Olympus 70-300mm on E-P(L)1/2 - can this be done?!

[et100]

Has anyone tried this combination on any of the Olympus m4/3 cameras? I believe this lens is fully compatible with CDAF but probably focus would be quite slow.

I've used this lens in the past with 4/3 bodies but sold it after I moved to m4/3. But now I have just reordered this lens (given its on sale) and would like to hear your thoughts on this unusual combination.

 

[et100]

I'm back! Since nobody here has had any experience with this setup i thought I share a link to a thread on flickr regarding using ZD 70-300 f4-5.6 and E-PL1 for some indoor concert photography. Since the lens is relatively slow I was very nicely surprised by the quality of the pictures. The pictures look great at web resolution, if you peep you will see noise but in my opinion is reasonably controlled and the pictures are usable.
Judge for yourself and let us know if you think.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/olympusesystem/discuss/72157623769852754/

I hope the author of the flickr thread dont mind me posting here but in case he is also part of this forum and dont want this posted here let me know.

 

[flacko_man]

No problens at all

...always happy to share. I must say I went along to the festival not expecting too much but was more than happy with the results I achieved.

Cheers

f_m

No problems either

 

[et100]

Update: here a few pictures taken with E-PL1 and 70-300:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[pdh]

Sorry - I did not see your thread before as I've only recently found this forum, having only got my Olympus kit at the end of March

I've got the E-P2 w/ 70-300mm + MMF-1, which I've bought primarily as the most compact high-IQ setup I could find that might be good enough for birding

The AF is slow, but with the recent firmware update for the P2 that has improved.

The P2 manual states that "Four-Thirds lenses operate in S-AF mode" -- so it appears it won't use continuous or tracking AF

It isn't particularly light a combo (the 70-300mm feels very solidly built) and on a tripod it nods a bit.

hth

EDIT Oops I see you already have it! Anywya, maybe others will be thinking about this lens on on E-Px and it'll help them!

 

[et100]

Thanks for the input pdh.
Yes, i did buy the 70-300 eventually but your comments will help others decide if they want to try this combo. My short experience with 70-300 matches your comments.

 

[Gwendal]

Hi - thanks for putting this experience up. I'm beginning with 4/3 lenses on my EP1, and while the 40-150 gives good reach for architectural details, I find it too short for things like birds or rabbits. What I would like to know is whether the AF remains usable enough that it is worth it buying the 70-300, or if I'd be better off simply buying legacy glass with MF. Also cinsidered focal doublers, but those from Olympus (EC14 and EC20) are awfully expensive, and apparently the cheap ones do not allow AF ?

 

[pdh]

It depends how critical really fine image quality is for you. For me, it gets pretty soft at full stretch, plus the AF isn't wonderful on low-contrast subjects and can often hunt and hunt; remember that with the adaptor it'll only do S-AF. It's not wonderful in less than good light either for subjects like birds.

You'll need better technique than mine for BIF ... hmm actually that's not saying much ...

I'm OK to put up with the shortcomings, because it does make for a very portable "long" (ish) setup that I can handhold.

Here's one of the first shots I took with my E-P2+70-300mm, in P mode (this is a big crop of course) ... see what you think
(this is at 300mm, 1/250, f6.3)

 

[Gwendal]

Just to clarify : a 70-300 in 4/3 on a m43 gives a 35mm equivalent of 140-600, right ? So that's way better than what I might get with the Panasonic 45-200. And cheaper too, since 70-300 seem to go for roughly € 250.
Side question : apparently nobody has tried using the Sigma 4/3 lenses on m43 ? I've seen a few questions about this on the forum, but they were left unanswered.
This being said, the above images are really nice, how much did you crop the bird by ?

 

[pdh]

As for equivalences, there's a nice discussion thread about that on this forum somewhere (can't seem to find it right now)
Not sure about the crop -- might be 100% and I think the one you're looking at is sharpened a touch

 

[tam]

"So that's way better than what I might get with the Panasonic 45-200. "

No. The pany 45-200 is a 90-400 equivilent on 35mm.

300 is 1/3 more than 200. Focal length is NOTHING to do with sensor size.

 

[Christilou]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I use this combination a lot with my EP2. There has been a definite improvement in speed of focus (and less mechanical noise!) since the firmware update. It is quite heavy of course but I like it better than the pan. 45-200 because when the pany hunts, it really hunts hard and is much more frustrating to my mind.

 

[et100]

Gwendal, here's my try at birding with 70-300, this is taken at 300mm ISO640 1/500s F/8.0 with E-PL1.
I personally find it hard to manually focus a lens at 300mm handheld using the LCD, maybe the viewfinder would make the task easier but just with LCD is quite challenging. Based on this i believe its better to get the 70-300 with its (not the fastest) AF than to use a legacy lens with MF.
An alternate option is to try the heavier ZD 50-200 lens, many swear the crops from 50-200 at 200 beat the ones at 300 from 70-300.
Whatever path you decide let us know how it turned out for you.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Gwendal]

Gwendal, here's my try at birding with 70-300, this is taken at 300mm ISO640 1/500s F/8.0 with E-PL1.
I personally find it hard to manually focus a lens at 300mm handheld using the LCD, maybe the viewfinder would make the task easier but just with LCD is quite challenging. Based on this i believe its better to get the 70-300 with its (not the fastest) AF than to use a legacy lens with MF.
An alternate option is to try the heavier ZD 50-200 lens, many swear the crops from 50-200 at 200 beat the ones at 300 from 70-300.
Whatever path you decide let us know how it turned out for you.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

A beautiful bird and a beautiful photo, exactly the kind I'd like to manage ! Guess my mind is set on the 70-300 then... The rose also gives a good idea of how to use those focal lengths for DOF.

And Tam, OK, sorry for the blunder. Just one thing to clarify though : the focal length for a 4/3 stays the same for a m43, right ?

 

[et100]

Just to confirm: Yes, focal lengths for 4/3 and micro4/3 stay the same. You just need a small adapter to use the 4/3 lens on the micro4/4 body, for example see these pics showing the 4/3 lenses on E-PL1 using the Panasonic adapter (cheaper):

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[et100]

for all out there interested in moon photography, here's my handheld shot with E-PL1 and Zuiko fourthirds 70-300:

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/9507432@N08/4646822514/" title="da moon! (luna) by jon in chicago, on Flickr">

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

"745" height="745" alt="da moon! (luna)" /></a>

 

[Gwendal]

A little update... finally went and found a second-hand 70-300. First attempts with it : a complete mess. Clearly more to do with the photographer than the lens, even if I do my best to get as short exposures as possible. Plus those stupid animals keep moving, and the AF is rather slow. Practice, practice, practice...

Can't wait to use it for architecture, though.

 

[pxpaulx]

Gwen, there is something wrong with that photo (I mean not user error)! Is it a crop? was there an art filter enabled? High ISO? It doesn't look at all natural. By the light it looks like it was shot mid-day too, which isn't great for wildlife (or much else outdoors!), looks like it was a very hazy day possibly? At any rate, I am sure the lens will get better results in different conditions, as judging by your gallery you know how to use your gear!

 

[Gwendal]

Well... I guess what's wrong is my trying to get more detail out of it. I've been too heavy-handed on the Lightroom settings. Here's the original.
ISO 800, which should produce a bit too much noise, and shooting partly against the sun, usually not a good idea. Thanks for the criticism !

 

[pxpaulx]

haha, not much of a criticism on my part if you already knew everything! Aside from some shadow brightening to bring out the details it is pretty decent given the conditions.