On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 3/18/2013 4:01 PM, DZDub wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >> ... And I reckon you've done a good job with that kit lens.
> > Well, thank you. I was wrong in calling it the 45-150. It is 40-150,
> the
> > same FL as the M.Zuiko 40-150, but for the E system. I believe we can
> see
> > where the MFT 40-150 that Moose and others like so well got its chops.
>
> Not me, dood. :-) I have one, as part of my obsessive interest in
> redundancy - and 'cause it only cost $100. But I've
> only ever tried it out to make sure it worked. When I travel, it's not in
> the active kit, but in the back-up stuff bag
> in my luggage.
>
Sorry about the mistaken identity.
As to 40-150 chops, the M.Z lens has a different optical formula. Oly had
> to redesign lenses for µ4/3 with both
> different motor systems and smaller, lighter focusing elements to achieve
> fast focusing with contrast detect AF and make
> them quiet for video. That's what the "MSC" designation is about. Not
> saying the M.Z 40-150 is or isn't a great lens,
> just that it doesn't inherit it's optical formula from the older one.
>
Sorry again. I wasn't speculating on optical formula. More like Platonic
forms, if anything. Optical formulas are not really my interest. I just
put the key in and drive.
> Maybe next year I shall have one of those cute little E-MDs and a smaller
> > 40-150 to try out on orchids! I know that it is off-putting in principle
> > that the lens is so slow at f4.5-5.6, but that really is OK at the focal
> > length. My standard stop with the DZ 50-200 is f7.1 or 8. Any shallower
> > and not enough of the flower is in focus.
>
> I agree that one needs small apertures for such flowers, unless looking
> for special, shallow DOF effects. With the light
> you had and an E-M5, lens speed would not an issue anyway, with the high
> ISO performance.
>
> The 14-150 is my main lens. It gets significantly closer than the 40-150s
> and I've been quite happy with IQ from it. If
> I were going to a show like that, I'd also have the 12-50 along for it's
> excellent Macro function. The µ4/3 lenses are
> so small and light that carrying more than one isn't a burden. Rather the
> opposite of 180/2.8 on 5D. :-)
>
I guess that's the one I was badly remembering. What a sweeping range!
Anyway, sorry to use your name in vain.
Joel W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|