Olympus zoom lenses

[steve57]

Hello , I purchaced an Olympus E-510 camera I bought the package deal that includes14 -42 mm lense and the 40-

150mm lense both have a 58mm base .This was my first real digital camera besides point and shoot and I thought I

was getting a regular lense and a zoom . Now that I know I'm unhappy with the performance of the 40 -150 mm

lens .I.ve looked around at some of the zoom lenses offered by olympus and theyr're asking a couple thousand

dollars as many of you know .. I'm not a tight wad but it seems like there might be something I'm missing .. I don't

think from my findings that a teleconverter will give as quality of picture that zoom will.. However they are

consideratably cheaper .. I'm asking for input and some advise towards what I should do to solve my problem .. Wild

life Photography is what I'm aiming for .. Bear in mind I'm a little new to all this so my findings to date could very well

be all wrong . Thankyou for any and all advise to my situation.. Steve F. Campbell

[phule]

[[Now that I know I'm unhappy with the performance of the 40 -150 mm lens]]

 

In what way?

[phule]

[[This was my first real digital camera besides point and shoot and I thought I was getting a regular lense and a zoom . ]]

 

B.t.w.: both of your lenses are zooms.

 

What you're looking for are telephoto or telephoto zoom lenses with longer focal lengths than your existing 40-150.

[brian_bahn]

I also have the E-510 with the two kit lenses. I am still fairly new but learning pretty fast and I have to say I think both the 14-42 and 40-150 are pretty good lenses. Do I want a faster lens like the 50-200mm 2.8? Absolutely. But when using the kit lenses within their capabilities they are pretty darn good. I am thinking you may need to use them more to get comfortable with both the camera and lens capabilities and limits.

 

Do you have sample shots? Were they wildlife photos you weren't happy with? As Rob asked what exactly weren't you happy with?

[steve57]

Let me rephrase my guestion I'm looking for a lense that will get me a lot closer to my subjects without spooking them .. Would a teleconverter do that for me without loosing any quality. Also are there larger zoom lenses that will fit this camera that aren't so high priced.. I agree that both lenses listsed above are great lenses.. What I was unhappy with was I thought the 40-150mm would bring things closer in size. I'm very happy with the group package but I just didn't undersstand ... Like I said I'm very new to all this ..

[dara_hazeghi]

If autofocus speed is not an issue, and you shoot primarily in good light, the Olympus 70-300/4-5.6 will give you a good deal more reach at a decent price (~USD 400). The downside is that at 300mm, f/5.6, you do need a fair bit of light and a steady hand or tripod to get sharp exposures, although the E-510's built-in image-stabilization will help.

 

On the 40-150, the teleconverters will lose you both image quality and at the long end autofocus performance, to the point of not being able to focus at all with the 2x one (EC20). TCs really only make sense with the faster lenses, since they require excellent optical performance, and overall a bright lens for AF (f/4 or faster for the 1.4x, f/2.8 or faster for the 2.0x).

[steve57]

Thankyou Dara I'll look into your suggestion . Autofocus speed normaly isn't a problem . I also use the image -stabilization a lot my hands can be a little shakey at times .. Thanks again for your help<div></div>

[steve57]

The Photo above wasn't the one I wanted to show but is from the same group the Horses were just out of range for the 40-150 lenses and ther were some great action shots of these yearlings after a little rain .. ( a rare moment ) It was jus frustraiting when I got home and uploaded them to realize my subject were to small for any good detail ..<div></div>

[steve57]

The Draft Horse pic above was taken within the 40 -150 lense range and I'm very pleased with that . So I know it's not the lense....I just had a poor choice of wording , sorry

[kenwae]

You might want to look at the Olympus 70-300 f4-5.6. It's a pretty good lens for the price and can get you a lot closer than the 40-150. It's not as good as the 50-200 in low light, but it has farther reach and does the job in adequate lighting.

[rick_dreher1]

I like your second shot a good deal and yes, it shows what the kit lens can do.

 

It's easy to have crushed expectations now that very long, very good lenses are relatively common and folks are getting their own reflections in eagle eyes (okay, almost). The 40-150 is pretty long at 300 mm equivalent, but is quite slow at that end so I don't think a teleconverter is the way to go in extending its range (not to mention the teleconverter will cost three times what the lens did).

 

I'll second the suggestion of the 70-300 zoom as an affordable way to extend your range. I don't own one but am impressed with the results from skilled users. Even it wouldn't have overcome the dim, flat lighting of your first shot, though. I'm not sure any lens would.

 

I own the terrific 50-200 (non-SWD) and the EC14, using them on the E-510. It's no safari rig but gives excellent results at reasonable distances. It's not nearly long enough for serious birding, but I've not been bitten very hard by that particular bug (yet). FWIW I also own the kit lenses and sometimes carry them when I want to go light. Nobody else makes entry-level lenses as good as these two.

 

--Rick

[steve57]

I agree with what your saying Rick all the way around .. I appreciate you taking the time to stop and explain these factors to me . I ordered a 70-300 lens with cleaning kit tonight $345.oo including shipping. It's getting great reviews by lots of co's and people... We'll see how it does .. Thankyou everyone for the suggestions and ideas you givin to me .. Thanks Steve F. Campbell

[mrraz]

The 70-300 is a nice lens. I've been using it for the a lot of my bird shots. Make sure you update the firmware on both the camera and the lens using the Olympus Master software after it arrives.

[GerrySiegel]

Steve,just wanted to add that I also use the EC 14 with one of the early Oly zooms, the now overshadowed model,

original 14-54. Doesn't get me up to a horse's eyeball or a bull's tail, but it sure is a well made piece of

waterproof gear that teleconverter. Think of it down the way if you want to get even more reach. It may or may

not pan out on the 70-300. Maybe others can say about that one. I think the converter (a bland name for a six

element water resistant (humidity fungal resistant too) beauty) is said to work splendidly with the 50-200 as you

see aBIVE. As well as W/ the fixed focal lenses!. A home run for the company. (As for birding, whoohee I can

understand the need for reach.... And yet,when I picked up high end binoculars I found that close focus (Pentax

SP series) was also nice to have, so I am wondering how one manages in the field....Me, I enjoy the Brazilian

cardinal chicks on my back yard fence preening their beaks)

 

Best, gs

[jbeach]

I own the 14-42mm and the 40-150mm lens, really love them both. I bought the 70-300mm lens a few months ago and well its a good lens, however besides the fact you MUST use a tripod or monopod, when zoomed out to the 300mm the photos are somewhat "grainy", so you will need a program that can deal with that issue. I've also found that it takes really amazing shots while in really bright light, not so hot in shade or low light, there again it becomes grainy and somewhat dark, all of which can be fixed, in your editing software.

[GerrySiegel]

I love my monopod. Best 125.00 I have spent. Series One Bogen carbon fiber. Will do wonders with your choice of top head. I happen to have tried several options and despite the recommendations of Really Right Stuff I chose the Slik Compact ball head. Lock lever is easy on and off and firm hold. And I assume you use a tripod when the opportunity presents. So think of that when you are needing to use a lower ISO and subsequent lower EV setting...not to be patronizing, but you did say you were new at long reach photography. Lifelong learning for all of us. Next thing I read about is an adapter called a digiscope. One day I am going to have to find out more about that business too....e.g.

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/404452-REG/Leupold__Wind_River_Sequoia_Expanded.html

[mrdavson]

I have been using the 50-200 SWD on my E3 and, I tell you, I am very VERY impressed. I do a lot of sports stuff and this lens is fantastic.

[steve57]

Thankyou all for your input. Everyone has been very helpfull.. I'm anxious to test out the 70-300 lens . I appreciate

the advise on the performance in low lighting for this lens..I do own and use a tripod but it's certainly not the best on

the market .. That will probably be my next investment.. Thankyou all.... Signing up with Photo.net has been the

biggest step in my Photography advancement ...... Steve F. Campbell

[melmann]

Steve,

I have the 50-200mm and the 1.4x tele that I use to "reach out and touch". Very sharp lens for my purposes, although

birds continue to be a challenge. I think you'll find the wider aperture of this lens more useful than you think, especially

when adding the tele (takes off 1 stop) and trying to control depth of field. I recommend this pair for your needs.

 

Having said that, if you use this lens for closer work realize the depth of field is pretty narrow. I've got pictures of

butterflies I shot from 6-8 feet away where the body is in focus and just a few millimeters up the wings aren't.

 

Overall, the best advice I got was the think of lenses like stereo speakers - they are the most important part of your

system and not the place to skimp on budget.

[steve57]

Thankyou Mel for your input . I've heard a lot about the 50-200 lens.. I found a 70-300 on sale new and have purchased it for now .. If you look at my portfolio you see photo tagged wabbit under my folder tagged pets .. The 300 is going to meet my needs I believe . But like others have pointed out it likes ample lighting and either a tripod or a rest of some type .. I'm actually suprised at the 300 quickness.. I'm sure at some point I'll have to own the 50-200 lens as well... Thankyou Steve