1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Recommended Zoom Lens

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by melvinbrian, Dec 2, 2011.

  1. melvinbrian

    melvinbrian Mu-43 Regular

    53
    Oct 18, 2011
    Manila, Philippines
    Hi All,

    Do you have any recommended manual Zoom Lenses?
    Preparing for a moon shot this coming lunar eclipse next week here in the Philppines. (with teleconverters?)
    I have MD and M42 adapters. Will be getting a FD.

    For now my Rokkor 50mm f1.7 is not leaving my gf2 body. Having fun shooting with manual focus. But i am having difficulty getting still shots at low light.

    Last thing. I have both 14mm and 14-42mm panny lenses. I am thinking of selling one of them to make way for a manual zoom lens maybe. But my question is which one should i sell?
     
  2. nickthetasmaniac

    nickthetasmaniac Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 11, 2011
    When you say 'zoom' lens, do you mean a lens that actually zooms, ie. has a variable focal length, or a telephoto lens?
     
  3. melvinbrian

    melvinbrian Mu-43 Regular

    53
    Oct 18, 2011
    Manila, Philippines
    Zooming lens. Not a telephoto prime.

    What's the pros and cons of zoom lens and telephoto primes?
     
  4. nickthetasmaniac

    nickthetasmaniac Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 11, 2011
    A zoom lens zooms, so it naturally has more range. A tele prime is usually faster, smaller, sharper, and has less optical aberrations (fringing and distortion for instance).

    An important thing to note though, while there's some outstanding modern zooms (like the Zuiko Digital line, and many of the pro Canon, Nikon and Sony-Zeiss zooms) that are in many ways as good as the equivalent primes, many of the early manual zooms were downright terrible.
     
  5. melvinbrian

    melvinbrian Mu-43 Regular

    53
    Oct 18, 2011
    Manila, Philippines
    So are you saying that if i were to get a manual lens, i should get a good sharp telephoto rather than a crappy old zoom lens, right?
     
  6. nickthetasmaniac

    nickthetasmaniac Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 11, 2011
    Probably yes :smile: Although I'm sure some here will disagree...
     
  7. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    No, no one will disagree. Zoom lenses are more complex and optically inferior to a comparable prime. Plus, given that a zoom lens is nearly always slower than a zoom lens with similar range, it will be much worse with teleconverters. Why did you originally want a zoom lens? I would just get something like a 500mm lens or more, and stack a teleconverter or 3. Look at this thread for a moon shot I made 2 days ago:
    https://www.mu-43.com/f81/vivitar-100-500mm-f-5-6-8-0-series-1-a-18843/#post178575
    Note that that shot is uncropped at 500mm, so you will want to have significantly more reach than that if you want a shot without cropping. I'd say the moon in my shot takes up 1/3 the frame, so you probably want 1,200mm overall. Actually, doing a quick google search, I found this link:
    What lens should I use to take a picture of the moon? « Stop Shooting Auto!
    Divide the focal length in that article by 2 to find out what you need.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. melvinbrian

    melvinbrian Mu-43 Regular

    53
    Oct 18, 2011
    Manila, Philippines
    How good is a tamron sp 500mm f8 on a m4/3 body?
     
  9. melvinbrian

    melvinbrian Mu-43 Regular

    53
    Oct 18, 2011
    Manila, Philippines
    ^^ Nice referrence shnitz
     
  10. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    The Tamron is OK, but mirror lenses overall aren't as great as telephoto lenses. Or, you may even be able to find an old 500mm or more long-focus lens, not telephoto! Alternatively, you may want to try adapting a telescope, although you will need a better resolving one to be able to take advantage of your sensor.

    One thing you'll really need though, in any case, is a good tripod. I have seen a lot of m4/3 threads in which people want something longer than the 100-300mm, not realizing how much magnification that really is. 500mm on our cameras means that the angle of view is less than 3 degrees. Any movement whatsoever will cause noticeable blur in your photos. That's part of the reason why my pictures in that other thread aren't the greatest; even with a 10-second timer for the shutter, there was still some shake from the wind that my tripod wasn't reducing. Even pressing the shutter button, while being careful to brace the camera, caused the framing of the scene to completely change. Be ready to spend a good chunk of money on super-telephoto support, like $600-$700 to do it right. I have linked to this guy's website often, but that is because he has good advice:
    Tripods and Ball Heads by Thom Hogan
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Over a mirror lens or telescope, I would pick up a reasonably fast and long super-telephoto (like say a 200mm f/2.8 or a 400mm f/5.6), adapt to Four-Thirds mount (not Micro Four-Thirds), and pick up an Olympus EC-14 (1.4x) or EC-20 (2x) teleconverter along with a Four-Thirds to Micro Four-Thirds mount adapter (if you're only using this for legacy lenses, you won't need the expensive ones from Panasonic or Olympus). These can be used with minimal degradation to the image. With the EC-14 you could almost say no degradation at all. Legacy teleconverters on the other hand, can be touch and go...

    This may not be the cheapest alternative, but you do have to shell out if you want quality in your images. I don't know just what kind of budget you're looking at...
     
  12. melvinbrian

    melvinbrian Mu-43 Regular

    53
    Oct 18, 2011
    Manila, Philippines
    Thanks for the inputs.

    Btw, some one suggested using a newtonian scope for moon photography. How am i suppose to put a telescope on my gf2? Adapters?
     
  13. melvinbrian

    melvinbrian Mu-43 Regular

    53
    Oct 18, 2011
    Manila, Philippines
    Found one of this on a local online store.
    What do you think of this lens?

    Vivitar 300mm f5.5



    image-1927961734.



    image-1237365479.



    image-1560606406.
     
  14. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    Yes, it's called a T adapter. For general questions like this, it is usually more efficient if you use google to find the answers that you want. A few creative search terms, like " adapt camera to telescope" and "use telescope as camera lens" will net you all of the information you could dream of having about the subject.

    Good lens, made by Tokina. I say go for it, as long as the condition is good, and the price is right. In fact, I think that the lens mount on that 300mm is a T-mount! I could be wrong though, it may be M42. Use Ned's suggestion for using a teleconverter, although I would say that if you stick to the name brands, you can still get good quality. I wouldn't say that Olympus makes a better converter than Nikon, for example, or any of the other respected camera companies. Get yourself any respectable 2x converter (i.e. if you are finding it for $9, walk away). If it says Olympus, Nikon, Konica, Minolta, Pentax, etc. then consider it.
     
  15. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Yes, yes, this is true. The reason I suggested the Olympus however, is because of the short Four-Thirds register distance. It's the mount which can be adapted to almost all other SLR mounts (although it doesn't adapt as well to some of the shorter mounts like Konica AR or Minolta MD, but it still works). That way, you have one quality teleconverter for all lenses, and don't have to test unknown brands just because they're all you can find in whatever mount you're using. There are a lot of "no-name" teleconverters out there for old legacy mounts, but not much for modern digital cameras. You might for instance get a quality Nikon converter, but you won't be able to use it on your Minolta or Pentax glass... so then you'll have to find another adapter for your Minolta glass, and may end up with a dog for that lens while you have a great teleconverter for your Nikon lens. With the Oly Four-Thirds, you can use it for pretty well all your lenses except rangefinder, cine, and Pen F.
     
  16. melvinbrian

    melvinbrian Mu-43 Regular

    53
    Oct 18, 2011
    Manila, Philippines
    Great. The vivitar lens is bundled with a pentax 2x teleconverter.
     
  17. harrysue

    harrysue Mu-43 Regular

    164
    Mar 12, 2011
    I was looking at my lunar eclipse shots I took back in February 2006, with my Oly E300 DSLR and various old lenses I owned.

    I used a Vivitar series 1 70-210, an Olympus OM 200mm f4, an OM 70-150, and my Zuiko kit 40-150 zoom. For the older lenses, I tried out an OM teleconverter. The modern 4/3 zoom gave me the best result, which was still lousy. Camera shake because of a cheap tripod and inability to focus the DSLR were my biggest problems. I've seen plenty of decent moon shots with just the kit zoom.

    I still have a Vivitar/Tokina 200mm of similar vintage to the 300mm you showed. I bought it in 1971 and it's also a T-mount. Can't test it on M43 because mine is an orphaned T-mount. It's 40 year old technology though and wasn't really considered very good in its day. I don't feel the longer version will be much better. If you get the 300mm for pocket change, sure.

    If that 300mm is going to cost $99 or more, I think you're better off putting the money toward the Panasonic 45-200. Better IQ, even if you have to crop, and it will have far better utility for other than moon shots.
     
  18. melvinbrian

    melvinbrian Mu-43 Regular

    53
    Oct 18, 2011
    Manila, Philippines
    PL 45-200mm costs $350 (Php 15,000) here in Manila. And the old Vivitar 300mm with Pentax 2x teleconverter costs $88 (Php 3,800).

    Should I forget grabbing the old Vivitar?
     
  19. melvinbrian

    melvinbrian Mu-43 Regular

    53
    Oct 18, 2011
    Manila, Philippines
    Oops it's Petri 2x teleconverter, not a Pentax.
     
  20. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    I wouldn't settle for the 45-200mm lens. As I showed in my earlier link, I was at 500mm, and if the moon was full, it still would have only taken up 10-12% of the sensor area, as the height of the moon seems to be slightly less than 1/3 the height of my total image. Of course the best course of action would be to have an amazing lens zoomed in to like 1,000-1,200mm, but I'd rather have a mediocre lens zoomed in to 600mm and have the moon take up 20% of the sensor height than be zoomed in to only 200mm, where the moon would be a veritable speck in my image. Stop down the lens, and use a tripod, and you'll be fine.

    In short, I disagree that the 45-200mm is better than the 300mm. Again, look at my 100-500mm photos. If my crappy 4x zoom can produce that photo, I am 100% positive that the Tokina-made prime will blow it away.