Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus Micro Four Thirds

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 17, 2012, 5:41 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

thanks tulio,

here are some shots with a different 300mm tamron f5.6, the CT-300 model. It is very light weight and fairly small for a 300mm


Ct-300 tamron by ramcewan, on Flickr


f5.6

male woodpecker 20120317 f5.6 by ramcewan, on Flickr

f8

male woodpecker 20120317 f8 by ramcewan, on Flickr
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2012, 8:06 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Those shots are OK. Colors look washed out and sharpness is not nearly as good as the shot taken with the 200mm.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2012, 9:07 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Those shots are OK. Colors look washed out and sharpness is not nearly as good as the shot taken with the 200mm.
I am wondering if maybe a 2x teleconverter plus a solid 200mm would be a better option than the 300mm prime?


one more 300mm to try out still... the nikon 300mm f4.5 AI-S... just waiting on the adapter. that is the most modern and expensive of the 300mm primes I am trying, hopefully it will be even better than this latest Tamron....
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32

Last edited by ramcewan; Mar 17, 2012 at 9:10 PM.
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2012, 9:52 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default chickadee

better lighting today plus a little pp in olympus viewer


chickadee_20120318_tamron_ct300 by ramcewan, on Flickr
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2012, 12:57 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
James Emory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 2,378
Default

The Nikon glass should be noticeably better in IQ and sharpness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
I am wondering if maybe a 2x teleconverter plus a solid 200mm would be a better option than the 300mm prime?


one more 300mm to try out still... the nikon 300mm f4.5 AI-S... just waiting on the adapter. that is the most modern and expensive of the 300mm primes I am trying, hopefully it will be even better than this latest Tamron....
__________________
Olympus OMD-M5, HLG6 grip, Olympus 4/3rd 35mm macro lens, Panny/Leica 25mm, f1.4, Olympus 17mm, Canon Pro 9000 Mk II Printer, Canon MP990 Printer, Slik U212 Tripod, Manfrotto monopod, MMF3 converter.
James Emory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2012, 1:47 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Totally looking forward to trying the nikon out. In the meantime i am quite happy with this ct-300 version of the tamron 300mm, given i paid $33 for it and it is so much smaller and lighter than the nikon i can even use it handheld. If the nikon is good i think i will keep both, the nikon for tripod shots and the tamron for others.
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2012, 6:02 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

to give an idea of the size differences between the three 300mm primes I took this shot last night
from left to right
tamron adapt-a-matic 670Au 300mm f5.6, tamron CT-300 (f-series) 300mm f5.6, nikon 300mm f4.5 AI-S


300mm prime comparison by ramcewan, on Flickr
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2012, 7:21 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Well, personally it does not do me much good to use a lens that I paid $33 if IQ is poor. I don't want to sound critical but the last bird shot is really not good (IMO). The food is way overblown and the bird is very soft. Are you shooting with a tripod? At 600mm (300x2), unless you can set the shutter speed to 1/1000 and keep the ISO below 400, images will look bad with most MF 300mm lenses. The Nikon might perform better but you'll still need a tripod. As for tele-converters, most 2x are bad (the Oly is an exception but still not that great). Keep it at 1.5x. I'm not a believer that shooting at 150mm and then cropping 100% is exactly the same as shooting at 300mm (well, theoretically it may be but in reality, a good 300mm lens should outperform a good 150mm with a 100% crop). However, when it comes to those 300mm MF lenses, I believe the Lumix 45-200mm + crop will give you a better image. I'm sure if you go on the internet and look for shots taken with 300mm MF lenses you'll find some real good stuff. The question is, how many keepers do those people have when shooting with those lenses? If I can only select half dozen shots out of 1000 to post on the internet, that's not good.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2012, 9:58 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: oakville, on
Posts: 491
Default

While I agree with Tullio for the most part (poor IQ is poor IQ) and yes, a new lens designed for the 4/3s, m4/3s will perform better, I would not rule out the old glass completely. It has taken a while but I am now getting much better results with a Micro Nikkor 55mm. Was really disappointed at first. Now it often outshines the kit lens. Plus it is a true macro shooting 1:1 to boot.
KulaCube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2012, 5:19 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

tullio - I think I went over board on the last bird shot in pp trying to fix up a shot that wasn't that good, I think the shots of the woodpecker were way better.

I would never agree that 150mm and then 100% crop is the same as a 300mm, maybe in field of view, but that is it, the difference is level of magnification. I can stand 12-14 feet away with a 300mm and get the same shot as I could with the 200mm 6-7 feet closer, it is not a matter of just field of view. A teleconverter adds magnification, cropping does not.
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32

Last edited by ramcewan; Mar 20, 2012 at 5:21 AM.
ramcewan 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 9:52 PM.