What's the difference between these two lenses?

[Cookaaaaay]

Hello,

I've seen a DSLR that I really want and it comes with a 40-150mm lens. What sort of photos can this lens achieve? What is the purpose of this lens?
I would also want a macro lens, at least 100mm.
What's the difference between the 40-150mm lens and a macro 100mm lens?

Photography is confusing stuff!

Thanks.

 

[TCR4x4]

One has a zoom range of 40mm to 150mm and the other has a fixed range of 100mm with the ability to focus very close to the subject.
The 40-150, I have never heard of, but it will be usefull for portraits and further away subjects. Its not very wide though, so you would struggle with closer subjects and getting everything in. The macro would probably be good for portraits aswell, but with its fixed focal length, you will need to move your feet to get the composition you want.

 

[Cookaaaaay]

One has a zoom range of 40mm to 150mm and the other has a fixed range of 100mm with the ability to focus very close to the subject.
The 40-150, I have never heard of, but it will be usefull for portraits and further away subjects. Its not very wide though, so you would struggle with closer subjects and getting everything in. The macro would probably be good for portraits aswell, but with its fixed focal length, you will need to move your feet to get the composition you want.

ohhh. Ok. Thanks very much.

 

[Myrdhinn]

40-150mm sound like Olympus zuiko for 4/3rds camera. So that would be 80-300mm in 35mm equivalent. A Zuiko 50mm Macro would be 100mm in 35mm due to the 2x crop sensor.

 

[Cookaaaaay]

40-150mm sound like Olympus zuiko for 4/3rds camera. So that would be 80-300mm in 35mm equivalent. A Zuiko 50mm Macro would be 100mm in 35mm due to the 2x crop sensor.

Erm, yeah. I have no idea what all of that means...

 

[TCR4x4]

What is the camera you are looking at? Is it an Olympus 4/3 or a "proper" DSLR?

 

[squishy]

Erm, yeah. I have no idea what all of that means...

The only 40-150 I know of is the olympus lens.

Olympus use a different sensor size to most consumer DSLR's, with a smaller sensor you get 2x crop instead of the 1.5/1.6x crop you get on most other DSLR's (or no crop on full frame).

This means a 40-150mm lens on an olympus 4/3rds (that is what the sensor format is called) body will give a field of view equivalent to an 80-300mm lens on a full frame body.

Most DSLR bodies are 1.5 or 1.6x crop, so a 40-150mm lens would be about 60-225mm equivalent in it's field of view. And a 100mm macro on a normal crop body would be equivalent to a 150mm in field of view.

(NOTE, before someone bites my head off, I'll make it clear, the actual focal length of the lenses DO NOT change, only the field of view, creating an apparent change in focal length that is actually due to the field of view utilised by smaller crop sensors)

A 40-150mm lens will do portraits like a 100mm macro, but won't focus as close, so you won't be able to do proper macro with it (although a fair few non macro zooms can focus quite close, as a general rule, zooms are not proper macro lenses (with there being one nikkor which is the exception))

 

[Cookaaaaay]

What is the camera you are looking at? Is it an Olympus 4/3 or a "proper" DSLR?

I've seen two:

Olympus e410
and
Olympus e510

 

[TCR4x4]

Well those two cameras have what is called a 4/3 sensor, as its smaller than the usual and common DX sensor found in Nikon and the APS-C in Canon.

As such the lenses will give a longer field of view compared to a DX sesnor, and even longer again compared to a full frame sensor.

 

[Cookaaaaay]

The only 40-150 I know of is the olympus lens.

Olympus use a different sensor size to most consumer DSLR's, with a smaller sensor you get 2x crop instead of the 1.5/1.6x crop you get on most other DSLR's (or no crop on full frame).

This means a 40-150mm lens on an olympus 4/3rds (that is what the sensor format is called) body will give a field of view equivalent to an 80-300mm lens on a full frame body.

Most DSLR bodies are 1.5 or 1.6x crop, so a 40-150mm lens would be about 60-225mm equivalent in it's field of view. And a 100mm macro on a normal crop body would be equivalent to a 150mm in field of view.

(NOTE, before someone bites my head off, I'll make it clear, the actual focal length of the lenses DO NOT change, only the field of view, creating an apparent change in focal length that is actually due to the field of view utilised by smaller crop sensors)

A 40-150mm lens will do portraits like a 100mm macro, but won't focus as close, so you won't be able to do proper macro with it (although a fair few non macro zooms can focus quite close, as a general rule, zooms are not proper macro lenses (with there being one nikkor which is the exception))

Ohhh, ok. Thanks a lot.

Well those two cameras have what is called a 4/3 sensor, as its smaller than the usual and common DX sensor found in Nikon and the APS-C in Canon.

As such the lenses will give a longer field of view compared to a DX sesnor, and even longer again compared to a full frame sensor.

Oh right, ok. Cheers.







Another couple of questions:

So, if I get a lens that is just one size (eg 200mm) is a real macro lens?

I've seen some olympus lenses on the internet and some of them are very similar but one of them is like £100 and the other is £800.. why is there such a big difference in price?

Cheers.

 

[TCR4x4]

So, if I get a lens that is just one size (eg 200mm) is a real macro lens?

I've seen some olympus lenses on the internet and some of them are very similar but one of them is like £100 and the other is £800.. why is there such a big difference in price?

Cheers.

No, just because its fixed focal length doesnt mean its a macro. To be a macro it must focus very close and have 1:1 magnification. A macro lens will say its a macro lens. Although some lenses claim to be macro but actually arent true macro just to confuse things. Most macro lenses are however fixed lengths. Usualy 50,60, 90, 100, 105 or 150mm

Difference in price is purely quality of the glass and design of the lens.

 

[Cookaaaaay]

No, just because its fixed focal length doesnt mean its a macro. To be a macro it must focus very close and have 1:1 magnification. A macro lens will say its a macro lens. Although some lenses claim to be macro but actually arent true macro just to confuse things. Most macro lenses are however fixed lengths. Usualy 50,60, 90, 100, 105 or 150mm

Difference in price is purely quality of the glass and design of the lens.

Ohhh, ok. 1:1? Ok, I'll have a look around. Thanks a lot.

 

[TCR4x4]

Dont mix the aperture range with 1:1 though. 1:1 is the magnifiction ratio of a true macro lens.

From what I can gather the macro lenses available for the 4/3rds systems are the Olympus 50mm f/2, the Sigma 105mm f/2.8, Olympus 35mm f3.5 Macro ZUIKO and the Sigma 150mm f2.8 Macro.
Although the 50mm macro appears to be 1:2, but the fact its on a 4/3 sensor makes it the equivelent of a 1:1.
By choosing the 4/3 route, you have made explaining things really hard, as its all different to a "normal" sensor!!

 

[Cookaaaaay]

Dont mix the aperture range with 1:1 though. 1:1 is the magnifiction ratio of a true macro lens.

From what I can gather the macro lenses available for the 4/3rds systems are the Olympus 50mm f/2, the Sigma 105mm f/2.8, Olympus 35mm f3.5 Macro ZUIKO and the Sigma 150mm f2.8 Macro.
Although the 50mm macro appears to be 1:2, but the fact its on a 4/3 sensor makes it the equivelent of a 1:1.
By choosing the 4/3 route, you have made explaining things really hard, as its all different to a "normal" sensor!!

Oh, ok. I'll check them out.
Cheers!

 

[JohnMcL7]

There's four proper macro lenses available in 4/3, the Olympus Zuiko digital 35mm F3.5 (entry level) and 50mm F2 (High Grade) along with two from Sigma, the 105mm and 150mm. The 70-300mm may be badged as having macro capability but it's more it focuses a bit closer rather than having proper macro capability. There's also the EX-25 extension tube which allows lenses to focus closer although I've never used it myself.

The 50mm macro will give you an 100mm equivalent field of view and it's a very sharp lens although fairly pricey these days. It's also pretty slow for general use as it lacks a focus limiter which means when it misses focus it will slowly hunt all the way back to macro focus range and out again which adds a noticeable delay.

Depending on what you're planning long term it may be worth bearing in mind that to all intents and purposes, four thirds appears to be dead now as it appears unlikely Olympus are going to develop it any further. They've not released or even announced any lenses for a while (Panasonic have officially left the system and I don't think Sigma have much planned either) and the E-5 is little more than a minor rework of the E-3. I'm not being deliberately negative here as I have a large collection of 4/3 equipment I've built up over the years but looking at the system realistically it doesn't appear to have a future.

John

 

[Cookaaaaay]

There's four proper macro lenses available in 4/3, the Olympus Zuiko digital 35mm F3.5 (entry level) and 50mm F2 (High Grade) along with two from Sigma, the 105mm and 150mm. The 70-300mm may be badged as having macro capability but it's more it focuses a bit closer rather than having proper macro capability. There's also the EX-25 extension tube which allows lenses to focus closer although I've never used it myself.

The 50mm macro will give you an 100mm equivalent field of view and it's a very sharp lens although fairly pricey these days. It's also pretty slow for general use as it lacks a focus limiter which means when it misses focus it will slowly hunt all the way back to macro focus range and out again which adds a noticeable delay.

Depending on what you're planning long term it may be worth bearing in mind that to all intents and purposes, four thirds appears to be dead now as it appears unlikely Olympus are going to develop it any further. They've not released or even announced any lenses for a while (Panasonic have officially left the system and I don't think Sigma have much planned either) and the E-5 is little more than a minor rework of the E-3. I'm not being deliberately negative here as I have a large collection of 4/3 equipment I've built up over the years but looking at the system realistically it doesn't appear to have a future.

John

Thanks very much, really helpful.
Hmm, I suppose I'll have to think it over a little bit then. Cheers.

 

[Greytop]

Depending on what you're planning long term it may be worth bearing in mind that to all intents and purposes, four thirds appears to be dead now as it appears unlikely Olympus are going to develop it any further. They've not released or even announced any lenses for a while (Panasonic have officially left the system and I don't think Sigma have much planned either) and the E-5 is little more than a minor rework of the E-3. I'm not being deliberately negative here as I have a large collection of 4/3 equipment I've built up over the years but looking at the system realistically it doesn't appear to have a future.

John

That is certainly one view point but there are others that are perhaps a little more positive
Olympus are continuing production of all the 4/3rds lens range, whilst they further develop the m4/3rds range with relatively limited R&D budget (they are quite plainly do not have the resources of Canikon or Sony).
With regards to the future, a Pro/enthusiast m4/3rds / 4/3rds body is planned at some point and Olympus have also stated that more 4/3 lens could well be developed in the future.
Lastly, with regards to the E-5, it may appear a warmed over E-3 but in use and output it is I believe a major step up (and many other early adopters do too).

 

[Greytop]

Thanks very much, really helpful.
Hmm, I suppose I'll have to think it over a little bit then. Cheers.

Hi Liam,

Might be worth popping over to http://e-group.uk.net/ and http://fourthirds-user.com/forum/cmps_index.php for any specific help or advice with the regard to Oly and 4/3rds in general

 

[Cookaaaaay]

Hi Liam,

Might worth popping over to http://e-group.uk.net/ and http://fourthirds-user.com/forum/cmps_index.php for any specific help or advice with the regard to Oly and 4/3rds in general

ooooh, thank you!

 

[pepper]

There aren't many Olympus users on this site, I tend to lurk in the above mentioned websites which are Olympus/Panasonic 4/3 M4/3 orientated!

I have quite a collection of cameras and recently decided to purchase an E3, I could have gone over to either Nikon or Canon quite easily, but I love the quality of the Olympus lenses and as I'd got quite an investment in them I have decided to stay with them for at least the next five to seven years, I still have the E5 as an upgrade ahead and Olympus are not going to just let their 4/3 customers down.

Remember its not just the camera here, the person behind the camera is far more important than the equipment at the end of the day.

Good luck with getting your head round the lenses and with whichever camera system you choose to buy into.

 

[JohnMcL7]

,I still have the E5 as an upgrade ahead and Olympus are not going to just let their 4/3 customers down.

I think realistically (and regrettably) Olympus are going to let their 4/3 customers down unless you're including micro 4/3 in that statement. Their financials are very poor at the moment and micro 4/3 appears the way forward given their relative success plus there's no hiding the almost complete lack of new products (bar the slightly warmed over E-3) in 4/3.

I agree the ZD lenses are extremely good (particularly the 35-100mm) and there's certainly still reason for buying Olympus but at the same time I think potential buyers should be aware that what's out at the moment is all there will ever be.

John

 

[JohnMcL7]

That is certainly one view point but there are others that are perhaps a little more positive
Olympus are continuing production of all the 4/3rds lens range, whilst they further develop the m4/3rds range with relatively limited R&D budget (they are quite plainly do not have the resources of Canikon or Sony).
With regards to the future, a Pro/enthusiast m4/3rds / 4/3rds body is planned at some point and Olympus have also stated that more 4/3 lens could well be developed in the future.
Lastly, with regards to the E-5, it may appear a warmed over E-3 but in use and output it is I believe a major step up (and many other early adopters do too).

There are perhaps other viewpoints that are more positive but less realistic, when Olympus have just posted a massive drop in profits in a fairly dire financial report while at the same time not releasing or announcing any new 4/3 products bar the E-5 (which itself is a stretch to call 'new') I don't see much reason to be positive. The same report showed that DSLR sales had been below expected while micro 4/3 and the toughened compacts had sold well. It's also worth bearing in mind that all the 4/3 rumours about new lenses and cameras have been wrong pretty much every time bar just before the E-5 release (and even its specs were constantly wrong)

As I've invested over £10,000 into my 4/3 equipment I'd certainly be more than happy for Olympus to continue developing 4/3 but actions speak louder than words and despite what Olympus say, there's a noticeable lack of products. I think it's a bit misleading to be positive and optimistic when people are considering investing a reasonable amount of money into the system.

As for the E-5, I have actually spent a long time reading up on it as I've been holding onto my 4/3 lenses to see if Olympus were going to release anything worthwhile to go with it. Nothing I've seen shows it to be anything than a slightly warmed over E-3 and certainly not a 'major step-up' particularly as it keeps the poor AF from the E-3 which was why I stopped using the camera. Even when the E-3's AF was working it was a long way behind its rivals and it was pretty rare for it to be working properly.

John

 

[Greytop]

I think potential buyers should be aware that what's out at the moment is all there will ever be.

John

I'm not sure anyone can make that particular statement with any degree of certainty and that includes the top brass at Olympus.

 

[JohnMcL7]

I'm not sure anyone can make that particular statement with any degree of certainty and that includes the top brass at Olympus.

Ok, I'll reword that:

I think potential buyers should be aware that what's out at the moment may all there ever will be given Olympus haven't as much as announced a new lens in several years and of recent only released a single revised body.

That certainly doesn't make the existing equipment less capable and there certainly is still reason to buy Olympus particularly if the price is good but at the same time new products for the system shouldn't be expected as that way there's no let down.

John

 

[goldenlight]

It's true to say that the Four Thirds community was somewhat underwhelmed when the specs of the E-5 were announced. On paper it is indeed "a warmed over E-3." For a few weeks many of the faithfull were up in arms and vociferous in their critisism. Then the image samples started to filter though.

It soon became clear that improvement in IQ at all ISO ratings is fundemental, rather than incremental. The sharpness and detail, especially when SHG lenses are used, is simply stunning. Many of the original detractors who were threatening to jump ship are now selling the shirt off their back in order to afford the upgrade ASAP. I'm confident that when comparison tests start to become available the E-5 will prove to have the best IQ of any crop sensor DSLR.

Add to that reported significant improvements to focusing, particularly in low light, and I think Olympus have a winner in terms of a pro spec cropped sensor DSLR.

But what of the future? Olympus have made no secret that they see the future as mirrorless cameras and eventually aim to produce a pro spec Micro Four Thirds body, which may well be "full size" - just without the mirror. They recognize that current technology, particularly relating to focus speed and EVF quality, isn't good enough for "pro spec" and have confirmed that a pro spec Four Thirds DSLR, be it the E-5 or a later model, will be available until the time is right to merge the two systems.

Further development of entry level and mid range DSLRs appears to be uncertain but Olympus have assured us that there will always be a suitable body to use the highly prized SHG lenses, the best lenses in the industry bar none.

I'm sure that the concept of a pro mirrorless camera will initially be greeted with scorn, but so was sensor dust reduction and live view, which most cameras now have. The SLR is an outdated mechanical work around to the problem of viewing what the lens sees and I'm certain electronic finders will eventually appear in all cameras. The electonics giants such as Sony, Samsung and Panasonic have been quick to realize this and it is the traidtional camera manufacturers such as Nikon and Canon that are in danger of getting left behind. But not Olympus, as usual they are at the cutting edge of innovation and right up there with the leaders in this new technology.

Regarding the OP, it is right to alert him to the situation regarding Olympus entry level bodies but nevertheless cameras such as the E-450 and E-620 still offer great value for money. And if he is looking at an E-410 or E-510 then no doubt these are secondhand or discounted discontinued stock representing an even greater bargain. The 40-150mm lens is an extremely capable general purpose budget telephoto zoom and I use mine a lot. Add the 14-42mm kit lens and you get a very versatile outfit for very little money which should last for years.

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

Although the 50mm macro appears to be 1:2, but the fact its on a 4/3 sensor makes it the equivelent of a 1:1.
:

Tom magnification ratio is not affected by snsor size, a 1:1 lens will always produce a image the same size as the sensor in the body its fitted to at 1:1.

if you take a picture of a ruler at 1:1 on a FF camera you will see approx 36mm of the ruler on the resulting image, 22.2mm on a Canon 1.6 crop body and 17.3mm on a 4/3rd system.

at 1:2 half life size you would see 72mm on a FF body,44.4mm on the Canon crop and 34.6mm on the 4/3rds system.

this is from a Canon 1.6 crop body at 1:1

and at 1:2

 

[theMusicMan]

Provocative nonsense removed.

To the OP....

It is widely known (except, of course, by mr 4x4) that Olympus kit lenses are by far the best kit lenses you get with any manufacturer. The Oly 50mm ZD f2 is one of the sharpest lenses ever made. The 12-60mm, when coupled with the E3 is one of the fastest focusing lens/camera combinations. Using high ISO on E-system cameras is fine, despite what the naysayers preach. Oly pro glass is just, well, immense.

You'd be better off asking these questions over on the Olympus forums rather than here, because you will then get correct answers, and no negative and unnecessary comments about Nikon or Canon.

Here's the link: http://e-group.uk.net/forum/index.php

By the way... the D700 is fantastic.

 

[Cookaaaaay]

Thanks guys.

To the OP....

It is widely known (except, of course, by mr 4x4) that Olympus kit lenses are by far the best kit lenses you get with any manufacturer. The Oly 50mm ZD f2 is one of the sharpest lenses ever made. The 12-60mm, when coupled with the E3 is one of the fastest focusing lens/camera combinations. Using high ISO on E-system cameras is fine, despite what the naysayers preach. Oly pro glass is just, well, immense.

You'd be better off asking these questions over on the Olympus forums rather than here, because you will then get correct answers, and no negative and unnecessary comments about Nikon or Canon.

Here's the link: http://e-group.uk.net/forum/index.php

Ohh, right. Ok, thanks a lot.
Thanks for the link!

 

[theMusicMan]

Put your knobs away boys, musicman, you tookntotal offence to a comment you shouldn't have, and then retaliated by calling him an idiot. You're a bit too precious sometimes. I'll clean this s***box thread up shortly

Sure Matty. And I remember once making a comment about the Nikon D40, suggesting it was a rather poor camera, and got berated for it.

Double standards methinks.

His comment was simply totally unnecessary Matty, and nothing was done about it. Simple as.

 

[TCR4x4]

I never said it was poor.. Read my post above^^^ It wasnt used in a derrogatory way, it was said meaning a normal camera, as in what most people percieve to be normal which is what most DSLR's have been for the last 10 yeas and thats a DX/APS-C size.

 

[Matt]

Sure Matty. And I remember once making a comment about the Nikon D40, suggesting it was a rather poor camera, and got berated for it.

Double standards methinks.

His comment was simply totally unnecessary Matty, and nothing was done about it. Simple as.

the comment was made 5 days ago, you reported it this morning, we decided it was not meant as a nasty comment. You decided to take it upon yourself to troll the thread, and troll you did.
:thumbsdown:
24 hours to pick the fluff out of your bellybutton