Zuiko Telephoto Lenses.

Does anyone have experience concerning results achieved with the Zuiko 400f6.3 or 600f6.5 in a Nature setting ?

I am in the market for a 400mm - 600mm lens for Olympus, Nikon or Canon. My reading here and elsewhere has me considering the Nikon 400f5.6 mf, 400f3.5 mf and 500f4 af and the Canon 500f4.5 af.

I am looking for the best results that can be obtained using 35mm.

As a 4T owner I wonder how the above lenses stack up.

Thank you.

While Im not familiar with those particular lenses, Zuiko lenses in general seem to be very good.

Many Zuiko lenses are excellent, but I'm not sure that applies to their longer telephotos. One weakness of the Olympus system is the

lack of long, fast, APO glass. Both the lenses mentioned are a bit

slow, plus I don't think they use APO/ED/Fluorite elements, which are pretty much

essential in a high quality modern telephoto lens. I would seriously doubt they can

compete with the Canon/Nikon lenses mentioned in terms of sharpness, but, of course, they will be considerably cheaper (not to mention

smaller and lighter).

This is one I checked out a few years ago when looking at the possibility of lightening the load a bit and and moving into the excellent Olympus macro system. In talking with the Olympus reps I was told quite candidly to buy Nikon gear if I really needed "quality glass" over 350mm in focal length. Since 350 is the longest lens with low dispersion glass they make you have to go somewhere else. You don't have the choice with Olympus at all and you can, indeed, see the difference in L or ED glass compared to standard lenses of the same focal length. Buy either Nikon or Canon high end lenses and you won't look back.

You mentioned that you are considering both manual focus and autofocus lenses. As long as you are going into a long telephoto, why not go with AF from the beginning, particularly if you're considering shooting wildlife. You can always turn it off and focus manually, but you will have it when you need it. You mentioned the Nikon 400mm f5.6 ED manual focus lens. In my opinion, that lens is outdated by todays standards. The Canon 400mm f5.6 AF L lens is well thought of and is less expensive than its Nikon counterpart. I use the new Minolta 400mm f4.5 AF APO. It is outstanding optically and focuses closer than any other 400mm on the market, except the 400MM Sigma f5.6 APO Macro. However, I seem to be in the minority with my high regard for the high end Minolta equipment. I also shoot Nikon, but most of my friends are now using Canon. I am familiar with the Canon, Nikon and Minolta systems, but not with the Olympus. A great solution would be to get either the Nikon or Canon 500 and supplement it with a 300mm f4 of the same brand. Add a 1.4X TC and you'd have a 300mm, 420mm, 500mm and 700mm. Both Nikon and Canon telephoto lenses are outstanding optiocally. One caution here - the Canon 500mm f4.5 will not autofocus with the 1.4X TC attached. For what it's worth, the Minolta 400mm f4.5 does autofocus with the Minolta 1.4X APO TC attached. One downside of all Minolta cameras is that no Minolta camera has a mirror lock-up provision. This may or may not be a problem for you. It is irrelevant for action work of any kind. Personally, If I was planning to get ONLY one long telephoto, I'd opt for a 400mm, but the two lens solution would give you more options.

I may be wrong on this score, but I'm pretty sure that Zuiko lenses 400mm and above are made with LD elements. I used to own an OM-1 (until it got stolen) and I seem to recall that Olympus' literature described these lenses as having special optical glasses that were designed to reduce chromatic abberations. That description clearly implies that those lenses have LD glass in them.

 

<p>

 

Be that as it may, I purchased a book on photographing birds by Allen Rokach and Anne Millman. Rokach primarily uses a 350mm lens that is frequently paired with Olympus 1.4x and 2x converters. Those shots look good. You might want to consider a 3rd-party option--a Tamron SP LD 300mm MF lens. Paired with the matched 1.4x converter it is supposed to be very good. (I know it's very good by itself, and okay with the 2x flat-field converter.) Many photographers prefer to carry a smaller lens and use converters to extend its reach. It's ligher, and cheaper to boot, although I'm not sure the quality of photos will be quite as good as having 500mm+ lenses.

I think the 350 is a 350/2.8. It may well have LD glass, as may the 600/6.5, I don't really know for sure. I do know the 600 isn't an

internal focus lens and has a rather long "close focus". Somewhere over 30ft if I remember right.

 

<p>

 

If I was sticking with an Olympus body, I'd look for a Tamron 400/4.

Since tamron use the adaptall system, getting one for Olympus would

be relatively easy. The Sigma 500/4.5 is another possibility, though finding one in an Olympus mount seems unlikely. It's supposed to be

an OK lens, but like most Sigma stuff, resale value is low (in this

case a good thing if you are buying used!) and it may not perform

as well as the Nikon/Canon equivalents.

According to the Olympus lens broshure PDf file that I have, the 350 is a 2.8 and has LD glass. The 400 and 600 are 6.3 and do not.

 

<p>

 

They also make a 180/2, and a 250/2 lens with LD glass.

the 600 mm olympus has Low Dispersion glass, as do the 180, 250 and 350. All of these are wonderful lenses.

A little bit late....oh well.

 

Only the Zuiko 180mm f2, 250mm f2 & 350mm f2.8 use LD glass. For quality optics, these lenses cannot be beat (ask NASA). However, the fact that Olympus released some marketing material indicating that the 400mm, 600mm, and 1000mm lenses used LD was in error. Olympus corrected that in subsequent releases. These lenses are of older design, and given their value on the used market they should only be of interest to an avid OM collector.