Olympus Evolt Series

[LuvsTigger80]

we picked up the 620 3 weeks ago and there's actually 3 levels of IS. Its actually better than I thought it would be (although we still are using the kit lens and I dont know if it will cost me any stops at higher zoom. Overall noise doesnt seem to be any worse for wear with it either.)

 

[ryanmmouse]

I have both the 410 & 510 models. There is more than just IS that separate these cameras. While they are basically the same the model with IS is far more easier to use when changing setting on the camera. The IS model has dedicated buttons for the functions, while the non-IS version you have to go into the menus to change these same functions.

On using a telephoto lens, the more you zoom out, the more you will need IS. It is very difficult to get sharp photos using it hand-held.

IMO, I would go with the IS version.

Thanks for your input! After playing with the camera a bit, I discovered there is a "mode" for DIS (Digital image stabilization, I believe). I assume the difference between this and what would come with the 520 is that IS would be "on" for every shot on the 520, as opposed to having to actually select that mode?

How much different do you think the IS makes for indoor, non-flash shots?

 

[jajomo0118]

Hi all, I posted awhile ago after I first got my E410 w/dual lens kit. Well after a few months of playing around I still have no idea what Im doing..but I sure am having fun learning.

The above is my first pic in B/W actually taken with the camera and not processed afterwards and I love it..lol.

So we are sports parents and I would love telephoto lens. Any suggestions for a affordable lens?

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I am a sports parent, too. Took tons of sports pics this year.

I will answer your question this way:

My 18-180 did pretty well in daylight most of the time. It did not do well indoors.

I am saving up for the Olympus 50-200mm f/2.8 which I believe will yield best results.

The Sigma 70-200 f/ 2.8 is tempting, too.

There are mixed reviews in shooting sports with the 70-300 as it is not considered a "fast" lens.

Hopefully someone will chime in who's used some of these for sports.

 

[jajomo0118]

thanks. I really wanted a macro lens as my first upgrade lens..but since football started I really want a telephoto.

 

[JoeDif]

I am a sports parent, too. Took tons of sports pics this year.

I will answer your question this way:

My 18-180 did pretty well in daylight most of the time. It did not do well indoors.

I am saving up for the Olympus 50-200mm f/2.8 which I believe will yield best results.

The Sigma 70-200 f/ 2.8 is tempting, too.

There are mixed reviews in shooting sports with the 70-300 as it is not considered a "fast" lens.

Hopefully someone will chime in who's used some of these for sports.

Here is another vote for the 50 - 200 f/2.8. Although I haven't used it, I've seen some image samples in other olympus forums and they were impressive.

Of course there is always the 90 - 250mm f/2.8 but with a $5,000 price tag that is more of a miracle list instead of a wish list at this point

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Of course there is always the 90 - 250mm f/2.8 but with a $5,000 price tag that is more of a miracle list instead of a wish list at this point

LOL, Joe.

Believe it or not, I was at a baseball tournament this summer and drooling over the humongous lens the photog there had, shooting the games (he told me it cost $4100 - Canon). Funny thing was, the pics came out terrible. I mean, the lens did a great job - the photographer did not. All kinds of feet and hands, bats, hats, etc were amputated (you may know that's my pet peeve). Eyes closed, god awful expressions on kids' faces. People on our team have been saying mine are better (with my tired old 18-180).

Now if I can just get my hands on that 50-200.

 

[JoeDif]

LOL, Joe.

Believe it or not, I was at a baseball tournament this summer and drooling over the humongous lens the photog there had, shooting the games (he told me it cost $4100 - Canon). Funny thing was, the pics came out terrible. I mean, the lens did a great job - the photographer did not. All kinds of feet and hands, bats, hats, etc were amputated (you may know that's my pet peeve). Eyes closed, god awful expressions on kids' faces. People on our team have been saying mine are better (with my tired old 18-180).

Now if I can just get my hands on that 50-200.

Yes....you can have the greatest equipment out there but if you don't know how to use it what good is it.


I was going to get the 70 - 300 but have decided to wait for the 50-200, I really want that lens . It may take a few more months to aquire but so be it.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I was going to get the 70 - 300 but have decided to wait for the 50-200, I really want that lens . It may take a few more months to aquire but so be it.

A month or two ago Olympus was offering a $150 rebate - did you see that? It would bring the cost of the 50-200 down from $1050 or so, to around $900 - ie the same cost as the Sigma. All reports are that the Oly is better (but the Sigma is good, too). I don't know if they're still offering the rebate, but definitely something to look into.

 

[annnewjerz]

A month or two ago Olympus was offering a $150 rebate - did you see that? It would bring the cost of the 50-200 down from $1050 or so, to around $900 - ie the same cost as the Sigma. All reports are that the Oly is better (but the Sigma is good, too). I don't know if they're still offering the rebate, but definitely something to look into.

Linda, I popped in to say that I don't think you get nearly enough credit for being one of the big enablers on this board. Look at you---pushing that rebate and lens like illegal substances on a street corner!

Just because you do it in the privacy of your Oly thread doesn't mean the rest of us won't see it. Nice try though!!!

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I saw your name on this thread, Ann, and was like, "Uh oh"!

I would never do such a thing.

NOT

I think you've fully earned the title of Dis Photo Board's Biggest Enabler, though. (Wear it with Pride!)

I absolutely cannot wait for your Trip Reports!

 

[annnewjerz]

I absolutely cannot wait for your Trip Reports!

I can!! I'm not going to start it until I have all of my photos processed just so I don't have to listen to your non-stop razzing and see or every few days like I left for you.

 

[JoeDif]

Linda, I popped in to say that I don't think you get nearly enough credit for being one of the big enablers on this board. Look at you---pushing that rebate and lens like illegal substances on a street corner!

Just because you do it in the privacy of your Oly thread doesn't mean the rest of us won't see it. Nice try though!!!

too too funny

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I can!! I'm not going to start it until I have all of my photos processed just so I don't have to listen to your non-stop razzing and see or every few days like I left for you.

No worries. I will not tease you.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Well, ok, maybe just a little bit.

But I am really looking forward to seeing your pictures. I just hope you don't drive yourself crazy "overthinking" things. LOL Just take it easy and have a good time.

PS I am the Queen of Overthinkers so no offense.

 

[Pugrpooh]

I haven't used this lens for sports yet and I won't go to a football game until November since our next home game is next Saturday and we'll be in WDW and then the next home game after that is Halloween night, so DD7 won't allow me to go to that one but I do have some nice shots with it, including some action shots.

I only bought this when Circuit City had a really good price on it a few weeks before they closed and I wanted it for our Alaska trip. I didn't think I would get much use out of it, but I have used it more than I thought I would. I'll take it next week to WDW but don't know if I'll carry it around anywhere but AK and the resort (for macro mainly).

Here's a macro shot I took this summer.

Here's one from the zoo taken through glass.

This was also taken through a window at home. I've cropped it to show just how sharp this is and also if you look into its eye, you can see a reflection of our house. I thought that was pretty cool!

And then some action shots from Alaska. This is where I was really impressed with this lens. We took a whale watching excursion out of Juneau. We were on a boat of course, no tripod, hand held with moving subjects, all of these I think taken at 300mm.

We saw humpbacks bubble net feeding.

I had the camera on burst mode and I have 8 shots of this whale breaching, from when he first started coming up to the final splash!

The whale shots are also heavily cropped.

And here are a couple of glaciers taken at 300mm.

I'm sure the 50-200 SWD would take sharper pics, but I'm real happy with this one, especially for the price. I've seen those humongous lenses some people have for thousands of dollars, but personally, I wouldn't want to lug those around.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Oh my, Pug, those are beautiful! (I think they should be on the POTD thread.) I really enjoyed your Alaska photos.

I'd be curious to see how it does with sports - indoors and out. As I mentioned, my 18-180 has done well with baseball outdoors. Indoors, not so much. My son plays indoors all winter indoors w/ terrible light in prep for the season. I'd read a ton of reviews and most of them said that with indoor sports the 70-300 just wasn't fast enough.

A friend who has one and I are supposed to switch off - I'm taking his 70-300 and he's taking my Sigma 25 f/1.8 for a while. Am looking forward to playing with it a bit. Any tips? It sure would be nice to not have to pay the money or have the bulk of the 2.8. (We just started home renovations and I said to the salesman the other day when I was buying a bunch of $tuff - "Well there goes my new camera lens" LOL.)

 

[JoeDif]

Has anyone had any experience with using flash triggers with their Oly cameras and flashes?

I just checked out the prices on Pocket Wizards Definately not in the budget at this point!!!

 

[Pugrpooh]

Oh my, Pug, those are beautiful! (I think they should be on the POTD thread.) I really enjoyed your Alaska photos.

I'd be curious to see how it does with sports - indoors and out. As I mentioned, my 18-180 has done well with baseball outdoors. Indoors, not so much. My son plays indoors all winter indoors w/ terrible light in prep for the season. I'd read a ton of reviews and most of them said that with indoor sports the 70-300 just wasn't fast enough.

A friend who has one and I are supposed to switch off - I'm taking his 70-300 and he's taking my Sigma 25 f/1.8 for a while. Am looking forward to playing with it a bit. Any tips? It sure would be nice to not have to pay the money or have the bulk of the 2.8. (We just started home renovations and I said to the salesman the other day when I was buying a bunch of $tuff - "Well there goes my new camera lens" LOL.)

Thanks, Pea! Alaska was so awesome, I'd love to go back. Friends of ours are there now on the last cruise of the season so I'm checking bridge cams and web cams and checking the weather to see what it's like for them.

Any tips? Just stay very still and hold your breath! Oh yeah, and take lots of pictures. I was pleasantly surprised I had so many whale pics turn out so good! I should really update my Alaska trip report. I might do it and just post links to my smugmug galleries. I've got to get ready for WDW next week and frankly, I'm tired of working with the Alaska pictures right now. Sorry I'm rambling -- I'm just psyched about WDW now because I was just now able to snag ADR's for the Spirit of Aloha show for our last night there! I've been trying for so long! DD7 loves hula dancing so she'll be so excited.

Here are 2 more that I like, both from the Yukon Territory. These were both taken with the 14-42mm lens. There was a bit of haze from wildfires in the Yukon and Alaska.

 

[Mr.MouseFan]

ok all you Oly experts. I need a bit of advice. I'm planning on renting a lense for my upcomming trips to Disneyland for Halloween and then a few days later to WDW for MVMCP. I'm torn between the Panasonic/Leica D Summilux 25mm f/1.4 and the Olympus 50mm f/2. With all the xmas lights and halloween, I definitely plan on lots of low light pics. The 25mm is nearly double the cost of what the 50mm would be to rent. Would it be worth the money for the wider aperature? Which would you choose?

 

[JoeDif]

ok all you Oly experts. I need a bit of advice. I'm planning on renting a lense for my upcomming trips to Disneyland for Halloween and then a few days later to WDW for MVMCP. I'm torn between the Panasonic/Leica D Summilux 25mm f/1.4 and the Olympus 50mm f/2. With all the xmas lights and halloween, I definitely plan on lots of low light pics. The 25mm is nearly double the cost of what the 50mm would be to rent. Would it be worth the money for the wider aperature? Which would you choose?

Definitely not an expert but if I had to choose between the two I'd go with the 25mm only because while at WDW I tend to use wider focal lenghts. You probably can't go wrong with either lens in low light though.