PDA

View Full Version : Which lens


sidy2001
4th February 2008, 09:13 PM
Hi members i need your your help on deciding wich lens to get next, either a 35 macro for close up's of plants or 70-300 for more distance objects. Any help much appreciated.

Cheers Sid

j.baker
4th February 2008, 09:43 PM
What lenses do you currently have?
What camera body do you have?

sidy2001
4th February 2008, 09:53 PM
John thank for your reply. I have the standard lens's that come with the E-410, which is 14-42 and 40-150.

Ellie
4th February 2008, 10:16 PM
How close do you want to get, and have you got a tripod?

I know you've asked about a lens, but you can get in really close with the 14-42. I know this picture isn't hosted on here, but I took it with my E-400 and the 14-42 just a couple of weeks ago - Moss - (http://ellie.shutterchance.com/photoblog/Moss_/1/)

I've found that I can get much clearer results when I use my tripod than handheld, because neither the E-400 or the E-410 has IS. With the tripod I also use the shutter delay to avoid any possible camera shake.

I'm planning to get the 70-300, simply because I'm getting frustrated about not being able to get the detail in distant objects, although I'd also like a macro - one day.

j.baker
4th February 2008, 10:24 PM
What ever lens you get, I would suggest getting a tripod. The 70-300mm is best used with a tripod.

Xpres
4th February 2008, 11:27 PM
Bangs for your buck the 35mm is a fantastic lens. Macro yes, but also a great portrait lens if you like it sharp. Leave it on the camera with the focus set and use your whizzy digi reflex as a point and shoot - no waiting for the AF! And very cheap if you look around a bit.

PeterD
5th February 2008, 09:23 AM
What ever lens you get, I would suggest getting a tripod. The 70-300mm is best used with a tripod.

I agree with this. If you are considering using the 70-300 at its maximum, then without IS you will always get blurring when hand held. As an alternative to a tripod, a monopod could be effective.

Kind regards

PeterD

Jim
5th February 2008, 09:48 AM
If you are looking for a good tripod, Morris Photographic have some very good deals on Manfrotto ones at the moment.

Digital Light Tripods (http://www.morrisphoto.co.uk/productslist~categoryid~149~sub~Digital+Tripod+Kit s~selection~26.html)
Photo Semi-Pro Tripods (http://www.morrisphoto.co.uk/productslist~categoryid~149~sub~Photo+Tripod+Kits~ selection~26.html)

Personally I picked up the Manfrotto 190XPROB + 460MG Tripod Kit (http://www.morrisphoto.co.uk/ProductDetails~productID~5914~categoryid~149.html) the 'Pro' means that the center column can be swung around to horizontal without removing the head or disassembling the column itself, so switching between framing and positioning setups is more convenient than ever.

the 460Mg is a 3-way tilt head but has thumb locks rather than the type that have a long metal handle that makes the head bulky and harder to transport.

HughofBardfield
5th February 2008, 10:19 AM
Perhaps you should ask yourself what photographs you are taking now - are you using the long or the short end of your existing lenses?

You might want to try Exposure Plot, a handy little piece of software that analyses your images (JPEG only, I think) to tell you what focal length, ISO, aperture and shutter speeds you are using most frequently. It's a free download from http://www.wega2.vandel.nl/

Tells you quite a lot about how you're using your camera.

Incidentally, just about the only downside with the 35mm is that you have to get very close to the subject for 1:1 macro. Good "stalking" skills are essential for bugs, but plants don't fly away (often). You will also find AF is more trouble than it's worth - hunts all over the place (not just the 35mm: other macro lenses do the same) - so MF is essential.

Ray Shotter
5th February 2008, 11:58 AM
Hi members i need your your help on deciding wich lens to get next, either a 35 macro for close up's of plants or 70-300 for more distance objects. Any help much appreciated.

Cheers Sid

You have received a lot of advice already. However, if you wish to take real close-up photographs then, although you can take quite good close-ups with the 14-42mm, it is not as good, in my opinion, as the Olympus 35mm F3.5 Macro. The 12-42mm lens may be an ED lens but it is a standard zoom. The 3.5mm Macro may not be an ED lens but it is a prime lens and produces very sharp images. In my experience, although modern 4/3rds standard zoom lenses produce excellent results, a good quality prime lens will produce sharper photographs. The 35mm Macro is a good quality lens at a good price. It isn't a splash proof lens like the 50mm F2.0 Macro but it is well built. I have an Olympus 35mm F3.5 Macro and am very pleased with it. I would have liked the additional wider aperture of the 50mm Macro lens but, at twice the price, I decided to settle for the 35mm. Which lens you decide to invest in must be your decision. But, if it is any help, I find using the 50-200mm F2.8-3.5 telephoto zoom with the EC 1.4 can produce excellent results which are almost as good as results with a Macro lens. Obviously you can't get very close to the target and you do need a tripod but there is a lot to be said for buying a long range zoom lens as it gives you greater flexibility. Your decision will depend upon which photographic subjects are your main interest. However, if you are like me, the price and flexibility of the lens are usually the deciding factors.

sidy2001
5th February 2008, 08:37 PM
I would like to thank all of you for the information it is alot to read and take in
for a newbe. One thing i have all ready is a tripod so a longer lens would not pose a problem. At the moment i love closeup's of spring flowers and buds, so i think will might go for the 35 macro and maybe a longer lens later when funds allow.

Cheers Sid