New Supertele Lens

[someone35]

Hi , I bought a E-PM1 camera recently and I would like to know what you think of this lens: walimex 500/8.0 Lens for Olympus micro 4/3 (walimex.com/nc/en/foto/produkt/16428). And what are their benefits vs a the kit 14-42mm M.Zuiko lens and their zoom range.
Anybody can help?

[Manfred M]

The lens you are looking at is a Samyang f/8 500mm cat (catadioptric = mirror lens). Samyang lenses are sold under a whole host of different brand names. I have a Samyang 8mm fisheye that is very well built, both optically and mechanically. It does not couple into the camera’s electronics and is manual focus.

That being said all of the major camera makers had these on offer in the 1970’s and 80’s. I had a very hard look at the Leitz f/8 500mm Telyt-R cat, but bought the Leitz f/6.3 400mm Telyt (non-mirror) lens instead. It was a much better lens.

None of the major manufacturers have one in their catalogues (that should tell you something about how well they sell). I think Sony was the last one to have one and they discontinued it in 2010.

These are not zoom lenses; it is a fixed long telephoto 500mm lens or on your 2x crop factor camera, 1000mm equiv.

Advantages – cheap and light

Disadvantages: (specifically this Samyang lens)

• Slow at f/8
• Cat lenses do not have aperture diaphragms, i.e. you can’t stop them down. A neutral density filter is screwed onto the rear element on this Samyang to cut down the exposure (you have to dismount the lens to do so).
• Manual focus – hard to do because the lens is slow and it has a very shallow DoF.
• No image stabilization (perhaps less of a problem on your Olympus as it uses in-body stabilization).
• Donut shaped Bokeh that few people like.

This is a highly specialized lens that I personally would have no interest in owning given its performance characteristics. (We do own a 80-400mm and 150-500mm lens for wildlife photography).

The 14-42mm Zuiko is a mid-range zoom (I do most of my shooting with a mid-range lens).

[Shadowman]

You'll do most of your shooting with the 14-42mm, there are also the 40-150mm and 70-300mm available if you feel you need more reach. Regarding the 500mm, f/8 lens, I am not sure how these would function on an Olympus but on a DSLR they need an adapter and are manual focus only. As Manfred said, these lenses are very slow, needing a lot of light, however if you happen to get one they are excellent lenses for shooting video, again light is a necessity but you can utiiize the ISO setting and shutter speed to get a decent video in moderately lit settings.

[jcuknz]

Normally the shallow depth of field of the long lens makes it very easy to focus but if the subject is moving it may go out of focus before you press the trigger ....1000mm is a useful reach, I have 950 with my bridge camera, but the bridge camera also has a 35-430 zoom though I have kept it for the reach now I have largely gone to MFT. I am tempted to suggest you get the 14-150 for your Olympus which gives you 300mm reach as well as more normal lengths for other photography. Unless the subject is moving and you are tracking it hand held you are likely, anyway, to have a problem using 1000mm reach. I don't think the f/8 is a real problem as with MFT you can raise the ISO to compensate as I do with my 14-140 and its f/5.8 at full zoom ... I am not particularly adverse to a small amount of noise.
Just remembered that your camera only has an LCD and no EVF??? unless you have one of the viewfinders VF-2 or VF3??? If you do not have the VF it will be extremely, many would say impossible , to use the lens with your camera unless you are using a good steady and heavy tripod. Really to do what I'm posting here you need the EVF and AF
If you have a beach near you? this is what 950mm got me some time back with the bridge camera and telephoto adaptor. [Panasonic FZ30 with Raynox 2020 whole frame not cropped taken from shore ]
Sorry something wrong and I get a disconnection each time I try to upload my image

Third time lucky

[jcuknz]

Aparently I was working at f/4.5 and the adaptor would reduce that to an effective f/5.6 but I was using 80 ISO whereas with your camera you could easilly use 400 ISO ... 1/1000 shutter. So if you learn to manual focus, I'm glad these days I don't have to [ a reason why I forget my legacy lens [ 460 reach] and use the 14-140 [280] and crop for the difference ] , you could do similar and for birds in foliage manual focusing is likely better than AF ... we do not know your interests, probably you don't either with this exciting new camera you have got Actually if you can co-ordinate your fingers it would be fairly easy to find focus and press the trigger the moment you get focus but it takes practice, lots of muffs until you get with it And after getting it one hopes the framing is good too......but editing holds no fears for you we gather.

A final negative point ... working with a long lens the main problem is finding the subject ... I was pleased when I was after a hawk I could start at WA and zoom in on it but I only had the 140 lens and the hawk wasn't that big and quite high in the sky other attempts with the 950 rig were NBG Obviously I am not with it yet.

[inkista]

... working with a long lens the main problem is finding the subject ... I was pleased when I was after a hawk I could start at WA and zoom in on it but I only had the 140 lens and the hawk wasn't that big and quite high in the sky other attempts with the 950 rig were NBG Obviously I am not with it yet.

Did you shoot with both eyes open? Because superteles have such a narrow field of view, you need to have the eye that's not to the viewfinder open as well to scan the rest of the sky. And if you don't have a viewfinder, you probably want to get one, since being able to brace the camera against your face can really really help to stabilize a longer lens.

I'm convinced that the reasons longer lenses like the 45-200 often get panned by newbies for being soft is partially because of the fact that a lot of mft cameras have no viewfinder, and the arms' length hold you have to use to compose via the LCD is not stable or good technique with longer lenses. Throw in the 1/focal_length shutter speed issue and the 2x crop factor, and it just gets worse. Long lens technique isn't hard, but you do have more to think about than with a 14-42 kit.

And mft's AF speed and shutter delay is one of the main reasons I still have my Canon gear for birding.

I'll also mention the telephoto zoom I use for mft is the Panasonic Lumix 45-200 OIS. I really enjoy this little light (cheap) lens. Sucks for birds in flight, but pretty good for birds on the ground. And with the high iso performance of the G3's sensor, decent for indoors work, too.


DMC-G3. Panasonic Lumix 45-200mm f/4-5.6 OIS. @200mm. iso 160, f/6.3, 1/1250.


DMC-G3. Panasonic Lumix 45-200mm f/4-5.6 OIS. @200mm. iso 3200, f/5.6, 1/200s.

[Scott Stephen]

Yeah, the donut bokeh kills it for me. Also the stingy narrow aperture...

For an example of the donuts, see: http://www.lookoutnow.com/camera/bokeh.htm

and: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...2F%3B640%3B446

On the rare occasion, you see a shot or two that was done with deliberate donuts for a special effect, but not in every reflection or light point source in every shot you take. You could get the same novelty effect with a cheap little "bokeh masters" kit, and it comes with many different cutout shapes.

[GrahamH]

Yeah, the donut bokeh kills it for me. Also the stingy narrow aperture...

.... and what super telephoto do you shoot with (with the aperture suitable for your purposes, as per your own definition)?
Graham

[Scott Stephen]

.... and what super telephoto do you shoot with (with the aperture suitable for your purposes, as per your own definition)?
Graham

That comes across as some sort of accusation, though for the life of me I can't understand why that would be. But to answer your question, I don't have a really massive tele lens. I have a 70-200 f/2.8L II, and I have the 1.4x Mk3 teleconverter. The combo is only 280mm on my full frame camera, but it is like 448mm on the crop camera. I don't shoot birds, nor planes (nor Superman) so it is more than adequate (or even too long) for what I shoot, which is a kindergartener running after a soccer ball on a tiny midget soccer field.

The aperture, of course, is f/2.8, but with the TC mounted it loses a stop of light, so it drops to f/4.

In a couple of years I will probably want to pick up a longer tele. The soccer field will be larger then, and so perhaps will my budget. Maybe the 300 f/4 L, which is actually pretty reasonably priced. Or maybe a Sigma or other 3rd party lens.

By stingy aperture, I refer to the fixed f/8 on some of those mirror lenses. Plus, the "fixed" aspect is itself another downside, actually, as it limits your ability to control DOF or shutter speed.

[GrahamH]

Scott, sorry that you interpreted in that way, merely a straightforward question - posed as simply as I could possibly make it.
Your initial reply was rather down about it (...stingy aperture...novelty effect) so I was wondering what you shot with/are shooting with and what your requirements were/are that led you to such an evaluation?
I can understand that some people take a rather severe dislike to the doughnut bokeh, personal taste, and are so more visually sensitive to them than others. (I am hyper sensitive to cigarette smoke in that way, or driving etiquette).

If you don't have a requirement for a given tool, then all the negatives can seem rather apparent, however, if you DO have a need (or want, or desire - I don't wish to get the thesaurus out), then having a tool, even with those PARTICULAR deficits may very well be FAR better than having no tool at all.
NOT having a super telephoto means you do NOT have the tool to take certain shots (e.g. a heck of a lot easier for birding to have a super telephoto handy).

The speed argument. Invalid when put into perspective.
Go back in time only a few years. What was the effective top ISO you could use and still get a shot that suited your needs. Now come to the current day, ISO performance has improved so much - equal to or more than 2 stops of speed.
That means an f4 lens of yesteryear was able to shoot at a given speed. Today, using a modern camera body, you can easily bump up the ISO and STILL shoot at the same speed as yesteryear. Shooting at slower speeds - easy to use ND filters.


DoF effect - perhaps valid, but very limited
DoF effects perhaps, however, that is a much more rarely used tool than reach. There are a few people who do use such effects, but out of the admittedly few photographers that I do know (only a few hundred around the place (Caribbean, Canada and UK), so it is a small sample size statistically speaking), only one or two use a super tele deliberately with a small aperture. All the rest use it predominantly for the increased speed and only stop down if they can attain their minimum desired shutter speed.

PLUS improving stabilisation features reducing operator shake also allows for slower shutter speed (application dependent of course).

(Don't you love it when a bird is presented with the EXIF data as fully open, high ISO, moderate shutter speed and the photographer states that it was a conscious decision to use wide aperture specifically for DoF. When the alternative is to go for way high ISO (hence noise) or a slower shutter speed and get movement in the shot. Yeah right, and pigs can fly.)

Cost - not usually one discussed.
I, like most photographers I know, do not have multiple thousands on hand to get a super telephoto that is fast (and as a result narrow DoF making it even harder to nail the wee critter). It's a tool like any other, cost usually is a highly important factor.
Never mind being easily able to carry it as well as being able to handhold while shooting (reducing the requirement for heavier duty tripod, Wimberley head and so on).

I have the Sony 500mm CAT, very reasonable cost and I can get many other shots that I could not get any other way.
The resolution may not be as good as a top glass costing over $10,000 (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...f_4l_is_ii_usm). However, getting substantially more pixels on target increases the resolution over shooting with a 200mm (over 6 times more).

In summary, I would rather have a cheaper 500mm lens and have the chance to get 6.25 times more pixels on target than use a 200mm for the same task.
Graham

[jcuknz]

Back onto the subject, if you do get the lens and it has its place despite donuts, you should, like ANY long heavy lens, not abuse your camera, though I know some DSLRs can stand up to it, by trying to mount the camera on a tripod but rather you need to organise a collar* for the lens to attach it to the tripod while the camera hangs in the air behind. Some lens come with a tripod thread collar for this purpose such as my old Tokina 90-230 f/4 constant and I organised one when I added my Raynox 2020 telephoto adaptor to my ' non-tromboning' bridge camera.

The bridge camera and telephoto adaptor is the ecconomical way of getting reach ... without donuts.
Whatever you choose there is the 'red-dot' viewfinder which has a red rectangle showing the coverage of the lens while letting you see outside the field of view to help finding the subject ...I am ambivalent about this idea becuase when I tried to make one it wasn't successful. An alternative idea is the wire sports finder. I have made these out of a wire coat hanger

Of critical important to success is having the camera give you a one second review of the shot you just took so you can confirm the subject is in frame as the camera wanders all over the sky with hand shake etc.

*SRB I mentioned earlier are a European supplier.

[someone35]

Well, I got the 14-42mm for versality and a prime 45mm lens for landscapes and portrait shots. ( I use manual focus on the second one).
Thanks everyone!

[Shadowman]

Back onto the subject, if you do get the lens and it has its place despite donuts, you should, like ANY long heavy lens, not abuse your camera, though I know some DSLRs can stand up to it, by trying to mount the camera on a tripod but rather you need to organise a collar* for the lens to attach it to the tripod while the camera hangs in the air behind. Some lens come with a tripod thread collar for this purpose such as my old Tokina 90-230 f/4 constant and I organised one when I added my Raynox 2020 telephoto adaptor to my ' non-tromboning' bridge camera.

This device should handle supporting a suspended camera.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...s_Support.html

[Manfred M]

I just checked out the lens specs. It`s small and relatively light; which is one of the advantages of the `cat`design.

It weighs 705g (over 1-1/2 lb) and is just under 12cm (4-3/4 in) long.

[jcuknz]

The camera is about 0.6lb, 254 g so there is a considerable weight difference. But whatever a balanced rig is the way to go even if it is as simple as a metal plate under camera and lens to pistol grip or tripod is placed at the point of balance. The problem with the pistol grip is you need the left hand to focus if the right hand is holding the pistol grip they is nothing to press the trigger so a cable release is needed ... . There is the remote control RM-UC1 available for it .... this thread at dpreview is interesting http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3245891 on the subject. So if the remote can be attached to the pistol grip you are cooking with gas. A pistolm grip can be nothing more than a short length of pipe 12-30mm diameter with the end bent over and flattened with a hole for a quarter inche screw to fit it to camera or in this case the connecting plate..... I had something like this for my MF Rollei in the old days with left hand to focus and right to carry camera take the photo from the pistol grip. I had the pipe version for a movie camera.

This advert on Amazon gives more info http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-CABLE-.../dp/B000TXHE20 ... have not explored the other references I found on Google. While this is the UK Amazon page ...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_...+remote+relese

This gadget can apparently also permit the use of the bulb command in the camera to hold the shutter open for periods. The bar is a strip of aluminium or a bar used to carry a flash gun separate but connected to the camera. Needs a quarter inch screw ro attach to camera's tripod thread in its base. [1/4x20 to get technical .. not metric I am afraid ]

Whikle these days I find the ten second or twelve second release built into the camera copes with most of my remote releases the cable release is occasionally used ... electronic these days rather than the manual cable releases of the film camera days.

EDIT ... In all the excitement of working this out I forgot to mention you do need the VF2 or VF3 to make it all practical.