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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 6, 2008, 9:32 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Scouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Camano Island, WA.
Posts: 2,328
Default

I saw this ad again in the 'outdoor tog' and thought: With a lens like this I can keep working with the e500 while the lens has "Vibration Compensation" or IS. for the telephoto shots.

TAMRON AF 28-300mm. f3.5-6.3 XR Di and VS

Then again in small font below there's the note:

For Canon and Nikon. A little annoying, Huh?!

So my question is does anyone know of a decent lens that works in automatic mode with the 500 in that zoom range and has IS..?
Scouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 6, 2008, 9:44 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Mikefellh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 1,707
Default

Well, you're in luck...there's one from Leica (for FourThirds) that has IS and that exact focal length, 14-150mm. You can read about it here:
http://panasonic.net/pavc/lumix/leic...om_lens03.html

There is a lens list, as well as lots more useful info at:
http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/index.html

Mikefellh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2008, 12:56 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

Scouse wrote:
Quote:
I saw this ad again in the 'outdoor tog' and thought: With a lens like this I can keep working with the e500 while the lens has "Vibration Compensation" or IS. for the telephoto shots.

TAMRON AF 28-300mm. f3.5-6.3 XR Di and VS

Then again in small font below there's the note:

For Canon and Nikon. A little annoying, Huh?!

So my question is does anyone know of a decent lens that works in automatic mode with the 500 in that zoom range and has IS..?

As already mentioned, the 14-150 "Leica", made by Panasonic lens is your one choice, albeit a rather expensive one. When the day comes that you wind up upgrading your E500to an Olympus body with in-camera image stabilization, that part of the lens would become worthless since you don't/cannot use them in tandem....it needs to be one way (lens) or the other (body).

Of course, when that day comes you may eventually decide to buy a Panasonic body instead....assuming of course,they are still making them.

Don't feel too left out about not having access tolenses from makers like Tokina, Tamron, etc....they aren't worth the money to me, and an f6.3 tele zoom works against you anyway in limitingyourself, even with image stabilization, togood light shooting only.



Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2008, 1:52 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Mikefellh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 1,707
Default

This is a good point that deserves repeating:

Greg Chappell wrote:
Quote:
When the day comes that you wind up upgrading your E500to an Olympus body with in-camera image stabilization, that part of the lens would become worthless since you don't/cannot use them in tandem....it needs to be one way (lens) or the other (body).
Just wanted to emphasize that.

Mikefellh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2008, 2:38 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 5
Default

Mikefellh wrote:
Quote:
This is a good point that deserves repeating:

Greg Chappell wrote:
Quote:
When the day comes that you wind up upgrading your E500to an Olympus body with in-camera image stabilization, that part of the lens would become worthless since you don't/cannot use them in tandem....it needs to be one way (lens) or the other (body).
Just wanted to emphasize that.
on lens stabilization like cannon/nikon/panasonic vs in body like olympus/cannon

beyond the stabilization ability... the greatest plus would be the in lens stabilization help out with Long focal length image looking through the view finder...

I would say 200mm+ (400EFL+) it start getting useful, but at 150mm (300EFL) I wasn't noticing the camera shake too much. but shooting with the 70-300mm @ 300mm(600EFL) the camera shake while trying to focus is annoying. So If i can get a 70-300mm with on lens OIS even at 1.5x the price I would buy it in a heart beat
bitslizer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2008, 4:57 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Mikefellh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 1,707
Default

I admit I haven't paid attention to the comparisons because I haven't had the need for IS yet (I've pulled off handheld steady 500mm shots at 1/50th without a problem).

However I think the in-body IS has the advantage when you think that EVERY lens in your collection now has IS, and even your legacy film lenses as well (if you get the firmware upgrade if you're using an older E-510).

Mikefellh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2008, 6:36 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

bitslizer wrote:
Quote:


on lens stabilization like cannon/nikon/panasonic vs in body like olympus/cannon

beyond the stabilization ability... the greatest plus would be the in lens stabilization help out with Long focal length image looking through the view finder...

I would say 200mm+ (400EFL+) it start getting useful, but at 150mm (300EFL) I wasn't noticing the camera shake too much. but shooting with the 70-300mm @ 300mm(600EFL) the camera shake while trying to focus is annoying. So If i can get a 70-300mm with on lens OIS even at 1.5x the price I would buy it in a heart beat
I've seen an article by a guy by the name of Bob Atlins, a huge Canon supporter and often contributor over on Photo.net, where he noted there being little difference in real-worlduse betweenthe two systems...

http://photo.net/equipment/olympus/e...e-stabilizaion

Having used boththe Canon 100-400L (640mm equivalent at the long end on the 10D I once owned) and the 70-300 Zuiko myself, I will say shooting at an equivalent of600mm or moreis a very unforgiving experience with either system, with any unsteadiness capable of ruining images, whether you are using either type of stabilization or not once light levels drop enough that you are shooting with shutter speeds slowerthan 1/250.At that point, it is not a system issue....it's a user's ability to hand-hold steady enoughissue.

Note, many third-party zooms that go as high as 300mm are also f6.3 lenses by that setting, which kind of defeats anything gained by the included image stabilization.

Just because thein-lens stabilization systemsteadies the finder and the sensor-based system does not, don't be lulled into a false sense of security that it's better. I don't doubt more THINK it's better....more use that system, so I would not expect anything less(!), but those who've actuallytested/used both think they are pretty darn close, and having used both myself...I've obtained sharp results with both and blurred images with both. It's easy to think something else is better when you don't have access to it.

A 600mmequivalent lens....Nikon, Canon, Olympus or whatever other brand you'd want to name, is not something someone just picks up and uses effectively like you can the 40-150 kit lens, or even the 50-200 f2.8-3.5 Zuiko, which is both shorter and, maybe more important....faster, meaning higher shutter speeds in the same light, making foreasier hand-holding.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2008, 9:21 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Scouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Camano Island, WA.
Posts: 2,328
Default

Started something here dinnI. That Leica lens seems to be a stunner but it only covers the same focal ground as the 2 kit lenses I have. 14- (45 & 40)- 150.

I've read a lot of pro's and con's about having the IS in camera 7 on the lens. Lots of arguments but no real answer as to which is the best way to run them together.

I'l probably end up getting the 70-300 fairly soon and then working seriously to see how I get the best shots.

Please don't make me go to a baseball game........:-)
I do follow the local High school football. Sorry that's soccer to some of you, I coached most of the kids as juniors. That'd be a fun test.
Scouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2008, 9:35 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Mikefellh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 1,707
Default

Scouse wrote
Quote:
That Leica lens seems to be a stunner but it only covers the same focal ground as the 2 kit lenses I have. 14- (45 & 40)- 150.
Um, you did ask for an IS FourThirds lens that covered the same range as the "TAMRON AF 28-300mm" and that is the Leica 14-150mm as I explained...converting the 14-150mm to 35mm AoV you multiply by two and you get 28-300mm, exactly what you were asking about.

Mikefellh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2008, 10:37 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Scouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Camano Island, WA.
Posts: 2,328
Default

Mikefellh wrote:
Quote:
Scouse wrote
Quote:
That Leica lens seems to be a stunner but it only covers the same focal ground as the 2 kit lenses I have. 14- (45 & 40)- 150.
Um, you did ask for an IS FourThirds lens that covered the same range as the "TAMRON AF 28-300mm" and that is the Leica 14-150mm as I explained...converting the 14-150mm to 35mm AoV you multiply by two and you get 28-300mm, exactly what you were asking about.
Then I guess I'm confused here Mike.

I was asking about the Tamron 28-300of whichI thought I'd get the 35mm eqiv. of 56-600. Close to the Zuiko 70-300 top end (140-600) but with IS. (or VS) Thats the range I'm interested in here.

The leica, as you say is 14-150, (28-300) perhaps I'm missing something here. Is my assumption correct on sizing.
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 6:50 PM.