| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/14/2006 06:57:55 AM · #1 |
and does anyone have it?
I'm in need of something like this but really can't afford the Olympus equivalent- it's 999 dollars. This one is a heck of a lot cheaper but says autofocus- I'm assuming that means I can't focus it myself which I can deal with. My 150mm lens is just not enough for what I'm wanting to do.
lens |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 07:05:30 AM · #2 |
For the price, yeah. Just don't expect much. Not super fast, but it works. If you have a tripod, even better. I have a 55-200 for my pentax and it's one of my favorites.
And Matt is selling his.
Message edited by author 2006-03-14 07:06:26. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 07:18:21 AM · #3 |
I have a tripod. I'm wanting it for sunsets and waterfront pictures on the other side of the river. My 45-150mm lens just isn't getting in close enough.
Is it good enough for that? |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 09:35:09 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by missinseattle:
This one is a heck of a lot cheaper but says autofocus- I'm assuming that means I can't focus it myself |
Of course you can, that's why it has a focusing ring and a MF/AF switch. The only SLR lens ever made that i know of that doesn't allow some form of manual focus or AF override is the forgotten Canon 35-80 Power Zoom.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2006 09:39:04 AM · #5 |
This is why it's more important to look at the 'system' you are buying into rather than a specific camera. If you had a canon or nikon you'd have 50 lenses to choose from, not just 4 or 5.
Good or not, i don't see any alternatives to that lens.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2006 09:43:50 AM · #6 |
The olympus system is a 2x crop.
A 45-150 is equivalent to 90-300.
The 55-200 is equivalent to a 110-400mm lens.
That's getting up there for size, but if you play around with the pictures you have that you feel aren't close enough, try an equivalent crop and see if you like the composition.
So, you have a picture that is 3264x2448, you would need to crop down to 2176x1632 to see the Field of View that you would get with the 55-200.
The difference is that when you crop, you lose quality. When you increase the focal length via the glass, you will retain most of your image quality. Remember that when you approach the end of the focal range, you will likely encounter some softness, but generally, you should be able to get better pictures.
It's just a question of how much.
If my math is off, please feel free to correct me. I'm pretty sure it's ok though. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 09:58:14 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
The difference is that when you crop, you lose quality. When you increase the focal length via the glass, you will retain most of your image quality. Remember that when you approach the end of the focal range, you will likely encounter some softness, but generally, you should be able to get better pictures. |
That's a very general statement. A lot of zooms are sharpest at their long end, with more chromatic aberration and pincushion/barrel distortion at the wide end. Also, it really depends on the glass and your sensor. If you have pixels to spare, it really is worth cropping with better glass than using longer lengths on rubbish glass. That's the reason i stopped using my cheap 2x teleconverter - i get better sharpness if i just crop.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2006 09:58:30 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
This is why it's more important to look at the 'system' you are buying into rather than a specific camera. If you had a canon or nikon you'd have 50 lenses to choose from, not just 4 or 5.
Good or not, i don't see any alternatives to that lens. |
Well not all of us have 1000 to shell out on just a camera body. I went with what I felt comfortable with, what had good reviews, and what my pocket book could afford. It came with 2 lenses that I am absolutely thrilled with. And I don't need 50 lenses to choose from. The 2 I have are perfect for anything really- a friend that does pro photography has the same camera and is doing wedding shoots, portraits ect using both lenses and making big bucks.
Even if I had the money to shell out on a canon or Nikon, I still would have gone with the one I chose. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 01:52:30 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by missinseattle:
I have a tripod. I'm wanting it for sunsets and waterfront pictures on the other side of the river. My 45-150mm lens just isn't getting in close enough.
Is it good enough for that? |
Yes it is good enough for that. Just don't expect it to be a fast lens. I took mine down to the zoo and it worked great. Just keep the shutter over 300 and it's all good. The pictures were sharp and clear. I say you can't go wrong, for what you want to do. See what Matt wants for his. The price on B&H is a good deal. I paid $229 for mine. Again, mine is for the pentax, but basically, the same lens. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 01:59:38 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by eschelar:
The difference is that when you crop, you lose quality. When you increase the focal length via the glass, you will retain most of your image quality. Remember that when you approach the end of the focal range, you will likely encounter some softness, but generally, you should be able to get better pictures. |
That's a very general statement. A lot of zooms are sharpest at their long end, with more chromatic aberration and pincushion/barrel distortion at the wide end. Also, it really depends on the glass and your sensor. If you have pixels to spare, it really is worth cropping with better glass than using longer lengths on rubbish glass. That's the reason i stopped using my cheap 2x teleconverter - i get better sharpness if i just crop. |
Yes, it is a very general statement. That's why I used the words "likely" and "generally". I'm not an Olympus expert, and I suspect there aren't a lot of them here, so I gave her the best info I could.
As far as many lenses being better on their telephoto end, from the charts I have seen (not many, I admit), most lenses tend to have at least a slight drop-off towards the end of their range. This is more likely with slightly cheaper lenses. Pro level lenses are likely to be pretty sharp throughout.
As far as images being better for your top-end lenses without the 2x TC, that doesn't surprise me. I've heard in several places that the 2x induces softness into the picture. I started a thread a while back to see if anyone had any info on how the Kenko compared, but nobody contributed to that one. I understand that the 1.4x is significantly better in this issue, and would probably help you get even better pictures due to slightly less cropping.
Missinseattle. Don't worry about what other people think about your oly. To be honest, they are pretty interesting cameras. I personally wouldn't go for one because the sensor is too small for my liking, but there's plenty good about them. More lenses are coming out too!
It's just that things tend to be expensive when you go the niche market route. For this reason, I personally have never recommended to anyone to get the Oly. However, as you say, you don't need a bag full of lenses to take good pictures. You can only mount one lens at a time on your camera.
Don't worry too much about it. See if you can find some reviews on the subject and ask MattO (who has a thread in the hardware section) to give you his impressions of both of those lenses as he has used both.
I personally never buy anything quickly and I'm over a year now that I have been considering how to go DSLR and saving up for it. It might be wise to do a month's worth of research on the lens.
Of course, the number of choices available might mean that it is not worth waiting. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 03:39:58 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by missinseattle:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
This is why it's more important to look at the 'system' you are buying into rather than a specific camera. If you had a canon or nikon you'd have 50 lenses to choose from, not just 4 or 5.
Good or not, i don't see any alternatives to that lens. |
Well not all of us have 1000 to shell out on just a camera body. I went with what I felt comfortable with, what had good reviews, and what my pocket book could afford. It came with 2 lenses that I am absolutely thrilled with. And I don't need 50 lenses to choose from. The 2 I have are perfect for anything really- a friend that does pro photography has the same camera and is doing wedding shoots, portraits ect using both lenses and making big bucks.
Even if I had the money to shell out on a canon or Nikon, I still would have gone with the one I chose. |
As long as your happy, that's all that matters. And no you don't need to have 50 lenses, but to have the choice means you can get exaclty the lens you need for what you want to do - less compromise and better quality. The cost of the body is minor compared to the lenses and asccessories - my rebel body was about $800 - i have spent about $1300 on lenses and $500 on accessories - those items are still good as gold, but now my body is getting old and outdated, so it is slated for replacemnt.
Good luck to your friend in their business pursuits. One cannot however succeed for long in a pros market with less than pro equipment - be that photography, auto mechanics, surgery, cooking, you pick the field - tools DO matter to a pro.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2006 04:09:15 PM · #12 |
At 55-200 that's quite a bit of overlap with your current lenses. If you can, keep looking for something that has less overlap and possibly more range. In the long run I think you'd be happier. (unless of course you plan on selling the 45-150 to finance the new lens)
Just an idea. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 04:10:51 PM · #13 |
he's been in the pro market for a good 10 years. He does pro shoots for local race tracks, newpapers, magazines, ect. He also has D70, but prefers the Olympus over it.
I would not have bought the camera I did had it not been for his input. Since he's had just about every brand of camera out there I figured his word was worth something.
He's even said himself with all the photography he's done- he's in his 50's, that it's not the number of lenses you have, it's the one lens you have that is your favorite and what you do with it.
He's well known around here. So i'm pretty sure he knows what he's doing.
I don't want to part with the 45-150mm, that's the one I use the most. I don't want to part with the other one either because I've been using it more lately.
I have a couple of months. Hubby has a couple big bbq gigs coming up so that would easily finance a nice lens. And he owes me for all the time I've given up for all his bbq stuff anyways lol.
Message edited by author 2006-03-14 16:13:00. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 04:22:56 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Good luck to your friend in their business pursuits. One cannot however succeed for long in a pros market with less than pro equipment - be that photography, auto mechanics, surgery, cooking, you pick the field - tools DO matter to a pro. |
man where do you get this gobbleygook??! seriously, the equipment hardly matters if you can make it work well. There are plenty of professionals that use the olympus system. Hell, I know of heavily published art photographers that use a yashicamat124g....an old 120 cam with a fixed 80mm. Man, the gear just really does not matter...all it does is increase ease and convenience in the end.
"The best wide angle lens is two steps backwards" is a good quote to remember, it's just how you use what you have.
edit ...yeah if that lens has the reach you need for that price why not get it? I'm sure you can make some nice photos with it.
Message edited by author 2006-03-14 16:33:46. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 05:10:49 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by petrakka:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Good luck to your friend in their business pursuits. One cannot however succeed for long in a pros market with less than pro equipment - be that photography, auto mechanics, surgery, cooking, you pick the field - tools DO matter to a pro. |
man where do you get this gobbleygook??! seriously, the equipment hardly matters if you can make it work well. There are plenty of professionals that use the olympus system. Hell, I know of heavily published art photographers that use a yashicamat124g....an old 120 cam with a fixed 80mm. Man, the gear just really does not matter...all it does is increase ease and convenience in the end.
"The best wide angle lens is two steps backwards" is a good quote to remember, it's just how you use what you have.
edit ...yeah if that lens has the reach you need for that price why not get it? I'm sure you can make some nice photos with it. |
and might I add he just paid cash for a 4000 dollar lens for his D70 and paid cash for it from a wedding shoot he did. So if he's making 4000 thousand off of a wedding and doing 3 or 4 of those a month from spring to fall, hmmmmmmmm.
He uses his Nikon for the race shoots, his olympus for everything else. He also has an older Canon but has more or less retired it.
I honestly don't feel you need the state of the art eqpt to make it in the photography world. I may be new to photography, but I'm not an idiot and have seen many examples of what can be done with less then high end eqpt.
Message edited by author 2006-03-14 17:13:54. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 05:55:18 PM · #16 |
I had the same lens for my 300D, the Sigma 55-200 DC was the reason I only buy "L" lenses today, it's the worst image quality I have ever seen from a DSLR camera.. I used to have a Canon Powershot G1 3.2Mpixels and the quality of those images were 10x better than from the 300D with the Sigma 55-200 DC and when i got my first "L" lens the image quality got 10x better than the powershot ;)
I really can't reccoment that lens. if you're tight on money get a prime lens, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm, 200mm, any size with big aperture, primes are usually cheaper than zooms and much better.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2006 06:14:32 PM · #17 |
If you print big or work under difficult circumstances, then the better equipment matters. Take a canon camera, try a tamron 28-80 3.5-5.6 against a tamron 28-75 2.8. For web display you may not know the difference, fora 4x6 you may know. Print it 16x20 and you'll know. print an 8x10 and you'll know IF you know what you're looking at. If you can't tell a good image from a bad one, then it doesn't matter to you.
Shooting style is a factor. I know a wedding photog that uses a 10D and a $300 canon zoom lens with a difuser filter, so super sharp is not impoartant. she uses $8000+ worth of flash at a wedding, and flash for EVERY shot - so low light fast lense are not important and charge $2 grand an hour. This is the exception, not the rule.
if you could do the job with $1500 in equipment, why buy $10,000 worth? Wouldn't you enjoy that extra $8500 if it was spent on beer and fine cigars, or a big screen TV or a vacation to tahiti?
Why would anyone buy an $8000 1Ds if a used $500 300D was just as good? The reason is - the better bodies and better lenses DO make a difference. Once you have seen or experienced that difference, then let me know. Till then, it sounds like you are trying to defend the fact you can't afford the pro equipment by saying it doesn't matter.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2006 06:23:51 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
if you're tight on money get a prime lens, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm, 200mm, any size with big aperture, primes are usually cheaper than zooms and much better. |
so true. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 06:43:46 PM · #19 |
I'm not trying to defend anything.
I love my camera, simply looking for a lens to get in a little closer. I could fork out the 999 in a couple months but I have other priorities- music lessons for my daughter, a new car, possible a mortgage payment in the near future. I was merely asking for opinions on this particular lens since there was such a price difference.
Message edited by author 2006-03-14 20:42:11. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 07:04:35 PM · #20 |
Kimberly,
Whether or not the 55-200 is a good lens or not is irrelevant here, IMO. It does have a ton of overlap with your other lens, and so seems to provide little value. You won't see that big a difference in your ability to get closer... think about framing a shot at 150mm in your current lens. Now imagine that about 1/4 of the image is missing from the right and top edges. What remains is your framing at 200mm. Not a great difference.
I think you'd be much better off with a longer prime. You'd get much sharper results for sure. There is a 300mm f/4.5 lens available for your system for $449, but it is manual focus. That might, however, be your best bet.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2006 07:16:23 PM · #21 |
I have the Sigma 55-200mm for Canon, and I think that it is an excellent value. I really have no complaints with it. Sure it's slow, but if you use a tripod, or if you're taking pictures in the middle of a reasonably bright day, the slowness just isn't an issue.
I would agree with Kirbic, though, that going from a 150mm focal length to a 200mm focal length isn't going to make a big difference. Maybe consider a 300mm prime like he says. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 07:21:35 PM · #22 |
photozone review..... I would vote no to the Sigma, kirbic is correct - very minimal extension from your 40-150mm Zuiko. You might try to sell your Zuiko and buy the Sigma for marginal improvement.
Sigma 55-200mm
Message edited by author 2006-03-14 19:40:24. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 08:05:46 PM · #23 |
a gentle reminder to ALL forum users that while differing in opinion is wonderful, using personal attacks to express that opinion is not acceptable. Please refrain from name calling or personal attacks.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2006 11:47:26 AM · #24 |
Thanks for the cooldown there frisca, I was getting a little concerned about this thread. I felt a bit bad for the OP to be quite honest.
Prof_fate is a name I see a lot on the Hardware forums and he's usually got some pretty good advice and is often very helpful. I can't say that his comments in this thread have made me feel very good though.
Again, I will also restate what I said before, Missinseattle, take a few pics that you wish you could have been a little closer (I'm assuming that you shot at full resoluton) and change Canvas size to 2176x1632 (in photoshop context). You will then see what you would have seen if you had used the 55-200 fully zoomed in.
In other words, not a lot more.
On the other hand, using a 300mm prime would get you double the zoom rate over your current 45-150. That means that all you need to do is change the canvas size to half what it originally was and then you will see what you would have got if you used the 300mm prime.
A much bigger difference.
I hope that's right... as always, feel free to correct my math if necessary...
|
|
|
|
03/16/2006 07:30:28 AM · #25 |
thank you eschelar.
I see what's being said. I don't need the lens for a lot, but I'm finding here and there I would like to get in closer- the park for instance. Birds that just aren't close enough really zoom in on, yet too far away to crop closer. And taking shots of the other side of ther river.
I talked to our friend last night and he said he'd keep an eye out for a 300mm lens for me because that would be my best bet. I never even thought about the overlap between the 150mm and the 200mm. Which is why I posted about it here and I got a lot of great info.
The way some of it was worded I could have lived without but it's all good lol. |
|
