Looking for Advice

[Robusto]

Hi im new to the forum and am looking for some advice.

At present i am using the Olympus E300 with either the Zuiko 15-45mm or 40-150mm

i mainly take landscape photos while away on holidays and Action shots of my football clubs teams and team group photos

Can someone advise me are these lenses ok for the job, can i get better ones for the action shots to get me closer to the action at a reasonable price.
When taking the action shots i cannot get close enough (when at the wrong end of the pitch) and have to spend time on photo shop to get the best from what i have taken.

This is only a hobby as most of the photos i take i give away to parents . some do get into the local papers along with the teams match reports. But i would like to be able to take better shots from a distance without a massive out lay on a big lens.

Is there anything i can add to the 40-150mm that will double its strength.

Also i have seen this advertised 1300-2600mm Lens KIT OLYMPUS E300
W/ POL filter , 2X ConverterTripod Adapter + Case

Would it be of any help to me?

[Sushigaijin]

I would stay away from those BIG cheap lenses - they are just enormous paperweights. The zuiko 70-300 will double your range, and it can be found for under $400 usd. That's about as cheap as quality comes.

[Robusto]

Thanks for that bit of help i can get one of those in the uK at the moment for £203 inc postage NEW may try that out

Whats the problems with the big lenses poorly made or loss of picture quality ???? etc

[Greg McCary]

First welome to Photography review. Yes the image quailty and bokeh of those cheap lenses are, well, cheap. You get what you pay for. Those x1.4 and x2 converters will slow a slow lens like the 40-150mm to a halt. Unless you are in very good lighting. You might look at the 50-200mm. Check the link. To shoot sports right and have a lot of keepers it takes high dollar lenses. For what you are doing I think the 50-200mm would be a good choice. The 70-300mm was good advise but I think it will struggle at a night football game or basket ball in a poor lit gym. If you look at the specs of a lens it has the fastest aperature to focal length. The lower the number the faster the lens. So say the 50-200mm is 2.8-3.5. It is 3.5 at the 200mm end which would be faster than the 70-300mm at 4.0/5.6 that is pretty slow for a sports lens.

http://www.adorama.com/IOM50200S.html

[erikzen]

The 50-200mm lens sounds like it would be a good choice for you although it is not that much greater in reach than the 40-150mm. If that extra 50mm is all you'll need in terms of getting closer then it might be a good bet as it will perform well under challenging lighting conditions. I must point out that I do not own this lens so I am going stictly by "the numbers".

I do own the 70-300mm lens and I can say that I pretty happy with it. In my opinion there is a trade off between sharpness and reach, but if your technique is good and lighting is bright you can capture some good shots. Because it covers such a long range I find it to be a very versatile lens.

Here is a shot just taken within the reach of the 50-200 of Derek Jeter bunting a baseball:



As you can see it does a great job of freezing the action when conditions are optimal. It was a bright sunny day, the shutter speed was 1/1600 and the aperture was f/4.6. Focal length is 158mm. Sharpness is very good at this length. This shot was taken at an estimated distance of about 75 yards away (68.6 meters).

Taken from the same distance, here is a shot at a focal lenght of 300mm.



Sharpness suffers a bit but the action is stopped very well. The ball in this shot was hit much harder than in the previous shot but you can still see the seams on the ball. The shutter speed was the same and the aperture was f/5.6.

You mention landscapes also. Here is a landscape shot with the same lens at a focal length of 70mm:



This was taken on an overcast day, f/5.6, 1/400.

The more I use this lens the happier I am with it. One caveat, these shots were taken with the E-510 and E-520. I don't think the E-300 has built in image stabilization, which I'm sure helps stabilize this lens at longer focal length. Still, the lens weighs 615 grams, so it is fairly easy to hold without a tripod. At a high shutter speed it should yeild good results.

[Robusto]

Just had a look around for the uk prices and it comes it at big money £600 plus for the 50-200mm

Think i might have to settle for the 70-300mm as most sports stuff i will be doing should i hope be in fairy good light

on a different note i was given a IR remote control for the camera but dont know how to set it up with the camera it is universal remote MR5 any ideas on how to do this

and lastly i have an old Olympus OM10 SLR with a 80-200mm and the converter to put it onto the E300 would this be of any use.

Just seen them baseball photos nice looks like im going to plump for the 70-300mm cost being the deciding factor

Also is there other manufacturers of lenses for the olympus e series that can be purchased as well as the Zuiko

[xwingkiller]

one thing that i have noticed is that the 50-200mm even has a hard time for sports when the sun starts to go down. f3.5 at the long end is just not bright enough. i reccomend the 50-200 for all kinds of things, but if you are thinking of getting that over the 70-300 just for the extra stops for night or indoor sports you will probably be dissapointed. what im trying to say is that even though it will be better, it wont be good enough. so, you might just kind of be out of luck as far as shooting low-light sports.

other lenses are made for the e-series by panasonic-leica or sigma. you just are looking for a four-thirds mount in the description.

[Greg McCary]

If speed really isn't an issue check this Sigma 135-400mm 4.5/5.6 It should give you good reach. Sigma makes some great glass and is usally a little cheaper than the Olympus glass. Speed really has never been an issue with me and landscape work. Slower and heavier lenses will require a tripod more often. To tell you the trurth I haven't seen a 4/3rd mount lens to complain about.

http://www.adorama.com/SG135400DOM.html

[Robusto]

Great advice guys

i am currently now looking at the Sigma 135-400mm and the Zuiko 50-200mm

thanks for the Help

[Justintoxicated]

I just got my 50-200mm its a beast! Can't wait to try it out. Most of the time I use my 14-54 though. Its probably as large as I would go without a tripod, but it does come with a tripod mount. the 50-200 might not be excelent in low light but it is still almost twice as good as the 70-300. it should be its about 5 times larger than the 40-150 and weighs ALOT more.

[Robusto]

I finally plumped for the 70-300mm i forgot the 50-200mm is 3x the price here in the uk

should do me a much better job than my existing 40-150mm

i cannot seem to find a Sigma 135-400mm in the UK for a reasonable price if at all for the Olympus

[Justintoxicated]

I finally plumped for the 70-300mm i forgot the 50-200mm is 3x the price here in the uk

should do me a much better job than my existing 40-150mm

i cannot seem to find a Sigma 135-400mm in the UK for a reasonable price if at all for the Olympus

I hear ya, I almost want to pickup a 70-300 as well for the additional range and it has to be lighter weight as well. You can always order one used from the US if you find a deal later and sell the 70-300 for about the same as you bought it for. or keep it cause on the 300 end it has to be nice with a tripod.

[Robusto]

Im hoping my lens may be here today . i hope so the 70-300mm


I have been given a IR remote control for the camera but dont know how to set it up with the camera it is universal remote MR5 any ideas on how to do this

[Robusto]

Lens have finally arrived wont get out tonight but finishing work lunchtime tomorrow so will give it a go. will post what i capture

thanks for all the help

Ive now seen the Sigma 135-400 on sale on ebay as well from the US $300 plus postage

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...MEWA:IT&ih=004

Shame as i would have loved this maybe next time