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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 6, 2011, 7:36 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
TekiusFanatikus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 385
Default Lens Question/Comparison (Nikon/Oly)

I have a friend that just got a Nikon D90. She also has gotten the following lens:

Nikon ED AF Nikkor 80-200mm f 1:2.8 D Lens (1150$)
http://www.henrys.com/801-NIKON-80-2...-8-AF-DED.aspx

Now, IIRC, the only similar lens on the Olympus side would be:

OLYMPUS 90-250MM 2.8 E DIGITAL LENS (6299$)
http://www.henrys.com/23945-OLYMPUS-...ITAL-LENS.aspx

Sure, the Oly you'll get more reach. But there is a big gap in the price range though. Am I correct in this research?
__________________
________________________
AKA Dan
TekiusFanatikus is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 6, 2011, 7:58 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Steven R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 5,901
Default

Hi Dan. You have to look at the multiplier factor of the system to compare the equivalent coverage.

The factor for the Nikon is 1.5x as it uses the APS-C sensor, while the factor of the Oly 4/3 sensor is 2.0x.

So the 80-200mm Nikon is the approximate equivalent of a 120-300mm regular 35mm reference lens, while the Oly that you mentioned is the equivalent of a 180-500mm reference lens, a much larger magnification than the Nikon.

An Oly such as a 40-150mm is the equivalent of an 80-300mm which would match the high end of the Nikon coverage, and give an even wider range on the low end.
Steven R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2011, 9:01 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
TekiusFanatikus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 385
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven R View Post
An Oly such as a 40-150mm is the equivalent of an 80-300mm which would match the high end of the Nikon coverage, and give an even wider range on the low end.
Yes, but there is quite the difference in apertures, the Nikon being 2.8 throughout the focal range. The 40-150mm starts at f4.0...
__________________
________________________
AKA Dan
TekiusFanatikus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2011, 9:48 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

Hi Dan,

From my perspective, the Olympus 50-200mm SWD f2.8-3.5 is a closer match based on price, performance and roughly similar focal length. Yes, you lose a stop at the long end. But, you make up for that as the 35mm equiv for the Oly is 100-300mm

Hope that helps.

Zig
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2011, 9:56 AM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 34
Default

Well, if you want optics (and image stabilization) that are as good as those of Olympus you're going to want to get the 70-200mm F2.8 which is $2200. And, that lens matches up most closely to the 35-100mm F2 which is about $2400, and on Olympus cameras is the equivalent of 70-200mm. Of course I'm assuming the Nikon camera is full frame, which the D90 isn't. So, if you're going to be difficult then the lens that would actually compare best to the 80-200mm on the D90 would be the 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 which usually goes for $1000. That would be a 100-400mm equivalent as oppossed to the 120-300mm equivalent of the Nikon. At least that is my opinion.
miskur505 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2011, 1:00 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
TekiusFanatikus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 385
Default

Thanks for all the comments. I'm not in a position to jump ship now, but, seriously thinking about it. This all stems from playing around with a D7000 over the weekend. AF is soooo much better
__________________
________________________
AKA Dan
TekiusFanatikus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2011, 1:48 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
TekiusFanatikus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 385
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miskur505 View Post
Well, if you want optics (and image stabilization) that are as good as those of Olympus you're going to want to get the 70-200mm F2.8 which is $2200.
This is an interesting point. Image stabilization is off on my camera. I tend to make sure the shutter speed is good when taking a shot (or not even take the shot). This is another reason why I got the Oly, for the in-body IS. But yet, I don't use it.

I wonder if going with a non-IS body, if in the long run, it would come and bite me?

There are sure gains to be made when considering the AF and ISO performance. How many shots have I missed due to AF hunting? Many! And how many circumstances have I not even bothered to take shots due to the poor ISO performance? Many! Thinking like this, it seems to be clear cut.
__________________
________________________
AKA Dan
TekiusFanatikus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2011, 2:03 PM   #8
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Dan,

image stabilization is like ISO 3200 performance. How important it is depends on the job you are doing. The notion that everyone NEEDS image stabilization all the time is simply not true. Just like not everyone NEEDS quality ISO 3200 performance.

For example, let's take a 70/80-200mm lens. If you're shooting bands in low light, then image stabilization can be extremely beneficial as you may be dealing with 1/125 or slower shutter speeds. If you're shooting basketball then it's not that important because you need faster shutter speeds anyway.

Now, the everyone-needs-image-stabilization crowd will argue "well, if you have it you can always turn it off but you can't turn it on if you don't have it". This is true - EXCEPT nothing is free. In Nikon/Canon, you can end up paying more money for pro grade optics with IS (consumer grade zooms typically have anti-shake and are competitively priced). If you choose a system with the feature built in to the body you give up some of the benefits of the other system. As you noted, the Nikon AF system is great compared to the competition.

So, the only question that matters is whether image stabilization is important to your particular style of photography. And, if it is - what lenses would you be using and would those lenses cost more with IS (e.g. those kit lenses come with anti shake so you don't pay extra for it but as noted the longer pro grade optics with it tend to cost more).
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2011, 2:38 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
TekiusFanatikus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 385
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
For example, let's take a 70/80-200mm lens. If you're shooting bands in low light, then image stabilization can be extremely beneficial as you may be dealing with 1/125 or slower shutter speeds. If you're shooting basketball then it's not that important because you need faster shutter speeds anyway.
With my E-620, I'll bump the ISO until 800 to get a decent shutter speed (above that, noise creeps up fast). I'll up to 1600 if I REALLY want that shot.

However, if I can go up to 3200 ISO, get adequate shutter speed and I can stand the noise, then IS isn't for me? I do realized that if I had IS, I could potentially save on the noise due to lower ISO. Interesting predicament!

But for me, today, as we speak, better AF and ISO peformance would be a boon to my photography for sure.

Need to research E-5 vs D90/D7000 AF performance now
__________________
________________________
AKA Dan
TekiusFanatikus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2011, 3:32 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TekiusFanatikus View Post
But for me, today, as we speak, better AF and ISO peformance would be a boon to my photography for sure.

Need to research E-5 vs D90/D7000 AF performance now

Hi Dan,

Speaking from my own recent experience as well as reading just about everything there is about the E-5, there is no doubt , in my mind, that the AF system found in the D90 is significantly more sophisticated than the one found in my E-30 and I would offer, the E-5.

The important consideration(IMHO) in auto focus is not necessarily how fast the camera can auto focus the lens as much as it's ability to 'lock' onto the subject once AF is achieved. Therein lies the rub.

I've always had little problem focusing a 50-200mm ED lens with the E-30. In fact, the 50-200mm ED lens can focus on a bird or subject that is much closer than the 70-200mm f2.8. It's when the subject starts to move- fly, in the case of a bird that I've had major frustrations being able to have the AF system stay locked on. With my E-30, having the lens stay locked onto the subject is a hit and miss affair. I've read nothing nor heard nothing that inspired confidence in me to upgrade to an E-5.

I will tell you this, in the weeks since I bought the D90+ 70-200mm f2.8, I now no longer, even think about the AF system. It just works as was intended.

I've read a number of reviews of the D7000 and all state that the AF system found in the D7000 is even better than the one found in the D90.

A good read is this one posted by Thom Hogan:


http://bythom.com/nikond7000review.htm


Good luck in whatever you decide.

Zig
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.
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 10:29 AM.