Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: PeterAit on July 08, 2015, 06:28:50 pm
-
Subject says it all.
-
Not that I've seen, but the 40-150 f2.8 has a 1.4 teleconverter and the upcoming 300mm f4 may also have one.
-
not longer than 300. there is the Pany 100-300 which is not exceptionally sharp. in 4/3 there is the Oly 300 f2.8 at 10 times the price and the 90-250 2.8 at a bit less than $5k. I haven't seen any tests of these lenses on the latest Oly m4/3 cameras - would be a serious test of autofocus and in-body stabilization.
Otherwise it's adapters.
-
I wonder if a metabones speed booster would work with my new Canon 100-400 + 1.4x.
-
Stever,
Regarding the Panasonic 100-300, Kevin Raber wrote about using an Olympus E-M1 on a two week trip along with the 100-300. Date of article was Oct 10, 2014. In general, he complimented the 100-300. Here is a link to the article.
https://luminous-landscape.com/two-weeks-with-the-olympus-e-m1/
Brad
-
I wonder if a metabones speed booster would work with my new Canon 100-400 + 1.4x.
It should do
-
I have the Olympus 40-150 2.8 PRO along with the 1.4 converter which gives me a 420mm equivalent. The Olympus 300mm 4.0 PRO is due out sometime late this year or early next year. The 1.4 converter is supposed to work on it also, that would give the lens a 840mm equivalent. If the current PRO lenses are an example of the sharpness, the 300 will be an incredible lens.
-
Np, there are no micro Four Thirds lenses of actual focal length beyond 300mm, probably for the same reason that there are no current Nikon or Sony lenses for 35mm format beyond 600mm: very limited demand. But not nonexistent demand! Some of us would like even more reach, and for now the only option is adaptor mounting a lens from some other system. (TCs do not help yet, because current MFT long lenses are too slow to work with TCs; the 300/4 will help there.)
As far as angular Field Of View [FOV], as often described by "equivalent focal length", I am usually happy to do things like convert my "16MP, 4/3" format, 600mm equivalent FOV" to a "9MP, 1" format, 800mm equivalent FOV" by cropping to 3/4 of frame height and width, which is like using a 9MP, 1" format sensor. Most of my long wildlife shots probably do not need even as much as 9MP (my technique and a strong preference for not carrying a tripod sets the resolution limit!)
To allow for cropping, I sometimes like to compare FOV and "equivalent focal length" at a given resolution, as roughly measured by pixel counts: overall, I would prefer to increase my reach by getting a next generation 20MP or 24MP MFT body that allows more cropping rather than by getting an even longer lens or fiddling with a TC.
-
There are two other thing to consider:
firstly is that when using DSLR with lenses of 600mm or more, atmospheric conditions can be a more limiting factor on image quality so the benefits of a longer lens can reduce.
One thing to consider is that if you are focal-length limited the Field of view argument is not relevant. An example, small birds or small animals where you are often shooting from a fixed position (either from a hide or to get closer would either spool the animal or be dangerous) and you would crop no matter what the format (ditto sometimes larger animals from distance). And in that respect a 300mm lens on MFT is equivalent to 300mm on FF. The question then comes of pixels on the subject and 16MP on MFT is equivalent to about 60MP on FF but pixel quality is also something to think about.
-
There are two other thing to consider:
firstly is that when using DSLR with lenses of 600mm or more, atmospheric conditions can be a more limiting factor on image quality so the benefits of a longer lens can reduce.
Yes, that is another factor for my thought that it is difficult to get a full 16MP or 24MP or 42MP or 50MP worth of detail with extreme telephoto shots.
One thing to consider is that if you are focal-length limited the Field of view argument is not relevant. An example, small birds or small animals where you are often shooting from a fixed position (either from a hide or to get closer would either spool the animal or be dangerous) and you would crop no matter what the format (ditto sometimes larger animals from distance).
Agreed again: another reason why I prefer to use a 300mm lens in MFT with "loose framing" with a sensor of more than enough resolution and then crop to the desired final framing rather than push my focal length much beyond 300mm. It can also be very hard to find a subject in the viewfinder with a lens of extremely narrow FOV, or to keep a moving subject tightly framed; another argument for loose framing with surplus resolution.
... in that respect a 300mm lens on MFT is equivalent to 300mm on FF. The question then comes of pixels on the subject and 16MP on MFT is equivalent to about 60MP on FF but pixel quality is also something to think about.
"300mm in MFT = 300mm in 35mm" if the sensors have equal pixel size and so you are getting equal angular resolution of the subject matter, but that has never been the case. That is why I like normalizing on angular resolution or "final image detail" as measured roughly by "pixel count after cropping". So to be fair to larger formats, 300mm with the current 16MP Four Thirds sensor is like only about 340mm in the new 50MP Canon, or 370mm with the new Sony 42MP option, or 400mm with the Nikon D810 -- the MFT options are just a lot cheaper and lighter than those other body and lens pairs!
-
I wonder if a metabones speed booster would work with my new Canon 100-400 + 1.4x.
While technically it would work, what's the point? You end up back at 400mm/5.6 top end - and out a chunk of change for the SB:
400mm @ f/5.6 X 1.4 = 560mm @ f/8 X 0.71 speed-booster factor = 398mm @ f/5.6! Without the 1.4x TC, though, 280mm @ f/4.
Pete
-
not longer than 300. there is the Pany 100-300 which is not exceptionally sharp. in 4/3 there is the Oly 300 f2.8 at 10 times the price and the 90-250 2.8 at a bit less than $5k. I haven't seen any tests of these lenses on the latest Oly m4/3 cameras - would be a serious test of autofocus and in-body stabilization.
Otherwise it's adapters.
Thanks for the response. I have the Panny 100-300 and must strenuously disagree with you about its sharpness, which I think is quite astounding for an inexpensive and lightweight lens. See the image of the heron below, taken with this lens at 200 mm - and this is a crop of about 1/4 of the 16 MP frame! Likewise the gulls, at 300 mm and 1/2 of the frame. Don't tell me these are not sharp!
-
Thanks for the response. I have the Panny 100-300 and must strenuously disagree with you about its sharpness, which I think is quite astounding for an inexpensive and lightweight lens. See the image of the heron below, taken with this lens at 200 mm - and this is a crop of about 1/4 of the 16 MP frame! Likewise the gulls, at 300 mm and 1/2 of the frame. Don't tell me these are not sharp!
I agree. I think the biggest problem is that the OIS has difficulty coping with the top end EFL of 600mm, and that hand-held shutter speeds below 1/500 are increasingly likely to show degredation - at least in my 75 year old hands! As a Panny GH3&4 shooter, I'd be interested in it's performance at lower SS's with the 5-axis mag-lev IBIS of the E-M1.
Pete
-
In my experience with the Panasonic 100-300mm lens--initially with a Panasonic GH2, and now with an Olympus E-M1--it is not as sharp at 300mm as it is at 100mm, in agreement with a number of systematic reviews of this lens. However, with the E-M1 at least, if you stop down one stop from wide open, and as Pete said, use higher shutter speeds and/or a tripod or monopod, it can yield remarkably sharp images for a lens of this FOV, weight, and cost. The results with the E-M1 seem slightly sharper to me if you use the IBIS within the camera, rather than the IS within the lens.
-
Thanks for the response. I have the Panny 100-300 and must strenuously disagree with you about its sharpness, which I think is quite astounding for an inexpensive and lightweight lens. See the image of the heron below, taken with this lens at 200 mm - and this is a crop of about 1/4 of the 16 MP frame! Likewise the gulls, at 300 mm and 1/2 of the frame. Don't tell me these are not sharp!
200mm seems to be its limit of performance and I think whether you shoot at 200mm and crop or shoot at 300mm is a variable feast.
-
Tree swallow, shot with a Panasonic 100-300mm lens at 300mm, Olympus E-M1 body, f/8 at 1/320, ISO 2000, on a monopod; processed in Lightroom 5, about 1/4 frame removed by cropping.
-
200mm seems to be its limit of performance and I think whether you shoot at 200mm and crop or shoot at 300mm is a variable feast.
Well, after using the lens for over four years, I have to disagree! Here's a GH3 @ 300mm on tripod, 100% crop shot using my wi-fi camera connection to 10" Asus tablet, allowing you touch your focus point on the tablet (bird's eye), which instructs camera to rapid AF-s and shoot single or burst.
1/20 sec, f/6.3, ISO 1600, from RAW. Poor, flat lighting, but a good result with hands off the camera - and a relaxing way to shoot without being glued to the EP or screen. The lens sharpens a bit more at f/7.1-8. The bird's a California Towhee.
Pete
-
An excellent shot, Pete.
I guess this supports what you said above about not forgetting this is a akin to using a 600mm lens on FF camera and to handle it as such (and stop down a bit!).
-
And it appears that Panasonic has just announced a 100-400mm 4.0-6.3 lens. Interesting. :)
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/panasonic-announces-gx8.html
-
JK Imaging, using the Kodak name, announced a 400m prime for m4/3. Fixed aperture and manual focus so of limited use, it still is a native lens over 300mm, technically. I can't find any confirmation it has made it into production yet but other lenses announced at the same time have.
-
Just a thought, but if you genuinely need focal lengths above 300 mm actual, have you considered using a telescope?
Something like a Meade ETX80 has focal length 400 mm and f/5 focal ratio, for under 300 UK pounds. Or for real reach a Maksutov-Cassegrain like the ETX-90 or ETX-125 (which is what I have) with focal length 1900mm at f/15.
I've not actually shot through it with my GH4 but it worked just fine with a Canon 7D.
Sure, the prices go on up and up, and you might end up wanting an eye-watering Apochromatic for serious photographic use but telescopes often come with pretty stable, reasonably portable mounts designed to take the weight of the telescope plus a camera hanging off the back.
Cheers, Hywel
-
Via adaptor you can get some serious reach from m43 cameras if you want. I've attached a pic I took a couple years ago with an Olympus E-M5, Nikon 400/3.5 lens plus a pair of stacked 2x TCs. That's 1600mm. :) Even then the pic is a full-res crop from the original. Saturn is a long ways away! My aim here wasn't to do serious astrophotography but merely to find out what an extreme combo—small sensor + very long lens—was capable of. It took me longer to find Saturn with such a small field-of-view than it took to photograph it.
I have to say the most enjoyable part of this exercise was watching Saturn at ~10x mag via the rear LCD as it moved through the image frame. I've done the same thing a few times this year with Jupiter and its major moons…usually haven't even bothered taking photos.
-Dave-