Suggestions for 150mm+ FL lens on E-M1?

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by j-rad, Oct 29, 2015.

  1. j-rad

    j-rad Mu-43 Regular

    45
    May 20, 2015
    I have a 40-150 (non-pro) lens, but occasionally would like something with more reach. Casual photography, all outdoors, no birds, but maybe some surfing every now and then or just want the ability to zoom a bit more than the 150mm.

    Would like to spend ~$350 or less, and I know there are a few options. Regardless of the choice, I'd want to retain the ability to print large if needed (16x20 or larger).

    1. Pick up a used Panny 100-300 or Oly 75-300 in the ~$350 range
    2. Use the 40-150 with a teleconverter like the Oly C-210 (~30-50 on ebay)
    3. Use the 40-150 with the E-M1's digital teleconverter
    4. Another option?

    Would there be a big size difference between options 1 and 2? I'm unfamiliar with these lenses and teleconverters. Would #3 limit my print sizes considerably?

    Recommendations and/or pros/cons of each would be appreciated. I don't mine spending the money on #1, but not if it will only be a marginal improvement on #2 for substantially more money, especially since it won't get a lot of use. Thanks in advance.
     
  2. Holoholo55

    Holoholo55 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 13, 2014
    Honolulu, HI
    Walter
    I think your best option is no. 1. Don't even know if no. 2 is feasible, and the results may not be very good. No. 3 is more or less just like cropping. The digital teleconverter just looks at the center of the sensor. One can only take that so far. Printing large with no. 3 is probably not gonna work.

    No. 4 could be adapting a non-native lens to your camera with a simple adaptor, and budgetarily possible if you find some good deals on used telephoto lenses, but means you wouldn't have auto exposure or autofocus. Manual operation with that budget.

    Still think no. 1 is your best option.
     
  3. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Used 100-300 sounds like your best bet.

    Option 3 is easy enough to test on your own and decide if it meets your needs.
    Option 2 is going to be awful

    There is also the 45-200 if you are OK with a little more reach (Extra 33% reach, almost like a 1.4x TC in effect)
    One kind of oddball option is the Kenko 300mm mirror lens which is $140 at B+H.

    Which camera do you have? If it is an E-M1, some adapted AF SLR lenses may come into play.
     
  4. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    For that budget option 1. For a little more the 43 50-200 non swd and an MMF adaptor.
     
  5. ChrisN

    ChrisN Mu-43 Regular

    51
    Jul 13, 2015
    How about the 4/3 70-300? You should be able to pick up a copy for around $200.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. j-rad

    j-rad Mu-43 Regular

    45
    May 20, 2015
    I'd be using the lens with an E-M1.

    I'm thinking the size/weight of the two m43 lenses might be best for me.... Is one preferred over the other, cost being equal, on the E-M1?
     
  7. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Not 2. I had it, and it's better to just crop. The 45-200 is not worth it at the long end. I'd recommend 1, 2 is pretty much same as now but cropping.
     
  8. Klorenzo

    Klorenzo Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 10, 2014
    Lorenzo
    Not 2. There are decent ones around but weight a ton, are pricey and I'm sure would stress too much the extending barrel.
    For option 1: Oly is smaller/lighter, Pana is 1/2 stop faster. From several discordant reviews I suppose are about on par. Half stop is not much, but with a long focal length everything helps (even if in good light I'd probably stop both down to f8).

    http://camerasize.com/compact/#482.376,482.35,ha,t

    3. you can do this in PP with identical results or better.
    4. I'd go for a 50-200 SWD + 1.4x TC. It's faster then both, even with TC. Twice the weight of the m43 options.
     
  9. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    I had a similar dilemma for a year or so and tried a few long legacy options. They took good photos, but the usability was always a huge compromise.

    In my case, I resolved it by getting the Panny 100-300. Image quality at 300mm isn't the greatest (though very good at closer focus distances), but it's easy to get shots handheld even at 600mm equivalent thanks to the OIS and autofocus. That was impossible with the other options I tried. So while I'm not getting technically perfect shots, at least I'm getting shots.

    From what I've seen, the only similarly affordable option with superior quality at this time would be the Olympus 4/3 50-200/2.8-3.5 but that wasn't really an option on my GX7 because it doesn't have PDAF nor built-in IBIS. The E-M1 is the only camera that can make it work to a similar level to a native lens.
     
  10. zensu

    zensu An Old Fool

    Aug 8, 2012
    Southeastern USA
    Bobby
    I'm thinking of my tele options with the E-M1 and have seriously been considering the 43s' 50-20mm SWD on its own or with the EC-14 teleconverter and the EX-25 extension tube for some close up shooting. I have the MMF-3 43s' to m43s' adapter for my 12-60 SWD 43s' lens which is a great lens IMHO. I know the m43's options will be much smaller and give me more reach but the smaller apertures would be problematic unless I mounted the combo on a tripod. I realize that using the 43s' 50-200 SWD with all these adapters will also require a tripod for most shooting so would I be better off just using a slower m43s' lens? :hmmm:
    Bobby
    PS, due to this old mans' health I'll probably start doing all of my photography with a good tripod soon.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2015
  11. Holoholo55

    Holoholo55 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 13, 2014
    Honolulu, HI
    Walter
    That's why I opted for the 50-200 SWD with MMF-3 and EC14 to get reach and speed at a reasonable cost. I would have liked the 40-150 Pro w/TC14, but the cost was prohibitive, albeit with a little better performance with AF. I use it mostly handheld, but I was shooting kids' soccer games and moved around a lot. A monopod worked well for support because I put an Arca-Swiss compatible QR adaptor on it. A tripod is a little limiting when your subjects are fast moving unless you use a gimbel.

    BTW, the 50-200 gets pretty close even without an extension tube. Not macro certainly, but pretty close. See some in https://www.mu-43.com/threads/39832/.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2015
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  12. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Barry
    @zensu@zensu, the ZD 50-200 with MMF-3 adapter isn't really any heavier than the 40-150 Pro (which is fine handheld for me, at least for an hour or two).

    The 50-200 extends longer though.

    Barry
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  13. zensu

    zensu An Old Fool

    Aug 8, 2012
    Southeastern USA
    Bobby
    Thanks Holoholo55, I am thinking that I'd like to visit a Butterfly Aviary that I last visited some 30 years ago and shot a dozen rolls of film. I got some very nice images but I'd love to return with my m43s' digital gear and spend the morning there. Last time I used a Nikon 5T Close Up Filter on a 80-200mm zoom and the images were great in the center but suffered a little in the corners. I could keep about 5 or 6 feet from the Butterflies and use the zoom ring for composition. I'm thinking the 50-200mm SWD with either the TC or ET or both would get me close enough to fill the frame. A used 50-200 SWD is a bargain compared to new prices and I think it would make a good telephoto lens to round out my kit.
    Bobby
     
  14. zensu

    zensu An Old Fool

    Aug 8, 2012
    Southeastern USA
    Bobby
    Thanks Barry, I'll absolutely get a good monopod to help hold this lens if I know I'll be hand holding for an extended period. I know this lens looks like it almost doubles its' length when zoomed out but does that change the weight balance of the lens?
    Thanks,
    Bobby
     
  15. Holoholo55

    Holoholo55 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 13, 2014
    Honolulu, HI
    Walter
    Hi Bobby,

    I don't think a close-up lens will be needed. As you can see from some of these shots, you can get pretty near frame filling shots without it. https://www.mu-43.com/threads/39832/page-2#post-672009 And, using such a lens may compromise the excellent performance of this lens. :)

    Update: Sesser had a 50-200 kit for sale on the board, but I think it's in the process of closing.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2015
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  16. zensu

    zensu An Old Fool

    Aug 8, 2012
    Southeastern USA
    Bobby
    Beautiful images! :bravo-009: You just saved me some dollars and some frustration! Thanks.
    Bobby
     
  17. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    For what it's worth, the Raynox DCR-150 is an excellent close-up lens. Very little quality degradation that I can tell, and I've been able to get very high quality images out of the Panasonic 100-300 at very high magnifications (up to and over 1:1).

    Like you said, you probably don't need one, but if you do, I'd say that's the one to get. I'm not 100% sure it fits on 67mm filters, though...
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  18. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Barry
    It would change the balance, but I don't know by how much; my father had that lens but I think my nephew has it now.

    Barry
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  19. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    50-200 is the obvious answer I think. It's better than any of the slower u43 long lenses by quite a margin (certainly it beats the 100-300 that I had).
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  20. j-rad

    j-rad Mu-43 Regular

    45
    May 20, 2015
    What's a good price to aim for on a used one?