ddrueding
Fixture
I would so love a 14-150 for Canon, that would be a single lens walk-around easily. And only 535g? I would certainly pay over $1400 for that lens.
450D / 40D / 1DMkIII
- Thread starter ddrueding
- Start date
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Beware of the sensor size conversion factor!
A 14-150 on a four-thirds camera gives you the field of view that you'd get from a 28-300mm lens on a full frame SLR, or from a 18-190mm lens on a 450D.
It turns out that there are actually quite a few lenses on the market you could use to do the same job. There are quite a few designed for APS-C sensors: the Tamron 18-200/f3.5-6.3 weighs about 400g and costs $AU600; the Tamron 18-250/f3.5-6.3 weighs 430g and costs $650; there are two different Sigma 18-200/f3.5-6.3 lenses weighing 405g, one costs about $490 the other has IS ("OS" in Sigma-speak) and costs $690. I daresay there is a Tokina as well, and you could always jump the fence and get the Nikkor one, which is said to be the best of the lot. Canon seem to think that it is beneath their dignity to make an 18-200mm superzoom, or possibly that it is beneath their dignity to release the one that they have been working on for a while now until it's as good as or better than the Nikkor one.
(I have no evidence at all for this last suggestion that there is an unreleased secret Canon superzoom; I'm just guessing. Every other maker has one: either Canon are still trying to get theirs right, or else they don't think that superzooms are any good and don't want to make one.)
OK, so much for the APS-C comparison. What about full-frame 35mm? You'd have to buy a 5D II or a 1Ds III to use it on, but there is a direct Canon equivalent of the Olympus 14-150. It is said to have outstanding image quality for lens with such a wide focal length range, approaching (but not matching) that of (for example) a 24-105 or the 70-200s. Sound good? Alas, it is a push-pull zoom that looks very like the 100-400; it is about the same physical size; it costs $3500; and it weighs 1670g - yes, that's 300g more than a 100-400 or 200g more than a 70-200/2.8 IS.
But I suspect that what you really want isn't an EF or EF-S equivalent to the Olympus 14-150, you something quite different, an EF or EF-S 14-150. Very different animal. Its equivalent on an Olympus camera would be an 11-120; on a full frame 5D II, 22-240mm.
Such a lens would not be a wide-angle zoom unit, 14mm on APS-C is well into genuine ultra-wide angle territory. I'm no lens engineer but, so far as I know, none of the lens manufacturers anywhere have attempted such a product. I doubt that it is possible unless you are prepared to live with very serious compromises in image quality, speed, size, weight and cost. If you could make such a lens in any semi-reasonable weight, and keep it sharp with decent CA, flare and distortion control, I'd buy one for sure, and to hell with the price. But it isn't going to happen. The physics of lens design once you cross that line between wide and ultra-wide get really nasty.
Hell, I'd happily murder my credit card for a 14-50mm, never mind 150mm ..... but it isn't possible, so I carry my old 20D with a 10-22 and a 40D with a 24-105. And when I really don't want to carry both cameras or swap lenses, I take a small, competent, very light, remarkably inexpensive all-rounder: an 18-55 IS.
ddrueding
Fixture
Great write-up Tannin. And you are correct, I want an EF-S 14-150. I know 14mm is a very tricky beast for a FF sensor. I don't know anything about optics or lens design, but I can imagine that going from ultra wide to normal would require the optical elements themselves to change shape.
All this talk of superzooms has me looking around, and it seems Tamron has an 18-250 that only weighs 430g?
All this talk of superzooms has me looking around, and it seems Tamron has an 18-250 that only weighs 430g?
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
You could have looked right here!
I don't fancy the idea of a superzoom myself, too many compromises, but I can certainly see why people love them. And, come to that, I really shouldn't turn my nose up at them: after all, who am I kidding if I say that a superzoom doesn't come up to my lofty standards? I'm OK on the bird department, but it smacks of unwarranted conceit to think that a superzoom isn't good enough for my landscape stuff. Nevertheless, I have no wish to buy one.
On the other hand, I could buy a 5D II and hey presto! my 24-105 turns into an effective 15-65, which would be right in the middle of the "I want it" zone. A bit heavy for a go-anywhere lens, but very nice just the same. Or .... who knows ... given the success of the 24-105, what is stopping Canon from introducing a scaled-down EF-S version of it? It wouldn't be the first time Canon have taken an existing EF recipe and simply scaled it to EF-S; consider the 60mm macro (100 macro) and the 10-22 (16-35).
I don't fancy the idea of a superzoom myself, too many compromises, but I can certainly see why people love them. And, come to that, I really shouldn't turn my nose up at them: after all, who am I kidding if I say that a superzoom doesn't come up to my lofty standards? I'm OK on the bird department, but it smacks of unwarranted conceit to think that a superzoom isn't good enough for my landscape stuff. Nevertheless, I have no wish to buy one.
On the other hand, I could buy a 5D II and hey presto! my 24-105 turns into an effective 15-65, which would be right in the middle of the "I want it" zone. A bit heavy for a go-anywhere lens, but very nice just the same. Or .... who knows ... given the success of the 24-105, what is stopping Canon from introducing a scaled-down EF-S version of it? It wouldn't be the first time Canon have taken an existing EF recipe and simply scaled it to EF-S; consider the 60mm macro (100 macro) and the 10-22 (16-35).
ddrueding
Fixture
Damnit! I re-read your post three times to make sure you hadn't mentioned that lens. Oh, well.
Today I had some time to kill between clients, and I took my lenses one at a time on a walk. The thought was to see what I could make with any single lens.
The 10-22 was fun and made for some very "artistic" shots, but if something smaller than a house was more than 30 feet away, forget about it.
The 18-55 was very practical. I was able to take pictures of most objects that interested me, but most of the shots were still at 18 or 55.
The 75-300 was the most surprising. I spent 90% of the time walking further away from stuff and shooting at 75mm, but I like that it made me take a closer look at things. Instead of a house I got a door, instead of a car I got a hubcap, instead of a bush I got a flower. These "detail" shots I found really interesting.
So if I'm looking for a single "walk around" lens, 18-250 seems like the best option. I just wish it focused closer, like the Nikkor.
Today I had some time to kill between clients, and I took my lenses one at a time on a walk. The thought was to see what I could make with any single lens.
The 10-22 was fun and made for some very "artistic" shots, but if something smaller than a house was more than 30 feet away, forget about it.
The 18-55 was very practical. I was able to take pictures of most objects that interested me, but most of the shots were still at 18 or 55.
The 75-300 was the most surprising. I spent 90% of the time walking further away from stuff and shooting at 75mm, but I like that it made me take a closer look at things. Instead of a house I got a door, instead of a car I got a hubcap, instead of a bush I got a flower. These "detail" shots I found really interesting.
So if I'm looking for a single "walk around" lens, 18-250 seems like the best option. I just wish it focused closer, like the Nikkor.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Yup. That's why I use to like the EF-S 60mm macro so much. It was the longest lens I owned (not counting the birding lenses) and a bit "uncomfortable", being quite a bit longer than I'd mostly use on the 18-55 or the 10-22. Made me see stuff a different way. I still like the 60 macro, of course, but since I've taken to having the 24-105 with me as my primary lens, I've got that range covered, and I like to think that my time using the 60mm macro "got my eye in" for those detail shots.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
It's kinda spooky how dd and Tannin say that, because up until the last month or so, i have always loved wide angle photography. The Olympus 11-22 (15-30 on APS-C) was my favourite lens and the lens I used for 90% of my shots on vacation. Now, I also find myself wanting to frame tighter and wanting to focus on details and capture more selectively at the expense of leaving something out than before.
I used to fear that i wouldn't be capturing the whole scene... representing the entire experience by framing wide to show what it's like "being there", but I am also realizing that sometimes, it's specific "little" details that can be more impactful and trigger memories as good as a nice wide composition can even though you're missing a lot of the scene.
Sometimes, it's just more artistic or more compositionally sound to frame tighter too... although this kinda represents the sometimes mutually exclusive dichotomy between snapshooting for posterity vs taking photos for artistic merit.
I used to fear that i wouldn't be capturing the whole scene... representing the entire experience by framing wide to show what it's like "being there", but I am also realizing that sometimes, it's specific "little" details that can be more impactful and trigger memories as good as a nice wide composition can even though you're missing a lot of the scene.
Sometimes, it's just more artistic or more compositionally sound to frame tighter too... although this kinda represents the sometimes mutually exclusive dichotomy between snapshooting for posterity vs taking photos for artistic merit.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
And with that, I should probably mention that I just bought an E-3. I found a great deal on an almost new demo model at a local shop, bargained with the guy, and the rest is history. After testing it out last night, I have to say that I finally have an Olympus body that is not frustrating (limiting) to use. The AF is actually decent... excellent, even, above a minimum light level! Only problem is that it's 300 g heavier than my E-510
ddrueding
Fixture
Congrats e-Dawg! Is it the in-body IS that makes it so heavy?
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Wow! Good for you, E_Dawg! That should be quite a camera.
On the wide/narrow angle theme, I don't think that there is any real rule about what works and what doesn't, what is artistic and what is snapshotish. Is music better in the key of D or the key of F? What works is what works.
But when you have been playing in D major for a while, it can do you a lot of good to have to play in F sharp minor, or vice-versa.
On the wide/narrow angle theme, I don't think that there is any real rule about what works and what doesn't, what is artistic and what is snapshotish. Is music better in the key of D or the key of F? What works is what works.
But when you have been playing in D major for a while, it can do you a lot of good to have to play in F sharp minor, or vice-versa.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Oh ... and I'm just tossing up whether or not to buy an MP-E 65. I have so much gear that I don't get the time to use already, never mind the time to learn to master, why not add some more?
ddrueding
Fixture
I don't think that analogy quite holds. When you look at stuff with your eyes, there is a certain perspective*. Things on both the wide and narrow ends present the viewer with something that isn't normal. It's not just different, it is unusual.
*I forget what changes, what this is called, and what the actual numbers are. But the logic seems pretty straightforward. I'd look it up, but I need to go sailing.
ddrueding
Fixture
That is very cool. I can see taking 5 steps into the garden and then not taking another step for 300 pictures. On my desk right now are some things that would be interesting to see at this level.
The live view at 10x magnification should help enormously with the manual focusing.
MP-E 65 is a special purpose lens best for stationary subjects. It is good in the labs for shooting PCB and some small minature assemblies. It is also useful for small insect (dead) speciation, though an Olympus photomicroscope with Nikon F mount is usually good enough. I find the MP-E 65 very difficult for outdoor micro wildlife. The DOF is very, very low unless excessively small apertures are used. In that case resolution is reduced anyway, so a crop from lower magnification would suffice. Keep the subject stationary if possible, using wind blocks, tie-downs for foliage, etc. All that being said, some entomologists love this lens and can create nice results given the time and effort needed.
In the US the 65 is often available on the used market in great shape at a good price. A lot of people buy them and find the excitement gone after a while.
In the US the 65 is often available on the used market in great shape at a good price. A lot of people buy them and find the excitement gone after a while.
Gilbo
Storage is cool
The E-510 & E-520 both have in-body IS too, so it's not that. Most of it is the weather-sealing & the general construction. It's the most tough, weather-sealed body available (even compared to the Canon 1D series). The other reason is the big viewfinder I'd guess.
I was at Photo expo in Ottawa last fall (I might have mentioned this before), and I went over to the Olympus booth asking if I could try an E-3...
The guy asked if I wanted the wet one or the dry one as he proceeded to up-end a pitcher of water on one of them. They kept the pitcher at hand to show off the camera's durability and had been pouring water over it all day - every time someone came over they'd give it a fresh dose, and not a small one! The thing was drenched 14 hours a day, day after day. Pretty impressive...
e_dawg
Storage Freak
I've heard lots of stories like that on the Olympus boards. Someone posted that at another show, they had the E-3 sitting in a clear plastic container full of water, fully submerged, and popped the same question whenever someone came by to take a look.
Other people recount stories about showing off to friends at parties by dropping their E-3 in the punch bowl or pouring beer all over it and waiting for the inevitable shock from their friends. Then they proceed to wash it off by pouring water all over it to further amazement. Then they turn on the camera and take a picture of their friends still aghast in disbelief.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Nah, it's like Gilbo said. It's a pro oriented camera designed to take abuse in the field and be able to shoot in any weather condition. It's got an industrial strength magnesium alloy chassis, full gasketing, and whatever else they needed to use to accomplish that.
I actually didn't need the weather sealing and ruggedness and larger body. What I really wanted was access to the far superior AF system and next generation sensor (relative to the E-410/510, anyways). If they manage to put those features into a semi-pro body the size of a D80, i will be very happy.
There have been rumours of such a model coming out later this year... an E-30 or something with 2 numbers, but with Olympus' history of tardy launches and numerous delays, I can't wait for this vapourware semi-pro body as I'm going to Beijing for the Olympics in August and need to evaluate the equipment I'm going to use now so I can have a final kit chosen in time.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Also should mention that I'm going down this route (sticking with Olympus and purchasing the E-3) after doing a trial run with a bunch of different equipment combos shooting a hockey tournament a couple weeks ago. That gave me some valuable insights on what works and what doesn't when it comes to action photography at an indoor venue.
I basically had a shootout between my Nikon and Olympus setups that involved the following equipment:
Nikon
Body: D80
Lenses:
70-300/VR
AF 180/2.8 +/- 1.4x TC
Sigma 50-150/2.8 +/- 1.4x TC
Olympus
Body: E-510
Lens: 50-200/2.8-3.5 non-SWD
My findings included:
1. The E-510's AF was very disappointing whether in single-shot mode or continuous/servo mode. I missed many a shot due to focusing problems.
2. The 70-300 is too just too slow at f/5.6 at the long end. The VR is nice, but I always found myself at least a stop short.
3. The 50-200 did not feel as heavy as I thought it would even though it is 250 g heavier than the 70-300/VR. This opinion may change in the sweltering heat of China in mid-August and shooting multiple events each day for days in a row, but it wasn't too bad in the cool confines of a hockey rink with only one game per day
4. I love the extra speed of the 50-200. It is 1.3 stops faster than the 70-300 at the long end. Even though the Nikon in-lens VR system seemed a bit more effective than the Olympus in-body sensor shift IS at preventing camera shake, I needed the faster shutter speed to freeze subject motion at high speed for some shots anyways. There is no substitute for lens speed.
5. While the D80 was cleaner than the E-510 at 1600 ISO (no surprise, really), the extra speed of the 50-200 lens allowed me to get cleaner shots overall because I was able to avoid underexposure more consistently.
6. The Auto ISO of the D80 is very handy for adjusting to varying light levels in manual exposure mode (which is what I prefer to use in these situations since the light levels don't change that much, but the metering can get thrown off depending what is in-frame at the time or what your centre point is focusing on at the time the meter is taking its exposure). The inept Auto ISO in the E-510 (limited to 400 ISO max) was not able to help me fine tune my exposure. As a result, I either had to settle for some shots being overexposed or some shots being underexposed, depending on my SS & aperture setting.
7. I really wish Nikon had an f/4 semi-pro tele zoom (preferably one that's longer than 200 mm... perhaps a 70-225/4 VR or an 80-250/4 VR), as the 70-300 is too slow, and the 70-200/2.8 is too big & heavy for me. I thought about Canon and the wonderful 70-200/4L IS lens, but 200 mm isn't quite long enough for me (the Oly 50-200 gives me the equivalent of 250 mm on the Canon APS-C system). I could add a TC to it, but then what's the point? I'd be back down to f/5.6 again.
8. The above point just reinforces how unique the Oly 50-200/2.8-3.5 lens is. Nobody makes anything that has the same reach, speed, and relative compactness, and that's a prime reason why I'm staying with Olympus.
9. The Sigma 50-150/2.8 is a nice lens for events where your subjects are not as far away. I tried adding a 1.4x TC to it to give me 210 mm @ f/4 on the long end, but found that this detracted from the AF performance significantly. It was noticeably harder to achieve focus lock, and it would hunt much more. This lens was just not designed to be used with a TC and still maintain AF performance in anything but good light.
10. The AF 180/2.8 is a nice lens and can be used with the 1.4x TC no problem to give me 250 mm @ f/4 with minimal impact on AF performance. The big problem was losing zoom capability. With a sport like hockey where the players go from one end of the rink to the other all game, and the puck and puck handler travels all over the ice in any zone very quickly, you're dead in the water without zoom capability.
I basically had a shootout between my Nikon and Olympus setups that involved the following equipment:
Nikon
Body: D80
Lenses:
70-300/VR
AF 180/2.8 +/- 1.4x TC
Sigma 50-150/2.8 +/- 1.4x TC
Olympus
Body: E-510
Lens: 50-200/2.8-3.5 non-SWD
My findings included:
1. The E-510's AF was very disappointing whether in single-shot mode or continuous/servo mode. I missed many a shot due to focusing problems.
2. The 70-300 is too just too slow at f/5.6 at the long end. The VR is nice, but I always found myself at least a stop short.
3. The 50-200 did not feel as heavy as I thought it would even though it is 250 g heavier than the 70-300/VR. This opinion may change in the sweltering heat of China in mid-August and shooting multiple events each day for days in a row, but it wasn't too bad in the cool confines of a hockey rink with only one game per day
4. I love the extra speed of the 50-200. It is 1.3 stops faster than the 70-300 at the long end. Even though the Nikon in-lens VR system seemed a bit more effective than the Olympus in-body sensor shift IS at preventing camera shake, I needed the faster shutter speed to freeze subject motion at high speed for some shots anyways. There is no substitute for lens speed.
5. While the D80 was cleaner than the E-510 at 1600 ISO (no surprise, really), the extra speed of the 50-200 lens allowed me to get cleaner shots overall because I was able to avoid underexposure more consistently.
6. The Auto ISO of the D80 is very handy for adjusting to varying light levels in manual exposure mode (which is what I prefer to use in these situations since the light levels don't change that much, but the metering can get thrown off depending what is in-frame at the time or what your centre point is focusing on at the time the meter is taking its exposure). The inept Auto ISO in the E-510 (limited to 400 ISO max) was not able to help me fine tune my exposure. As a result, I either had to settle for some shots being overexposed or some shots being underexposed, depending on my SS & aperture setting.
7. I really wish Nikon had an f/4 semi-pro tele zoom (preferably one that's longer than 200 mm... perhaps a 70-225/4 VR or an 80-250/4 VR), as the 70-300 is too slow, and the 70-200/2.8 is too big & heavy for me. I thought about Canon and the wonderful 70-200/4L IS lens, but 200 mm isn't quite long enough for me (the Oly 50-200 gives me the equivalent of 250 mm on the Canon APS-C system). I could add a TC to it, but then what's the point? I'd be back down to f/5.6 again.
8. The above point just reinforces how unique the Oly 50-200/2.8-3.5 lens is. Nobody makes anything that has the same reach, speed, and relative compactness, and that's a prime reason why I'm staying with Olympus.
9. The Sigma 50-150/2.8 is a nice lens for events where your subjects are not as far away. I tried adding a 1.4x TC to it to give me 210 mm @ f/4 on the long end, but found that this detracted from the AF performance significantly. It was noticeably harder to achieve focus lock, and it would hunt much more. This lens was just not designed to be used with a TC and still maintain AF performance in anything but good light.
10. The AF 180/2.8 is a nice lens and can be used with the 1.4x TC no problem to give me 250 mm @ f/4 with minimal impact on AF performance. The big problem was losing zoom capability. With a sport like hockey where the players go from one end of the rink to the other all game, and the puck and puck handler travels all over the ice in any zone very quickly, you're dead in the water without zoom capability.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
A used MP-E 65 Lunar? Good idea. I'll keep my eyes open. I expect it to be difficult. Hell, I haven't gone anywhere near mastering the TS-E 24 yet. In reality, I will rarely find the time to use either of those lenses - bird work takes up so much time that anything else is difficult to fit in. I may be better off sticking with my main theme and going with a 300/2.8.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
DD,
FYI just in case... more potential focus problems with new Canons (450D):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=28011892
FYI just in case... more potential focus problems with new Canons (450D):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=28011892
Gilbo
Storage is cool
Wow. Someone made a reasonable, cogent, calm post on DP Review. I suppose the hordes will soon descend and tear him to pieces though...
ddrueding
Fixture
Thanks for the scare
I just spent the morning running around focusing on everything I could and learning everything I could find about auto-focus systems.
Conclusions? Although the 450D with kit lens is slower to focus than I'd like, mine doesn't have focus issues. Nor do my other lenses on that body.
Test your body carefully upon receipt, during the return period. After that it is all about the warranty. Don't worry too much about other people's defective equipment, though there are exceptions such as the seriously flawed original 1D III.
Gilbo
Storage is cool
Part of the problem is that, as manufacturers start to push the pixel density, it's inevitable that the updated models are going to look less & less sharp at 100% crops with all but the best glass.
It's not out of focus. It's that you're pushing the resolution and contrast of the lens too far.
I wouldn't be surprised if you see more people complaining about this as they upgrade to higher resolution bodies.
It's not out of focus. It's that you're pushing the resolution and contrast of the lens too far.
I wouldn't be surprised if you see more people complaining about this as they upgrade to higher resolution bodies.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
I have some other hypotheses about why people are noticing softer images with newer cameras and why some people say that their new cameras barely compare to their old cameras in terms of sharpness and noise, let alone deliver the expected improvement.
Especially with the compact P&S digicams with their tiny sensors packed to the gills with photosites and noise becoming even more a problem, more noise reduction is being used to tame the noise, reducing more detail as a result. This is neither interesting nor especially insightful.
A more interesting and insightful hypothesis (at least it seemed that way when I first thought about it), is this: most people view images on their PC. Cameras are producing higher resolution files. People are loading up said high res files on screen, but you can't view a 10 MP image on your monitor at 100% (well you can, but pixel peeping high res files is only going to result in disappointment). What happens is that the 10 MP file is resized, resampled, and interpolated down to 1000x666, 500x333, or whatever resolution fits in whatever application they're using to view it. That's a massive amount of resizing and interpolation going on.
Who knows what resizing & interpolation algorithm is being used by the viewer? And what if the user resizes it and views it at screen resolution? Or what if the user uploads it onto an image hosting site that automagically resizes and recompresses said image? No image can undergo such a large reduction in size without careful interpolation and re-sharpening to restore the original acuity. The higher resolution your camera is, the greater degree of resizing and interpolation is performed... and the greater potential loss of acuity from poor interpolation or forgotten re-sharpening.
Especially with the compact P&S digicams with their tiny sensors packed to the gills with photosites and noise becoming even more a problem, more noise reduction is being used to tame the noise, reducing more detail as a result. This is neither interesting nor especially insightful.
A more interesting and insightful hypothesis (at least it seemed that way when I first thought about it), is this: most people view images on their PC. Cameras are producing higher resolution files. People are loading up said high res files on screen, but you can't view a 10 MP image on your monitor at 100% (well you can, but pixel peeping high res files is only going to result in disappointment). What happens is that the 10 MP file is resized, resampled, and interpolated down to 1000x666, 500x333, or whatever resolution fits in whatever application they're using to view it. That's a massive amount of resizing and interpolation going on.
Who knows what resizing & interpolation algorithm is being used by the viewer? And what if the user resizes it and views it at screen resolution? Or what if the user uploads it onto an image hosting site that automagically resizes and recompresses said image? No image can undergo such a large reduction in size without careful interpolation and re-sharpening to restore the original acuity. The higher resolution your camera is, the greater degree of resizing and interpolation is performed... and the greater potential loss of acuity from poor interpolation or forgotten re-sharpening.