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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 25, 2009, 5:20 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tkurkowski View Post

I thought you'd really be using the Bigma a lot for bird photos. Are you sure you won't use it in the future? As much as you like long-distance shooting I'm surprised you wouldn't keep it. Or is it just not as good a lens as you had hoped for?

Ted
Hi Ted,

Actually, the lens I have is the 135-400mm. The 'Bigma' is a 50-500mm.
Actually, the 135-400mm is a really good lens, overall. If I didn't have the 50-200mm ED ZD lens, I wouldn't think of selling it.

Using the 50-200mm ED with the EC-14 I have effectively a maximum focal length of 280mm. The sharpness of the 50-200mm allows me to crop the image more so, I end up with a photo about the same as if I'd used the 135-400mm.

I keep thinking about getting the Sigma 50-500mm. But then I see the results that people have been able to get with the 50-200mm & EC-20 telecon and think that may be the way to go.

Of course, there's always the 300mm 2.8 ED lens to consider.

Zig
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2009, 7:14 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zig-123 View Post

Of course, there's always the 300mm 2.8 ED lens to consider.

Zig
Hah! We'd need to sell a bunch of lenses to get that one!
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2009, 8:54 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
hiro1963's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 262
Default

That's awesome Zig! A big congrats!

- Hiro
hiro1963 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2009, 8:58 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
TekiusFanatikus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 385
Default

I'm trying to quantify the benefits of getting this sort of lens to replace my kit 14-42mm...

I know about having more light in (2.8 vs 3.5), but what sort of benefits would the SWD bring to the table?

-I'm interested at the gain in focal length and wide angle capabilities
-I'm still struggling in low light conditions, thinking this could help me out
TekiusFanatikus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2009, 10:26 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TekiusFanatikus View Post
I'm trying to quantify the benefits of getting this sort of lens to replace my kit 14-42mm...

I know about having more light in (2.8 vs 3.5), but what sort of benefits would the SWD bring to the table?

-I'm interested at the gain in focal length and wide angle capabilities
-I'm still struggling in low light conditions, thinking this could help me out
To be honest, the kit lenses are so small and the focus travel is so short, they are not that slow to focus compared to SWD lenses. The SWD lenses are very fast focussing and silent, but I do not believe the difference between the focus speed of the 14-42 kit lenses and the 12-60 SWD is like night and day.

The main differences that make the 12-60 stand out for me is the 5x zoom vs. the 3x zoom, and the fact it's as wide as 12mm and goes to 60mm, eliminating many lens changes. Being 3/4 stop (wide end) to 1 full stop (long end) faster does not hurt either.

Another advantage is the build quality, which also leads to the first disadvantage of the 12-60 vs. the 14-42....the 12-60 is built like a tank and is big and heavy compared to the kit lens. It's noticeably bigger than even the original 14-54 f2.8-3.5. You definitely commit to carrying around a substantially heavier outfit with the SWD lenses.

Last edited by Greg Chappell; Sep 25, 2009 at 11:24 AM.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2009, 12:36 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TekiusFanatikus View Post

-I'm still struggling in low light conditions, thinking this could help me out
Are you using the "diamond" autofocus pattern? Most folks find it the best especially in low light.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2009, 1:31 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
TekiusFanatikus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 385
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tkurkowski View Post
Are you using the "diamond" autofocus pattern? Most folks find it the best especially in low light.

Ted
If this is having all AF points illuminated, I'm only starting to use this feature. (read: I will be at the next opportunity)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Chappell View Post
Another advantage is the build quality, which also leads to the first disadvantage of the 12-60 vs. the 14-42....the 12-60 is built like a tank and is big and heavy compared to the kit lens. It's noticeably bigger than even the original 14-54 f2.8-3.5. You definitely commit to carrying around a substantially heavier outfit with the SWD lenses.
Heh, it'll never be nearly as heavy in my hands than it will be on my wallet!

It's a bit frustrating having hit this "wall". I have identified a cheap macro lens, that I think I can get (every other lens, is in the $800 and up, per lens range). So far, I have the 14-42mm and the 70-300mm. I hadn't thought about this before buying this SLR. Sigh.

I think the next step would be to look into lighting, such as the Strobist blog that one posted in another thread.

Until then, one lottery ticket at a time - LOL!
TekiusFanatikus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2009, 1:37 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TekiusFanatikus View Post
I'm trying to quantify the benefits of getting this sort of lens to replace my kit 14-42mm...

I know about having more light in (2.8 vs 3.5), but what sort of benefits would the SWD bring to the table?

-I'm interested at the gain in focal length and wide angle capabilities
-I'm still struggling in low light conditions, thinking this could help me out
In addition to what Greg and Ted have already provided you in the way of good tips and information, I would add the following:

If low light is your primary concern, then you may want to consider adding an Fl-36 flash unit to your kit. as a lw cost solution to getting sharper images with the lens you have. Used, the FL-36 sells for around 125bucks.

If utilizing a flash is not practical, then the 14-54mm 2.8-3.5 ZD Lens is a noticable improvement over the 14-42mm in terms of performance, sharpness, speed, build quality. I had the 14-54mm 2.8-3.5 version I lens on my camera probably 80% of the time and have always been satisfied with it's image quality. It still is considered as one of the best lens Oly makes in terms of price to performance. You can pick up a used one fairly regularly for around 350bucks. And, if I hadn't sold my 14-54mm lens as part of a deal to sell off an E-510, I'd still have it and be quite happy.

I only mention the above as possible alternatives since the 12-60mm SWD is a bit pricey. It probably sells for a bit more than what you paid for the E-620 w14-42mm lens kit.

Having said all that, I've had a chance to play a little with this 12-60mm and it is one fine lens..

I plan on posting a few quick pics if and when PBase.com ever comes back on line.

Zig
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2009, 2:43 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
TekiusFanatikus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 385
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zig-123 View Post
If low light is your primary concern, then you may want to consider adding an Fl-36 flash unit to your kit. as a lw cost solution to getting sharper images with the lens you have. Used, the FL-36 sells for around 125bucks.
<noob alert/>

I've never liked using a flash only for the fact that in low light, it tends to produce shadows, red eyes and messes with the original idea in mind. However, in low light, shutter speed tends to be low and produce blur - obviously. Feels like I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place.

However, after reading the Strobist blog, it seems that I simply have to learn how to use it. I just wonder how all of this would affect taking pictures of my children casually playing throughout the house. They don't often hang around for too long giving me time to prop up flashes around them.

Plus, the 12-60mm would cover a gap in my focal range (ie. from 42mm to 70mm).
TekiusFanatikus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2009, 4:12 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,157
Default

Hi,

Chasing after kids with a camera armed with a flash is generally a frustrating experience at best. Quite frankly, I've had my best luck taking action shots of the grandkids outdoors in full sun. The faster lens will get you a lot closer to where you want to be.

Not to complicate the situation further, but I use the 50-200mm ED lens a lot when I'm trying to shoot photos of the grandkids in action. It's a fast lens 2.8-3.5 and focus very quickly on the newer generation Olys i.e. E-620 and E-30. The 50-200 focal range gives you plenty of opportunities to zoom in on the kiddies. Granted, here again, I'm talking about outdoor sports shots. But I've also had good success at home using this lens.
BTW, the 50-200mm and the 12-60mm are about the same in price.


Good luck with what ever you decide
zig-123 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 3:49 PM.