MedicineMan404 wrote:
K-H that hummer is a stunner! Very very well done!
Remind me of the big tuna?
Thanks MM. Well there is big tuna 300/2.8 and little tuna 150/2.0 and another one.
It has the size and weight of big tuna. I call the 90-250/2.8 z(oom) tuna.
Here are a few shots with zoom tuna, displayed at half resolution.
Thank you K-H for the tunification !
Then of course I googled.
Should be what I'm seeing excellent for the monies involved.
But aside from the monies a fine fine piece of glass, wielded well
in your hands too I might add.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Thank you K-H for the tunification !
Then of course I googled.
Should be what I'm seeing excellent for the monies involved.
But aside from the monies a fine fine piece of glass, wielded well
in your hands too I might add.
Thanks MM for the feedback, much appreciated.
Until a few weeks ago I didn't have and wasn't interested in any of the Olympus FT lenses, in particular not in the very costly Olympus super high grade (SHG) and to some extent high grade (HG) lenses. However, having excellent AF experiences with my E-M1.2 - i.e. no focus hunting with mFT lenses - I became curious about those SHG FT lenses.
So I stuck my toe in the water and bought a used 150/2.0 lens (at about 75% of new price from Japan) that traditionally seems to be referred to as little tuna. That lens works well on my E-M1.2 and focusses similarly to my mFT lenses with no focus hunting. Little tuna also has a very smooth bokeh. So next I got a used big tuna at 50% of new price from Korea. Same experience, no focus hunting and very smooth bokeh. Those two older FT SHG lenses IMHO play in a different league than the mFT 300/4.0 PRO and 40-150/2.8 PRO lenses, that by comparison do not have a similarly smooth bokeh. I also wanted the extra light gathering for available light photography.
So when a couple of weeks ago Olympus unloaded their remaining stock of FT lenses at half price I went for the SHG z tuna and the HG 50-200/2.8-3.5 SWD lenses. All of them are keepers, although my 3 SHG lenses are clearly optically superior to my only HG lens. Whether bought used or new, my 4 FT lenses need an AutoFocusMicroAdjustment of about -2 or -3 to correct their slight back focus, noticeable when being shot wide open.
So big and zoom tuna are so bulky and heavy that I prefer to shoot them on a tripod.
Little tuna, 50-200 SWD, 40-150/2.8 and 300/4.0 PRO I can easily shoot handheld.
I was really surprised how well the 1.4x tele-converter EC-14 performs on big tuna.
Attaching the pretty heavy 2x tele-converter EC-20 to little tuna turns it from a hand-holdable lens into one requiring a tripod for me.
So, I have just begun exploring these older FT lenses, but they have turned out already to be a lot of fun for birding and such.
Agree with everything K-H has said above. SHG lenses are real gems, and even though they're not as compact and light as the m. Zuiko lenses, their distinctive output sets them apart, IMHO.
Sorry Mitesh and K-H ... but I cannot wrap my head around this. Why would you guys give up your Canon and big glass for the E-M1.2 and almost-just-as-big 4/3 Olympus glass?
mitesh wrote:
Agree with everything K-H has said above. SHG lenses are real gems, and even though they're not as compact and light as the m. Zuiko lenses, their distinctive output sets them apart, IMHO.
Well Bobby I have never owned any Canon gear.
I still own a Nikon D800E and AF-S 80-400, but I never use it.
Having the FF equivalent of a 300/2.0 and 600/2.8 doesn't appear feasible with FF gear, no?
bobbytan wrote:
Sorry Mitesh and K-H ... but I cannot wrap my head around this. Why would you guys give up your Canon and big glass for the E-M1.2 and almost-just-as-big 4/3 Olympus glass?
That's a good question, Bobby. You have K-H's reply above, so I'll add my own thoughts.
1. Despite the size/weight, the ZD 300/2.8 is still lighter and more compact than a Canon 600/4. The 90-250/2.8 is also more compact, but perhaps nearly the same weight as the Canon 200-400/4. The nominal f/2.8 apertures are very desirable for light gathering as well as subject isolation. In the hours when light is best and wildlife is often most active, ensuring a high enough shutter speed without raising ISO too much is often a concern.
2. The Canon cameras are larger and heavier than the E-M1.2, and while they may offer better AF performance in some situations, particularly C-AF, the Olympus cameras do have quite a few advantages over a DSLR (for me, at least).
3. These SHG lenses are complementary to the more portable and lighter m. Zuiko lenses. That they work surprisingly well with the MMF adapter is a bonus that allows us to use the lenses with the most modern camera Olympus has to offer.
4. In the bigger picture, I decided to move from a FF DSLR system to a mirrorless system. I have been able to go lighter and gain flexibility through the Olympus system, and these SHG lenses claw back some of the perceived IQ loss from moving to m4/3 from FF (I say perceived because it is debatable, and what one person may perceive to be an IQ difference, another may not), while still significantly reducing the total dollars spent on gear.
Those are just my thoughts and I realize that different photographers have different priorities/goals and that these lenses may not be good acquisitions for everyone.
mitesh wrote:
That's a good question, Bobby. You have K-H's reply above, so I'll add my own thoughts.
1. Despite the size/weight, the ZD 300/2.8 is still lighter and more compact than a Canon 600/4. The 90-250/2.8 is also more compact, but perhaps nearly the same weight as the Canon 200-400/4. The nominal f/2.8 apertures are very desirable for light gathering as well as subject isolation. In the hours when light is best and wildlife is often most active, ensuring a high enough shutter speed without raising ISO too much is often a concern.
2. The Canon cameras are larger and heavier than the E-M1.2, and while they may offer better AF performance in some situations, particularly C-AF, the Olympus cameras do have quite a few advantages over a DSLR (for me, at least).
3. These SHG lenses are complementary to the more portable and lighter m. Zuiko lenses. That they work surprisingly well with the MMF adapter is a bonus that allows us to use the lenses with the most modern camera Olympus has to offer.
Those are just my thoughts and I realize that different photographers have different priorities/goals and that these lenses may not be good acquisitions for everyone. ...Show more →
+1
Excellent points Mitesh.
I am sure one can think of additional ones.
Like I paid slightly above $3k for big tuna 300/2.8, FF equivalent of 600/2.8 as compared to a FF Canon or Nikon 600/4.0 in excess of new $10k, or used what?
k-h.a.w wrote:
Thanks MM. Well there is big tuna 300/2.8 and little tuna 150/2.0 and another one.
It has the size and weight of big tuna. I call the 90-250/2.8 z(oom) tuna.
Here are a few shots with zoom tuna, displayed at half resolution.
How well does the little tuna C-AF on the E-M1ii compared to the 40-150 Pro?
whumber wrote:
How well does the little tuna C-AF on the E-M1ii compared to the 40-150 Pro?
Little tuna goes in direction of focus, no focus hunting, maybe a tiny bit slower, one can hear a little bit of noise.
A high hit rate for me but not 100%. Very good sensitivity to anything in the sky.
I took sharp images of distant migrating cranes that I could hear but not see.
Practically speaking no difference for me from a focusing point of view.
mitesh wrote:
Agree with everything K-H has said above. SHG lenses are real gems, and even though they're not as compact and light as the m. Zuiko lenses, their distinctive output sets them apart, IMHO.
mitesh wrote:
4. In the bigger picture, I decided to move from a FF DSLR system to a mirrorless system. I have been able to go lighter and gain flexibility through the Olympus system, and these SHG lenses claw back some of the perceived IQ loss from moving to m4/3 from FF (I say perceived because it is debatable, and what one person may perceive to be an IQ difference, another may not), while still significantly reducing the total dollars spent on gear.
Those are just my thoughts and I realize that different photographers have different priorities/goals and that these lenses may not be good acquisitions for everyone. ...Show more →
I'm about to fall off the fence too, but with a Sony buffer between me and the ground.
I just want one more round with the 1DXii + 500 at Conowingo and I'll be ready for purgatory with the Sony kit. That weight reduction (Canon to Sony) should eek me out a few more years before the joints can only tolerate mFT.
Sony's latest screams they're going for it ~sports/wildlife~ and their FE100-400GM makes it finally feasible for e-mount but moreso that an FE500 is in the pipe.
I politely disagree with Bobby depending on wildlife venue 100-400 with TC has treated me well, in Florida a couple of weeks ago the 1DXii with 100-400ii and 1.4TC brought home many keepers-but this was a wildlife venue where I could get reasonably close. At Conowingo 500mm with 1.4TC just barely make the cut distance wise.
In the mean time I'll keep active with the M1ii and the process of mastering it (will never happen and enjoying what it has to offer.
Speaking of, when I compare the specs of the Sony alpha9 I'm eerily reminded of the M1ii, excepting sensor size of course.
Also keep in mind that the added 4 MP on the Mark II is the equivalent of adding a 1.25x TC to an E-M1-I, so a 1.4x Extender becomes a 1.65x. Make a difference.
DanC.Licks wrote:
When we spoke Bengali, the Bengalis always said Kolkata but would switch to Calcutta when we spoke English. Now they seem to stick with Kolkata even in English.
I notice that too now.
Achha, tumi Kolkatar chele?
Unfortunately not. But, I have to been to Cal several times. One of my good friends still lives there and I may head over for Durga Puja some day. How did you end up in Calcutta?
MedicineMan404 wrote:
I'm about to fall off the fence too, but with a Sony buffer between me and the ground.
I just want one more round with the 1DXii + 500 at Conowingo and I'll be ready for purgatory with the Sony kit. That weight reduction (Canon to Sony) should eek me out a few more years before the joints can only tolerate mFT.
Sony's latest screams they're going for it ~sports/wildlife~ and their FE100-400GM makes it finally feasible for e-mount but moreso that an FE500 is in the pipe.
I politely disagree with Bobby depending on wildlife venue 100-400 with TC has treated me well, in Florida a couple of weeks ago the 1DXii with 100-400ii and 1.4TC brought home many keepers-but this was a wildlife venue where I could get reasonably close. At Conowingo 500mm with 1.4TC just barely make the cut distance wise.
In the mean time I'll keep active with the M1ii and the process of mastering it (will never happen and enjoying what it has to offer.
Speaking of, when I compare the specs of the Sony alpha9 I'm eerily reminded of the M1ii, excepting sensor size of course. ...Show more →
Thanks MM. I agree, it should be interesting to use an A9 and E-M1.2 side by side as the 2 cameras seem technically so similar aside from sensor size. I think I am set for long teles with my Olympus FT and mFT gear. For fairly short teles the A9 looks interesting though.
I have the Sony FE 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G OSS Lens and find it disappointing when used on my A7r.2 or a6300. I certainly hope the new FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS lens is a major improvement.
Thank you maf27, Dan and Mitesh
Yes names here are all messed up. But
the fate of names like language are decided by people so people still call what they want to call. All this name changing is just a lip service that changes nothing in real world.
Yes in case of Kolkata they atleast alligned with local sentiment.
Its funny when you use google map here and all the street names are unknown to you
maf27 wrote:
Anurag, it's good to hear some people still refer to it is as 'Bombay' instead 'Mumbai'. Having lived in India for 25 years, I still can't come to terms with new names for Indian cities
300/2.8 really attractive. Whats the weight and size like?
k-h.a.w wrote:
Well Bobby I have never owned any Canon gear.
I still own a Nikon D800E and AF-S 80-400, but I never use it.
Having the FF equivalent of a 300/2.0 and 600/2.8 doesn't appear feasible with FF gear, no?
(embarrassed)