« Pogue's Teaser: Mystery Solved | Main | Shiny New Apples »

Tuesday, 12 June 2012

Comments

The 40-150, which I have, is surprisingly good for a lens that small, cheap, and light. The 100-300 is on my faunch list, but I keep reminding myself that the EPL-2 is my secondary, small, camera, not something I'm trying to equip to be my general camera. The 45-200, which Ctein has, seems to be very good too.

Ctein wrote an article about the Samyung 85mm f1.4 for four thirds. That is cheap and would have been just the ticket.

If you don't use it once a week, it's better to rent it. Because it's hard to rent M43, maybe the best solution would have been to rent a D700 with either a 80-200 f/2.8 or a 70-200 f/2.8.

Mike, Solving your problem by using adapters and legacy telephoto lenses, either fixed or zoom, will introduce another set of problems that will insure the lens gathers dust on your shelves. Picture yourself trying to manually focus a 100/300 lens in the dim indoor light of the auditorium while hand holding and trying to capture a slowly moving subject. Your hands would have to be steadier than most of us middle aged coffee drinkers and your ISO would be extremely high as most of these lenses are slow (or huge in the f2.8 models). This highly touted practice of using legacy lenses on 4/3rd or Nex bodies is fine in the wide angle to normal focal lengths or on a tripod and is attractive to folks that already own the old lenses. For your purposes you would be happier with a modern system lens such as the one you have chosen, the Lumix 100/300, because you gain the advantage of auto focus and the image stabilization would make life easier, giving you a realistic 2 stop advantage. Of course I understand the cost factor we all deal with but personally I would rather hit the old Top Ramen, Kraft Mac/Cheese routine and salt away the bucks for the new, more useful lens. In my case I bought the two primes (1.4 24mm Zeiss and the 50mm 1.8 Sony) for my new Nex7 but also bit the bullet for the Sony 18/200 zoom which I like more each time I use it. I am using it a lot due to the compact size as compared to my too heavy Canon zooms.

The need/requirement for the loooong
lens has past, as much as a phart.

So put the money you would have spent towards that so important future mortgage.

Bu2 the house you want, then purchase the lens as a welcome, Carter.

Go ahead, Mike. Make the leap and buy, borrow or rent a longer lens-prime or zoom. Use it as your primary lens for a while. Experiment. Note the differences in perspective, depth of focus, interaction with the subject, etc. etc. Get out of your comfort zone.If you try it, you may like it. And you may even decide its worth keeping.

Mike, looking at your photo, you really needed a wider lens to include the front of the audience (gr).

Your photo is fine; it's a memory shot; with the necessary constraints imposed by the venue and occasion it was never going to be art.

I realised a few decades ago that magazines (and, now, the internet) feed the erroneous idea that we hobby photographers ought to be equipped for whatever comes, be it a photojournalist assignment or an African safari. As if, then I could crack it as a real photographer.

"I have a project in mind that will require what will be my very longest lens- just ordered a 40mm Voigtlander for my FM3A that I intend to use for portraits."

Stan,
That's something for me to look forward to. I've always enjoyed your photography but never shared your affection for super-wide lenses. I hope you can learn to deal with the "near telephoto" 40.

Mike

In some ten or twenty years the girl will be happy with this nice photo showing her graduation - instead of showing just her in a portrait that could have been taken anywhere.

I also like the flag and the smiling man on the right side.

I did the same thing just last week, before the transit of Venus. All excited, I was considering buying a Nikon V1 and a 70–300 mm VR. Happily, I've never owned a lens longer than 105 mm, and rarely wanted one, the occasional sports event and wildlife encounter being the exception. But I knew that thousands of people would be making better pictures of the transit than I would, and I didn't have time to get the gear, anyway. Am I glad I didn't make a rash purchase? Yes, I am.

What Geoff said.

Heh! Wait-a-minute, there, Mr. Camp! You beat me to it!

%^)

Dave

Now if you were shooting on 4x5 you could have just cropped down.. :P

Chicks dig the long lens.

Ctein,

On the quality of the 45-200 I do agree....it's a great lens (my dad owns one and I have used it). Personally I shoot with an old 80-200 F 4.0 (build 1976) that I bought of the net for 80 dollars.....now it does not have mega OIS....but in goed light....hell Nikon sure made some fine glass back then....

http://blogger.xs4all.nl/stomoxys/archive/2012/05/06/759150.aspx

Well they said that lens replaced the prime's in it's range and it still does. This baby is shot in april.....shuttertime 1/2500 by iso 200.....at F4.0 for a 400 mm....not bad figures at all and by hand.

Greetings, Ed

Greetings, Ed

Wow! This is the one-stop page of thoughtful lens suggestions from pros that point-n-shooters upgrading to mirrorless ILC's can mine profitably!

Nobody has suggested this yet... wait, there's a second page!... Right, this will be the first* mention here...

How about Panasonic G X Vario PZ 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 Power O.I.S. with its dedicated 2x (optical) tele conversion lens DMW-GTC1. This "pancake" zoom would look nice on your E-M5 (you can turn off the Pana's in-lens stabilization if it's not up to scratch). The Pana tele-converter is available at Adorama for 130. This small "X-series" combo would cost much less (530) than the M.Zuiko 75mm prime (900).

Here's a pic of the Panasonic wide zoom with the tele conversion lens attached.

Can't believe I just dared to "sell coal to Newcastle"!

Hmmm... Since none of the TOP 100++ even mentioned this lens at all... Maybe I shouldn't consider buying this!?!

Anyway, much thanks to you, Mike, and to the TOP 100 (and counting)!

*Several TOP readers did mention adapted zooms and/or tele-converter combos. Less expensive but bulkier, also no AF. Hmmm... could this mean that I'm (justifiably) on the right track!-)


You're lucky, I've been know to shell out for gear just on the theoretical possibility that I might need it!

Ooh, Ctein has a good point.
I have a Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 you can buy. Warning: it is likely to crack your spine if carried in one hand.

Like Dan said about borrow lenses.com - but I'll add that they will ship anywhere you are and the rental doesn't start until the package is signed for and ends when you drop it off to return. I've rented lighting, big lenses, and cameras from them. Great service, great prices, all around excellent experience. Next time grab yourself a 200-500 and zoom away!

I thought it was Robert Capa that said, "If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough."

Sounds like a perfect use for a 2x teleconverter.

The comments to this entry are closed.