Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by JoFT, Sep 19, 2015.
I do miss such a native and compact lens. Who else? Should be OIS, macro would be nice, too
If you shoot an EM1 there is a 150mm f/2.0 that works very well. I'm not sure about it being compact http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/lenses/slr/fixed-focal-lengths/zuiko-lens-ed-150mm-f2-0.html
If manual focus is ok there is a modern Rokinon 100/2.8 Macro but no, not compact. There are also the Zuiko 100/2, the 100/2.8 or the small 100/3.5 for Pen-F.
Would I get a native one? I doubt, the O60 is good and compact and a 100/2 is going to be quite a beast, bigger then the O75.
Anything in the 100mm range and ƒ2.0 is not going to be compact or light.
it could be nearly identical to the 75mm 1.8. Canon has a 100mm f2.0 at about that same size.
Not if you get crazy and add macro and OIS though. That would end up at least as big as the 35-100
Really, I don't see what you are going to shoot with a 100/2 that you can't with the 75.
With the 75/1.8 and the 35-100/2.8, I think this range is well covered. The 75/1.8 is exceptionally sharp and can easily stand to be cropped to ~100mm. The 35-100/2.8 is a very small lens for a 2.8 telezoom, sure you lose a stop but you gain a much wider range and it's doubtful a 100/2 would be significantly smaller.
A 100/2 would likely be somewhere in between the size of these two lenses. 75/1.8 = 42mm wide physical aperture, while 100/2 = 50mm, so 100/2 would be a little bigger than the 75 which is pretty close in size to the 35-100 already. Canon makes a 85/1.8 and 100/2 which are nearly identically sized, but they also have near the same physical aperture size as well (47mm vs 50mm), though the 100/2's front element extends further and it weighs 35g more.
I think a 200/2.8 would be more interesting. It would fill the gap between the 40-150/2.8 and 300/4, and would provide 280/4 and 400/5.6 when used with a 1.4x and 2x TC.
I agree that they need a ƒ2.8 lens that will fit between the 40-150 and 300. I'm looking at getting back into sports photography and that gap really needs to be filled because it is a useful range for sports. It also needs to be in the ƒ2.8 range because indoor stadiums or outdoor stadiums under light are really a lot darker then you think, you quickly realize this when trying to shoot at a high shutter speed and low ISO. They would have been better off making the 40-150 Pro a 50-200 like the 4/3 lens. That would have made the perfect sports lens with a range of 100-400 at ƒ2.8 or 140-560 at ƒ4.0 followed by the 300 ƒ4. which would give you 600 ƒ4 or 840 ƒ5.6. As it stands now there is a big gap for sports photography that can only be filled with the 4/3 90-250, a native option would have been really nice. As it stands now a 200 ƒ2.8 is about the best option, although I would prefer a zoom when it comes to sports photography.
A 200 ƒ2.8 would only give you a 280 ƒ4.0 because there is no 2x TC and I don't think there ever will be.
Yeah, it will be interesting to see if they ever make a 2x TC. Typically, 2x TC's come with an image quality penalty that is roughly on par (the good ones) with or worse than (cheap/generic ones) simply cropping. With DSLRs that use OVFs a 2x TC makes sense, as you get an accurate preview of the framing. However, with an EVF, you can crop digitally and frame correctly in the EVF (and even shoot in raw if you want to alter the cropping later).
Some interesting comparions of the Sony 1.4x and 2.0x TCs, with a comparison to straight up cropping near the end: http://kurtmunger.com/sony_teleconvertersid229.html
I'm not sure how Canon/Nikon/Olympus 43 TCs perform relative to the Sony ones (which date back to the Minolta days), and I wouldn't be surprised if a modern designed TC would perform better.
The Olympus 4/3 TC's are some of the best made and the 4/3 1.4x is optically better then the new 1.4x they just came out with. I have both of the 4/3's TC's and have not had any luck using the 2x on either my 150mm ƒ2.0 or 50-200 SWD. I did the focus tune on my 150 with the 2x but have not done it on my 50-200. They just released a generation 4 version and I am waiting for the target to arrive. When it does I will re-do the adjustments on my 150 and 50-200 because I would really like to use the 2x on my 150 as a 300 ƒ4. lens.
Maybe a 1.7TC like Nikon.
That is something I would love to have for my Olympus gear.
Half way there. Maybe if you tape two of them together?
With the crop factor it is 100mm!
That was not the question. I know the crop: It is the equivalent of a 200mm focal length which I do miss. 150mm sometimes is a bit short... and a prime lens line up of 12mm (Oly 2.0) 25 (Pany 1.4) 45 Macro (Elmarit f2.8) and the next factor ca 2 is missing...
If you want good blur then it is 150/f2.0 that is missing..
There is a 150/2.0 aka the little tuna, works great on my EM1
Thanks for this. I've never been convinced by TCs, and this re-affirms that. The 1.4x looked pretty good, but no better than the slower, cheaper lens with the native focal length.
Focal reducers, on the other hand...
Yikes, why bother shooting outside at all if the background is entirely blur? Just shoot at any aperture you like and blur the background in PS afterwards.
Takes a lot of work to blur the entire background and make it look real, the time involved is not worth it for a lot photos. It also helps with subject isolation which I count on in wildlife photography.