First shots with Sears 80-200/4.0

[Ron Evers]

Got my auction lens & it looks like it was never used. A very dull grey day here but I did get to try it out a bit. It is not sharp;Oh well it only cost $26 with shipping. Two shots in jpeg hand held @ 200fl on our balcony:

 

[kwalsh]

Oh my goodness! My eyes' response to the bokeh was to try and crawl out of my head to the bathroom and flush themselves down the toilet

Well, more charitably, after looking at it a bit more I can say it certainly has some "character".

Hey, for $26 it was certainly worth a try. I'm always curious about some of these alternative lenses. Thanks so much for sharing!

Ken

 

[hodad66]

nice, sharp rendition!!

 

[JBurnett]

It is not sharp; Two shots in jpeg hand held @ 200fl on our balcony:

I assume you tried it on a tripod, too? I find hand-holding the Panasonic 45-200 at 200mm is hit or miss, even with OIS. On a tripod, however, my copy seems sharper than the reviews would suggest.

 

[Ron Evers]

Laf Ken, all the branches in the background sure make it busy.

Here is a tripod mounted shot in macro mode, wide open @ f4 as were the two bird shots.

You can see the softness better in this shot.

 

[Tullio]

The flower shot is definitely very soft. It appears much softer than the bird shots. But, since the settings are so different (400mm vs. macro), it's hard to make any final judgment. I think the bird shots are very usable.

 

[Ron Evers]

The flower shot is definitely very soft. It appears much softer than the bird shots. But, since the settings are so different (400mm vs. macro), it's hard to make any final judgment. I think the bird shots are very usable.

Thanks Tullio, that is a good analysis of the difference. I have been shooting the trials in jpeg so that post processing is not a factor in making comparisons.

I sure hope my Vivitar 70-210 Version 1, Series 2, coming in the mail is not equally disappointing, as I paid much more for it.

 

[photoSmart42]

I sure hope my Vivitar 70-210 Version 1, Series 2, coming in the mail is not equally disappointing, as I paid much more for it.

It's worth playing around with some of these off-brand lenses if you can get them in the bargain bin. Personally I stay away from older zoom lenses and stick with primes. Many of the older prime lenses are superb, and compare very well to modern primes (and in many cases are better than modern zooms, not to mention faster). Modern zoom lenses are much, much better than the older zooms, and you'd be hard-pressed to find some with the performance of the kit m4/3 lenses (even as slow as they are).

 

[Ron Evers]

PS42 "you'd be hard-pressed to find some with the performance of the kit m4/3 lenses (even as slow as they are)."

Slow is what has me looking to other lenses. I like to do wildlife & often there is not enough light for my 40-200 to keep up a decent shutter speed.

 

[photoSmart42]

PS42 "you'd be hard-pressed to find some with the performance of the kit m4/3 lenses (even as slow as they are)."

Slow is what has me looking to other lenses. I like to do wildlife & often there is not enough light for my 40-200 to keep up a decent shutter speed.

I get that, but my point is you're better off using older fast primes and changing them to fit your focal length than you are using older zooms. You can probably get most of the shots you want using a good, fast 75, 90, 100, or 135 prime on the m4/3 cameras - you can find lenses in those FLs as fast as f/2.0. They're available for many of the mounts compatible with these cameras, which is nice, and you can get most of them for reasonable prices.

 

[Tullio]

If I put the $$$ spent on old lenses that do not perform that well toward some of the new lenses, I think I'd be much better off. I've tried 3 macro lenses so far. The Vivitar 55mm is the best but also the most expensive and by the time I add the cost of the adapter to it, it gets up there. For about $140 I can buy the Oly 35mm macro, which I used to have and like. Spend another $120 on the Pana adapter that will make this 4/3 lens AF on the EP1 and I think I'll be much happier with the results (and not having to keep my reading glasses on to be able to focus).

 

[Ron Evers]

I get that, but my point is you're better off using older fast primes and changing them to fit your focal length than you are using older zooms. You can probably get most of the shots you want using a good, fast 75, 90, 100, or 135 prime on the m4/3 cameras - you can find lenses in those FLs as fast as f/2.0. They're available for many of the mounts compatible with these cameras, which is nice, and you can get most of them for reasonable prices.

I just got a Sears 135/2.8 today - see my other post. However, that is short for a lot of bird shots.

 

[photoSmart42]

I just got a Sears 135/2.8 today - see my other post. However, that is short for a lot of bird shots.

Getting a good, fast prime that's longer than 135mm, or even a good, fast zoom that gets you there will cost you a fair amount more. If that's your primary goal, then do some research and find a good 200mm+ prime in a mount that you already have, save for it, and get it - I suspect you'll enjoy it very much once you have it.

Another alternative if you want to stick with zooms is to play around with your ISO setting instead of just relying on the lens speed alone (remember fast speed = shallow dof, which will mess up your shots anyway at those distances). If you go by the sunny-16 rule, you should be able to get a decent shutter speed if you crank up your ISO setting. The G1/GH1 does well below ISO 800, so theoretically you should be able to go to ISO 800 with a shutter speed of 1/800 if you match your aperture to the lighting conditions. I think even 1/400 shutter speed would be pretty decent for bird photography (I use it on insects with success). That would allow you to use your Pana zoom (45-200) that has the modern optics you want for decent quality shots.

 

[Ron Evers]

Getting a good, fast prime that's longer than 135mm, or even a good, fast zoom that gets you there will cost you a fair amount more. If that's your primary goal, then do some research and find a good 200mm+ prime in a mount that you already have, save for it, and get it - I suspect you'll enjoy it very much once you have it.

This is exactly what I am hoping for from the Vivitar 70-210/3.5 series 2. Some say it is pro grade glass but it may be heavy @ 1.5pounds on a G1.


Another alternative if you want to stick with zooms is to play around with your ISO setting instead of just relying on the lens speed alone (remember fast speed = shallow dof, which will mess up your shots anyway at those distances). If you go by the sunny-16 rule, you should be able to get a decent shutter speed if you crank up your ISO setting. The G1/GH1 does well below ISO 800, so theoretically you should be able to go to ISO 800 with a shutter speed of 1/800 if you match your aperture to the lighting conditions. I think even 1/400 shutter speed would be pretty decent for bird photography (I use it on insects with success). That would allow you to use your Pana zoom (45-200) that has the modern optics you want for decent quality shots.

Here is an example of the 40-200 shot last August of a Coyote in our back yard from our balcony. Need better reach don't you agree?

 

[JBurnett]

I just got a Sears 135/2.8 today - see my other post. However, that is short for a lot of bird shots.

Ron, the other day I saw a Canon FD 400 f/4.5 on eBay with a Canadian seller. It looked to be in great condition, and included the very sturdy tripod ring. I think it was priced at $280 -- nothing near so cheap as the kinds of lenses you're looking at, but still tempting at that price if you're a real wildlife fan (and don't have to carry it too far).

 

[Ron Evers]

Thank John.

I will have to work with what I have for now.