Advice on 70-300mm lens needed.

[readyreal]

Is the Zuiko Digital ED 70-300mm F4.0-5.6 Macro lens, good for birding?

Does the focal length really reaches 600mm (as stated on lens and websites) on my Olympus E-510 body?

I went for birding but doesn't seems enough.

It states it is a Macro lens but how can it shoot macro when the distance away from the subject for it to auto-focus, is so far?

Please advice, I'm unsure about this lens function.

Thanks.

[spidey89]

i've used it for birding,again depends on the bird,if it's a big one,can fill the frame no problem,when you talk about kingfishers that kinda size,then it's difficult.
Consider the macro lens 50mm,it's closest focusing is about 24cm,and 70-300 at 300,closest is about 1.5 meters away,it's can do macro when you're shooting things like dragonflies and such,but smaller things like spider is also tough

[Fragment]

Originally Posted by readyreal Does the focal length really reaches 600mm (as stated on lens and websites) on my Olympus E-510 body?

At the tele end of the lens, yes, what you capture and/or see in your viewfinder is 600mm.

[srinivasanj]

Originally Posted by readyreal I went for birding but doesn't seems enough.

Its never enough..probably the 500mm mirror lens would not be enough as well.

As for the macro...zoomed out all the way to 300, the magnification would be around 1:2.5.

[mabmy]

Hi sorry if i am hijacking, but i was wondering as well that since the 70-300 is a macro lens, if the ex-25 is attached, will it show a remarkable difference and will shooting spiders actually be possible? What is the magnification like? I understand that attaching the adapter will make the lens lose the ability to focus at infinity. But, if attaching it does give a good magnification for macro shooting, i don't mind losing it.

[spidey89]

as far as i can tell,not a huge diff,and i doubt i will be able to catch spiders unless they're big

[mabmy]

Originally Posted by spidey89 as far as i can tell,not a huge diff,and i doubt i will be able to catch spiders unless they're big

If that is the case, does that mean attaching an ex-25 to the 70-300 is rather pointless as there is no difference to the magnification? So there is no way to get a 1:1 on it? Sorry for all this noob questions, but i hope it benefits the t/s too.

[spidey89]

it's ok,as far as i can tell,there is an increase of magnification,but not by a lot from as far as i can tell,and if we're talking about spiders that are at most,1 cm big,then i don't think it's possible with just the EX-25 and 70-300

[splim]

Originally Posted by mabmy Hi sorry if i am hijacking, but i was wondering as well that since the 70-300 is a macro lens, if the ex-25 is attached, will it show a remarkable difference and will shooting spiders actually be possible? What is the magnification like? I understand that attaching the adapter will make the lens lose the ability to focus at infinity. But, if attaching it does give a good magnification for macro shooting, i don't mind losing it.

EX-25 compatibility list http://www.olympus.co.jp/en/support/...4042e.cfm#etcl

[egnaro]

ZD 70-300 is not stated as a marco lens.

[spidey89]

if i remember correctly,70-300 is not a true macro lens,but more of a close up lens

[mabmy]

Oh.. ok.. cause i read it from olympus site that its able to do tele-macro photography.

I'm not sure on how to sum up the calculations with the ex-25 extension. But from my conclusion, if the ex-25 offers a 0.25x magnification, and the 70-300 gives a 0.50x magnification, does that mean adding them up will give me a 0.75x magnification?

Does that mean if i stack up 2 ex-25 with a 70-300 i can get a 1x magnification? But of course i wonder if this is even possible If its possible, i know i am trading it off the IQ for magnification right?

Enlighten me please.

[spidey89]

yes and no and not sure.Not sure about the calculations,still trying to understand myself,but for sure,it's not possible to stack up 2 EX-25 without knowing how to DIY or get around it,and i believe the trade off the magnification is loss of iq is true

[Kirika]

Originally Posted by spidey89 if i remember correctly,70-300 is not a true macro lens,but more of a close up lens

I'd disagree, depending on your definition of macro. If you mean the lens natively being able to pull off a 1x life size magnification, then no, it's not a macro. If 0.5x is where you draw the macro line, then the 70-300 is capable of the same magnification as the 50mm f2, and therefore it is a macro.

I believe that the 70-300 is a macro, according to the second definition. Due to the 2x factor of the 4/3 sensor, it probably renders 1x life size macro in 35mm terms.

[spidey89]

probably,not too sure myself,to me,not a pro in macro,NatureTTL should be better at explaining

[Kirika]

Actually, the calculation is focal length/extension length. Take for example the 50mm f2. Natively, it can deliver a 0.5x life size magnification. However, with the EX-25, it delivers 1x life size. 50/25=2. Therefore the multiplier for magnification is 2x.

Therefore, if you try it on the 70-300 at 300mm, you're not gona get much more than the lens can natively deliver. It is probably not worthwhile to put an EX-25 on the 70-300.

However, for the 70-300, putting a macro filter on will greatly increase its magnification. I'd recommend the Raynox DCR 250 if you want like 3-4x life size magnifications for cheap. The DOF will be so thin that you'll be very hard pressed to get anything in focus, though.

So if you want 1x macro, you can get the Sigma 105mm, 150mm, Olympus 50mm f2 + ex-25 ,or 35mm. Or the old manual lenses that can do the same. Otherwise, get the 70-300 for its versatility. The working distance of the 50 + EX-25 and the 35mm at 1x are rather short, so you'll need to get really close. Which may be nasty when trying to shoot skittish insects. The Sigmas are fine, but they're also specialized macro lenses that may be too long for most portraiture or landscape.

Originally Posted by mabmy Oh.. ok.. cause i read it from olympus site that its able to do tele-macro photography. I'm not sure on how to sum up the calculations with the ex-25 extension. But from my conclusion, if the ex-25 offers a 0.25x magnification, and the 70-300 gives a 0.50x magnification, does that mean adding them up will give me a 0.75x magnification? Does that mean if i stack up 2 ex-25 with a 70-300 i can get a 1x magnification? But of course i wonder if this is even possible If its possible, i know i am trading it off the IQ for magnification right? Enlighten me please.

[Stupidcowz]

Mmm,

I use the 70-300mm on planespotting. It's good when you want to shoot the plane during approaching, perhaps few mins before touch down or the other way around (few mins after take off). Mmm, no complains from usage so far the shots come out nice. Only sometimes due to the long zoom camera shake is a bit of a problem but with high enough shutter speed well it's out of the question alrdy. So, birds i would recommend the 70-300mm.

Cowz.

[microcosm]

Originally Posted by Stupidcowz Mmm, I use the 70-300mm on planespotting. It's good when you want to shoot the plane during approaching, perhaps few mins before touch down or the other way around (few mins after take off). Mmm, no complains from usage so far the shots come out nice. Only sometimes due to the long zoom camera shake is a bit of a problem but with high enough shutter speed well it's out of the question alrdy. So, birds i would recommend the 70-300mm. Cowz.

That is an interesting thing to do... care to share some photos?

[Stupidcowz]

Originally Posted by microcosm That is an interesting thing to do... care to share some photos?

Sure,

I need to figure out how to post them 1st

Cowz.

[srinivasanj]

Well, 300mm is the max Olympus has gone in terms of focal length. So the question on whether its suited for tele, birding, planespotting is an obvious YES since this is the longest that is available from the Zuiko range (....there is a dedicated 300mm as well but this is the max). Sigma makes a longer one though...and there are some mirror lenses.

In terms of macro, this is a macro lens. It is not a true macro lens though since it cant reproduce images at 1x magnification. It all depends on what the definition of macro is. A good place to start with the basics is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography