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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 22, 2006, 5:38 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 15
Default

I'm a total rookie with SLR photography and all opf my photographic experience has been with a Kodak DX-6490.

I have this incredible desire to learn about serious photography and bought the E-300 with the 14-54 lens.

The point and shoot is nice with this lens but I'm into learning how to set up shots manually.

Additionally, I shoot alot of outdoor photos and have a need to really reach out and touch my subjects, usually using the full 10X optical, 3x digital and additional 2x lens on the Kodak.

Now I want to have the same reach with the E-300 and don't mind having to set the shot up manually.

I plan on buying an adapter and 500mm lens or greater to get those shots.

Any input or wisdom on what I need or want to get these shots is greatly appreciated.




mksmith713 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 22, 2006, 7:54 PM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 15
Default

Ok, here's what I'm thinking....

Get a whatever to 4/3 adapter....They seem to be available for most lenses.

Then I can get a 80-400mm or somewhere in that neighborhood lens.

Maybe add a tele=convertor when necessary and that should suit my needs as well as being a learning experience.



Am I on the right track or am I way off in my reasoning?
mksmith713 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 22, 2006, 7:56 PM   #3
Member
 
zoegy73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 56
Default

Welcome aboard,


Now you have wider lenses than your old Kodak and brighter too. Your Kodak has longest reach equal to 380 mm (35 format) with brightness F/3.7. Your options depend on your pocket. If your budget so tight, you can buy EZ 40-150/3.5-4.5. This lens is shorter than your Kodak and slightly dimmer, but your E500 has much better ISO performance than your Kodak. Used EZ 40-150 can be found @ USD 150. This lens deserves much better price than that. It has very excellent performance/value.

If your budget isn't tight, Zuiko ED 50-200 will be the option. It's brighter and longer than your Kodak. But the price is USD 800-900 new.

But if your money is unlimited, ED 90-250 waits for you. It is just USD 6000 :-)


Cheers
Sorry for the typo and my poor English
zoegy73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 22, 2006, 9:22 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 15
Default

Thanks for the reply.

Money is limited....for now.

This is a learning experience for me so I expect to learn from mistakes as well.

I'm going to lean towards either a 300mm, 40mm or 500mm lens that's a traditional film lens.

I know that I'll be shooting photos that are 1/2 size than what I'd get with a digital lens, but that's OK. It's all part of learning.

I can pick up a 500mm lens for less than 100 USD and the adapter for around 30 USD.

Not alot of $$$$ but enough to make me think about my selections.

UNtil I can afford the really good stuff, this will have to do.
mksmith713 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 22, 2006, 9:40 PM   #5
Member
 
zoegy73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 56
Default

If you willing to live with 300 EFL lens, buy EZ 40-150. This lens is equal to 80-300 mm lens on any film SLR.

In DSLR world, there is not just the reach of the lens. You must consider contrast and resolution. You can buy 500 mm manual lens at only $100 plus adapter, but if the resolution and contrast is not enough, you will be in deep regret. You can imagine that you already have 8 MP DSLR but you attached lens with only 2 MP resolution, then suddenly your camere not better than 2 MP point and shoot camera.

I had EZ 40-150 (sold to finance 50-200). It was fantastic lens. It's much-much-much better than its competitor at the same price. I had compared it to a lens with USD 1800 price tag and EZ 40-150 still shine.

If you buy crappy lens, you will buy twice or more.
zoegy73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2006, 1:12 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
jorgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 200
Default

What to choose depends on what you want to photograph. If birds, life starts at 400mm [35mm]. The second thing to think about is whether you are willing to use a tripod or not: if not, you can forget using a 500mm [35mm] lens. Thirdly: can you live with manual focus or not.

I have an old 350mm (i.e. 700mm [35mm]) Tamron mirror lens (with a fixed f5.6) which I can just about use handheld. I also have a 500mm/f8 Tamron mirror lens but have never tried it handheld.


Jorgen

jorgen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2006, 9:24 AM   #7
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

mksmith713 wrote:
Quote:
I know that I'll be shooting photos that are 1/2 size than what I'd get with a digital lens, but that's OK. It's all part of learning.

I can pick up a 500mm lens for less than 100 USD and the adapter for around 30 USD.
Huh? That 500mm lens would give you the same angle of view that a 1000mm lens would on a 35mm camera if used on an Olympus DSLR via an adapter (as long as the adapter didn't provide any multiplication).

Whether or not a lens is designed for digital doesn't make any difference what angle of view you get from it. The sensor or film size is what is determining angle of view for any given focal length (and with an Olympus DSLR, you need to multiply the focal length of a lens by 2x to see how the angle of view would compare to a lens on a 35mm camera).

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2006, 1:45 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
jorgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 200
Default

mksmith is probably referring to the size of the sensor compared to a "full-frame" CCD as Canon expresses it for the 1D == "FF is what i am used to from 35mm" [note that 4/3 is full-frame as the sensor size fits the lenses made for it].

jorgen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2006, 3:46 PM   #9
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I'm not so sure, since he mentioned "1/2 size than what I'd get with a digital lens".

Some people seem to think that lenses designed for digital cameras will give a different angle of view compared to lenses designed for 35mm cameras. I see this misconception come up often when users are lens shopping for a new DSLR.

That's not the case. It doesn't make any difference if it's designed specifically for digital or not (with a smaller image circle). On an Olympus DSLR, you still have to multiply the actual focal length of the lens by 2x to see how the angle of view compares to a lens used on a 35mm camera.

Lenses (designed for digital or not) are marked by their actual focal lengths. What changes is the angle of view.

Most manufacturers' lens specs do show angle of view for a lens. But, it represents the angle of view for the camera or sensor size the lens was originally designed for.

If you use a smaller sensor or film size, the angle of view will be narrower (more apparent magnification) for any given focal length.

If you use a larger sensor or film size, the angle of view will be wider (less apparent magnification) for any given focal length.

The only reason to even have a so called crop factor or focal length multiplier is so that users familiar with using lenses on 35mm cameras have a better understanding of how angle of view compares.

If 35mm cameras were not so popular, there would be no need to use them at all.

Since you have the same lenses for use on 35mm or smaller sensors with DSLR models from Nikon, Canon, Olympus and KM, giving angle of view is more difficult (since you don't know the camera the lens will be used on with most designs, although the Olympus 4/3 system is unique).

Nikon started giving Angle of View for DX lenses assuming an APS-C size sensor would be used (since their DX series are similar to Canon's EF-S series lenses, and they will only work on a camera with a sensor smaller than 35mm film).

For example, the Nikon specs for the widest angle of view for the Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ID-IF AF-S DX lens is shown as 76 degrees at a focal length of 18mm (as you would expect when a lens with a focal length of 18mm is used on a DSLR model with a smaller sensor).

If you look at a non-DX lens, the angle of view shown in the specifications for a given focal length assumes it will be used on a 35mm model.For example, the Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5DED-IF AF lens (non DX lens) shows an angle of view in it's specifications of 100 degrees at a focal lenth of 18mm (as you would expect when an 18mm lens is used on a 35mm camera).

The focal length at the widest setting for both lenses is identical. What changes is the angle of view, depending on the size of the sensor/film the lens is being used with.

Since we have lenses that can be used on cameras with more than one sensor or film size, it's tougher to give angle of view for these (although they could give multiple angle of views in the specs, showing it for multiple sensor/film sizes).

If 645 format was more popular than 35mm, we may have be seeing "focal length multipliers" to help medium format users make the transition, so that users could understand that a lens will have more apparent magnification (narrower angle of view) for any given focal length when used on a 35mm camera versus a medium format model. ;-)

In any event, a lens designed for a 35mm camera will behave exactly the same on an Olympus DSLR via an adapter from an angle of view perspective as a digital only lens of the same focal length would (unless you're using an adapter that has optical elements providing more magnification).

So, in either case (lenses designed for Olympus DSLR models, or lenses designed for 35mm cameras used via an adapter), if they are used on an Olympus DSLR, you'd still need to multiply the actual focal length of the lens by 2X to see how the angle of view would compare to a lens on a 35mm camera.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2006, 10:00 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 15
Default

Jorgen, I'd been looking at the mirroed lens and liked what I saw but resd in an article that mirrored lenses couldn't be used with a "Whatever" to 4/3 adapted setup. Is this true or just someone elses opinion?

Mirrored lenses do appear to be much lighter in weight and would relieve me from having to utilize a tripod/monopod, which would be better when out photographing wildlife.


mksmith713 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 11:11 AM.