Chuck wrote: " An old, MF lens may weigh a bit less but consider (at length)
the difficulty of doing away with AF when shooting with a very shallow depth of
field. At 20 feet and 200/2.8 the DOF (depending on CoC assumptions) is 3-6
inches. Not easy work."
Focusing is actually even more difficult than that. I (at least) cannot fine
focus using the EM-5s EVF. For static objects the zoom function works just fine
with MF lenses. When the subject is moving, or framing needs to be monitored
at the same time, the zoom function doesn't really work. As you note shallow
DOF becomes a real challenge.
Regarding weight, I found the T180/OM1.4x (total weight essentially 1kg or 2.2
lbs) quite acceptable in an airshow setting. Would I want to hike with it all
day? Perhaps not. But then, I don't hike all day anyway.
I take your point about compensating for "slow" lenses with increased ISO.
Don't have a problem with that. What does concern me is that with the cheaper
zooms, it's the longer FLs that suffer from reduced IQ, and it's those longer
FLs that I'm looking to use.
Martin
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Norcutt [mailto:chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 7:32 AM
To: Olympus Camera Discussion
Subject: Re: [OM] OK, my head hurts. Time to ask the group.
What Moose and Sandy said. If you want the speed and the long focal length you
have (and will have) no choice except to go with a slow 4/3 zoom lens for AF
and zoom convenience or an old MF lens for speed but with its very significant
attendant size and weight. f2.8 at 200 or 300mm is very big and very heavy no
matter who makes it. A click or two on the ISO dial is a small price to pay to
get rid of several pounds of weight. A Canon 200/2.8 weighs 1.7 lbs, the
70-200/2.8 weighs 3.8 lbs.
An old, MF lens may weigh a bit less but consider (at length) the difficulty
of doing away with AF when shooting with a very shallow depth of field. At 20
feet and 200/2.8 the DOF (depending on CoC assumptions) is 3-6 inches. Not
easy work.
Chuck Norcutt
On 9/19/2013 11:56 PM, Paul Braun wrote:
> On 9/19/13 22:51 : , Sandy Harris wrote:
>> Does it really have to be a zoom? The Oly 75 1.8 is 150 equiv, fast,
>> reasonably light, gets excellent reviews and would fit your budget.
>> Pany have a 35-100 now, $1300 and rumours say Oly 40-150 next year.
>> Can you stretch the budget
> Not necessarily a zoom, but it would prove useful.
>>> I'm not seeing much native MFT glass that's any faster than f4 or f5.
>> Does it really have to be native m43 glass? An m43 Speed Booster to
>> let you use Nikon glass is $439. Same vendors non-boost adapter is
>> 139; others are much less.
>> http://www.metabones.com/product/micro-43
> I considered older MF glass, like something from the OM family or, as
> you point out, one of the others. But I'm not sure I want to deal
> with the weight and focus-zoom necessity. However, I am not ruling it out.
> Right now, I often use my OM 50/1.2 in my theatre, but that's a bit
> short on length. However, I am relatively adept at punching fn2 to
> bring up focus zoom....
>> Checking KEH, I find Nikon 75-150 3.5 or 80-200 F4 are both under
>> $150; both were reputable lumps of glass in their day.
>> Put that 75-150 on a standard adapter and it acts like a
>> 150-300 3.5, more-or-less what you want. Use it with the Speed
>> Booster and you get in effect a 100-200 2.5. The
>> 80-200 gives a 112-280 equiv 2.8. No autofocus or even auto aperture,
>> though.
> I will consider that as an option.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|