Posted by Katja Rosvall on December 9, 2009 at 4:09 AM
My turn now to ask for lens advice
I realised that a macro lens isn't very good for birds/BFs/DFs so I'm considering (whether I should consider) buying a Big Zoom. I prefer a zoom to a prime, because it's more flexible, though I may lose a bit in image quality. Obviously, I'd like your comments, input and advice on the matter.
The whole available selection seems to contain five lenses. One, the standard Zuiko 70-300 mm 4-5.6, is disqualified immediately as too cheap (I expect my Big Zoom to cost more than my 105 mm macro). I consider quality and practicality first, price comes later.
Here are the other four in order of increasing interest. Prices are for comparison purposes; I know I can find cheaper offers. 1000 EUR = about 1500 USD. I've been looking at some reviews and include some pointers here. Also, 4/3rds doubles the effective focal length (or however you put it in technical jargon...).
Sigma 70-200 2.8 Macro HSM 800€ 1.4 kg
- HSM = supposedly fast and quiet AF. Performance at long end not impressive.
Top Pro Zuiko 90-250 2.8 5900€ 3.3 kg
- Weatherproof. Expensive but high quality. If the price didn't kill me dead, the weight just might!
Sigma "Bigma" 50-500 4-6.3 HSM 1300€ 1.8 kg
- This has more mm's than the next one but only f4. Naturally, I wouldn't mind having all those mm's. Performance ok in good light.
Pro Zuiko 50-200 2.8-3.5 SWD 1250€ 1 kg
- Weatherproof, SWD = very good AF. My Zuiko 12-60 mm has SWD, and the AF is fast and accurate (some of my posts here are proof). Positive reviews but very bulky lens hood. Should work well with Oly's 2x TC (another 500€).
The last two are pretty even in my race; what makes the Top Pro Zuiko fall to third place is mainly the weight. Focal lengths starting at 50 mm seem a bit short to me, but at least it adds flexibility (or what do people with more experience think?). The Bigma is tempting, but on the other hand, I could add a 2x TC to the Pro Zuiko; not sure what the Bigma would think about the TC. Of course, TC's are always bad for the f number.
Even though there aren't so many options, I'm pretty well bogged down. All comments and other things that help me make an informed choice are greatly appreciated
Posted by Hendrik BOSMAN on December 9, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Hi Katja,
Good to see another E-3`er on the forum.
There is absolutely NOTHING available that rival the ZUIKO Pro and Top Pro. I use the ZUIKO Pro 50-200 and has for a few years used it`s predecessor (it got stolen this year with all my photography equipment) and has had no problems at all. The "Bigma" is good I`m not sure that it is really really value for money. The big zoom range is just too good to be true. I`ve considered that one myself many times and is not convinced of it`s value.
At the price you mention the ZUIKO Top Pro is actually very good value for money because of it`s quality. I use the ZUIKO Top Pro 7-14mm and the quality as beyond anything I`ve seen ever anywhere!!!
Posted by David Bostedo on December 9, 2009 at 1:01 PM
I've been eye'ing the Oly 55-200 SWD and Sigma 70-200 for a while now. I've heard some very mediocre things about the 50-500 - if they'd make the 150-500 in an 4/3 mount it would be a much better option. The only concern I'd have with the Sigma is the focus speed (although I use an E-520, not E-3), but it is nice that it's f/2.8 through the whole range since you lose 1/2 a stop on the Oly at the long end, but gain 15mm at the short end. I don't really know how to choose between the Sigma and Oly! Sorry I can't be more help.
Posted by Milton Berko on December 9, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Hi Katja,
I use the 50-200mm lens (non-SWD) with the EC-14 on both the E-510 and E-3. It never leaves the camera. I find this combination outstanding. I also own the 70-300m Zuiko and it is a very good value for the price but is not as fast or as sharp as the 50-200. The 50-200mm is also better in capturing BIF. I have seen excellent results with the 300mm but at a price of $7,000USD it is beyond my range.
Posted by Dennis Binda on December 9, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Hi Katja,
The 50-200 would be my choice. Great lens but maybe a bit 'short' for birding. I'd never buy the Bigma, big no no.. !!
Posted by Jim DeWitt on December 9, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Katja -
I'm a diehard Olympus and Zuiko user and have evaluated, used and purchased most of the big glass Zuiko sells for 4/3rds.
By far the best lens is the 300mm f2.8. Easily the best lens I have ever owned. While it's big, heavy and fixed, it's also rugged, optically near-perfect and works very well with the 1.4X and 2.0X teleconverters. My primary avian photo set up is the 300mm with a 2.0 TC.
The 90-250 f2.8 is good, but not as good as the 300mm. It's not as sharp, and it is impossible to get really sharp photos with either the 1.4TC, let alone the 2.0TC.
The 70-300mm lens is mediocre at best, and unusable with a teleconverter. I used to carry it as a back up lens, but have stopped. I'd sell it if I could.
The 50-200mm SWD is a bit slow but sharp. It's good with the 1.4TC and adequate with the 2.0TC. Keep in mind that the 2.0TC costs you two stops, so at a full 200mm you need bright sunlight to get a decent shutter speed, and shallow DOF is effectively impossible. Even at 200mm with a 2.0TC and bright light, I don't think it is adequate for avian photography.
The Sigma 50-500 is the size of a bazooka, slow, soft and the autofocus is worthless. I sent mine back fro a refund. Hendrik Bosman's comments are exactly right: Zuiko's top glass is top rate, and worth the price.
If you have questions, email me. I have four years of fairly extensive experience with Zuiko glass.
Posted by Katja Rosvall on December 10, 2009 at 2:23 AM
Thank you everybody, you've solved my original problem Now, I think I'll take a look at the 300 mm too...
Thank you for the offer Jim, I may take you up on that a bit later
Thank you again!
Posted by Hendrik BOSMAN on December 10, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Hi David,
Hope you don`t mind my comment. There is no comparison between the Olympus ZUIKO 50 - 200mm SWD and the Sigma 70 - 200m as far as quality goes. I`ve been using long ZUIKO lenses for the last 20 years and the quality is like nothing you`ve seen before. If you use the price as a measure you will immediately see that the Olympus should be about 2-3X more expensive and that is because of the quality. In the other posts you will see that it is a Pro lens which means that the glass and assembly is just that much better. Even using the E-520 (my Son uses a E-520 and he is doing quite well against "Big" Nikons & Canons) body with this lens will show that it is a good investment. If I had some spare money laying around I`ll go for the 300mm but in South Africa we pay a premium which means that in the US it costs $7000 but in South Africa we pay close on $11 000.
Posted by David Bostedo on December 10, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Thanks Hendrik....unfortunately, when you say that the lens quality is like nothing I've seen before, I'd have to say that I haven't really seen anything before. I only own one lens - the 12-60 SWD. Although I've read a ton about lenses, I don't have the hands-on kind of info with multiple systems to be able to compare. So I need to rely on reviews and comments like yours - and try out the lens at the shop when I can I suppose, but most places wouldn't carry those two lenses. So you're comment is very helpful. Thanks again.
Discussion
8 repliesI realised that a macro lens isn't very good for birds/BFs/DFs
The whole available selection seems to contain five lenses. One, the standard Zuiko 70-300 mm 4-5.6, is disqualified immediately as too cheap (I expect my Big Zoom to cost more than my 105 mm macro). I consider quality and practicality first, price comes later.
Here are the other four in order of increasing interest. Prices are for comparison purposes; I know I can find cheaper offers. 1000 EUR = about 1500 USD. I've been looking at some reviews and include some pointers here. Also, 4/3rds doubles the effective focal length (or however you put it in technical jargon...).
Sigma 70-200 2.8 Macro HSM 800€ 1.4 kg
- HSM = supposedly fast and quiet AF. Performance at long end not impressive.
Top Pro Zuiko 90-250 2.8 5900€ 3.3 kg
- Weatherproof. Expensive but high quality. If the price didn't kill me dead, the weight just might!
Sigma "Bigma" 50-500 4-6.3 HSM 1300€ 1.8 kg
- This has more mm's than the next one but only f4. Naturally, I wouldn't mind having all those mm's. Performance ok in good light.
Pro Zuiko 50-200 2.8-3.5 SWD 1250€ 1 kg
- Weatherproof, SWD = very good AF. My Zuiko 12-60 mm has SWD, and the AF is fast and accurate (some of my posts here are proof). Positive reviews but very bulky lens hood. Should work well with Oly's 2x TC (another 500€).
The last two are pretty even in my race; what makes the Top Pro Zuiko fall to third place is mainly the weight. Focal lengths starting at 50 mm seem a bit short to me, but at least it adds flexibility (or what do people with more experience think?). The Bigma is tempting, but on the other hand, I could add a 2x TC to the Pro Zuiko; not sure what the Bigma would think about the TC. Of course, TC's are always bad for the f number.
Even though there aren't so many options, I'm pretty well bogged down. All comments and other things that help me make an informed choice are greatly appreciated
Good to see another E-3`er on the forum.
There is absolutely NOTHING available that rival the ZUIKO Pro and Top Pro. I use the ZUIKO Pro 50-200 and has for a few years used it`s predecessor (it got stolen this year with all my photography equipment) and has had no problems at all. The "Bigma" is good I`m not sure that it is really really value for money. The big zoom range is just too good to be true. I`ve considered that one myself many times and is not convinced of it`s value.
At the price you mention the ZUIKO Top Pro is actually very good value for money because of it`s quality. I use the ZUIKO Top Pro 7-14mm and the quality as beyond anything I`ve seen ever anywhere!!!
I use the 50-200mm lens (non-SWD) with the EC-14 on both the E-510 and E-3. It never leaves the camera. I find this combination outstanding. I also own the 70-300m Zuiko and it is a very good value for the price but is not as fast or as sharp as the 50-200. The 50-200mm is also better in capturing BIF. I have seen excellent results with the 300mm but at a price of $7,000USD it is beyond my range.
The 50-200 would be my choice. Great lens but maybe a bit 'short' for birding. I'd never buy the Bigma, big no no.. !!
I'm a diehard Olympus and Zuiko user and have evaluated, used and purchased most of the big glass Zuiko sells for 4/3rds.
By far the best lens is the 300mm f2.8. Easily the best lens I have ever owned. While it's big, heavy and fixed, it's also rugged, optically near-perfect and works very well with the 1.4X and 2.0X teleconverters. My primary avian photo set up is the 300mm with a 2.0 TC.
The 90-250 f2.8 is good, but not as good as the 300mm. It's not as sharp, and it is impossible to get really sharp photos with either the 1.4TC, let alone the 2.0TC.
The 70-300mm lens is mediocre at best, and unusable with a teleconverter. I used to carry it as a back up lens, but have stopped. I'd sell it if I could.
The 50-200mm SWD is a bit slow but sharp. It's good with the 1.4TC and adequate with the 2.0TC. Keep in mind that the 2.0TC costs you two stops, so at a full 200mm you need bright sunlight to get a decent shutter speed, and shallow DOF is effectively impossible. Even at 200mm with a 2.0TC and bright light, I don't think it is adequate for avian photography.
The Sigma 50-500 is the size of a bazooka, slow, soft and the autofocus is worthless. I sent mine back fro a refund. Hendrik Bosman's comments are exactly right: Zuiko's top glass is top rate, and worth the price.
If you have questions, email me. I have four years of fairly extensive experience with Zuiko glass.
Thank you for the offer Jim, I may take you up on that a bit later
Thank you again!
Hope you don`t mind my comment. There is no comparison between the Olympus ZUIKO 50 - 200mm SWD and the Sigma 70 - 200m as far as quality goes. I`ve been using long ZUIKO lenses for the last 20 years and the quality is like nothing you`ve seen before. If you use the price as a measure you will immediately see that the Olympus should be about 2-3X more expensive and that is because of the quality. In the other posts you will see that it is a Pro lens which means that the glass and assembly is just that much better. Even using the E-520 (my Son uses a E-520 and he is doing quite well against "Big" Nikons & Canons) body with this lens will show that it is a good investment. If I had some spare money laying around I`ll go for the 300mm but in South Africa we pay a premium which means that in the US it costs $7000 but in South Africa we pay close on $11 000.