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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 14, 2007, 8:02 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,534
Default

This weekend I very reluctantly undertook my first wedding shoot for a cousin of mine and put the E1 and 35-100F2/14-54ZD through their paces. I tried extremely hard to persuade her to hire a professional wedding photographer but she insisted that I do the shoot, and hence me getting the 35-100F2. The day started at 7am and finished at 7pm and for 60% of that time I was shooting with the 35-100F2.

1. The 35-100F2 is razor sharp even at F2. I shot in RAW and looking at correctly focused files I'm shocked by the detail and sharpness thats there. The lens is a lot lot sharper than the 14-54ZD.
2. Noise and detail with the 35-100F2 even at the same ISO are much better than the 14-54ZD. You can instantly tell whcih file was taken with the 35-100.
3. Auto white balance - the 35-100 on auto goes for 5150K as daylight while the 14-54ZD sets it as 5300K on the E1. Not sure why it would change but its consistently the above values.
4. To my suprise you can handhold the 35-100F2 for quiet some time. As its a Sikh wedding there's no chance of using a monopod so I was forced to handhold the beastie for the entire ceremony.
5. I found some images not too many that appear to be in focus onthe LCD and on screen until you check at 100% and theyre not in focus at all. Now I'm not sure whether this is a problem with the E1 itself (it did scare the crap out of me through the ceremony when it stopped focusing with the 14-54 and then went on the blink).
6. DOF - shallow DOF at F2 is creamy smooth. Its a cracker of a portrait lens.
7. IS - Not having IS in cam or in the lens is a bit of a pain but you can still get sharp shots handheld at 100mm (200mm 35equiv) at 1/160 shutter speeds

The grooms Pro photographer was shooting with 2 * Canon 5D + L glass (jpeg) at ISO1000 while I was at ISO200/400 so I'm going to be interested to see what he managed to get with the 5D. The day did make me want to have at least a clean ISO800 and I'm glad the E3 is showing quite some promise.

I'll be contacting Oly regards the focusing issue to find out if its a lens or E1 issue and I'll post some shots from the day as soon as I can so you can see for yourselves on what a bad job I've done.

Cheers

Harj

:O :?


HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 15, 2007, 11:17 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
boBBrennan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Arlington, Texas USA
Posts: 3,565
Default

Harj,

............ I am waiting to see how NOT bad a job you did and having followed your postings now for a long while as well as visiting your Smugmug galleries a few times, I am expecting to see some really GOOD photos.

You've been partial to the 35-100/f2 for some time now so I suspect this adventure took only a 'wee' small bit of enticement to make you GO.......... congratulations, I am assuming you bought the lens.........did not rent it, so that we may hear more of your reports on it and see some terrific photos from it.

My ignorance of Sikh causes me, too, to curiously ask why you could not use a monopod, I hope this is not a sensitive question.

Thanks for all your postings of interest regarding Olympus stuff............... and your insightful enthusiasm for it.
____________
boBBrennan

boBBrennan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2007, 3:26 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,534
Default

Hi Bob

Here's some shots using the 35-100. These are the final jpegs converted from RAW and will post 100% crops from the original RAW files as soon as I can. All pics have just 30-50% USM applied which I wasn;t sure of applying at all:

1. Taken at 100mm (200mm equiv) [email protected]/160s




2. F2 @ 1/200s - 100mm



3. [email protected]/200s - 100mm (200mm 35 equiv)



4. F3.5 @1/160s 83mm



5. F2 @1/200s 68mm




6. F2.2 @/160s 50mm (100mm equiv)



I did look into renting or even leasing the lens but its extermely difficult finding many places that do and the one I did find it was just way to spendy to be worth it. My original plan was to go for the new 50-200SWD as I wasn;t sure that I wanted or needed a Top pro lens. However, with the wedding forced my hand as I couldnt wait for the new lens and then the price increase of the new lens went up to 1100GBP, just a few 100 less than the F2 and add to that the slight increase in size and also weight meant that the 35-100F2 was a lot more platable to purchase (my wallets still crying).

Cheers

Harj


HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2007, 8:46 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
boBBrennan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Arlington, Texas USA
Posts: 3,565
Default

Harj,
....................thank you

Well, the photos tell the story.... wonderful results from the hardware and as always I enjoy and learn from your composition.

#'s 1 & 6 are remarkable IMO and do great justice in explaining the lens capability.

#6 is just outstanding for me as a photo, how could the detail be any more defined and color (hue / saturation) is perfect to my liking.

Even the hairpin in #2 shows catch-light at the bend, amazing detail there.

Oh yes, a most beautiful person too! Great first results, exactly as I expected from you.....post more, let us know your Smug..gallery if you should build one.

with appreciation,
___________
boBBrennan
boBBrennan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2007, 8:50 AM   #5
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Great detail and colors Harj, especially for such wide apertures.

I've got to ask.... is the 17-35mm f/2 on your shopping list when it starts shipping? That way, you'd have 17-100mm (same angle of view as 35-200mm on a 35mm camera) covered at f/2. If you can stand the size and weight, f/2 zooms with that kind of coverage would be sweet if you like to shoot in less than optimum lighting.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2007, 5:08 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,534
Default

Hi Bob and Jim

Thanks for the compliments on the shots. I did get a few composition ideas from looking at other wedding photographers online galleires but its amazing how easily you end up getting side tracked when doing a shoot. I'm still working on the files from the wedding and I do have a gallery up but as soon as I finish them for my cousin I'll put up a seperate gallery with what I think would be the best images from the day for everyone to see.

Jim, at the moment I really can't see myself getting the 14-35F2 although I can now see why any photographer, and esp a pro would want one. For now I'm happy with the new lens although I do really wish it had been smaller and lighter.

Here's a shot taken yesterday through a shop window at [email protected] 1/200s. Again the only PP was just 50% USM.



Another from wedding shoot F2 @1/160s ~ISO400




Cheers

Harj

:O :?
HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2007, 7:12 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,534
Default

Here's some 100 % crops of thepics posted above - just converted from RAW to jpeg. No sharpening:













I just hope these just help anybody thinking about getting any of the F2's and was wondering whether they should wait or if they were worth the $$$.

Cheers

Harj


HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2007, 8:21 PM   #8
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

If I had an Oly, I think I'd consider a 17-35mm f/2 a *must have*. lol It would just be too sweet for low light. The 35-100 f/2 is one I just might be able to pass on (since i don't use longer focal lengths a lot). But, it would sure be nice, too.

It's too bad other manufacturers don't make f/2 zooms. Or, perhaps that's a good thing (I might not want to lug lenses that large and heavy around). lol

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2007, 9:00 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
boBBrennan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Arlington, Texas USA
Posts: 3,565
Default

...........following reviews and a bit of time, I am headed for the E3 to add to my E-300. I now have the 14-54ZD and 50-200ZD with the 11-22 on my wish list. Given that my wife is aware of all that, I just cannot find a slot for these lenses to fit, but they certainly can be on the 'wish' list.

I have gone through this sort of thing the past 30+ years with HAM radio equipment too, I know how much FUN wish lists can be...........so, I have a growing wish list to which you two (Harj & Jim) are now partially responsible, hi!

Harj, I find the results of your takes truly GOOD, most pleasant to see and anxiously waiting for more. The crops are terrific representatives of the detail. I am convinced your cousin too, is, will be pleased and most happy to have convinced you to do the photography for their wedding.

thanks again,
__________
boBBrennan
boBBrennan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2007, 9:19 AM   #10
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

pgmCoder wrote:
Quote:
I have gone through this sort of thing the past 30+ years with HAM radio equipment too, I know how much FUN wish lists can be...........so, I have a growing wish list to which you two (Harj & Jim) are now partially responsible, hi!
That used to be a hobby of mine. My first rig was a Heathkit HW-16 CW Transceiver using Crystals (no VFOs were allowed for Novice class licenses when I got into the hobby). When I got my General, I moved to a Heathkit HW-101. But, I still preferred CW on HF bands for the most part. After going into the Military (in communications), it became a job and I let the hobby go "by the wayside".

I did buy a Yaesu FT-747GX (along with a Power Supply, Antenna Tuner and lots of insulators and wire) at a Hamfest some years back, thinking that it might be enjoyable to get back into the hobby again. But, I've never bothered to retake the tests (my license expired many years ago, as I didn't bother to renew it). The gear I bought is sitting on a shelf in a closet (including a new in the box Yaesu FT-747GX that's never even been "fired up"). lol

I think the Ham Radio hobby would be less expensive compared to Photography though (at least in my case, since I don't mind using modest gear and enjoyed sticking mostly to CW on HF bands using home made antennas). lol


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 8:22 AM.