Did you guys know about this?

O

Osirus

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2
Edit My Images
No
Hello everyone, my name is Don and I am (at the moment) an Olympus E-510/E3 user. I started using the 4/3rds format partly because of the advertised 2x crop factor. I like to shoot birds and I quickly found out that some of the language used by Olympus’ advertising and other 4/3rds users talking about the 2x crop factor was not only just downright ignorant but sometimes misleading (on Olympus’ part). Do any of you know how many people actually believe that the new 70 - 300mm f/4 – f/5.6 Zuiko Digital lens they just bought actually has an equivalent focal length of 600mm? A lot of people believe that, I know this because I had to correct many people during discussions about the 4/3rds format’s crop factor. “Equivalent field of view” is the term that should be used when discussing crop factor vs a full frame camera.

As many of us know, there simply is no replacement for a quality telephoto lens at its actual focal length. I really wanted to keep the Image stabilization ability of my camera’s sensor and get a f/4 or maybe an f/4.5 400mm lens without the IS because I wouldn’t need it. YEAH RIGHT! Because Canon and Nikon have cornered the market on fast lenses in 400mm! You might ask “Why would Canon and Nikon even want to corner the market on fast 400mm lenses?” Because they are one of the most popular and versatile lenses one could purchase. They don’t weigh as much as a 500 or 600mm lenses and can be relatively easy to transport, you can use one without a tripod (with IS of course) and still get great shots, and quality f/4 or f/4.5 400mm lenses can be used with a 1.4 TC without sacrificing too much sharpness. Make no mistake, a high quality 400mm f/4 or f/4.5 lens is as versatile as it is desirable. Canon and Nikon know this, and they also know that the sensor based image stabilization is getting better. In some cases sensor based IS surpasses lens based. For example, Lecia’s lens based IS gets spanked by Olympus’ sensor shift IS this can be demonstrated online (I don’t want to risk having my post taken down to tell you which website).

Here’s my point, lens based image stabilization is VERY expensive. I’m sure that a few enterprising folks like me have thought “Why would I pay thousands more for lens based IS when I would get Sensor IS and save a ton on the lens I want!” Well, the best you can do with a lens that doesn’t have IS would be the Sigma 300 f/4 and a few others like it. And good luck finding a camera that has Sensor based IS that you could even use it on besides Sony or Pentax! Alas, there is one LAST ray of hope for me in a lens by Minolta that was made in 1995 and has long since been discontinued. It’s a 400mm f/4.5 and a wonderful lens. This lens happens to be one of the most sought after discontinued lenses ever made. I’ll admit that it’s not as good as a Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM but its pretty darn close not to mention 1000s cheaper.....

A Canon lens’ only major advantages are with its IS and image quality. Take Canon’s IS advantage out of the picture with the (almost as effective) sensor based IS I already have on my camera and what do you have? You have an insanely overpriced 400mm f/4 lens at $5500 when you could buy a NON IS version that freaking weighs less for half as much. I for one WILL NOT pay the extra $2700 for a little bit better image quality with canon. Don’t get me wrong, I know Canon lenses are better but not almost 3 grand better, nor will they ever be in my mind. Thank you for reading this rant of mine… :bang:
 
You have an Olympus camera, so why are you looking at Canon or Nikon lenses that don't fit on your camera? Neither company has even entered, let alone cornered, the 4/3 telephoto market.
Canon's 400mm F4 lens is one of it's green-stripe DO lenses, which are all hideously expensive due to their DO optics.

What's the point of your rant though? That DO lenses, which you can't even use, are expensive?
 
I had to read that several times, and still am not sure of the point you are getting at. Are you slating Oly or Canon or both...?

I have the Oly 70-300mm and have used it with the EC1.4 having obtained some very sharp results indeed.

So, please enlighten me, what was the rant about...? :)
 
I need more focal length than I have at my disposal at this time. I am actually in the process of selling my 4/3rds gear because of its lack of faster lenses at longer focal lengths. I am in the process of looking for another option with Sensor based IS and I am considering the Sony A700 because of its compatibility with faster lenses at long focal lengths. I believe that Olympus is relying on their crop factor a little too much. I still believe I make a valid point though.

Seriously, take the time to think about how much money Canon and Nikon would lose if there was a 400mm f/4 NON IS lens available for sensor based IS cameras like the Olympus E-3 or the Sony Alpha A700. Don’t forget that a 400mm f/4 NON IS lens would be lighter and about $2000 to $3000 cheaper!

I just thought it was strange that no other companies besides Canon or Nikon have made a f/4 or f/4.5 let alone in a NON IS version of the most popluar and versitile focal length @ 400mm in well over a decade? Considering how many 300mm and 500mm f/4 or f/4.5 have been made by Sigma and others.
 
Osirus said:
A Canon lens’ only major advantages are with its IS and image quality. Take Canon’s IS advantage out of the picture with the (almost as effective) sensor based IS I already have on my camera and what do you have?
Click to expand...

Not quite true as the image shift is proportional to focal length and can become quite high at long focal lengths. For example for a 0.5° deflection of a 600mm lens, the image moves by about 5.5mm, and Canon IS telephoto lenses can shift the image by this amount. Moving a whole sensor +/- 5mm both horizontally and vertically to compensate for image movement is difficult.


one LAST ray of hope for me in a lens by Minolta that was made in 1995 and has long since been discontinued. It’s a 400mm f/4.5 and a wonderful lens. This lens happens to be one of the most sought after discontinued lenses ever made. I’ll admit that it’s not as good as a Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM but its pretty darn close
Click to expand...

Now as the Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM is considered to be very soft and poor with contrast, is not saying much for the Minolta.


At the end the choice is yours and you tend to get what you pay for.
 
Osirus said:
I need more focal length than I have at my disposal at this time. I am actually in the process of selling my 4/3rds gear because of its lack of faster lenses at longer focal lengths. I am in the process of looking for another option with Sensor based IS and I am considering the Sony A700 because of its compatibility with faster lenses at long focal lengths. I believe that Olympus is relying on their crop factor a little too much. I still believe I make a valid point though.

Seriously, take the time to think about how much money Canon and Nikon would lose if there was a 400mm f/4 NON IS lens available for sensor based IS cameras like the Olympus E-3 or the Sony Alpha A700. Don’t forget that a 400mm f/4 NON IS lens would be lighter and about $2000 to $3000 cheaper!

I just thought it was strange that no other companies besides Canon or Nikon have made a f/4 or f/4.5 let alone in a NON IS version of the most popluar and versitile focal length @ 400mm in well over a decade? Considering how many 300mm and 500mm f/4 or f/4.5 have been made by Sigma and others.
Click to expand...
Have you seen the Olympus 300mm f2.8...?

http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/dslr_ZUIKO_DIGITAL_ED_300mm_1_2_8.htm

Used with the EC20 you get a 600mm f4 which is effectively equivalent to a 1200mm f4 full frame.
 
Can I try to take a stab at confirming what you're not happy with?
Looks like you're saying that you bought into the Olympus system without really understanding it, and that you now feel that there isn't an appropriate lens for what you're trying to do?

Ref Canon lenses, if you don't want an IS 400mm lens, buy the 400mm F5.6. Doesn't have IS, is light, and considered to be very sharp and with great AF. It also costs around $1000.
 
sigma have done a 300 f2.8? half the price non is.

not a good advertisment on your behalf if you are trying to sell the gear!!
 
What? :geek:

Allan
 
Olympus were very clever at the time to put IS into the camera, and used this, and the use of non IS lenses as a real selling point. IT certainly won them some market share (esp considering they were rather late to the dSLR market) - it does have its uses, but as you point out , buyers need to consider what their needs are in terms of 'in use' focal length and what choices that leaves them with lenses.

The fact that 90% of dSLR users on this forum are Nikon Canon people says a lot about the vast range thats on offer to cope with all scenarios. Sigma are generally very good at filling gaps in product ranges at reasonable prices - jut look how successful their 10-20mm lens is to Canon/Nikon crop sensor users !
 
Osirus said:
Seriously, take the time to think about how much money Canon and Nikon would lose if there was a 400mm f/4 NON IS lens available for sensor based IS cameras like the Olympus E-3 or the Sony Alpha A700. Don’t forget that a 400mm f/4 NON IS lens would be lighter and about $2000 to $3000 cheaper!
Click to expand...

Very very little.
Nikon don't make a 400mm F/4, Canon's 400mm F/4 is the very very niche DO line. Combined thats a tiny part of their bottom line.
You are right, a 400mm f/4 would be quite a lot cheaper than the 400mm f/2.8's, but that cost is all due to optics. Removing the IS from those lenses would probably only knock $500 to $750 of the cost. IS/VR isn't that expensive, glass is.
And that is all irrelevant anyway. Very few people are going to jump ship to a new brand just to get a slightly smaller telephoto lens and all the manufacturers know that.

Osirus said:
I just thought it was strange that no other companies besides Canon or Nikon have made a f/4 or f/4.5 let alone in a NON IS version of the most popluar and versitile focal length @ 400mm in well over a decade? Considering how many 300mm and 500mm f/4 or f/4.5 have been made by Sigma and others.
Click to expand...

Probably because they all see 300mm as far more popular and versatile, which is why there are lots of 300mm lens on the market. 400mm lenses are more expensive to make, and will sell in smaller numbers, and most people who want more than a 300mm lens can offer look to 500mm or 600mm. That there are so few 400mm lenses around is probably a good indication that there is no money to be made from them.
 
a confusing post, but i think you have found why i and many others would not touch olympus, sony, minolta, pentax etc but here is a really simple example

300mm f2.8 vr nikon £2789
300mm f2.8 is canon £2848
300mm f2.8 sony £3999
300mm f2.8 olympus £4750

as you point out no IS but they still try to sting you for +£2000...


current listed prices from

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/search/Default.aspx?q=300mm+f2.8&SortBy=&PageNum=2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top