150/2 & 35-100/2

[Teo]

Appreciate any feedback for these 2 lenses in term of the handling and picture quality. By the way what is the best price today?
Anyone letting go theirs?


TIA
Cheers

[zuikoku]

Originally Posted by Teo Appreciate any feedback for these 2 lenses in term of the handling and picture quality. By the way what is the best price today? Anyone letting go theirs? TIA Cheers

They are on the same price.. USD 2200 (New)
Quality.. better bokeh comparing to High Grade lenses such ZD 50-200 mm f/2.8-3.5 & slightly faster AF performance.

[Hacker]

Originally Posted by Teo Appreciate any feedback for these 2 lenses in term of the handling and picture quality. By the way what is the best price today? Anyone letting go theirs? TIA Cheers

The 150mm f2 is simply awesome. I consider this the best lens in Oly's lineup. The 50mm f2 is the second best. The only problem I have is that you have to check the focusing limiter and make sure you don't miss the moment because you forget to set to infinity. Color, contrast, sharpness, bokeh, etc...like a Leica.

For the 35-100mm, blows the 50-200mm away. That was the reason I got rid of the 50-200mm, though excellent, pales in comparison with the 35-100mm. The 50-200 is soft at the wide end also, but none of that for the 35-100mm. Both weigh the same.

[Hacker]

Originally Posted by Teo Anyone letting go theirs? TIA Cheers

You getting 1 or both?

[Teo]

Currently having the 50-200 and maybe get 150/2 if possible. By the way have you ever compared the 50-200 and the 35/100 both set at 100mm wide open? Is there much difference in the picture quality?

It would be ideal if Olympus make 35-150/2....

[Hacker]

Originally Posted by Teo Currently having the 50-200 and maybe get 150/2 if possible. By the way have you ever compared the 50-200 and the 35/100 both set at 100mm wide open? Is there much difference in the picture quality? It would be ideal if Olympus make 35-150/2....

The 50-200 is softer at the wide end. At the longer range, >100, it is sharp. However, 35-100mm is really sharp at the entire range.

I have not really used the 150mm much, so it's sitting at home.

[microcosm]

Originally Posted by Teo Appreciate any feedback for these 2 lenses in term of the handling and picture quality. TIA Cheers

Picture quality, the Super High Grade lenses are top notch. There is simply nothing like shooting with the top grade glass. But the reason I have "downgraded" from them is the weight. Part of the reason I went with the 4/3 system is because of the size and weight issues plagued by the other camera companies who are still developing 35mm sensors.

For me, the handling and weight are the downside of the Super High Grade lenses (except for the 7-14mm). Look at the official lens pages and the specs. Note the weight. I find that a 1kg lens like the 50-200mm is the max that I can handle for a 2-3 hour shooting session. Beyond that, it starts to become a pain.

By the way, I shoot hand held 95% of the time. I hardly use my monopod or tripod because I am a photojournalist. That is my point of view towards the SHG lenses. Too weighty for my needs. If you have a chance, maybe you might want to borrow one and have a go with it.

[Hacker]

For me, if you are looking purely at the quality of the lenses, from best to worst, I would rank the following:

(1) 150mm (in a class of its own).
(2) 50mm
(3) 35-100mm
(4) 7-14mm

Hard to tell the diff between (3) and (4), but all are exceptional lenses. (I used Contax and Leica R during film days and Hasselblad and Rollei for 6x6). (5)-(6) are excellent also, but still a grade different from (1)-(4).

(5) Sigma 30mm
(6) 50-200mm
(7) 8mm
(8) 14-54mm
(9) 14-45mm (junk)

This obviously is my subjective opinion on IQ. Don't own (6) and (9) now.

[zuikoku]

For me, 150 f/2 & 35-100 f/2 is very expensive & bulky lenses. If you always shoot handheld for a long time, I will not choose these lenses and keep using my 14-54 & 50-200 mm.

[cire07]

Is the 14~45mm kit lens really that bad?

[microcosm]

Originally Posted by cire07 Is the 14~45mm kit lens really that bad?

For someone who have been using Super High Grades, they would think so... but comparing the 14-45mm among all the kit lens and average lens out there, this is still a very good lens.

[cire07]

Originally Posted by microcosm For someone who have been using Super High Grades, they would think so... but comparing the 14-45mm among all the kit lens and average lens out there, this is still a very good lens.

I see i see... That's wat i thot, my 1st DSLR... quite pleased with the results from the kit lens so far... so i thot my expectations too low or smthg... haha...

When i get the 50mm f2... then maybe i'll see the difference...

Thanks,
Eric

[microcosm]

Originally Posted by cire07 I see i see... That's wat i thot, my 1st DSLR... quite pleased with the results from the kit lens so far... so i thot my expectations too low or smthg... haha... When i get the 50mm f2... then maybe i'll see the difference... Thanks, Eric

Err... then you might really see the difference and hate your kit lens and move up to at least the 14-54mm liao... so be careful... ha ha ha... it is like poison...

[cire07]

Originally Posted by microcosm Err... then you might really see the difference and hate your kit lens and move up to at least the 14-54mm liao... so be careful... ha ha ha... it is like poison...

I know... the BBB virus rite?

My wife was already nagging me none stop when i bought the E-500... BUT after she saw the quality of the photos as compared to our current P&S Kodak... she felt it was money well spent, especially since it is primarily for taking pics of our baby boy...

NOW must try and convince her that the 50mm Macro & a Oly Flash is a necessity as well...

Heh heh...

[microcosm]

Originally Posted by cire07 I know... the BBB virus rite? My wife was already nagging me none stop when i bought the E-500... BUT after she saw the quality of the photos as compared to our current P&S Kodak... she felt it was money well spent, especially since it is primarily for taking pics of our baby boy... NOW must try and convince her that the 50mm Macro & a Oly Flash is a necessity as well... Heh heh...

You sure have a way with your wife, and remember to thank your boy and groom him to share the same passion with you... so that in your retirement, he will be buying your gadgets! ha ha ha...

[snappyantz]

Hi all, been looking at the posts... I do not see zuiko 35mm mentioned anywhere in the list.
Is it not good or?

[microcosm]

Originally Posted by snappyantz Hi all, been looking at the posts... I do not see zuiko 35mm mentioned anywhere in the list. Is it not good or?

The 35mm Macro is a good lens, but when compared to the 50mm Macro, it loses out on both optical and build quality and that is why the 50mm Macro is the more popular brother among the two, though from experience of shooting with both, each has it's own merit. But the bokeh and speed (f2.0) of the 50mm Macro makes it a great lens to have.

[snappyantz]

Originally Posted by microcosm The 35mm Macro is a good lens, but when compared to the 50mm Macro, it loses out on both optical and build quality and that is why the 50mm Macro is the more popular brother among the two, though from experience of shooting with both, each has it's own merit. But the bokeh and speed (f2.0) of the 50mm Macro makes it a great lens to have.

okay, thanks for the explaination, sorry bt a bit more question...
I was thinking of getting 35mm for both macro/portait/street shooting. On seeing that you mentioned 50mm is much better in quality but as it is already zoom in (100mm in 35mm aspect), issit good for stuff other than macro?
I also saw some review site citing that the 50mm have auto focusing issue, how true is this? Can share more of your experience with the 2 lens other than the quality aspect like focusing? Thanks.

[microcosm]

Originally Posted by snappyantz okay, thanks for the explanation, sorry bt a bit more question... I was thinking of getting 35mm for both macro/portrait/street shooting. On seeing that you mentioned 50mm is much better in quality but as it is already zoom in (100mm in 35mm aspect), issit good for stuff other than macro? I also saw some review site citing that the 50mm have auto focusing issue, how true is this? Can share more of your experience with the 2 lens other than the quality aspect like focusing? Thanks.

Actually, both lenses are good for shooting anything. Just that they have close focusing capabilities and therefore they are known as "Macro" lenses. They would be the same as any 70mm or 100mm lenses out there (in 35mm format).

The 14-54mm for example, have close focusing capabilities too (0.22m to subject, as opposed to 0.24m on the 50mm Macro, surprise!) and therefore it causes some confusion at first for me (should be called a Macro Zoom!), but the f2.0 on the 50mm and the bokeh it creates makes it a bloody amazing lens, not to mention being a prime, the sharpness is really very much unrivaled by many other lenses from the ZD series. SEE THE E-SYSTEM LENS LIST FOR MORE SPECS ON THE LENSES.

Just to de-myth what everyone always thinks... there are NO RULES to what you can shoot with what lenses. Just that it would be easier to classify the lenses into categories when putting them into catalogs, at least that is what I think.

I have done fashion work with 8mm fisheye and used the 300mm prime(have to stress that this is loaner) to shoot fashion too mainly because the surrounding was too messy and I wanted to compress the perspective. After a while of shooting, you kind of understand how every lens behave and how you can control perspective or Field of View, which makes one a better photographer (note: I am no master, just a serious amateur). That was also my biggest problem when I first switch from traditional film to 4/3 because the system totally threw me off when it comes to FOV. If you have been shooting film that long, you will understand.

Anyway, regarding focusing issues, the 35mm and 50mm has lots of ground to cover, from as close as 0.146m for the 35mm to infinity... and the "travel" for the focusing barrel has a long way to go. It was a little frustrating when the lens hunt because I did not point the lens at something contrasty to start with. This is an inherent "issue" with the Olympus AF but you will quickly learn to get use to it. So that is not really a problem at all, unless you have read about other problems that I have not come across.

I never had any problems with the 35mm or the 50mm at all. But I find myself going for the 50mm all the time because the focal length is close to my old time favourite lens, the Nikkor 105mm that was built in the 70s and honestly, I love the 50mm Macro more because it is a much sharper lens than any primes that I have used (except the 150mm prime, which is a monster in itself... that was made by aliens... truly an amazing piece of glass, rivaling the famous Tessa "Eagle's Eye" lens in my opinion).

But sharpness comes with superb details revelation and it sometimes backfire if you are shooting human subjects with bad skin. Everything is revealed and that is not very flattery to the subject that you are shooting (but of course, these days you can do post work to sort this out easily).

Take your time to study a lens well before making any impulsive purchase decision. If you can only afford to buy one Macro lens from the ZD family and not in hurry to have it, I would suggest that you save for the 50mm Macro because it is one of the most important lens to me personally. Lightweight and produces superb images. A joy to have if you love shooting details. Weatherproofing the lens means it can take a little bit more abuse and is protected against the elements. That is something "extra" that I would gladly pay for.

Hope the above information helps.

[Rangefinder_fan]

Hi,
the above post was really helpful to me.
Thanks for it!