Siskin on Sigma 50-500

mark - have you compared the shot with what you would get from your Nikon?

interested to know your views

 

Mark,
I'm well impressed having just been trying to get a feel for what I could get with an Olympus 50-200mm, f/2.8-3.5 4/3 mount lens on a G1. I was shooting through double glazing in appalling light this morning, iso 400, 1/13 sec @ f/8 and although tripod mounted virtually every shot was spoilt by camera shake. The lens has a tripod mount built in, so I guess a sturdier tripod and quick release set up would be called for. I had contemplated the purchase of something like a Nikon 300mm, f/4.5 lens for bird photography, now I'm not so sure that it would be a wise investment, just continue with my 50 years of ornithological study and let others concentrate on the photography side of it.

Barrie

 

but I don't think you'll get it with :43:
still I'd be surprised if you couldn't get something significantly better than the first shot using the Bigma on your GF1 with a bit more practice with that combo

 

Thanks Mort - I have found that it is "horses for courses" with M43 - I'm happy with the kit(s) 14-42/45 and the 17mm and 21/1.7 plus a few adapted lens, but when I get, say over 50mm, even on a tripod, for me, IMHO, (before a few start to disagree), I find the system disappointing and I dislike the Pany 45-200mm most of the time.

when it comes to tele lens of longer fixed, I much prefer my D300

again, just my opinion

 

you clearly know what you're doing with that lens on the Nikon, Mark ... I have the Olympus 4/3 70-300mm for my E-P2, which is pretty much a budget lens, and with good light and a steady hand can produce some very nice record shots indeed, so the Sigma should be able to outshine it on a :43: body

 

It may just be me, but it looks like it was focused just a little too far out. The wing tip, tail and main branch (not little one it is on) are slightly further away and seem sharper than the body/head of the bird. Could it be the difficulty in focusing a GF1 manually rather than its ability to resolve detail?

 

On some lens I find it almost impossible to focus (exactly) manually using the LCD (or even the OVF on the G1) - even if you have plenty of time

IMHO - M43 cameras need a "focus confirm" indicator plus a more "user friendly" menu and set of controls - as todays DSLRs have

 

you find some lenses harder to focus than others on :43:, Bill? I'm interested to know which ones (I have a thread on this so do please add your twopence-worth! https://www.mu-43.com/f40/observations-focusing-adapted-lens-8401/)

[Hijack=OFF]

 

In praise of Canon Fd Long Optics

Those are really nice shots. Thanks for sharing. I use a G1 with Canon FD L lenses and like the results that I can get with the combination. I started using Manual focus lenses with a Pentax digital camera and slowly worked my way through many of the different brands. I used to convert the canon lenses for use on my Pentax body. When I finally discovered the :43: bodies, I was like a junkie who had found an infinite amount of crack.

Using manual focus lenses longer than 300mm require the use of solid tripods and heads and good long lens technique. It always takes me a while to get comfortable with a new lens and I find that the more I use it, the better the results.

This shot of a Purple Finch shows the detail you can obtain wide open with the 300mm lens in decent light.
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gscara/4632705288/" title="Purple Finch by gscara, on Flickr"> "767" height="1024" alt="Purple Finch" /></a>

This shot of a humming bird was taken with the 300mm lens, plus 1.4X adapter, plus the 2X adapter for a total effective film focal length of 1,680mm.


You can find some real bargains with these longer lenses because they are generally not affected by defects in the front glass. For this reason, I now look for lenses with defects on the front surface, for 200mm and longer focal lengths, as these become the real bargains. I have one older 300mm lens with a deep scratch in the middle of the lens that is easily 1/4" square. This defect does not show up in the image in any way.

Cheers

 

Long lenses are much more forgiving to defects on the front of the lens, whereas an ultra-wide with only a dusty UV filter will start to give problems at apertures of around f8 or smaller, especially with the sun in or just to the side of the frame.

 

Hi Gianni, the shot of the red finch is super - great work!

cheers

ric

 

Wow, that's a crazy looking hummingbird! I guess they really do stop flying.

Not shot, too.