Telephoto lens for wildlife photgraphy?

[AndyElliott]

On a different tangent...

Regarding weather sealing... I have an Olympus E-3. It has about the best weather sealing I have seen, at least equal to the 1D. I have had mine completely soaked and a friend has had his engulfed by a wave followed by rinsing off the salt under a tap without any issue. The Olympus lenses come in three grades - standard, pro and top-pro. The latter two are also weather sealed and are generally considered amongst the sharpest available, even wide open. The 2x crop factor is very advantageous for wildlife photography, not only in terms of the reach, but also as you can get a higher depth of field - so you can get the whole of your animal in and still keep the lens open. In-body IS (which really works) means all lenses you use are stabilised.

Example results can be found on my picasa Gallery, Picasa Web Albums - OlympusAndy .

You can pick up a 50-200 f2.8-3.5 (100-400mm equivalent) plus an E-3 for about £1000 second hand - this is about the cheapest way to get this sort of performance and weather sealed. The 50-200 is a very sharp lens.. From the couple of people I am aware of who shoot both Canon and Olympus (very rare!!), the 50-200 is noticeably sharper than the Canon L 100-400. The sigma 70-200, although available for Olympus, is almost never seen as it is soft wide open. There is no point in carrying a chunk of extra weight around if it needs to be stopped down to get sharp images. I think this complaint has also been levelled at the Canon 70-200 f2.8, the f4 version (I hear from friends with Canons) is sharper.

The Olympus cameras initially suffered with less good high ISO performance (only really noticeable beyond ISO 800) compared with Canon and Nikon, partially due to the higher pixel density/smaller sensor, partially due to the sensor manufacturer (Panasonic) not being as adept as Canon or Nikon. This gap is very much smaller now over the last 12 months. It is worth noting the pixel density of a Canon 7D is now almost identical to a 12MP Olympus body. There is a new generation of Olympus cameras to be released in the next few months (possibly at PMA in February) which will use a new generation of sensors, supposedly higher in dynamic range and 1 to 2 stops better in terms of noise than the latest ones used by the new Olympus E-P2 microfourthirds camera.

I think it is worth saying that the choice doesn't have to be just Canon or Nikon... Sales pitch over..

Andy

[squishy]

The olympus route certainly looks like good value for money.

I dont quite agree with you comparing the 50-200 with the 100-400 though. The 100-400 is a longer lens, going into the super telephoto category, and the zoom is only equivalent to the 50-200mm (on a 2x sensor) when the 100-400 is on a full frame. on a 1.5 sensor you have a 150-600mm. Its a different class of lens.

[AndyElliott]

Originally Posted by squishy

The olympus route certainly looks like good value for money.

I dont quite agree with you comparing the 50-200 with the 100-400 though. The 100-400 is a longer lens, going into the super telephoto category, and the zoom is only equivalent to the 50-200mm (on a 2x sensor) when the 100-400 is on a full frame. on a 1.5 sensor you have a 150-600mm. Its a different class of lens.

The 50-200 with a 1.4xTC is about equivalent reach to the 100-400 on an APS-C canon sensor (560mm vs 640mm). Remember that the 50-200 is natively 1 1/2 stops brighter (f3.5 vs f5.6). The 100-400 is not as sharp on an APS-C body as the 50-200. The 100-400 needs to be stopped down to around f6.3 to f8 get publishable-quality prints on the crop-body. The 300f4 on the Canon is probably a better proposition for a crop-sensor body.

Andy

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by ir37

I have found a reasonable second-hand canon 70-300mm but was worried that f/4 would sometimes be too slow... Which is why I looked at f2.8 lenses (combined with a converter)

Don't forget that use of a teleconverter loses you some light so an f2.8 with a 1.4x TC is equivalent to an f4 anyway.

Originally Posted by AndyElliott

The 50-200 with a 1.4xTC is about equivalent reach to the 100-400 on an APS-C canon sensor (560mm vs 640mm).

Not according to my maths it isn't... 200mm x 1.4 for the teleconverter gives 280mm. Then multiply by 1.6 for the crop factor and you get 448mm which is nearly 200mm short of the 100-400 without TC.

Dave P.

[AndyElliott]

Originally Posted by pressld2

Don't forget that use of a teleconverter loses you some light so an f2.8 with a 1.4x TC is equivalent to an f4 anyway.



Not according to my maths it isn't... 200mm x 1.4 for the teleconverter gives 280mm. Then multiply by 1.6 for the crop factor and you get 448mm which is nearly 200mm short of the 100-400 without TC.

Dave P.

200x1.4x2 - I.e. using the 50-200 on a fourthirds sensor vs the 100-400 on a Canon APS-C body. The 50-200 is f2.8-f3.5, so with the TC is f4.9 at the long end. Crucially, the 50-200 is sharp wide open, maximum contrast from f5.6 onwards.

Sorry not to clarify before...

Andy

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by AndyElliott

Sorry not to clarify before...

No, no, my mistake! I didn't read the thread properly and thought the 50-200 was a Canon lens. Apologies!

Dave P.