Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-10-2010, 11:21 AM   #1
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iowa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,369
Interesting Online Photographer piece on the "Super Zuiko" zooms from Olympus

The Online Photographer: Olympus ZD 14-35mm and 35-100mm f/2 Zoom Lenses

Does anybody on this forum own and use these lenses? I'd be interested in looking into at least the 35-100 f/2 if Olympus ever releases a new and worthy flagship camera to go with them.

05-12-2010, 03:05 AM   #2
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,871
QuoteOriginally posted by Urkeldaedalus Quote
I'd be interested in looking into at least the 35-100 f/2 if Olympus ever releases a new and worthy flagship camera to go with them.
If you're not yet in their system, you may want to realize that the Zuiko 35-100 f/2 and a stabilized Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS which is excellent too, will give you identical performance (and the latter is even less heavy).

But even if you add the price of a full frame body to the latter will it be less expensive than the former (with a FT body).

This particular comparison is one I do sometimes use to illustrate that a larger sensor can lead to less expensive systems. The current price sweet spot certainly isn't FT.
05-12-2010, 08:09 AM   #3
Veteran Member
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,806
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
If you're not yet in their system, you may want to realize that the Zuiko 35-100 f/2 and a stabilized Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS which is excellent too, will give you identical performance (and the latter is even less heavy).

But even if you add the price of a full frame body to the latter will it be less expensive than the former (with a FT body).

This particular comparison is one I do sometimes use to illustrate that a larger sensor can lead to less expensive systems. The current price sweet spot certainly isn't FT.
I understand the dof ramifications of 4/3, but I'm confused by the ability of various sensor sizes to collect light. The reason I'm confused is that I've read so much misinformation. Does an f/2 lens on 4/3 need a longer shutter speed than an f/2 lens on APS-C?

Yesterday someone at the DPR forum said the 2.0 aperture of the Canon S9 gives it two stops of light gathering ability vs the K-7 kit lens, and thereby eliminates the K-7's two stop advantage in sensitivity. So according to this fellow, the two camera systems would have the same amount of noise at ISO 1600. I can't believe this is true, because the size of the aperture on the p&s is tiny in comparison to f/4 on APS-C, yet no one challenged his statement. Surely he can't be right?
05-12-2010, 08:35 AM   #4
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,871
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
I understand the dof ramifications of 4/3, but I'm confused by the ability of various sensor sizes to collect light. The reason I'm confused is that I've read so much misinformation. Does an f/2 lens on 4/3 need a longer shutter speed than an f/2 lens on APS-C?
An eternal source of confusion.
Of course, you would shoot the full frame system at 4x the ISO stop the FT system (e.g. 400 vs. 100). Noise will look the same then.

05-12-2010, 08:43 AM   #5
Pentaxian
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,479
QuoteQuote:
Does an f/2 lens on 4/3 need a longer shutter speed than an f/2 lens on APS-C?
Nope, F2 affects the exposure the same on any camera.

QuoteQuote:
Yesterday someone at the DPR forum said the 2.0 aperture of the Canon S9 gives it two stops of light gathering ability vs the K-7 kit lens.
Not quite. The kit lens is f3.5 at the widest focal length. F4 is 2 stops difference. The S90 is only f2 at the widest end. At the telephoto end of both lenses, the f-stop is only about 1/2 stop difference.
05-12-2010, 09:21 AM   #6
Veteran Member
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,806
QuoteOriginally posted by SpecialK Quote
Nope, F2 affects the exposure the same on any camera.

Not quite. The kit lens is f3.5 at the widest focal length. F4 is 2 stops difference. The S90 is only f2 at the widest end. At the telephoto end of both lenses, the f-stop is only about 1/2 stop difference.
He was talking about the wide end, and I know he made an error in max aperture (3.5 vs 4) but still, how could these cams be comparable at ISO 1600??
05-12-2010, 09:56 AM   #7
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,871
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
He was talking about the wide end, and I know he made an error in max aperture (3.5 vs 4) but still, how could these cams be comparable at ISO 1600??
I don't want to steal the thread which is about the Zuiko lens. Let's stop it here (I'll do).


P.S.
The S90 has a conversion factor of 4.55, the K-7 of 1.53. This is a 3.1 stops advantage of the K-7 over the S90. Getting your numbers right helps a lot...

The K-7 kit lens has 1.5 stops less (3.5-2.0), still leaving a 1.6 stop advantage. But who will compare a lens which is 10% value of the body? K-7 with a f/1.4 lens gives it a 3.7 stops advantage over the S90 ...

And last but not least, differently sized sensors are never compared at the same ISO setting. That's an apples to pies comparison. Never mind. Most get it wrong. But I won't discuss now.

05-12-2010, 12:42 PM   #8
Veteran Member
er1kksen's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Forestville, NY
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,801
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
If you're not yet in their system, you may want to realize that the Zuiko 35-100 f/2 and a stabilized Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS which is excellent too, will give you identical performance (and the latter is even less heavy).
It'll give you the same dof and noise (theoretically), but will it give you the same fantastic image quality consistently across the entire range of focal lengths and apertures? That consistency, as well as the simply beautiful rendering, is what sells the Olys.

The Canon 70-200 f4 IS is an excellent lens. But optically speaking, the Oly SHG lenses are described as "flawless" on a surprisingly frequent basis.
05-12-2010, 03:10 PM   #9
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,871
QuoteOriginally posted by er1kksen Quote
The Canon 70-200 f4 IS is an excellent lens. But optically speaking, the Oly SHG lenses are described as "flawless" on a surprisingly frequent basis.
This is the correct question.

It would be very interesting to see a direct comparison.

The Canon lens outresolves a 12MP full frame sensor at all apertures and focal lengths -- in the extreme corners! (photozone measurement) I wonder how the Oly lens can beat it with no more than 12MP sensors being available. Maybe, it is a bit better in the vignetting, CA, distortion or bokeh department where the Canon is relatively good too. But nobody said so. So, a comparison would be cool.

Nevertheless, if you want a 70-200 equivalent in Oly land, you got no other choice and it is an expensive one. That was my point, actually.
05-12-2010, 04:40 PM   #10
Veteran Member
er1kksen's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Forestville, NY
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,801
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote

Nevertheless, if you want a 70-200 equivalent in Oly land, you got no other choice and it is an expensive one. That was my point, actually.
That's true enough, and as long as the 4/3 sensors remain as far behind FF sensors in regards to noise control as they are, the fact that you can buy 70-200 f2.8 lenses as well as 70-200 f4 lenses gives FF the definite leg up in this comparison.

A straight comparison between the 35-100 and one of the better 70-200s would be very interesting, I agree.

At the end of the day, if I had the money to burn, I'd own both. An E-30+35-100 and a 5D ii+70-200 both sound like they would be very enjoyable setups to use, for a lot of reasons.
05-22-2010, 02:30 AM   #11
Pentaxian
nickthetasmaniac's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,360
I don't own the 35-100/f2 (although I do lust after it unnaturally) but I do own the ZD 12-60/f2.8-4 SWD and ZD 50-200/f2.8-3.5 SWD which are both outstanding lenses.

For me the real strength of the HG and SHG Olympus lenses is the ability to shoot wide open with very very little falloff in image quality. As Kirk mentions in the ToP review, the fact is that you can actually *use* the Olympus wide open, at f2, and still get breathtaking results, whereas with his Nikkors you have to close it down a few stops to get similar results, thus largely negating the FF noise advantage. In fact this is why he justified buying into the Oly kit.

The 35-100/f2 and 70-200/f4 may have similar focal length and DoF behaviour, but the 35-200 still lets in 2 stops more light, regardless of format.
05-22-2010, 03:03 AM - 1 Like   #12
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,871
QuoteOriginally posted by nickthetasmaniac Quote
The 35-100/f2 and 70-200/f4 may have similar focal length and DoF behaviour, but the 35-200 still lets in 2 stops more light, regardless of format.
I made this comparison for the exact reason that the opposite is true: Both lenses let in the same amount of light (240 mm^2 photon capturing lens surface). And both lenses are excellent wide open already (which is easier at f/4 of course and is the reason why the Zuiko should be more expensive what it is indeed).

This is an endless source of confusion and I published long explainations (search for lens equivalence and falconeye). Won't do it again here. So, please don't ask or argue. However, meanwhile I found that there is a similiar essay available which I endorse: Luminous landscape.

I make posts like this to make people UNDERSTAND that a smaller sensor can turn out to be more expensive. The smaller sensor can still be a smarter solution (same performance in a smaller package etc.). But I consider it important to understand that smaller does not equal cheaper. Rather, there is a sweet spot for best price performance. A spot which currently is somewhere in between APSC and FF, and moving. BTW, comparing a ED 70-200/2.8 with a hypothetical equivalent ZD 35-100/1.4 makes it even clearer actually because the price of the latter would have to exceed 10k$.

Last edited by falconeye; 05-22-2010 at 03:21 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
f/2, lenses, olympus, photographer
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Interesting Times" for parents seacapt General Talk 81 01-25-2010 11:46 PM
Robert Cameron, "World’s Oldest One-Eyed Aerial Photographer," 98: RIP Michaelina2 General Talk 5 11-22-2009 05:02 PM
My top 5 "oh darns" as a Beginner/Intermediate Photographer gfmucci Photographic Technique 96 08-14-2009 11:06 AM
"Staff Photographer" = "Access" Mike Cash Post Your Photos! 9 02-23-2009 05:10 AM
Hot: The Online Photographer puts K20D in top 10, better image quality than D300" cateto Pentax News and Rumors 28 06-18-2008 07:16 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:49 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top