E-330/lens question (40-150 v. 50-200)

[SwimsWithSharks]

Any input on these two lenses? There is a significant price differential between the 40-150 and the 50-200. I know the 50-200 allows 3.5 vs 4.5 for the 40-150 at the long end. Any thoughts on the two lenses and whether the additional cost is worth the significant price increase? Thanks.

 

[rcolman]

Neither of these lenses are particularly suitable for underwater photography. In general, the focal length is too long, the 40-150 can't be used as a macro lens, and the maximum aperature is too small for low-light conditions.

The 14-45 "kit" lens is not bad and is practically given away with the camera. Your best bet for a general purpose underwater lens is the 14-54mm. I know it costs $$ but it is a very good, versatile lens which covers a large range of typical "underwater situations."

Rick Colman

 

[SwimsWithSharks]

Rick,

Thanks. I wasn't really thinking about u/w for them. I am going to start off with the 14-54 for u/w and probably add the 50 macro and the 7-14 wal. I was thinking about the 50-200 for topside wildlife. I ended up with the 40-150 as part of a kit. I will see how it goes and then think about adding on from there. Thanks for the assistance.

 

[AndyT]

SwimWithSharks

How about adding a 1.4 TC to your collection ? It will give a little more reach to the 40-150 for topside stuff . It's a bit expensive though - your thoughts ?

I'm considering the Oly DSLR route myself and would be interested in your comments.

 

[SwimsWithSharks]

Andrew,

I looked at that option. The TC is about half the cost of the 50-200 but you lose two f-stops. So, I am not sure that would be a good option for me. I ended up getting the 40-150 as part of a kit. I will see how I do with that and then maybe save up my milk money for another lens. I also want a macro and a WAL which will probably be the 7-14 because I am not sure the 11-22 gets me that much more than the 14-54 will.

 

[rcolman]

I had the same thought abpout the 11-22mm ... does not get me much more than the 14-54mm zoom ... BUT it does. You get 90 degress with 11 mm instead of 75 with the 14mm. This makes a bit difference, and the zoom range is very good in case something swims up that requires a longer focal lenght.

PLUS the 7-14 is REALLY expensive, and you need really good tropical viz. to get full usage from the lens ... which does not happen in southern california much.

Rick Colman

 

[SwimsWithSharks]

Yeah, I may still have to save my milk money for the 7-14. My Oly 5050 with the Inon WAL has 100 degrees of coverage. I am not certain I would be happy with 90. I will be interested to see how you like working with the 11-22. I appreciate your input.

 

[SuPrBuGmAn]

The 40-150 is quite excellent for a kit lense, sharp and not a total dog in speed. It has a slightly cool color cast. AF isn't necessarily going to happen with the TC on the 40-150 due to the loss stops.

The 50-200 is even sharper, faster, weatherproof, with slightly better(more accurate) color/contrast. The TC is of good quality, although a bit expensive. It'll lose your weatherproofing unfortunately - but everything I've seen/read shows that it stays sharp as long as you can freeze the action with the slightly slower aperture.

I find the 11-22 to be a fantastic lense. Weather sealed and nice angle of view with really no perceptable distortion or fringing.

My 8mm will fringe in high contrast environments but what fisheye won't when pushed? Otherwise, its a fantastic piece of glass with 180* view.