Playing in the rain (well, under my eaves for safety) with the Bigma. Had to bump up to ISO 1600 to get decent shutter speeds. A little blur on the background in PS to cut the noise. I like this lens a lot for the backyard birds. Can't quite get used to the non-Olympus zoom/focus ring layout with the focus ring at the back. I have been using manual focus a lot in the low light of the backyard. This lens shifts focus a lot when you zoom, much more than the Zuiko 50-200.
I've been watching the OM with great interest, comparing it and the long slow 75-300 with the 50-200 plus 2x teleconverter. I have to agree the lenses aren't there, realistically every micro 4/3 lens is optically not as good as it's 4/3 counterpart, almost without exception. Also, most of the nice zoom lenses don't exist at all. There are one or two primes that are good enough though, plus the 7-14 (which I'm not interested in). For example the Oly 45mm. It's not nearly contrasty as the 50mm, but the image quality is still very good and pleasant. It's not sharp enough to make your eyes water like the 50mm f/2 macro. The new 25mm f/1.4 is also looking pretty good.
I have recently been hyper busy at work and not taking any pictures.
Originally Posted by kgosden
Raven,
Considering how quiet the Olympus thread is I would just stick it out here. Great color with that E-PM1. I keep thinking about the new OM-D, but the E-5 is just a year old and the lenses are not there just yet to make me switch. I can hope that there is a new E series with the improved OM-D sensor, but I won't hold my breath.
Playing in the rain (well, under my eaves for safety) with the Bigma. Had to bump up to ISO 1600 to get decent shutter speeds. A little blur on the background in PS to cut the noise. I like this lens a lot for the backyard birds. Can't quite get used to the non-Olympus zoom/focus ring layout with the focus ring at the back. I have been using manual focus a lot in the low light of the backyard. This lens shifts focus a lot when you zoom, much more than the Zuiko 50-200.
Nice to have that sort of reach. It looks like the focus is on the nearest part of the wing rather than the eye though (funny, I would never have thought about that three years ago. I wonder how many photography mantras are as important as they're made out to be. But since I've been taught that here I am repeating it.)
The DOF at 500mm with a subject near the minimum focus distance is very shallow. Even a 1/4" of sway in the feeder or monopod can throw the subject out of focus a bit. I added a new thistle feeder about 2 feet outside a pair of windows. The gold finches are happy to have more.
That is definitely a ptarmigin. Sure like the quality of the 50-200 images.
Yeah, I was starting to question the lens for a while because it's so large relative to it's focal length. It's starting to grow on me as I use it more though, it really is sharp. I still think it needs a 2x converter.
OK as a semi impulsive buy (after several years of consideration) I just ordered the 2x teleconverter. I wonder how focusing the 50-200 original + 2x TC compares on an E-410 to a newer micro 4/3 body. Probably sucks either way.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by kgosden
