Zuiko 150mm F2 nickname "Little Tuna"

[kingcrab]

Well the thing is I have tried to explain why i feel if you want to compare 4:3 to 35mm format you should multiply both focal length and aperture by 2. A 300mm lens is physically only 300mm from the nodal point to the image plane whether it is used on 35mm format or 4:3. We say that a 300mm lens on 4:3 is equivalent to 600mm in 35mm format because the field of view is similiar. If we're going by that logic then we should also say that f2 on 4:3 is equivalent to f4 on 35mm format because 1) the dof is similiar to f4 on 35mm and the shutter speed that you can use is similiar as when you are using f4 on 35mm format as explained in my earlier post. To multiply the focal length by 2 then leave the aperture unchanged just seems inconsistent.

If like in my example that you can get a similiar field of view, similiar shutter speed, similiar dof and similiar image qualiy in terms of noise by using
d700 at iso 1600 with a 300mm f4
e-3 at iso 400 with a 150mm f2

Then how can we still argue that 150mm f2 on 4:3 = 300mm f2 on 35mm format? Just seems to me that we are making adjustments that make the 4:3 system more attractive and leaving out the adjustments that makes it less attractive.

I hope I don't offend anyone in my post. My intention is not really to discuss the pros and cons of 4:3 vs 35mm format but rather looking for someone to enlighten me whether my way of converting is right or wrong (and if so why?).

 

[kingcrab]

Oh I also found out from wiki that f/number is actually calculated as focal length / aperture diameter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture

so a 150mm f2 lens will have f2 = 150 / aperture diameter. The 150mm f2 lens has an aperture opening of 75mm in diameter. When using a 2x teleconverter the focal length becomes 300mm and the f/stop is now
f/stop = 300 / 75 = f4

So if we say that 150mm on 4:3 is similiar to 300mm on 35mm format then shouldn't
f/stop = 300 / 75 = f4. I used 75mm here because the physical diameter of the aperture does not change when using on a 4:3 camera.

 

[drakon09]

Well the thing is I have tried to explain why i feel if you want to compare 4:3 to 35mm format you should multiply both focal length and aperture by 2. A 300mm lens is physically only 300mm from the nodal point to the image plane whether it is used on 35mm format or 4:3. We say that a 300mm lens on 4:3 is equivalent to 600mm in 35mm format because the field of view is similiar. If we're going by that logic then we should also say that f2 on 4:3 is equivalent to f4 on 35mm format because 1) the dof is similiar to f4 on 35mm and the shutter speed that you can use is similiar as when you are using f4 on 35mm format as explained in my earlier post. To multiply the focal length by 2 then leave the aperture unchanged just seems inconsistent.

If like in my example that you can get a similiar field of view, similiar shutter speed, similiar dof and similiar image qualiy in terms of noise by using
d700 at iso 1600 with a 300mm f4
e-3 at iso 400 with a 150mm f2

Then how can we still argue that 150mm f2 on 4:3 = 300mm f2 on 35mm format? Just seems to me that we are making adjustments that make the 4:3 system more attractive and leaving out the adjustments that makes it less attractive.

I hope I don't offend anyone in my post. My intention is not really to discuss the pros and cons of 4:3 vs 35mm format but rather looking for someone to enlighten me whether my way of converting is right or wrong (and if so why?).

This is the "equivalence theory" that some schools of thought have surfaced in a bid to explain everything using a single equation, so to speak, and is correct as long as you want to put noise into the equation. If noise is a non-issue to you (as it is for me), the equivalence theory gets thrown out of the window.

Fact of the matter that is that 4/3, and 135 are two different systems altogether, the x2 focal length thingy is nothing but a convenient way to describe the reach of a 4/3 lens, given that 135 format was the dominant format for so long and most photographers are well-versed in it.

However, for new digital-age photographers, 135 format may not mean a thing at all. For example, how many new photographers out there know that 50mm in 135-format approximates the human field of vision, and 100mm in 135-format approximates the magnification of the human eye?

It's all up to individual needs and preference, rather than making the system look more attractive - that's the marketing department's job. Taking myself as an example, at any given ISO, 4/3 gives me double the DoF and double the shutter speed per f-stop. So it appeals to me as I can handhold better with the faster shutter speed (I don't care much for tripods).

The reverse is also true; anyone wanting razor thin DoF will not get it with 4/3 - on 135, the DoF at f1.4 is equal to the DoF on 4/3 at f0.7; and a f0.7 lens does not exist. So anyone wanting that kind of DoF will not shoot 4/3.

 

[varanus]

Kingcrab, I have not totally disagreed with you that 150mm f2 at iso 400 will give you roughly the same picture as 300mm f4 at iso1600 on FF. If this is all that you seek confirmation of, you have my view for whatever its worth


Then how can we still argue that 150mm f2 on 4:3 = 300mm f2 on 35mm format? Just seems to me that we are making adjustments that make the 4:3 system more attractive and leaving out the adjustments that makes it less attractive.

The flaw in your poseur is that in most applications (especially wildlife shooting), a deeper DOF is an advantage. Your assumption is that a shallower DOF is better, which I disagree. So this comparison actually leaves out an adjustment which is advantageous to 4/3. The upshot of this is, even leaving out this advantage, 4/3 clearly has a one-stop advantage in terms of lens speed, in respect of the FF 300 f2.8. At the same iso, 4/3 gets to shoot at faster shutter speed.

You will also hear me say that Canikon's 200mm f2 shot on APS-C would be roughly equivalent to the Oly 150mm f2. Leaving out 4/3 DOF advantage, you can say that these kits are comparable.... that is until you find out what Canikon's 200mm f2s cost and weigh. No handholding there I'm afraid and you can buy 2 Zuiko 150mm f2 for the price of one Canon 200mm f2 (you should because you get an extra kg of material)

By insisting that a thin dof is better, it allowed FF users to argue that there wasn't any big deal about the Zuiko f2s. Of course you then realise that FF had used its superior sensor performance (and not its lenses) to take away the Zuiko's advantage.

Fact of the matter is, 4/3 advantage lies in its glass performance and light weight. Whereas FF's lies in its sensor. It shouldn't be too difficult to accept that they cancel each other out and you can't say one system is better than the other. However, it remains a fact that one system may be better than the other in a specific application :bsmilie:

 

[MichaelLee]

Oh I also found out from wiki that f/number is actually calculated as focal length / aperture diameter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture

so a 150mm f2 lens will have f2 = 150 / aperture diameter. The 150mm f2 lens has an aperture opening of 75mm in diameter. When using a 2x teleconverter the focal length becomes 300mm and the f/stop is now
f/stop = 300 / 75 = f4

So if we say that 150mm on 4:3 is similiar to 300mm on 35mm format then shouldn't
f/stop = 300 / 75 = f4. I used 75mm here because the physical diameter of the aperture does not change when using on a 4:3 camera.

- let's not forget "lens perspective". Shoting at 300mm on full frame vs 150mm on 4/3 give u different lens perspective, although for both setup the effective range is 300mm.

- d700 at ISO1600 may be par with e3 ISO400 in terms of noise level. But does it give u the same results on retaining the quality of the picture and colour retention ?

If your comparison is merely on DOF, then may be you have a point. Other than that, I do not agree d700 at iso 1600 with a 300mm f4 and e-3 at iso 400 with a 150mm f2 2 are similair.


Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[mactigasuku]

Well the thing is I have tried to explain why i feel if you want to compare 4:3 to 35mm format you should multiply both focal length and aperture by 2. A 300mm lens is physically only 300mm from the nodal point to the image plane whether it is used on 35mm format or 4:3. We say that a 300mm lens on 4:3 is equivalent to 600mm in 35mm format because the field of view is similiar. If we're going by that logic then we should also say that f2 on 4:3 is equivalent to f4 on 35mm format because 1) the dof is similiar to f4 on 35mm and the shutter speed that you can use is similiar as when you are using f4 on 35mm format as explained in my earlier post. To multiply the focal length by 2 then leave the aperture unchanged just seems inconsistent.

If like in my example that you can get a similiar field of view, similiar shutter speed, similiar dof and similiar image qualiy in terms of noise by using
d700 at iso 1600 with a 300mm f4
e-3 at iso 400 with a 150mm f2

Then how can we still argue that 150mm f2 on 4:3 = 300mm f2 on 35mm format? Just seems to me that we are making adjustments that make the 4:3 system more attractive and leaving out the adjustments that makes it less attractive.

I hope I don't offend anyone in my post. My intention is not really to discuss the pros and cons of 4:3 vs 35mm format but rather looking for someone to enlighten me whether my way of converting is right or wrong (and if so why?).

You are confusing FOV with focal length and aperture relationships in your comparison of different image formats.

150mm f2 on 4/3 has the same FOV (or angle of view) as 300 mm f2 on 35 mm. Period. Check here.

" .... The angle of view depends on the ratio between the focal length and the film size.

A lens with a focal length about equal to the diagonal size of the film or sensor format is known as a normal lens; its angle of view is similar to the angle subtended by a large-enough print viewed at a typical viewing distance of the print diagonal, which therefore yields a normal perspective when viewing the print;[2] this angle of view is about 53 degrees diagonally. For full-frame 35mm-format cameras, the diagonal is 43 mm and a typical "normal" lens has a 50 mm focal length. A lens with a focal length shorter than normal is often referred to as a wide-angle lens (typically 35 mm and less, for 35mm-format cameras), while a lens significantly longer than normal may be referred to as a telephoto lens (typically 85 mm and more, for 35mm-format cameras), though the use of the term is inaccurate as it implies specific optical design qualities that may or may not apply to a given lens.

Due to the popularity of the 35 mm standard, camera–lens combinations are often described in terms of their 35 mm equivalent focal length, that is, the focal length of a lens that would have the same angle of view, or field of view, if used on a full-frame 35 mm camera. Use of a 35 mm equivalent focal length is particularly common with digital cameras, which often use sensors smaller than 35 mm film, and so require correspondingly shorter focal lengths to achieve a given angle of view, by a factor known as the crop factor."

You may argue that the DOF and maybe other minor details differ but yes, in broad terms 150mm f2 on 4/3 has similar FOV as 300mm f2 on 35mm.

You want to seek further clarifications on the aperture size? Because I think you got that right....

 

[Oly5050]

Good discussion and very technical. So I think it would be good to sum up.

Four-thirds 150 mm F2.0 has the equivalent FOV of a Nikkor 300 mm F2.0 although DOF will be deeper by 2x in the Four-thirds.

Does that mean that bokeh will be 2 x nice in Nikkor than 4/3?

Whatever the case, the pictures posted, especially by halycon, the bokeh is good enough for me!!

 

[halcy0n]

more bokeh madness?

:bsmilie::bsmilie:

 

[Oly5050]

Seriously Halcyon, u are killing me. So SHARP and SO BOKEH!!! Really unbelievable. Is this THE lens for this kind of effect in the Zuiko range? Maybe I should start a thread to get some opinion. But for now which do u guys think have the best bokeh?


1. 150 mm F2.0
2. 35-100 mm F2.0
3. 50 mm F2.0
4. 90-250
5. 300 F2.8
6. 50-200 F2.8-3.5

Please feel free to correct my numbers and to add on whatever lens I may have missed out.

 

[dorts]

Seriously Halcyon, u are killing me. So SHARP and SO BOKEH!!! Really unbelievable. Is this THE lens for this kind of effect in the Zuiko range? Maybe I should start a thread to get some opinion. But for now which do u guys think have the best bokeh?


1. 150 mm F2.0
2. 35-100 mm F2.0
3. 50 mm F2.0
4. 90-250
5. 300 F2.8
6. 50-200 F2.8-3.5

Please feel free to correct my numbers and to add on whatever lens I may have missed out.

I think what you are looking for is shallow DOF? You might wanna try some f/1.4 with a "full-frame" (E.g: D3/D700/5D). :bsmilie:

The 50-200mm bokeh isn't that nice.

 

[Oly5050]

I think what you are looking for is shallow DOF? You might wanna try some f/1.4 with a "full-frame" (E.g: D3/D700/5D). :bsmilie:

The 50-200mm bokeh isn't that nice.

NO, no, no!! I am NOT looking for shallow DOF. :nono: I am looking for KILLER BOKEH, like what the little tuna does.

IMHO, I dun think shallow bokeh is very practical. It is probably useful for certain applications eg. portraits, and it is best used only when one is quite proficient, otherwise u will get a lot of unsatisfactory shots .... ie. out-of-focus.

IMHO, for most intents and purposes, practically, more than 99% of the time, I am very happy with 4/3 F2.0 DOF. I think it is good enough for me. I have not had a situation so far where I find myself saying that I need shallower DOF. BUT bokeh appearance is something else altogether. If I am not wrong, u may get a 1.4F lens, but its bokeh may not be as attractive. It may give u a double image kind of appearance rather than a creamy blur which the 150mm F2.0 does so well.

In any case, I have learnt to hate or avoid wide-open shots in group photos. I now try to shoot at around 4-5 for group shots. F2.0 is a no-no. So, in these instances, F1.4 is a total waste. So, no, I am not hungering for shallow DOF in any of my applications right now.

 

[Oly5050]

I say again, this is outstanding BOKEH appearance, and outstanding SHARPNESS.

 

[Oly5050]

:bsmilie::bsmilie:

And, this picture...the petals are so sharp. I dun think it was taken at F2.0 right? Must be like around 4 or so in order to get the whole thing sharp.

 

[olymac]

Good discussion and very technical. So I think it would be good to sum up.

Four-thirds 150 mm F2.0 has the equivalent FOV of a Nikkor 300 mm F2.0 although DOF will be deeper by 2x in the Four-thirds.

Does that mean that bokeh will be 2 x nice in Nikkor than 4/3?

Whatever the case, the pictures posted, especially by halycon, the bokeh is good enough for me!!

There is a better discussion on bokeh here ...... before anyone starts confusing bokeh with DOF .....

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=388256

 

[aryanto]

Sigma 1.4 bokeh is so so only.

 

[Oly5050]

Yeah I agree aryanto. I have learnt that even a f1.4 lens does not necessarily give you a nice bokeh although they are capable of very narrow DOF. I was surprised when I saw it, but it is true.

NO, no, no!! I am NOT looking for shallow DOF. :nono: I am looking for KILLER BOKEH, like what the little tuna does.

Olymac, I hope you read my earlier post on DOF and Bokeh. I know DOF and quality of bokeh not directly related. Thanks Olymac for showing the link still. Such a technical thing. Clearly very confusing too. I can imagine how non-4/3 users can misunderstand the system further.

 

[aryanto]

By the way, I can sometimes get nice bokeh from sigma f1.4. It really depends on the background. I think it get bad if I tried dark background with a few tiny spots of bright light. I can count the number of Diaphragm Blades: 8 pieces.

 

[dorts]

By the way, I can sometimes get nice bokeh from sigma f1.4. It really depends on the background. I think it get bad if I tried dark background with a few tiny spots of bright light. I can count the number of Diaphragm Blades: 8 pieces.

I thought you only can see them if you use a high aperture value?

 

[aryanto]

I thought you only can see them if you use a high aperture value?

Here is an sample. Not always you will get these but once a while.
By the way this photo is thrown away one, taken when I am not prepared with my choice filters, I got a better shot which I posted already.
See those light spots. A few Ba-Gua near the bottom left of the skirt.

 

[dorts]

Here is an sample. Not always you will get these but once a while.
By the way this photo is thrown away one, taken when I am not prepared with my choice filters, I got a better shot which I posted already.
See those light spots. A few Ba-Gua near the bottom left of the skirt.

That's :nono:. LOL.