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

Tele lenses- which one

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by gardengirl13, Jun 29, 2012.

  1. gardengirl13

    gardengirl13 Mu-43 Veteran

    200
    Jun 26, 2012
    US
    Right now my longest lens on my DSLR is 250 (FF=400) Sometimes I wish it was longer, but due to weight issues, it's what I'm stuck with. With switching to M43 (ideally the OMD if they're ever going to be in stock again at adorama) from what I'm reading here and other places is that they're not really good with birds as the AF isn't quite there yet. The AF on my DSLR lens stinks. It's not bad but it's no where near as reliable as other heavier lenses I used to use. I also shoot gardens with the longer lens as well. I love shooting flowers and bugs etc...

    With weight being a huge issue for me (the main reason of this switch) what tele would you guys recommend? I'm kind of looking into the 40-150/140 the 100-300 and any others you may like.

    I do worry about the weight of the 100-300 as it's 5ozs heavier then my 55-250, but I worry the 150 will be too short. I also am wondering what kind of priority this lens will have in my bag as these cameras aren't great for birds. So would the 150 be enough then?
     
  2. D@ne

    D@ne Mu-43 Top Veteran

    593
    Feb 23, 2012
    Toronto
    I bought the 45-175, which is one of the lighter/smaller models. Some have issues with blurring at certain shutter speeds, and I haven't quite decided if my copy has any, but worth a look.

    The 100-300 is a beast of a lens. The Oly 75-300 is a much more manageable size, but not as bright and quite expensive.
     
  3. GaryH

    GaryH Mu-43 Rookie

    18
    May 1, 2012
    I am relatively new to the M43 club and I like wildlife photography. My main system is a Pentax K5 with grip with a Sigma 50-500mm lens. That little set up weighs 8 lbs. My GH2 with the 100-300mm weighs in at a little over two lbs. I get great IQ from the 100-300 and save my back from hauling the extra weight. The only thing I miss is the ability to take bird in flight shots which is more of a challenge with M43 than a regular DSLR. If Birding is your thing the 100-300 is a nice choice. I also have the 14-140mm and it is not generally long enough for birding unless that is the only lens I have with me. Then I make do.
     
  4. ssgreenley

    ssgreenley Mu-43 Top Veteran

    509
    May 12, 2011
    Size was a primary concern for me, so I went with the Olympus 75-300. I'm very pleased with it. By going to 75, you can use it as an easy two-lens solution with the kit (or with a trio of primes covering the 12-45 range) without losing much.

    As you said, though, tracking AF is generally terrible with this lens (at least with my EPL2), but check out the very modest selection of sample photos for it and you can find a few wildlife/bird shots. I mostly do travel photography, and I primarily use this lens for architecture detail shots and for when I really want to emphasize the compression effect. Also, there was something satisfying about being able to take a frame-filling shots of the dome of the rock from just about any point anywhere in Jerusalem...
     
  5. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    I am very pleased with IQ of the Pany 100-300. I wish it was faster, but it was great range and very sharp with IS if you end up with a non-IBIS body. For me the build quality feels very plasticy and lightweight.

    P1100444.
    Hollywood Bowl @ 14mm

    There were a couple of people hiking on the hills behind the Bowl

    P1100372.
    People Hiking @ 300mm

    Gary
     
  6. gardengirl13

    gardengirl13 Mu-43 Veteran

    200
    Jun 26, 2012
    US
    Wow that is some zoom there Gary!

    I normally don't do many BIF, but we have a heron who likes to hunt in our landlords pond in the evening. I'd love to get him, but he flies fairly slow compared to a goldfinch. Most of the birds I shoot are stationary, but do flit around a lot, so tracking isn't as important as locking AF and getting the focus right.

    I'm freaking out a bit about an 18ozs lens, when my 55-250 is "only" 13.5ozs, but I'm forgetting that my camera will go from 24ozs to around 15ozs. So that 5ozs is actually 4ozs LESS then what I have now. Thanks for making me think of that GaryH!! I totally forget the weight difference with the camera included! I'm only thinking lens weight!

    Now through adorama I can bundle the 40-150 and get it for $100 off (mail in rebate) would it be worth it to try it and see how I like it, or just keep saving for the 100-300? I guess I could sell the other one for what I pay for it if it's not long enough.

    What I really want is to get the best out of the camera, and that means primes. I want the kit 12-50 for water proofing and as a walk around when I don't want to hassle with lens changes, but I won't be able to deal with 50mm being my longest lens. the 40-150 seems like a nice middle range tele, but it's too long on the short end for how I would shoot. The 100-300 would be more of a bird and long tele only so that middle range won't be there.
     
  7. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    600mm (FF FOV) is impressive ... if you are concerned about weight, I'd get a monopod and a lens support/collar which can be attached to the 100-300. As to which lens to get first ... the 40-150 would be more useful and versatile, but I love the 100-300 range.

    P1100327.
    Another 300mm image

    Gary
     
  8. oldracer

    oldracer Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 1, 2010
    USA
    I pretty much agree with this but I would say it slightly differently: The 100-300 is a specialist lens. You'll want something like the 14-140 to supplement it, as 200mm equivalent focal length is too long for a lot of subjects. Together, on two bodies, the lenses make a wonderful pair.

    Re size/weight, I shot a 100-300mm for three weeks in Africa last November and really wasn't conscious of the weight. I agree on the monopod, but more from the viewpoint that hand-holding 600mm is tough. IMHO a lens collar is not necessary. I just used a QR plate mounted to the camera body and never felt that the camera was stressed or awkwardly balanced.

    Here's a pretty lady at 600mm, hand-held but well braced in a Land Rover:

    Lion_Head_On.

    No cropping, just reduced to 1024x768.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. jnewell

    jnewell Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 23, 2011
    Boston, MA
    Gary, my Google-foo appears to be weak :redface: Do you have a manufacturer for the collar?
     
  10. gardengirl13

    gardengirl13 Mu-43 Veteran

    200
    Jun 26, 2012
    US
    Gary my husband has been bugging me about getting a monopod. The problem is carrying it and then being limited by the lack of movement. I find myself seeing something out of the corner of my eye and need to move quick to snap it (of course this moving quick is one thing killing my back/hips/neck so maybe this isn't such a good thing ha ha!) But I'd use this lens when we do our light walks on the local trails. I'd already be carrying the camera and lenses and I also use a cane to walk. I only will bring the tripod for waterfalls, otherwise it stays home.

    I assume a good monopod could be used as a cane, but I'm not sure???? I've never held one. After buying a new system an expensive monopod would have to wait, and I assume a cheap one won't support my weight used as a cane.
     
  11. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
  12. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    Monopods are often used as walking sticks and vice versa. (I've seen walking sticks with tripod screws.)

    I think a cane is a different animal as it sorta replaces/augments one's leg adding support, while a walking stick is more like an out-rigger adding stability.

    A monopod would really add a lot of stability to shooting a long lens. At 300mm (600 FF FOV) any slight movement would appear like a wild swing in the viewfinder. A monopod would settle things right down. IBIS/IS is wonderful and very helpful controlling/minimizing camera shake. IBIS is not magical and can only do so much (it's not as good as a tripod). For a person that is very concerned about camera weight, I think that IBIS alone will help some, but IBIS combined with the stability of a monopod ... I think the difference will be night and day. But I am only speculating, everybody is different.

    You may need to change your shooting to a more relaxed style, get somewhere, setup your equipment, hang-out and let the subjects come to you.

    The OM-D also has wonderful high ISO capabilities delivering good image quality in low light. A higher ISO will allow high shutter speeds, which in turn will lower the demand on the IBIS.

    Good Luck,
    Gary
     
  13. jnewell

    jnewell Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 23, 2011
    Boston, MA
  14. oldracer

    oldracer Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 1, 2010
    USA
    Yes. I use my monopod as a walking stick all the time. You can do it with the camera mounted if you like, unless a heavy lens really unbalances things.

    The walking sticks with tripod screws that I have seen, though, are far too short to be very good as a monopod.

    Re use as a cane, like GaryAyala I also am not sure. I don't think the mechanical strength of the monopod is the main issue. With a cane you transfer weight onto the crook of the cane by the geometry of the thing. With a monopod you have to grip it and transfer weight via the gripping action. I'd suggest that you unscrew the shaft from a mop or a floor brush and walk around trying to use it as a cane. That should tell the tale pretty quickly.
     
  15. MikeB

    MikeB Mu-43 Regular

    125
    Jun 10, 2010
    Atlanta, GA
    I have a Trek-Tech TrekPod. It's a walking stick with a ball head, but the bottom 18" or so folds out to make a tripod. It's not ultra-stable, but it's plenty good enough for a light camera (like m43) and getting a waterfall or a group shot. Also strong enough to support 200lbs as a walking stick.