Weighty issues

[MJ224]

Having just travelled 1/2 way round the world on holiday, I feel I have to modify my camera and lens requirements. I took the EM1 ii, along with the 12-40mm Pro, a 7Atisans fisheye, the 60mm macro, and the Panasonic 100-400 zoom. As I really like taking bird photos, the Pany zoom was more flexible than the Oly 300mm Pro. But the weight was a burden to say the least. I now know the 60mm macro was not used much. the fisheye a few times and was a fun lens, the 12-40mm took by far the most photos, and the 100-400mm zoom was great to have for the birds.

Next time (if I am lucky) I think I will buy the much lighter 75-300 mm, and take my chances with my birdy photos. I won't bother with the 60mm, as its a specialist lens, but the fisheye was fun to use when I did...….I have a new EM5 ii, and might consider taking that, but its not as good as the Em1 ii...………..

[Bikie John]

The 60mm macro doesn't weigh much and if it's what you need you will miss it, so as long as you have space I would take it along.

Is the 75-300 slower aperture-wise than the 100-400? It looks from your Hawaii shots as though you had plenty of light so that should not be a problem. And if you can keep to low ISO you will have leeway for cropping to make up for the loss of the 400mm end. Could be a different matter if you go to northern Siberia in winter though!

John

[Ian]

The E-M5 iii would be a good compromise on the body. I like the 75-300 very much because of its portability. People note that it's not as sharp at 300 as it is at 200 but all things are relative and you can still get good results at 300. It's my travel tele zoom of choice, definitely.

Ian

[Phill D]

Unless it was a particular birding destination I think I'd opt to just take a 12-200 on an EM5 mk3 as the lightest weight do it all option. Plus also drop in my little Samyang 7.5mm fish eye too as it's no weight at all and great fun.

[Ian]

That's an attractive strategy indeed.

[MJ224]

Not thought of that one. Might be a real good simple alternative.....

[Dave in Wales]

Think seriously about the 75-300...........https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4456281

Was the FE a Samyang?

[MJ224]

I may have replied, but can't see the post (again).. My fisheye is 7artisans 7.5mm, quite heavy actually, but gives reasonable results, good enough for my needs anyway...I have had 75-300 lens, it was Ok, but not first choice for the zooooooooooooooommm..:-)

[TimP]

I’d best keep quiet about what I lug on holidays! 2 x bodies, 100-400 Pany, 12-100 Oly 9-18 Oly, 2 x bins, 2 x iPads all associated chargers, power bank cuddly toy, kitchen sink. That’s not to mention the TG-4, at least one GoPro and my favourite new toy, a DJI Osmo Pocket. When I was lugging Canon gear my then rucksack was almost as heavy as the checked baggage and the trick was to make it look light! Never got weighed.

[MJ224]

Yes I always take the TG-5, as well as a Surface computer + all chargers....My Carry on weight 10kg then I had camera bag slung over my back......Just too heavy for comfort...

[Ian]

Think seriously about the 75-300...........https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4456281

Was the FE a Samyang?

There is so much controversy about the 75-300. People forget it's a 600mm lens (FF) and it's invariably used hand held. Being slow (f/6.7) at the long end even wide open you do need very steady hands or a fast enough shutter speed. The guy you linked to had also stopped down to f/7.1 which is not necessary - adding more motion blur and even a bit of diffraction softening. Others in the thread have posted much better results with the same lens.

There might be a sample variability issue as well.

It won't perform like a pro lens but it's very small and light and it's not expensive. I love it, personally.

Ian

[MikeOxon]

My favourite travel lens is the now discontinued 12-50, which is lightweight, waterproof, and includes a very useful macro capability. My original set of lenses, which was sold as a 'travel kit' together with the original E-M5, also included the ultra-light 40-150 and the 45 f/1.8, which was brilliant when spotlighting at night. Later, I added the 100-400, after deciding that the image quality of the 75-300 would not match the other lenses..

[OM USer]

Don't forget the combo of 40-150mm F/2.8 + x2TC for your birds. It will give you a quality zoom out to 300 plus the versatility and light gathering of an tourist useful 40-150mm. That plus the 12-40mm will cover all bar the fisheye shots for which there is always the fisheye lenscap or the lightweight (but non fisheye) venus 7.5mm.

[MJ224]

Thanks for the feedback. May just be my 40-140mm Pro and a TC 1.4 or 2. would suit. I have the 1.4, and am tempted to buy the 2.0, which will give me the IQ and nearly the reach I want....

But heyho, I may not get the travelling luxury for many years to come....Just hate airports and their security, which I know is necessary. More so in the immediate future……..:-)

In these tropical countries, light is GOOD, so slow lenses work well...……......…..

[MikeOxon]

.............In these tropical countries, light is GOOD, so slow lenses work well...……......…..

Beware of low light levels in tropical rainforests, though - not much sunlight penetrates the canopy. My 45mm f/1.8 was invaluable in Borneo.

[TimP]

Thanks for the feedback. May just be my 40-140mm Pro and a TC 1.4 or 2. would suit. I have the 1.4, and am tempted to buy the 2.0, which will give me the IQ and nearly the reach I want....

But heyho, I may not get the travelling luxury for many years to come....Just hate airports and their security, which I know is necessary. More so in the immediate future……..:-)

In these tropical countries, light is GOOD, so slow lenses work well...……......…..

I’m with you on the airports thing, it’s the one thing that’ll put an end to our travelling in the next 5 years. The South Pacific and Hawaii is on our list but the thought of travelling there is a nightmare, albeit a surmountable one. We’re off to the Dominican Republic shortly and are stuck with Miami on the return leg, it’s a dreadful airport where we’ve been treated cattle on previous occasions. Meanwhile I’ll just cram all the gear into the carry-on and, errm, carry on!

[MJ224]

The security in Heathrow picked up an accidentally packed screw driver. So they work well, for all of our benefits I guess. I wore a plastic belt, as I was fed up with getting undressed to get through security. Poor wifey got searched at every security barrier, (lucky her!!) She even had a note in her check in bag that the TSA had searched her check-in suitcase...Maybe I should be more watchful of her habits...…..:-)

[Ian]

My favourite travel lens is the now discontinued 12-50, which is lightweight, waterproof, and includes a very useful macro capability. My original set of lenses, which was sold as a 'travel kit' together with the original E-M5, also included the ultra-light 40-150 and the 45 f/1.8, which was brilliant when spotlighting at night. Later, I added the 100-400, after deciding that the image quality of the 75-300 would not match the other lenses..

It's strange that this very handy and versatile lens has been discontinued. I wonder if it was too expensive to make as a 'cheapo' standard zoom - it's quite sophisticated. It's also a rather odd looking lens when fitted to a camera body, being rather slim. But, hey -ho; I like it.

Ian

[Otto]

The 12-50 is more or less permanently attached to my M1 or M5, it's light, versatile and decent quality. I would certainly miss it.

[MJ224]

I have the same, and it lives on EM5 ii at the mo. A good lens for certain...:-)

[dbutch]

Well having just looked at the specs and dimensions and weight of the new Nikon 120-300 f2.8 Pro it make you appreciate what we have when you compare it to the 40-150 f2.8 Pro (80-300) and thats one of our bigger lenses! the new 70-200 f2.8 Z lens also is not small

Nikon 120-300 - Weight 3250g - Length 304mm - Dia 128mm - Filter 112mm
Nikon Z

70-200 - Weight 1440g - Length 220mm - Dia 89mm - Filter 77mm

Olympus 40-150 - Weight 880g - Length 160mm - Dia 79mm - Filter 72mm

Dave