Got a Zuiko 150 f2, but I have no camera!

[ant_nio_ferreira]

<p>Got a deal in an almost new Zuiko 150mm f2 lens, but I still have no camera...Which camera and adapter should I get in order to get fast autofocus? Are there any compatibility issues with Lumix cameras? Thank you for advice! BTW, the Lumix g8 is too expensive for me...</p>

[harveysteeves]

You could use an original 4/3rds body like an Olympus E5, however these are holding their value so maybe an E3. Used

Olympus EM5s are inexpensive but you would need an mmf-3(I think) to adapt. The best current one is the EM-1, which

has an AF system designed for use with 4/3rds lenses. I think you would need the additional battery pack for balance.

Although adapted, it would work on Panasonic bodies, Olympus would be much better with better in-body stabilization,

perhaps better in-body removal of chromatic aberrations, definitely better focus with an EM-1. Or you could throw up your hands in frustration, decide to sell it to me and enjoy a beer or two.

[GerrySiegel]

Olympus E-3 used, good model. Or a maybe used OMD EM-1 with the adapter if one turns up. Both can handle this lens. E-3 would be my choice I think. No, GX 7 and GX8 will not autofocus well with that lens..

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Sell the lens and get something that will work for you specifically. Buying a camera system just to use one medium-long tele lens seems nuts to me, especially since the best cameras for that lens are years old.</p>

 

[GerrySiegel]

Peter Hamm has a point. But one can argue in the case of the lens you know is one of Olympus's finest achievements. It falls into a special category of speed and sharpness. And since it equates to a 300 mm F 2 lens it is likely unique in the lens category. If I needed a 300 mm equivalent ( real tele where I come from( with a super fast speed and high quality design and range limiter, and a great buy came along, I woiuld go for it. And likely be able to use it and re sell it for same or more than I paid. This is one of those optics that Olympus put its best technology into it, with nothing spared. I just say that normally one would say you are doing it backwards, yet the best cameras for that lens are not the latest, but some sturdy and still very fine models. Some of the lenses are large, but still in high demand and are still available new at prices still up there. And valued if not prized. The recent EM-1 is speciically aimed to accomodate their focus system by the way, with a 150 buck adapter.

 

 

 

I have one 4/3 camera, the E-3 and I will not sell it off. I simply disagree with your suggestion and assertion in this case, Peter. I have seen this 'little Tuna 'and those who own one just love it. I cannot think of its equal from any manufacturer. Can anyone?

[Greg M]

<p>About the only equivalent field of view and speed I can think of in another system is the 300mm f2 EDIF manual focus Nikkor from several years ago...</p>

<p>http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Nikkor-300mm-f-2-ED-IF-AIS-with-TC-14C-1-4X-Extender-Used-Lens-X15B0062-/141714949780?hash=item20fede8694</p>

<p>That money'd get you a nice car...</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Well, in all fairness, when you take into account the DoF difference, it's a 300mm f4 equivalent, not a 300mm F2 equivalent. That's less exotic.</p>

<p>And it's a less useful lens in 2015 as a manual focus lens than a slower lens is that has AF imho.</p>

[Greg M]

<p>It's still an f2 lens if you need f2 for the exposure IN THIS FORMAT, and used on an E-M1 the AF is quite a bit better than using it as a manual focus lens.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Yes, Greg, but comparing it in this format to a 300mm f2 on full frame is a little bit absurd.</p>

<p>I think on an E-M1 (and only on that one as the regular 4 3 lenses disappoint on the other µ43 bodies if you need AF) it would be super-sweet.</p>

<p>I continue to think that building a system around one long tele is, for most of us, not wise.</p>

[Greg M]

<p>For something close to the price of a used 150mm f2, the 40-150mm f2.8 certainly seems much more reasonable.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

I must respond to post purchase kibbitzinngand critiquing the gent's buy. So let us assume it IS in mint condition and for a really great price. I think this. Why nitpic the choice, folks of the community. It is a done deal.

 

I add a few more thoughts on the Olympus SHG lenses for the now "outdated "but not outworn four thirds cameras. Of which I still own and use two of them. Been with four thirds and micro four thirds since 2004 so have some history with the company and the lenses. They said there wlll always be a body to accomodate the 4/3 glass and they have delivered so far. Satisfies me in not those who sought a cheaper body. Hey man, please everyone, utopian idea..

 

 

You bet I can compare the 150mm to a full frame 300 mm FL because I am not swept in by the comparative shallow depth of field argument or assertion or whatever one may call it. . No it is not an F 4 equivalent. To repeat. It is not an F 4 equivalent even with an asterisk , I fear we get swept into in semi technobabble disputation. ( word I offered up in the Mirrorless Digital Forum thread last week about techical mumbo jumbo insider chatter often on DPR)

 

It is true in a real tech sense that the DOF yields the visual equivalent of a 'mere' 150mm but hey ther at F 2.0 that is going to be pretty darn shallow where I come from .. If the Olympus SHG lenses were the pinnacle, the aristocracy of the 4/3 system, it is not a bad move to grab one up give it a home and look for a working camera in that system. There were a bunch and all not bad... A great many out there still abide by and employ professionally their E-5s.

 

Now to the lenses, like the HG series. I sure like my 50-200 mm and it is a mere 3.5 at the long end. But I could not spring for the 2500 it cost new to get the SHG 150 F 2 optical howitzer, the little tuna of legend and introduced 11 years ago and never outclassed. Possibly a little culty therein, but those who own them will not part with them,so tell me I am wrong. Takes a lot of optical engineering to achieve F 2.0 and sharp all the way and focus limiter and they even gave hoods back then the buggers:-).

 

I do not eagage in comparing micro four thirds to the full frame sensor market, never have, no point I can see for my shooting or I would not post here!. It is a different animal in my opinion. A giant difference in categories. Not necessarily a leap in output however. Little ones keep at its heels...

 

If I yearned for full frame I am sure SonynoBaloney would accommodate me. And I suppose I might afford two systems but do not need another system.

 

Not arguing or nitpicing per se, Peter, I understand your point well ,however I do think that our OP friend did not step off the curb in making this buy,, Might even say he hit the right stride in choiceds if it is mint and also a bargain.

 

I would go for it with or without my E-3. Lenses,good ones, like flawless one carat diamonds are a forever thing...

 

Aloha. -g-

[GerrySiegel]

Postscript musing. I still own a 150mm Zenzanon S F 3.5 lens made by Bronica for its 6 X 6 mm medium format film camera. Now we are all used to using the field of view of 35mm cameras, the more common ones, to make equivalencies in micro four thirds. But say. What if we only had medium format like the Bronica 120 film system.? So would the subject Olympus SHG 150mm F 2 display the FOV of the 150 mm I used on my Bronica?. (Talk about shallow depth of field one needs to try MF sometime and see the difference,hard to get nose and ears focused some time) To my Q, of course not.. I could not likely have even found an off the shelf optic long enough in medium format to match the subject lens by Oly. And it sure would not be an F 2.0, no way in this planet. Just saying..someone can do the math of comparatives.

 

My point is that we are linked into some agreed standard of comparison, not perfect but useful re FOV,Field of View. Happily the fraction of focal length and diameter comes to our aid on light gathering power and we at least have one common fraction to work with. Not brilliant. Not perfect, But nice. Happened not in B.C, nor B.C.E., but in B.B. That is Before Bokeh. (chuckle)

[eric_arnold]

<p>i think the bottom line here is that's a really good lens with a unique spec which still sells for $2000+ new, and which has been orphaned to some extent by the abandonment of 4/3. a best-case scenario is using this with an e-m1 and adapter, because i'm not sure it makes sense to get an E-3 just to use one lens, or invest further in 4/3 lenses.</p>

[Bill C]

I would not personally be using that lens because it doesn't fit in with the sort of photography I do. But if I shot certain sports, or perhaps

wildlife, or that sort of thing, and I was doing it on a limit budget, I'd most likely go along with Gerry's rec - a used E-3. That camera was a

nice piece of work in it's day, and as long as you don't need ISO speeds over about 800 or 1000, or huge enlargements, I'd be pretty

satisfied with it. A used E3 is most likely a small proportion of that lens cost. And if it doesn't work out, I'd guess that you could get most of

your money bak.

 

I would NOT go that way for business use, because I want my equipment to be mostly of the same system, where camera controls and

menus are nearly the same - I want to keep my spare brain power focused on the job, not trying to remember how to use a certain camera

function. But for fun or lightweight pro use, where you are not competing against multiple shooters with the latest big money gear, I'd feel

pretty good about that lens on an E3.

[ant_nio_ferreira]

<p> Thank you all for the input! I got my new M1 yesterday! I'm still waiting for the adapter to arrive (the Lumix DMW-MA1, cheaper and sturdier than the MMF3) and I am delighted by the camera, despite the annoying and hidden menu controls. I am a FF user, and in spite of the evident difference in noise in the shadows and at high ISO, the camera is so unconspicuous it allows me to take pictures that would be impossible to take with my big Canons and lenses. Well, focus speed and predictability cannot compete with my 5D mark lll, but it's fine for slow moving objects. As soon as I get the adapter I will give my opinion. Thanks again!</p>

[GerrySiegel]

Antonio, good decision. You will find it a fine addition to your bigger camera. Then you will likely want t get a 14mm or 17mm lens to accompany it. One can't have too many cameras or lenses. ( Stop kicking me dear! ) Also check out Darrell Young's book on that camera for a tour of the menu options.

[harveysteeves]

Antonio, you really need to get the mmf-3 to get the best af performance out of the 150. In my experience, the Panny

adapters do not mate well with Oly cameras other than to serve as lens mounts. Still think that selling it could be an

option and the 40-150/2.8 is a very nice lens. I know a buyer ;-)

[jorgen_udvang]

<p>The Olympus E-M1 is the only current (m4/3) camera that will AF well with the Zuiko 150mm f/2. Unfortunately, this is still a rather costly camera, and you probably have to fork out $7-800 even for a used one. Then you do get a stellar camera, and with the legendary 150mm, you are all set for some great photography.</p>

<p>As has been mentioned earlier on this thread, the lens will work great on an E-3 or E-5. The E-3 represents rather old sensor technology, but is fine in good light. The E-5 floats around the same price as the E-M1 second hand, and the E-M1 is a much better camera.</p>

[anthony_valvo]

<p>I own this lens and use it on the EM1. Its focus is fast and the lens is super sharp with creamy backgrounds. This lens is on par with Nikon's 200MM f2 and that says a great deal. I don't think I will ever sell this combo. I think Oly just put the EM1 up for a Black Friday special, so check it out. It's a very nice camera.<br>

Good Luck<br>

Anthony</p>

<p> </p>