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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 12, 2008, 7:16 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

abhigupta83 wrote:
Quote:
I am trying to compare 50-200 with 35-100 in quality.
Hi Abhi

Well I'm not a lens expert but I'd say that the 35-100 is a superb lens but heavy and depending on what you want to image, its focal range is a whole lot shorter than the 50-200. This became very evident to me today - I was out at the Zoo to test out the 35-100 with the E3.200mm (equivalent) isn't long enough to capture animals unless they are close, and the 35-100 got pretty heavy as I hiked all over the place. Iwished I had brought the 50-200. I use the 35-100 for low-light indoor photography but in outdoors I'll mostlybe using the 50-200 (which is an excellent lens also).

Here's one of the photos I took today, with the 35-100, which had to be very heavily cropped because of the (very welcome) distance between me and the subject (who oddly didn't seem interested in signing a model release).

Ted






Attached Images
 
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2008, 1:40 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Scouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Camano Island, WA.
Posts: 2,328
Default




You're both too modest. Comparatively speaking...........I'd say that you 2 are more experienced with these lenses than I am.....:idea:

Nice pussy cat Ted, didn't lose much quality at all with the crop.
Amazing how those stripes give the eyes trouble, nice camouflage.
Scouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2008, 6:18 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Scouse wrote:
Quote:
Nice pussy cat Ted, didn't lose much quality at all with the crop.
Amazing how those stripes give the eyes trouble, nice camouflage.
Hi, Scouse

Thanks, butI should have noted that I think the photo's exposure and focusing would have been better if the E3 had just seen the cat rather than a much larger area with a larger range of luminance and depth, so I think it would have been better with the 50-200.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2008, 6:36 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 824
Default

abhigupta83 wrote:
Quote:
I am trying to compare 50-200 with 35-100 in quality. Is it worth spending fortune over this giant...? Is Olympus planning to come up with its SWD version ? Couple of months back this beauty was selling around 1800 $ in US, Now nothing below 2200$, any particular reasons behind it?
I would like to get the 35-100, too, but I view it as a rather specialized lens (portraits and small dark venue stage/band type photography); the price is of course tue to that last stop or so of brightness--and it is constant brightness across the zoom range--but that doesn't necessarily make it the best for all intermediate zoom purposes. Judging from your landscape photographs, I would think on the contrary an 11-22 would be a logical step up.

OTOH, if you are really needing more telephoto reach, then either the 40-150 or 50-200 would be best IMO. The 40-150 is really an underrated lens with fine IQ. And the 50-200 has both great IQ and better build (splashproof, although that's not necessarily relevant unless you also have a splashproof body). Both are easier to afford and learn on (and carry) than the 35-100.


Norm in Fujino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2008, 12:03 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Scouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Camano Island, WA.
Posts: 2,328
Default

tkurkowski wrote:
Quote:
Scouse wrote:
Quote:
Nice pussy cat Ted, didn't lose much quality at all with the crop.
Amazing how those stripes give the eyes trouble, nice camouflage.
Hi, Scouse

Thanks, butI should have noted that I think the photo's exposure and focusing would have been better if the E3 had just seen the cat rather than a much larger area with a larger range of luminance and depth, so I think it would have been better with the 50-200.

Ted
Yeh, I see what you mean. That's why the "cammo" effect looks so good, plus you have a whole light spectrum from the sunlit face to the darker rear. The longer lens would def. been the way to go.

What are both your thoughts on the stabilizer with regard to the longer lenses.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm
The 40-150 is really an underrated lens with fine IQ. And the 50-200 has both great IQ and better build (splashproof, although that's not necessarily relevant unless you also have a splashproof body). Both are easier to afford and learn on (and carry) than the 35-100.
[/quote]

Got to agree on that last sentence, I'm enjoying working with the 40-150. I'll have to get something soon with a slightly longer reach though.

Ken


Scouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 14, 2008, 9:46 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Scouse wrote:
Quote:
What are both your thoughts on the stabilizer with regard to the longer lenses.
IS is very difficult to objectively evaluate - how do you create a reproduceable variable low-frequency vibration? From what I can tell, the professional reviewers use human beings - they seem to get a number of photographers to take a lot of photos with IS on and off, look at the results, and form an educated opinion.

For my Leica 14-50mm on the E500, the Leica's in-lens IS definitely helps. The E3's in-body IS seems to work well with the Leica (with it's IS turned off).It's harder for me to say about the E3 with the 35-100mm F2 because so far I've been using it with a monopod. But with a lighter lens than the 35-100, like the 50-200 handheld, I'd definitely expect the in-body IS to be very helpful.The 50-200 is a slower lens so shutter speeds will be slower except in bright direct sunlight (which is rarely thelighting you really want, except maybe for sports...).

Ted

[/quote]

tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 14, 2008, 10:13 AM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6
Default

Hi Ted,

Thanks for sharing your experience with 35-100. After reading your and Norm's view, I am finding myself more and more inclined towards 50-200 mm.

Tiger looks decently sharp even after crop.

This week I visited US for an official trip. I was welcomed with heavy snow (I my terms... I am finding myself freezing everywhere. :roll as I have rarely seen this much of snow in my part of the world.... Here is one picture I clicked of a pond half frozen from window..
Attached Images
 
abhigupta83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2008, 11:32 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

tkurkowski wrote:
Quote:
Scouse wrote:
Quote:
What are both your thoughts on the stabilizer with regard to the longer lenses.
IS is very difficult to objectively evaluate - how do you create a reproduceable variable low-frequency vibration? From what I can tell, the professional reviewers use human beings - they seem to get a number of photographers to take a lot of photos with IS on and off, look at the results, and form an educated opinion.
Hi to all,

I've enjoyed reading this forum for sometime now and have learned quite a lot form all the participants but generally have tried to stay out of the discussions.

Sorry for jumping intothis discussion regarding lensesbut both Scouse and TKurkowski touched on a subject near and dear to my heart- Image Stabilization.

As someone who has Parkinson's, I reproduce "variable vibration" wether I want to or not-(not sure about the frequency ) My right hand has a tremor that gives me fits making taking a really sharp image difficult without the use of a tripod.

I've used an E-500 with 3 different lenses for about a year and was never really happy with the IQ-(not the camera's fault) because of the slight blur i would get.

When the E-510 equipped with a built in IS system was released I bought one as soon as I got the funds. For me, this camera (with IS) has really made a world of difference. Now, instead of always looking to buy the next or best lens out there, I'm enjoying taking photos with the lenses that I have and am surprised by the IQ of the kit 40-150mm lens.

For anyone interested, the following is a link to test results that I took yesterday at my desk using a 50mm macro and 40-150mm lens. There are 2 pairs of photos.. One has the IS enabled, while the other does not. I realize that this is a totally unscientific test. But it's real world to me since I took them sitting down holding the camera as I normally would and without the aid of a monopod or tripod. The images have not been Post Processed- just reduced in size. http://www.pbase.com/zig123/inbox

For those contemplating making a significant lens purchase in the near future, you just might want to go to your local camera shop with one of your lenses, try theE-510 and compare the results. You might just be pleasantly surprised.

best regards

Zig






















[/quote]

zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2008, 12:08 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

zig-123 wrote:
Quote:
When the E-510 equipped with a built in IS system was released I bought one as soon as I got the funds. For me, this camera (with IS) has really made a world of difference. Now, instead of always looking to buy the next or best lens out there, I'm enjoying taking photos with the lenses that I have and am surprised by the IQ of the kit 40-150mm lens.
[/quote]Hi, Zig

It's great that the IS helps you! And your "unscientific" test is no less valid than any camera reviewer's - as far as I can tell you did exactly what they do - try IS and see what happens.

Ted



tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2008, 3:00 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Scouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Camano Island, WA.
Posts: 2,328
Default

zig-123 wrote:
Quote:
tkurkowski wrote:
Quote:
Scouse wrote:
Quote:
What are both your thoughts on the stabilizer with regard to the longer lenses.
IS is very difficult to objectively evaluate - how do you create a reproduceable variable low-frequency vibration? From what I can tell, the professional reviewers use human beings - they seem to get a number of photographers to take a lot of photos with IS on and off, look at the results, and form an educated opinion.
Hi to all,

I've enjoyed reading this forum for sometime now and have learned quite a lot form all the participants but generally have tried to stay out of the discussions.

Sorry for jumping intothis discussion regarding lensesbut both Scouse and TKurkowski touched on a subject near and dear to my heart- Image Stabilization.

As someone who has Parkinson's, I reproduce "variable vibration" wether I want to or not-(not sure about the frequency ) My right hand has a tremor that gives me fits making taking a really sharp image difficult without the use of a tripod.

I've used an E-500 with 3 different lenses for about a year and was never really happy with the IQ-(not the camera's fault) because of the slight blur i would get.

When the E-510 equipped with a built in IS system was released I bought one as soon as I got the funds. For me, this camera (with IS) has really made a world of difference. Now, instead of always looking to buy the next or best lens out there, I'm enjoying taking photos with the lenses that I have and am surprised by the IQ of the kit 40-150mm lens.

For anyone interested, the following is a link to test results that I took yesterday at my desk using a 50mm macro and 40-150mm lens. There are 2 pairs of photos.. One has the IS enabled, while the other does not. I realize that this is a totally unscientific test. But it's real world to me since I took them sitting down holding the camera as I normally would and without the aid of a monopod or tripod. The images have not been Post Processed- just reduced in size. http://www.pbase.com/zig123/inbox

For those contemplating making a significant lens purchase in the near future, you just might want to go to your local camera shop with one of your lenses, try theE-510 and compare the results. You might just be pleasantly surprised.

best regards

Zig
Zig, thanks for your post. I can't think of a more practical 'test' of IS.

I'm a prettystable platform at 6'2" and 232# (16.5 stone...and not an ounce of fat :roll and was a really good rifle marksman. BUT I still get camera shake at longer focal lengths. Oh they look alright, that is until you push the magnification a little and it starts to show.

I'm going to continue playing with my 500 until I can make the leap to the E3, hopefully a little later in the year.

Congratulations on being able to persue and enjoy this great hobby Zig, don't be a stranger.

Ken
[/quote]

Scouse 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 12:46 AM.