloo there!" . Its quiet a bit smaller in length than the 50-200 fully extended though.
(b) construction and build quality a definite step up even from the 14-54/50-200/11-22 HG glass.
(c) weight, this things heavy but it balances really well with the E1 although I wouldn't like to lug it around for too long where as the 50-200 I think I could do without any problems.
(d) the viewfinder with the lens at F2 is just crystal clear and its very noticeable even when switching between the HG lenses
(e) Fast focusing even on my E1, so I'd love to see how an upgraded lens with SWD would work.
(f) Internal zoom - really like that the lens dosen't extend at all.
(g) Seems tack sharp even at F2 but I didn;t have much choice on what I could take a shot off to test.

Now I'd love to have the 35-100F2 but there's no way I can afford one atm unless I win the lottery or Oly Uk decides its got a huge surplus and they gave them away. However, I'm looking forward to seeing what the new 50-200SWD will be like especially as it looks like a smaller 35-100 and my own opinion from the pics is that the new lens has the same build quality as the pro lens and is smaller than the current model and all combined can only be a good thing. I'm looking forward to mid-Sept which according to Oly UK is teh release date from the 12-60SWD and I;d also assume the 50-200SWD.

Cheers

HarjTT
HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 17, 2007, 12:06 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

HarjTT wrote:
Quote:
(c) weight, this things heavy but it balances really well with the E1 although I wouldn't like to lug it around for too long where as the 50-200 I think I could do without any problems.
Hi, Harj

Thanks foryour impressions - they are very helpful.

The pros I know who use fast, heavy telephotos are resigned to using a monopod. I'm hoping the new E-1 replacement will be good enough at high ISOs that the 50-200F2.8 will get me what I need and thus I don't need to try to scratch up the money (and chiropractor appointments) for that F2 lens. Although internal focusing is always a really nice feature...



Ted



tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2007, 4:10 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

HarjTT wrote:
Quote:
This is my completely unscientific impressions of the 35-100F2:

(a) smaller than I thought it would be but its still no street shooters lens, and that big 77mm front element just says "helloo there!" . Its quiet a bit smaller in length than the 50-200 fully extended though.
(b) construction and build quality a definite step up even from the 14-54/50-200/11-22 HG glass.
(c) weight, this things heavy but it balances really well with the E1 although I wouldn't like to lug it around for too long where as the 50-200 I think I could do without any problems.
(d) the viewfinder with the lens at F2 is just crystal clear and its very noticeable even when switching between the HG lenses
(e) Fast focusing even on my E1, so I'd love to see how an upgraded lens with SWD would work.
(f) Internal zoom - really like that the lens dosen't extend at all.
(g) Seems tack sharp even at F2 but I didn;t have much choice on what I could take a shot off to test.
Hi, Harj

Well I have a series of events at the end of this month shooting action in indoor, very low-light conditions and a friend unexpectedly repaid an old loan. So I figured I need the 35-100f2 because even if the E-3 gets me better high-ISO performance that lens will still be helpful (that's my story and I'm sticking to it), so I purchased the monster.

It's a work of art but when you said that 77mm front element says "Hello there" I figured, how bad could a 77mm lens be?I failed to consider that the lens barrel itself is a *lot* larger than the 77mm front lens element (more like 95mm), and we don't even want to discuss including the 120mm diameter lens hood. Sooooo, I need to borrow one of your sherpas,maybe just a small one, to transport this guy. (Tell the sherpa that it comes with a lens case with its own neck strap - how often do you see that?).

All that said, it seems to be a great lens. By the end of this month I'll know better what it can do, at least shooting at ISO 400 on the E-500. But a few quick shots tell me it's just fine wide open at f/2. That's comforting because in my world, the cheapfast lenses that have poor quality wide open, are not a good investment.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2007, 4:57 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 112
Default

tkurkowski

You should have no problems shooting this lens at f/2 and ISO 400 on the E500. I haveused it to shoot HS soccer at 1600ISO, some examples is this post: http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=82

The only limiting factor for me was its only 100mm far to short for outdoor sports, but works wonderfully for indoor events.

I now have the E510 for the better High ISO performance, maybe one day soon the E-3.





satire23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2007, 5:08 PM   #5
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I can imagine that the 35-100mm f/2 (with the same angle of view as a 70-200mm lens on a 35mm camera) would be a real sweet lens on the new E-3 for indoor sports and more if the AF is fast enough with it.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2007, 10:03 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,534
Default

Hi Ted

Fab news mate ! I've been thinking about the wee monster myself, esp with OLy not set ting an offical date for the new 50-200SWD lens. I'll send the sherpa's over asap !

About the 35-100F2, I know its big and I'm glad its not just me thinking it :| , but with its range, aperture and focusing speed its such a good design, although they shoudl ahve put SWD into it from the get go ! Hows the focusing speed with the E500 and clarity through the OVF ? I'm sure ts going to be pretty rapid

I've been asked to shoot a wedding in mid-Nov and was hoping to have the new SWD lens for that but all indications are that the 50-200SWD might not be available until December and I don;t want to spend the $$$ on the older lens knowing that the new one is just around the corner.

Jim, I think the E3 and 35-100F2 could well be a top notch combo, well at least upto ISO1000 if the samples posted are anything to go by. If you had that combo, and say shot at ISO1000 and at F2, what would the equivalent ISO need to be if you didn;t have the F2 lens , but say had the 50-200SWD f2.8-3.5 ?

Cheers


HarjTT

:O :?
HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2007, 7:39 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

satire23 wrote:
Quote:
You should have no problems shooting this lens at f/2 and ISO 400 on the E500. I haveused it to shoot HS soccer at 1600ISO, some examples is this post: http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=82

The only limiting factor for me was its only 100mm far to short for outdoor sports, but works wonderfully for indoor events.

I now have the E510 for the better High ISO performance, maybe one day soon the E-3.
Nice photos - thanks for the link!

The events I'm shooting are religious ceremonies rather than sports. The good news is that I can get reasonably close so the 200mm (equivalent) is fine. The bad news is that the lighting is very dimso for people moving aboutor gesturing I'm always chasing lens and ISO speed since I need to keep the shutter speed up (although not as fast as if I were shooting sports).

To JimC:

I know I'll beable to pick up a stop and a half at least, with the better ISO performance of the E510 or E-3 over the E500. When you're at the margin like I am, a stop and a half is a lot and I'm just waiting to see how the E-3 shakes out before I make a choice. Sadly, when you're in to a lot of money for fast lenses the price difference between the E510 body and the E3 body doesn't seem so expensive <grin>.

Ted


tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2007, 8:13 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

HarjTT wrote:
Quote:
Hows the focusing speed with the E500 and clarity through the OVF ? I'm sure ts going to be pretty rapid

Jim, I think the E3 and 35-100F2 could well be a top notch combo, well at least upto ISO1000 if the samples posted are anything to go by. If you had that combo, and say shot at ISO1000 and at F2, what would the equivalent ISO need to be if you didn;t have the F2 lens , but say had the 50-200SWD f2.8-3.5 ?
Hi, Harj

The AF speed in normal lighting is good, and the larger aperture makes low-light AF better as well.

Regarding your question about ISO speeds, this all relates to changing the amount of light received by the sensor, by factors of 2. Going from f/2 to f/2.8 is one f-stop (one factor of 2), so to get the same exposure you need tohalve the shutter speed or double the ISO.Specifically for the 50-200SWD f2.8-3.5 versus an f/2 lens, at the same shutter speed you'd need to go from ISO 1000 to ISO 2000 if you'reat the f/2.8 end, and from ISO1000 to ISO3000 or thereabouts if you're at the f/3.5 end. Either of those options are going to be significantly more noisyeven with the better high-ISO performance of the newer cameras. Even the pros I know, using Full-Frame cameras,try hardnot to shoot above ISO1600 so their telephoto lenses are enormous.

Sooo, that's why I figure I'll be using the 35-100F2 even with an E510 or E3 body. The best way to save money here, is to avoid indoor low-light imaging...

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2007, 8:15 AM   #9
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

HarjTT wrote:
Quote:
Jim, I think the E3 and 35-100F2 could well be a top notch combo, well at least upto ISO1000 if the samples posted are anything to go by. If you had that combo, and say shot at ISO1000 and at F2, what would the equivalent ISO need to be if you didn;t have the F2 lens , but say had the 50-200SWD f2.8-3.5 ?
To to get the same shutter speeds you'd have at ISO 1000 and f/2, you'd have to shoot at ISO 2000 to 3000 with an f/2.8-3.5 lens (f/2 is two to three times as bright as an f/2.8-3.5 zoom, depending on how much you zoom in).

But, for indoor sports (basketball, volleyball), ISO 1000 and f/2 won't cut it in many high school gyms if you want a high percentage of keepers. Your shutter speeds wouldn't be fast enough (you want to target around 1/500 second or faster if possible). So, you'll probably need to go ISO 1600 at f/2 in many gyms (or even higher ISO speeds in some).

I'm not a sports shooter, but it's not uncommon to see sports shooters using something like an 85mm f/1.8 at ISO 1600 to ISO 3200 to keep shutter speeds up. The only indoor sports I've taken photos at was a basketball game earlier in the year (using my KM Maxxum 5D with a Minolta 100mm f/2 and 135mm f/2.8 ).

I was able to shoot at ISO 1600 with my 100mm f/2. But, with a 135mm f/2.8, I had to use ISO 3200 to increase my percentage of keepers without blur.

I did get a few keepers at ISO 1600 and f/2.8, depending on direction/speed of movement. But, ISO 3200 worked better trying to use f/2.8 (my shutter speeds were dropping down to around 1/250 second or so trying to shoot at ISO 1600 and f/2.8 in the gym I was in, which meant a lot of blur in the images at times).

College gyms are probably better lit though.

I noticed some recent shots from JohnG where he used an f/2.8 zoom indoors, and he was shooting at ISO 6400 with a Canon 1D Mark III (although he used an 85mm shooting at ISO 2000 and f/2 at the same game). You'll see lots of comments from John that f/2.8 and ISO 1600 is just not bright enough for indoor sports (otherwise, you'll get a lot of motion blur), and he shoots a lot of that kind of thing. Here is one thread where he was using ISO 6400 with an f/2.8 zoom for some of the images:

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=82
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2007, 8:43 AM   #10
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

My thought is that if the E-3 is clean enough at ISO 1600, the 35-100mm f/2 would be a nice combo to use for that kind of thing though. That way, you'd have more flexibility for framing compared to primes, and you'd also have a bit better depth of field compared to cameras with a larger APS-C size sensor shooting at f/2, if the E-3 Autofocus can keep up with the action using that lens.
JimC 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 12:30 PM.