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

Want something with some reach...but...

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by Gary Ramey, Apr 26, 2013.

  1. Gary Ramey

    Gary Ramey Mu-43 Veteran

    240
    Dec 27, 2012
    Aurora Colorado
    I want a lens that I can put a 1.4TC on that will get me to 400mm and sharp enough to crop in alittle. I just tried out an adapted Tokina 150-500 F5.6 and lets just say I didn't need to go to the gym after lugging that and my tripod through a couple of hikes...Here's what Wanted to keep the price around $500. Here's what I've found...
    Four Thirds
    Panny 100-300
    Oly 70 - 300
    I've owned the Oly and sold it. I wishi I would've kept it. Is the Panny a better lens...ie sharper?

    Or...would you just get the newer u43 and crop?

    Or...is there a zoom of any brand that is renowned for being really sharp yet somewhat inexpensive?
     
  2. speedandstyle

    speedandstyle Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    From all the reviews I have seen they are very close in sharpness. The Olympus is smaller and lighter, the Panasonic is a half stop faster. At work we have one of the 100-300mm lenses we use on our AF100 video camera and it is a good lens. I plan on getting the Olympus because when hiking every ounce counts.

    Adapted zooms are an option but they will always be bigger and heavier. Also the newer and good ones are expensive{I don't know of any at $500 or less}. I have a 1980s Osawa 60-300mm and it works pretty good. Heavy beast and 8.5 inches long with adaptor fitted. It does have bad chromatic aberration however.
     
  3. ivoire

    ivoire Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2011
    Naperville, IL
    mike
  4. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
  5. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

  6. Gary Ramey

    Gary Ramey Mu-43 Veteran

    240
    Dec 27, 2012
    Aurora Colorado
    Okay what about the Canon 70-300mm USM L lens or the 100-400mm Both ar over a grand but I'm seriously considering selling my 43TC, 50-200mm Oly and the big lens I just picked up...anyone have any first hand experience?
     
  7. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    On what, a Canon body or MFT? I owned (and recently sold) the 100-400. It's a good zoom, sharp and contrasty in good light and stopped down a hair. I would not reccomend EF lenses on a micro 43 body - very large, awkward handling (push pull zoom works if the body is balanced to the lens, otherwise it feels clunky), no aperture control, no IS in lens (and its a zoom so you'd need to adjust the is setting in the e-m5 constantly), only OK for manual focus (like other L glass - works fine, not ass much fun to use as a true MF only lens)

    If you're going to shoot on a canon body, I saw go for it. Otherwise 100-300 or 75-300
     
  8. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I can't remember which... but there is a Canon 75-300 and a 70-300. They are both mediocre with the newer one being noticeably better. I shot with the 100-400L. Its good... OLD design lens. IS is out-dated by todays standards and it can be a bit soft at the long end. The 400mm f/5.6 L and the 300mm f/4L are good.. both I had as well.

    NONE of those I would recommend for adaptation to the Micro 4/3rds system. Your requirements are very restrictive.
     
  9. Biro

    Biro Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 8, 2011
    Jersey Shore
    Steve
    The image found at the following link was the first shot I ever took with the Panasonic 100-300mm zoom. This was a few years ago; I was using the old Panasonic G1, hand held at 300mm. The image was shot as a jpg, straight out of the camera with no processing:

    https://www.mu-43.com/attachments/f38/4255d1305603143-panasonic-100-300-performance-p1010240a.jpg

    This was without putting any effort into it. I'd say this is a vey reliable level of performance that you can expect from this lens. I have enjoyed mine and recommend it.
     
  10. rklepper

    rklepper Mu-43 Top Veteran

    733
    Dec 19, 2012
    Iowa, USA
    Robert
    I bought the Panasonic 100-300 and I am for the most part happy with it. It is a compromise and I need to get more practice with it.
     
  11. Gary Ramey

    Gary Ramey Mu-43 Veteran

    240
    Dec 27, 2012
    Aurora Colorado
    Mattia - Thanks, I completely forgot about the lack of a manual aperture control. I guess my gear lust for something beyond 300 that doesn't way 7-8lbs is what I'm after. I just don't have the pocketbook to go after the pro 43 glass that's out there.
     
  12. scott

    scott Mu-43 Veteran

    332
    Nov 15, 2010
    So far, given the aberrations in the older optics (the ones I can afford, at least) and the increased miss rate from manual focus, I haven't found it useful to use adapted telephoto lenses instead of the 100-300mm unless the EFL is at least twice as high (1200mm vs 600mm). Anything less than that and I might as well crop from the 100-300mm. Right now I'm using an 800mm adapter on an old Kowa spotting scope for a 1600mm EFL, and that's turned out to be worth carrying (despite the weight). I had a Vivitar 120-600mm zoom, but it was heavy and the optics weren't as good as the scope + adapter. Next week I'll be trying out a Nikkor-H 300mm + 2x Komura telextender, but I'm not sure that (1200mm EFL) will be as good as the scope (although I'm hoping the CA will be a lot less).
     
  13. Gary Ramey

    Gary Ramey Mu-43 Veteran

    240
    Dec 27, 2012
    Aurora Colorado
    Hey Scott. I've heard the Nikon 300mm lens and the older Canon 300mm L lens are both very sharp. I've been very tempted to by the 75mm and just crop because it is the sharpest lens available. If they made that in a 200 prime...wow. Right now my 50-200 with 1.4TC gives me a portable lens with approximate 280mm zoom. I suppose I could also purchase the 2X which would give me the 400mm reach I want. My biggest issue is I end up manually focusing that lens anyway. So if there was a better way to achieve that, manual or not, I think I'd go with it. The Tokina 150-500 I have now...is very difficult to use. The focus sweet spot is small even with it stopped down. After some practice...I m starting to get more efficient with it and I'm starting to produce some acceptable images such as this one. This isn't straight from the camera, but it has minimal processing..simple slider adjustments for contrast, sharpnes etc in LR4.
     

    Attached Files:

  14. Gary Ramey

    Gary Ramey Mu-43 Veteran

    240
    Dec 27, 2012
    Aurora Colorado
    BTW...that's somewhere between 50-75yds away
     
  15. silver92b

    silver92b Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 7, 2013
    Atlanta, GA
    Much as I love my OM-D and the M43 lenses, I still miss the sharpness of the Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED I had with my Nikon D60.
    I have the Panny 100-300 and I cannot get the same sharp shots I could get with that Nikon combo. Now, believe it of not, the Oly 40-150 Zuiko f4-5.6 can take some extremely sharp photos that rival and surpass the 100-300 in many shots I've taken of the moon and other subjects.
     
  16. Gary Ramey

    Gary Ramey Mu-43 Veteran

    240
    Dec 27, 2012
    Aurora Colorado
    Still awaiting my 40-150 silver addition from Olympus....got it for $99 but ship date is June. What I'd really like to see is them introduce some longer, sharper zooms with TCs. The other issue with Oly....you go from an affordable 500-700 to the upper reaches of the stratosphere on cost. Anyway, I'm probably leaning heavily toward the 2.oTC with the use of my 50-200...it is fairly sharp as zoons go.
     
  17. scott

    scott Mu-43 Veteran

    332
    Nov 15, 2010
    I had a Nikkor 300/4.5 AI a few years ago, and I almost took it on our second trip to Costa Rica--it was a really nice lens. I just realized that I would need autofocus, especially in the challenging light conditions down there. Plus the lower end of the 100-300 zoom was really useful for up-close wildlife like lizards, and I couldn't have gotten those pictures with a 300mm with a close focus of 13.3 feet (vs. 4.9 feet for the zoom).

    I had a Vivitar 120-600 zoom for a while, and I thought it would solve all my problems. :p But it was really heavy, and I never used the shorter end of the zoom. And the IQ turned out not be any better than the scope with the 800mm adapter. So I sold it to help pay for my PL45.