Zuiko 150mm F2 nickname "Little Tuna"

[kingcrab]

First let me say I don't want to stir up trouble but these are what I found out when i was doing research of which dslr to buy.

My understanding of why we need a large aperture is because of
1) speed
2) shallow dof
3) brighter viewfinder

1) film and full frame dslr has an area of 36x24 per exposure so the area = 864mm2
e-30 has an area 0f 17.3x13 = 224.9mm2
so 35mm format has about 4 times as much area as 4:3
so given the same sensor tech 35mm should be 2 stops better at high iso right since it collects 4 times as much light
so using a d700 at iso 1600 should be equivalent to using e-3 at iso 400 assuming they have the same sensor tech. e-3 will need a 2 stop faster lens to compensate for poorer iso performance.

2) 25mm f2.8 on 4:3 will give about the same dof as 50mm f5.6 on a 5d from this test
http://www.seriouscompacts.com/2008/06/zd-25-vs-ef-50-supplement-by-request.html

3) can't really comment since i've never compared 35mm format and 4:3 side by side before.

So from 1) and 2) can we conclude that using a
d700 at iso 1600 with a 300mm f4 lens
e-3 at iso 400 with a 150mm f2 lens
will will allow you to use the same shutter speed, give the same image quality in terms of noise and the same dof.

 

[microcosm]

First let me say I don't want to stir up trouble but these are what I found out when i was doing research of which dslr to buy.

My understanding of why we need a large aperture is because of
1) speed
2) shallow dof
3) brighter viewfinder

1) film and full frame dslr has an area of 36x24 per exposure so the area = 864mm2
e-30 has an area 0f 17.3x13 = 224.9mm2
so 35mm format has about 4 times as much area as 4:3
so given the same sensor tech 35mm should be 2 stops better at high iso right since it collects 4 times as much light
so using a d700 at iso 1600 should be equivalent to using e-3 at iso 400 assuming they have the same sensor tech. e-3 will need a 2 stop faster lens to compensate for poorer iso performance.

2) 25mm f2.8 on 4:3 will give about the same dof as 50mm f5.6 on a 5d from this test
http://www.seriouscompacts.com/2008/06/zd-25-vs-ef-50-supplement-by-request.html

3) can't really comment since i've never compared 35mm format and 4:3 side by side before.

So from 1) and 2) can we conclude that using a
d700 at iso 1600 with a 300mm f4 lens
e-3 at iso 400 with a 150mm f2 lens
will will allow you to use the same shutter speed, give the same image quality in terms of noise and the same dof.

The DOF will be deeper with Four Thirds lenses, which you got it right. As the shutter speed, yes, in a way you might be right, (never thought of it that way...) with faster lenses, the shutter speed goes up meaning better performance since the ISO performance of E-System bodies are not comparable to the current Nikon system cameras like D3/D700. Also, because of the Four Thirds design concept, lenses can be made much lighter, hence giving you a f2.0 aperture lens at the similar weight count as f2.8 lenses on the 35mm format lenses. Can you imagine the size of a 70-200mm VR lens at f2.0? You will need a scaffolding to hold that thing!

 

[varanus]

Kingcrab, why would anyone think you're stirring trouble?

I have no doubts that the 3 points you raised, you found through research. This is because these are the most common points beaten to death by gear-heads out there

Comparing gear without a purpose in mind is to compare without a context.
For example, if you want to shoot sports, your comparison between and E-3 +150mm f2 combo and D700 + 300mm f4 may well apply, especially if we're talking about noise levels (although personally, I find the E-3 iso400 shots have better saturated colour and contrast compared to the D700 1so 1600, especially in good light).

The picture however, becomes very different for my purposes of hand-held birding photography. With the 150mm f2 and my teleconverters, I can shoot at 400mm f2.8 (my default combi) or 600mm f4. I can handhold all these because of in-body IS and shoot at iso400mm wide open.

We can forget about all of Nikon's 400mm and above primes. They're too heavy for handholding. The only option you have is to add TCs to the 300mm f4 and shooting at 1600 and above. That is provided you can handhold the combo without IS as a practical matter. Also, the Oly150mm plus EC-20 gives you the same performance as a clean Nikkor 300mm f4.

But the point which led you to equate DOF in favour of FF. now proves to be FF's undoing. Bird shooters using FF on enormous tripod mounted lenses frequently stop down when shooting to increase depth of field (f5.6 or f8 are not unusual). This is why most birders covet the Nikkor 80-400 although it is quite soft wide open. For the purposes of birding, 4/3's increased DOF is an advantage (much like macro).

So, one would need to decide first the purpose of the equipment before one can properly determine which format would promise better performance. It'll be crazy for anyone to argue that 4/3 would out-perform FF for wedding shots in a darkish church

 

[microcosm]

It'll be crazy for anyone to argue that 4/3 would out-perform FF for wedding shots in a darkish church

Not really... if you tell some of my friends who are hardcore event photographers that they are crazy, they will make you swallow their lens. The additional DOF are really a blessing because battery packs lasts longer. Instead of shooting f8 on 35FF (35mm Full Frame), which consumes a lot more power for the flash, they can use f5.6 on FTFF (Four Thirds Full Frame). That is critical when you are covering events lasting more than 8 hours. No kidding. Like presidential elections and stuff... Not to mention the 12-60+E-3 combo is a blessing because of the lightweight. And articulated screen for live view.

I think the only time 35mmFF shines is for shooting xiao mei mei (portraiture) where a razor thin bokeh is preferred. That is why the Canon 5D with 85 f1.2 sells like hot cakes... but then again, what cannot be achieved in Photoshop to one who is competent on DI these days? :think:

varanus, looks like you are the one stirring trouble, not kingcrab... LOL! (just kidding).

 

[varanus]

No worries Microcosm

As for your friends, its good to know that there are people using Oly for professional wedding gigs. I believe Oly is good enough for this and I run only one system. I just shot these yesterday in Laos with the Little Tuna plus EC-14. Sharpened and nothing else.

But I still maintain that they would be crazy to argue that 4/3 will outperform FF for indoor bad light events

And I don't think 4/3 needs to refute this to justify its viability!

 

[spidey89]

OMG!!!SO SHARP!!!!0_0,MY EYES!!!become X_X

 

[varanus]

Cheers Spidey It'd be sharper if Mr Shakey-Hands here did it properly

 

[MichaelLee]

Can you imagine the size of a 70-200mm VR lens at f2.0? You will need a scaffolding to hold that thing!

not just about 70-200m VR lens at f2.

e system has an advantage of sharper corner to corner and less or almost none visible vignetting. they overcome these having lens diameter 2 time the size of the ccd.

microcosm...can u imagine 70-200mm VR at f2, and the lens diameter is 2 times the size of the ccd ? i wonder the filter size is 200mm rather than 82mm.

 

[kitfox-sg]

if what Kingcrab said is true...
Nikons ISO 800 = Olympus' ISO 200? or 400 = 100?

 

[spidey89]

Cheers Spidey It'd be sharper if Mr Shakey-Hands here did it properly

haha,seems to suffer no handshake,maybe my glasses are dirty?lol

 

[kingcrab]

....... Also, because of the Four Thirds design concept, lenses can be made much lighter, hence giving you a f2.0 aperture lens at the similar weight count as f2.8 lenses on the 35mm format lenses. Can you imagine the size of a 70-200mm VR lens at f2.0? You will need a scaffolding to hold that thing!

not just about 70-200m VR lens at f2.

e system has an advantage of sharper corner to corner and less or almost none visible vignetting. they overcome these having lens diameter 2 time the size of the ccd.

microcosm...can u imagine 70-200mm VR at f2, and the lens diameter is 2 times the size of the ccd ? i wonder the filter size is 200mm rather than 82mm.

Yes but if my reasoning is correct 150mm f2 on 4:3 is equivalent to 300mm f4 on 35mm. In terms of weight these 2 lenses are very similiar. Similiar in terms of price too i think (don't really know how much the 150mm f2 cost).

So I guess it wouldn't be right to say that the 35-100mm f2 is comparable to the 70-200mm VR for example since the nikon lens is a f2.8. 35-100mm f2 should be compared to the canon 70-200mm f4L instead right?

 

[microcosm]

Yes but if my reasoning is correct 150mm f2 on 4:3 is equivalent to 300mm f4 on 35mm. In terms of weight these 2 lenses are very similiar. Similiar in terms of price too i think (don't really know how much the 150mm f2 cost).

So I guess it wouldn't be right to say that the 35-100mm f2 is comparable to the 70-200mm VR for example since the nikon lens is a f2.8. 35-100mm f2 should be compared to the canon 70-200mm f4L instead right?

The 150mm f2.0 is NOT equal to 300mm f4. There are no 300mm f2 from anyone.

The aperture remains the same... it does not get smaller... LOL!

 

[egnaro]

oli the DOF is difference compare to 35mm FF, Aperture remain at it is.

Eg. aperture comparison from 4/3 lens and 35mm FF, 150 F2 (4/3) is equal to 300mm F2(35mm FF)
DOF of 4/3 lens 150F2 on 35mm FF is F4.

did I confuse anyone?

 

[varanus]

Egnaro, you did not confuse anyone

As Microcosm said, 150mm f2 is not the same as 300mm f4. The Zuiko allows any camera stuck to it shoot 2-stops faster than the f4 Nikkor. A deeper DOF is also not a bad thing, especially for wildlife photography.

The FF brigade have been long singing this DOF "equivalent" comparison to explain away the aperture advantage in our Zuikos. If it makes them happy, that's fine.

The point here is that Zuikos are just about the best glass out there. The Little Tuna is sharer than the 300mm Nikkor and this is at the centre of the frame. Its great, bright and light.

Canikon actually recognises that for longer telephoto work, their APS-C system is more suitable. The equivalent lenses on APS-C to the Little Tuna would actually be their 200mm f2. Now just go check out how much these weigh and cost?

 

[MichaelLee]

The equivalent lenses on APS-C to the Little Tuna would actually be their 200mm f2. Now just go check out how much these weigh and cost?

Zuiko 150mm f2 =SGD3,600. Weight =1,465g
Nikon 300m f2.8 VR = SGD6,350 Weight = 2,850g

(There is no Nikon 300m f2 lens available.)

 

[microcosm]

Zuiko 150mm f2 =SGD3,600. Weight =1,465g
Nikon 300m f2.8 VR = SGD6,350 Weight = 2,850g

(There is no Nikon 300m f2 lens available.)

There was this incident in Taiwan a long time back that never cease to make me laugh when I tell my friends... thanks for Wong Se for making me remember...

I was at one of the Olympus dealership in Bo Ai Road in Taipei... and this middle aged guy with a bada$$ camera hanging off his neck came into the shop and told the shop owner as a matter of factly "You have made a major typo error on your advertisement on this month's magazine, there is no such thing as a constant f2.0 zoom in this world... I have been around, using Zeiss and Leica and whatever's not, and there is no such thing as a constant f2.0 lens."

The owner smiled, reached for the 35-100mm f2.0 (when it was first released in 2005 or something)... and guess what... that dude actually said "must be printing error on the lens from Olympus at the factory"...

At this point, every Oly E-System guy in the shop burst out laughing so hard, the guy walked out of the shop and slammed the door pretty hard! :bsmilie:

 

[egnaro]

There was this incident in Taiwan a long time back that never cease to make me laugh when I tell my friends... thanks for Wong Se for making me remember...

I was at one of the Olympus dealership in Bo Ai Road in Taipei... and this middle aged guy with a bada$$ camera hanging off his neck came into the shop and told the shop owner as a matter of factly "You have made a major typo error on your advertisement on this month's magazine, there is no such thing as a constant f2.0 zoom in this world... I have been around, using Zeiss and Leica and whatever's not, and there is no such thing as a constant f2.0 lens."

The owner smiled, reached for the 35-100mm f2.0 (when it was first released in 2005 or something)... and guess what... that dude actually said "must be printing error on the lens from Olympus at the factory"...

At this point, every Oly E-System guy in the shop burst out laughing so hard, the guy walked out of the shop and slammed the door pretty hard! :bsmilie:

haha... think abt it, those Olympus guys are really bad!!! that guy will never forget and never use Olympus Esystem even it is good, becuz he has become a luffing stock for E-system and I believe he hate E-system then anyone else.

 

[MichaelLee]

Yes but if my reasoning is correct 150mm f2 on 4:3 is equivalent to 300mm f4 on 35mm. In terms of weight these 2 lenses are very similiar. Similiar in terms of price too i think (don't really know how much the 150mm f2 cost).

So I guess it wouldn't be right to say that the 35-100mm f2 is comparable to the 70-200mm VR for example since the nikon lens is a f2.8. 35-100mm f2 should be compared to the canon 70-200mm f4L instead right?

150mm f2 ISO1600 vs 300m f4 ISO3200..although they are close to be similiar, but not exatly. especially on the DOF. ( microcosm explained that)

OK, eventhough both give the same shutter speed and noise level, zuiko 150 f2 is half the price, half the weight and better off by f0.8....:bsmilie:

 

[microcosm]

150mm f2 ISO1600 vs 300m f4 ISO3200..although they are close to be similiar, but not exatly. especially on the DOF. ( microcosm explained that)

OK, eventhough both give the same shutter speed and noise level, zuiko 150 f2 is half the price, half the weight and better off by f0.8....:bsmilie:

At the rate you are explaining like a MIT lecturer, even I am getting confused... :think:

 

[spidey89]

There was this incident in Taiwan a long time back that never cease to make me laugh when I tell my friends... thanks for Wong Se for making me remember...

I was at one of the Olympus dealership in Bo Ai Road in Taipei... and this middle aged guy with a bada$$ camera hanging off his neck came into the shop and told the shop owner as a matter of factly "You have made a major typo error on your advertisement on this month's magazine, there is no such thing as a constant f2.0 zoom in this world... I have been around, using Zeiss and Leica and whatever's not, and there is no such thing as a constant f2.0 lens."

The owner smiled, reached for the 35-100mm f2.0 (when it was first released in 2005 or something)... and guess what... that dude actually said "must be printing error on the lens from Olympus at the factory"...

At this point, every Oly E-System guy in the shop burst out laughing so hard, the guy walked out of the shop and slammed the door pretty hard! :bsmilie:

HAHAHA!!!!!:sweatsm::sweatsm:

haha... think abt it, those Olympus guys are really bad!!! that guy will never forget and never use Olympus Esystem even it is good, becuz he has become a luffing stock for E-system and I believe he hate E-system then anyone else.

Most agreed