18-180

[Atomic2]

anyone tried it? what do you think? can anyone tell me what its Fstop would be at 150mm?

im considering selling my 14-42 and getting this instead, and a 70-300.

[SmartWombat]

What manufacturer of lens, for which camera?
Generally the quality of very wide range zooms is lower than narrower ranges.
Used to be 3x (70-210, 14-42) was the technical limit with acceptable quality.
I think today it's 4x with improved computer modelling of the lens design.

So I wouldn't sell any good lenses to buy a wide range worse quality lens.
But I might get one as a walkabout lens so that I don't need to carry so much stuff !

[Greg McCary]

If you are talking about this one.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_se...5-63/index.asp

Then it is 6.3 on the zoomed side. I think that is slow compared to the 40-150. It is also in the same class as the kits.

[Atomic2]

i have the 510, i already have the 40-150 older model 3.5-4.5


anyhow, what do you guys think of the lens in general?

[Greg McCary]

I haven't used it, but at 6.3 it would be to slow for sports or moving targets and would struggle in low light situations. I think it would be ok for landscape work.

[Atomic2]

i was thinking that, but then i realized, how often will i shoot at 180mm indoors? at most i would use like 130?

i have a question about Fstops, if they cover a range, like 3.5-6.3, do they go up linearly? like on my 40-150 3.5-45, does that mean that with every ~10mm, i will go up .1 Fstop?
so on the 18-180, for every ~6mm i would have to use an fstop of .1 higher?

if thats the case, then at 42mm, my aperature would be faster then on the 14-42.

[Greg McCary]

It goes up as with the MM does. 3.5 would be at the 18mm side where 6.3 would be at the 180mm side. Yes it goes up linearly as with the increased MM. It would struggle to focus indoors unless lighting was very good. 14mm would be the fast side of the 14-42mm

[Atomic2]

lol, i know that, just saying that assuming it goes linearly, i have a faster ap at 42 mm with the 18-180 than with the 14-42

[Greg McCary]

Probably yes. Since at 42mm on the 14-42mm you are looking at 5.6

[Sushigaijin]

I don't understand.

Would the 18-180 still be useful to you if you had the 70-300? The 70-300 is a faster lens all around, and has a LOT more reach. The 70-300 also gets down to 1:1 (full frame) magnification, which makes it a totally acceptable long macro lens. It seems to me that the 14-42 would be a better match than the 18-180, since it covers wide angle to short telephoto, and the 70-300 covers short telephoto to long telephoto.

The missing range of 43-70mm is a pretty standard portrait range, but do you really want to give up the 14-18mm range? Personally I find myself shooting indoors at 14-18mm much more than 43-70mm. Actually most of the time I shoot indoors it is with the 50mm f/2, but that isn't listed in your question. I chose fast aperture rather than zoom range.

The 50-200 always comes highly recommended, but for me at least, it isn't long enough to drop that much money. There is also a (pricey) 35-100 zd lens that will fill the gaps, if you have nothing to do with a couple grand. It would be the ideal indoor lens, being that it is perfect portrait length and f/2 across the whole zoom range.

[Atomic2]

i also have the 40-150 3.5-4.5
i dont think i will do the 18-180 afterall, just because it would cost too much. especially considering my purchase of the 70-300. the 18-180 i will have to buy on my own, whereas the 300 im splitting with my friend who has my old 500