Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 68

Thread: Telephoto lens?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Livin in a redneck paradise
    Posts
    1,874

    Telephoto lens?

    So, looking for a new telephoto lens. Weather sealing, or at least good build (better than 70-300 or 40-150), is required. I'm thinking some sort of teleconverter and some sort of 50-200. Any opinions on the 4 possible combinations?

    Alternatively, the 90-250mm looks nice except the size and price .

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,346
    Raven,

    I really like my 50-200. I have not used either of the teleconverters with it yet. However, I plan on renting at least one of those for my Summer Alaska vacation. The 50-200 is a little heavy after carrying the 70-300, but the image quality is much better. The bulk does have me researching a new camera bag.

    Everything else from Olympus is very pricey and rapidly goes up in weight. I managed to get mine on one of the previous sales for south of $1k. I did notice that Olympus occasionally has factory refurbs on it for $860 or so. Adorama currently has Oly refurbs for $900, but new ones are only $1050 with the current rebates.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Derbyshire, UK
    Posts
    2,505
    Raven are you thinking of the 50-200 SWD & non SWD with the x1.4 & x2 converters as the 4 combinations? I was also thinking of a 50-200 as I saw one on ebay recently for a good price. I didn't go for it as it was the non SWD version and the SWD one is meant to have a better bokeh. The converters are pretty expensive too, again I saw one on ebay recently and it went for close to the new price. kgosden how much better is the 50-200 IQ than the 70-300? do you have any back to back egs you could post?
    Around every picture there's a corner & round every corner there's a picture
    - the fun's in finding them

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Livin in a redneck paradise
    Posts
    1,874
    Quote Originally Posted by Phill D View Post
    Raven are you thinking of the 50-200 SWD & non SWD with the x1.4 & x2 converters as the 4 combinations? I was also thinking of a 50-200 as I saw one on ebay recently for a good price. I didn't go for it as it was the non SWD version and the SWD one is meant to have a better bokeh. The converters are pretty expensive too, again I saw one on ebay recently and it went for close to the new price. kgosden how much better is the 50-200 IQ than the 70-300? do you have any back to back egs you could post?
    Right, those are the four. I was thinking the old 50-200 and the 1.4x converter to save price, but I agree, I have seen some pretty bad bokeh from that combination. But then, the 2.0x converter really seems to improve the bokeh vs. 1.4x from what I have seen.

    I am going cheap I think, because I doubt it will be the ultimate in telephoto lenses for me, so no sense going nice now and then getting another expensive one later. I really would like a 90-250mm f/2.8 in theory, don't know about in practice, but I don't know how many future camera bodies I'd be able to use it on (especially for the price!).

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,346
    I can probably do some 70-300 and 50-200 SWD comparisons, but I loaned the 50-200 to a co-worker for the weekend. I am the office Olympus lens rental guy If we have some nice weather next week I will try to break out the kit and the tripod on a sunny day for some quick test shots. I would say that the 70-300 is a decent lens especially at the $300 price point. It is nowhere near as fast to focus even on the E-520. I do like it for macro work at a nice distance from the subject, but you have to go to manual focus as you get close to a subject; good thing there is a MF/AF switch on the lens itself (thanks to the supposed Sigma design). I have found that the 70-300 suffers from some nasty internal reflections from in scene light sources. It may only be an artifact when I have a UV filter on the front, but I am not certain of that as I do not always have the filter in front.

    Raven, you might consider renting the 50-200 and both teleconverters for a week. It would run you about $150. I rented the 50-200 before I bit the bullet. Certainly worth renting one of the real high end lenses if you want to see what real bulk can do.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Derbyshire, UK
    Posts
    2,505
    I'll look forward to that comparison kg when you can get your lens back. I have to say that is pretty generous to lend out your lens like that. Wish you worked in our office.
    Raven did you win the lottery or something considering a 90-250. I just looked at the prices and they are between 4000 to 5000 :0 and it doesn't seem to get really rave reviews at that either. I guess at those prices expectations are sky high.
    Around every picture there's a corner & round every corner there's a picture
    - the fun's in finding them

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Livin in a redneck paradise
    Posts
    1,874
    No, not really, more of a wish than a consideration. Especially since I am thinking of getting a tripod this year, I'm probably headed for the non-SWD 50-200.

    Kgosden, where did you rent from?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,346
    Raven,

    I used LensRentals.com. Rates, selection and service were great. I used them for the 50-200 and the 7-14. I plan to rent one or both of the teleconverters for a two week Alaska trip. At less than $100/week for each it seems like a better idea than shelling out the $400 to buy one for what may turn out to be a very occasional use. Also try http://prophotorental.com/ or http://www.borrowlenses.com/. I think these are the only Olympus rental sites.

    Since you have a new E series you will likely benefit from the SWD version of the 50-200. Not sure how much you can save buying the early one though.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Livin in a redneck paradise
    Posts
    1,874
    Quote Originally Posted by kgosden View Post
    Since you have a new E series you will likely benefit from the SWD version of the 50-200. Not sure how much you can save buying the early one though.
    I figure the old 50-200 should focus as well as my 14-54 of the same era, which is my best focusing lens, so I don't think I'll have a complaint. It's currently going for a little north of $600. My last telephoto (70-300) became next to useless due to a sand dune, and the one before that (40-150) took so much abuse to the cheap plastic lens mount that the rear cap barely stays on, and it's taken a few scratches to the rear element as a result. All in all, no point getting a nice lens at this point!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,346
    So any thoughts on what type of comparison shots you want to see? At similar focal lengths or just each lens at the extreme? I will find some non-moving subject with good details at several distances. It will probably be on the E-520 (although I finally bit the bullet on the E-5 order today).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •