Telephoto lens dumb question

[glenn1]

Looking for a telephoto lens to pair with a micro four thirds system. Trying to figure out how to select; if all else is similar should I pick the one with the biggest top number or biggest spread between the two? For example, would a 45-200mm F/4.0-5.6 be better than a 14-140 F/4.0-5.8?

 

[glen]

Can't tell if you are serious.

 

[glenn1]

Can't tell if you are serious.

Completely - just because I don't know the answer to a dumb question doesn't make me a troll. I'm not sure how to even pose the question for a Google search, thus the posting here.

 

[glen]

Completely - just because I don't know the answer to a dumb question doesn't make me a troll. I'm not sure how to even pose the question for a Google search, thus the posting here.

No problem.
Those number are not helpful.
A helpful number would be degrees.
So, the 14mm on 4/3rds camera is field of view of 65 degrees.
Make sense?
So, 14-140 is 65 degrees at the widest, and it zooms in to 7.4 degrees.
45-200 is 22.6 degrees to 5.2.
So, those number just tell you how wide to how telephoto - not good or bad.

F stop, basically the lower the number the better.
So, if you are shooting indoors, 14 to 140 will probably more useful since it can go at least as wide as 65 degrees.

 

[glen]

Here is an angle of view calculator:
http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm
Your sensor is a 2 multiplier.

This may also help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view

 

[randomrogue]

Why are you breaking this down into degrees?

Micro 4/3 is 2x the 35mm equivalent right? Just look at it like that. The difference in the aperture on those two lenses is negligible. Look up which lens has better optics and decide how important each focal length range is to you. Yes 280mm is a nice telephoto but 400mm is quite a difference.

 

[glen]

Why are you breaking this down into degrees?

Micro 4/3 is 2x the 35mm equivalent right?

OP has no idea what 35mm means as far as field of view, so 2 x 35mm is not helpful. Iassume, but I could be wrong, that everyone has a fairly facile understanding of angles.

 

[colonelciller]

Looking for a telephoto lens to pair with a micro four thirds system. Trying to figure out how to select; if all else is similar should I pick the one with the biggest top number or biggest spread between the two? For example, would a 45-200mm F/4.0-5.6 be better than a 14-140 F/4.0-5.8?

I'm going to go off of what others in this thread have stated (your setup = 2x 35mm... because 35mm is what I'm familiar with.

in that case I'd go for a lens with a range spanning the mid 20's to the low 200's in the 35mm world... which would put you at 10's to low 100's.

based on that the 14-140 looks like the one i'd choose (equivalent to 28-280 in 35mm). If i were choosing an all around most versatile lens i'd say a 17-200 35mm equivalent would be even better (which is equivalent to 9-100 in your system... assuming the info provided by others is correct).

now, there is only one place to buy this lens... B&H Photovideo.

one recommendation for a slow lens such as this... a monopod.

the one i linked is very similar to a bogen monopod that i used for years as a photojournalist taking sports photos... and it was incredible... the ability to adjust up and down simply by squeezing the handle is a game changer... pairing that monopod with a head that rotates 90degrees (for verticals) and has a quick release and you're good to go.

one caveat to that monopod is that it looks likeit comes with an absurd foot attachment, i'd commend replacing it with something like this (i don't know if the one i linked is the correct model to match that monopod but you get the idea. the angle of that foot is better for working on rough terrain or when the floor is flat but you need to have the 'pod' at a 45 degree angle (think open staircase.

anyway, be wary of spending stupendous amounts of money on lens gear...it is very easy to get sucked down that route when reading reviews... and audiophile irrationality can very quickly set-in. if you are looking for a brand that makes very nicetelephotos with reasonable prices and lightweight... check out Tamron lenses. I've seen many photographers spend thousands and thousands on single focal length lenses thinking that suddenly they will get great photos... and it doesn't work. great photos come from great photographers, not great equipment. with experience you will learn what kind of equipment changes will benefit your style.

one last plug for telephoto lenses... situational versatility... in sports photography that trumps the $5000 piece of glass mounted to a stationary photographer every time... unless of course you'retalking about professional sports situations where photographers are coralled into zoned off areas... but there is no opportunity to inject art into boring situations such as that (although there the expensive glass is a requirement...in order to produce the predictable mundane work found in many sports sections)

 

[colonelciller]

another decent and versatile consideration would be 2 telephoto lenses

*midrange telephoto 35-250ish (35 mm equivalent)
*closeup telephoto 17-50ish (35mm equivalent) with lots of light gathering power since you'll often use this one indoors... the lower the F/#'s the better

 

[glenn1]

Here is an angle of view calculator:
http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm
Your sensor is a 2 multiplier.

This may also help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view

Okay, I get the concept of angle of view. I'm conceptualizing it as field of vision if looking down tubes; you'll see a wider view peering down a 12" pipe than a soda straw. But isn't there a magnification factor involved also? In my soda straw example, its true I'll see less background but the object won't appear any closer either.

 

[IronWing]

Okay, I get the concept of angle of view. I'm conceptualizing it as field of vision if looking down tubes; you'll see a wider view peering down a 12" pipe than a soda straw. But isn't there a magnification factor involved also? In my soda straw example, its true I'll see less background but the object won't appear any closer either.

The magnification comes in because that view you see down the soda straw is projected onto the entire camera sensor regardless of how long the straw is. With your eye, it doesn't work that way. With your eye, the longer the straw, the smaller the area of your retina covered by the image coming down the straw (assuming same straw width) so you get no magnification. With the camera, the lens relays the image from the far end of the straw to match up with the entire sensor (the camera's retina) so that "small" image gets blown up to fit and thus magnified.

There are tradeoffs. With a longer straw you either lose light gathering power (higher minimum f-stop, cheaper, doesn't work as well in low light) or you need a wider straw to gather more light (same f-stop, bigger lens, more expensive). Also, the longer the straw the smaller the depth of field.

 

[randomrogue]

I think we need to be clear. Do you want a telephoto lens meaning that you are more concerned about seeing things that are farther away or do you want a more all around lens that can see lots and then "zoom in" on stuff that's further away?

The better all around lens (not talking about the optical quality of the lens, just the focal length) is the 14-140. This will give you a relatively wide field of view to a telephoto. The other one, is going to range more from a head and shoulders portrait lens to much more telephoto.

Go to a store and try them out. It should make more sense.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

A 14-140 is a 10x zoom. This is a wide-to-telephoto zoom, an "all in one" lens that covers a wide range of focal lengths. The 45-200 is a roughly 4x zoom, strictly telephoto, you will need another lens (which you probably already have; maybe a 14-45mm kit lens?) to get the wide angles.

In general, greater zoom ratios will require more compromises in the optical design. The 45-200 will probably be sharper overall (not guaranteed, but likely; assuming same brand, and roughly similar price ranges). Also it is appreciably longer on the long end (200mm vs 140mm) so you will be better able to take photos of small things that are far away. But, you will have to switch out your standard zoom lens when you want to take telephoto pictures.

14-140
Pro: All-in-one solution, never have to switch lenses
Con: Probably lacking in the image quality department

45-200
Pro: Probably sharper / better image quality overall; noticeably longer (200 vs. 140)
Con: Have to switch out lenses between your 14-45 (wide to short telephoto) and 45-200 (short telephoto to long telephoto)

 

[MrSquished]

i researched a bunch of the MFT tele lenses so can maybe help out.

first question though is do you have a camera body with in body image stabilization (some olympuses) or do you have one without in body IS (all panasonics)