Olympus OM-D E-M5, E-M1, E-M10 - Mk1, Mk2 & Mk3 Owners Thread

the black fox said:
Hopefully it will impact on used prices of the excellent 40-150 f 2.8 lens
Click to expand...
.... Do you want to buy mine Jeff? I have just pre-ordered the OM 50-200mm F/2.8 white brother/sister which clearly replaces it plus some significant advantages, though at a price.
 
I need a walkabout zoom and am thinking about the 12-200 as it's not too expensive, quite light, and although not sharp at the long end it's pretty good at the wide end. The results in here look good to me. Any words of wisdom would be appreciated :)

Oh and ps - it might just be the lens to make me sell my beloved RX10iv... :oops: :$ :oops: :$ :oops: :$
 
trevorbray said:
Too long since I used my OM-1
Hand held Hi Res
12-40 Pro

Bonneville at Rockerbox by Trevor, on Flickr
Click to expand...

I keep forgetting I've got hi-res. I went out to shoot the lunar eclipse last weekend and it would have been a perfect time to try it. Afterwards I saw Robin Wong had used it and realised I'd missed an opportunity.

Very pretty bike :love: :ROFLMAO: I used to fancy a Triumph Tiger Cub because it was one of the few where I could easily reach the ground. :ROFLMAO:
 
dibbly dobbler said:
I need a walkabout zoom and am thinking about the 12-200 as it's not too expensive, quite light, and although not sharp at the long end it's pretty good at the wide end. The results in here look good to me. Any words of wisdom would be appreciated :)

Oh and ps - it might just be the lens to make me sell my beloved RX10iv... :oops: :$ :oops: :$ :oops: :$
Click to expand...
.... I had been looking seriously at the 12-200mm but it has no IS and is reportedly slower to AF than the 12-100mm F/4 Pro I already have. I would be primarily using it to shoot women's football every Sunday and so it's not the right horse for my course. I'm glad I held back because of the OM 50-200mm F/2.8 just launched!

But all the reports and reviews I've read about the 12-200mm make it ideal and extremely practical for other applications other than fast action sports. Jimmy Cheng RED35 has done a good review on YouTube.
 
RedRobin said:
.... I had been looking seriously at the 12-200mm but it has no IS and is reportedly slower to AF than the 12-100mm F/4 Pro I already have. I would be primarily using it to shoot women's football every Sunday and so it's not the right horse for my course. I'm glad I held back because of the OM 50-200mm F/2.8 just launched!

But all the reports and reviews I've read about the 12-200mm make it ideal and extremely practical for other applications other than fast action sports. Jimmy Cheng RED35 has done a good review on YouTube.
Click to expand...
Thanks Robin, that makes sense and is in line with my thoughts - I would use it for casual walkabout shooting and my expectations are fairly low so I would hope it will work out fine :)
 
Taken with the Om-1 mk2 and 100-400 mk2, just a quick test on a very grey day. the I.S. is crazy good, I tested indoors with a shot of some book spines on the shelves at 1/10 sec at 400mm and it was sharp.
Looking forward to some brighter days now for some more testing.


Mallard by Ajophotog, on ipernity
 
Last edited:
I’m considering getting the 1.4x teleconverter to go with my 40-150 f2.8. It’s the longest lens I own and the only one that will work with the 1.4. I don’t do a lot of wildlife etc but feel the 150 might be just a bit short in some instances.

Is it worth buying, should I consider the 2x instead? All advice appreciated!
 
BlackDogPhoto said:
I’m considering getting the 1.4x teleconverter to go with my 40-150 f2.8. It’s the longest lens I own and the only one that will work with the 1.4. I don’t do a lot of wildlife etc but feel the 150 might be just a bit short in some instances.

Is it worth buying, should I consider the 2x instead? All advice appreciated!
Click to expand...
1.4x always get much better reviews in my experience. I used one and liked it on the 40-150.
 
BlackDogPhoto said:
I’m considering getting the 1.4x teleconverter to go with my 40-150 f2.8. It’s the longest lens I own and the only one that will work with the 1.4. I don’t do a lot of wildlife etc but feel the 150 might be just a bit short in some instances.

Is it worth buying, should I consider the 2x instead? All advice appreciated!
Click to expand...
Generally accepted wisdom is that the 2x will noticably impact image quality but the 1.4x won't so if it gives you enough reach then it's probably the one to go for :)
 
dibbly dobbler said:
These look good Alby! I was chatting with a guy on Fb who is using the 100-400ii in preference to the 300f4 +MC14 - some of the shots he has shared look really good to me...
Click to expand...
Early days Mike but the mk2 seems fine for my needs plus the fact I find primes far to restricting for my needs as a general amateur photographer if i'm honest. The flexibility the zoom offers far outweighs the slight improvement in quality it serves up in my mind. Plus the cost obviously. ;)
 
BlackDogPhoto said:
I’m considering getting the 1.4x teleconverter to go with my 40-150 f2.8. It’s the longest lens I own and the only one that will work with the 1.4. I don’t do a lot of wildlife etc but feel the 150 might be just a bit short in some instances.

Is it worth buying, should I consider the 2x instead? All advice appreciated!
Click to expand...
.... I have regularly used either MC-14 or MC-20 on my Oly 40-150mm F/2.8 Pro and either work well functionally but you lose a stop depending which.

I have literally just returned home from shooting a women's football match in non-stop rain for the whole game! I shot 995 images on 40-150mm + MC-14 + OM-1 ('mark 1').

My Flickr Albums have lots of examples using either TC and I don't hide my settings data.

Too many people pixel peep in my opinion and it depends more on how you are using the 2x ~ I have shot lots of close-ups of grasshoppers for example.
 
Last edited:
ajophotog said:
Early days Mike but the mk2 seems fine for my needs plus the fact I find primes far to restricting for my needs as a general amateur photographer if i'm honest. The flexibility the zoom offers far outweighs the slight improvement in quality it serves up in my mind. Plus the cost obviously. ;)
Click to expand...
I'm now wondering if a 100-400 Mk2 might do for me (having only just picked up the 300f4 and mc14 :headbang:) - fancy a trip to Scotland so I can try yours out?! :D:LOL:
 
dibbly dobbler said:
I'm now wondering if a 100-400 Mk2 might do for me (having only just picked up the 300f4 and mc14 :headbang:) - fancy a trip to Scotland so I can try yours out?! :D:LOL:
Click to expand...
I’ve yet to use this new lens in good light Mike but I’m more than happy with it then l was with the old one. I think if l had the 300 l would still use the zoom over it because l do shoot a lot at closer focal lengths too when I’m out and about. Each to their own l guess.lol The duck shot above was at 227mm :)
 
Last edited:
RedRobin said:
.... I have regularly used either MC-14 or MC-20 on my Oly 40-150mm F/2.8 Pro and either work well functionally but you lose a stop depending which.

I have literally just returned home from shooting a women's football match in non-stop rain for the whole game! I shot 995 images on 40-150mm + MC-14 + OM-1 ('mark 1').

My Flickr Albums have lots of examples using either TC and I don't hide my settings data.

Too many people pixel peep in my opinion and it depends more on how you are using the 2x ~ I have shot lots of close-ups of grasshoppers for example.
Click to expand...
Some great shots on your gallery - have given you a follow!
 
mstphoto said:
This wee EM-10 + 14-42 kit lens combo never ceases to amaze me.
I took this hand held.
Lately, It has even crossed my mind to trade my Sony a1 + 200-600 for an EM-1ii + perhaps the new 50-200 :thinking:
The weight difference would be another incentive ;)

Don Sunset by Mike Stephen, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Not had a E-M10 but loved the E-M5 and 14-42 EZ combo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top