~~~
I was struggling to improve the quality of my images using the Kowa '884 and digiscoping. So I watched lots of YT videos about bird photography. Most bird photographers use long lenses. The advantage of a Micro 4/3 camera is that the crop factor is two. Which means you effectively double your focal length compared to a 35mm full frame lens. 200mm becomes a bit over 400mm. Without the bulk, weight and huge expense of a full frame telephoto lens of a "true" 400mm.
The so-called "kit lens" which came with my Lumix G9 was the Leica 12-60mm. Effectively a 25-120mm zoom in 35mm terms. Great fun and sharp but still far short of my humble Lumix TZ7. Which reached an effective 300mm at full zoom. I only became involved in digiscoping because I wanted even more "reach" than the TZ7.
Which meant that I needed 200mm minimum in 4/3 lenses for 400mm effective at 35mm. That gave me a nice excess of reach to bring distant subjects nearer than the TZ7. Moreover, it promised to give me much sharper and brighter images than the TZ7's tiny lens and sensor. But which lens should I buy?
I formally searched and then watched every, single, 4/3 telephoto lens review, use and abuse on YouTube. Plus I read all the forums, websites and blogs which reviewed and discussed these long lenses. Decisions-decisions! I couldn't make my mind up! There were so few options, in reality and I didn't want to make a mistake and have to buy a second lens.
What I did discover was that there was either a wide range of quality control in optical production. Or, that some photographers were simply far better at taking fantastic pictures than most others. Which rather muddied the waters for me. Because some photographers produced wonderfully sharp images. With exactly the same lens as those who voiced criticism of them as not being sharp enough.
I knew I wanted a telephoto zoom. No prime lens could do all I needed on my morning walks in the Danish countryside. It needed to provide wide views and to reach the other side of a lake or pond. It had to reach a soaring bird of prey and manage a bit of [modest magnification] macro in the verges.
The Leica 100-400 was too much of a handful for informal nature walks. I couldn't get far enough away and didn't want to carry the considerable burden. It was more of a wildlife lens for the stationary photographer. The 200mm Leica prime was fixed focal length and very expensive. Olympus lens options were well liked but foolishly absent minded in not providing for dual IS. Being denied in body IBIS and lens IS combined was incredibly limiting at these very long focal lengths.
Which reduced my potential shopping list to the Lumix 100-300 or the Leica 50-200. The Lumix had more reach but was slower and generally considered rather soft at 300mm. Though not by all users. The Leica was twice the price but I'd only need to buy it once. It was considered very sharp by most reviewers and pro photographers. I took a deep breath and placed an order for what I hoped was the safe option.
It certainly was on sharpness. I could crop heavily and still have a usable image for my blog or for posting on a forum. I was taking lots and lots of images. Capturing things well beyond the TZ7 could ever dream of. Its only obvious drawback was a lack of reach on small or distant subjects. Notwithstanding cropping for increased impact.
I took the 50-200 on my morning walks and practised endlessly. Downloading hundreds of images per hour's wandering in the local countryside. I was seeing things in a completely different light after ten years of using the TZ7. It was mind expanding without any of the the usual pharmacological risks. Only the local pond was a little disappointing when all the birds retreated to the far side.
So I spoilt myself rotten and cycled to a village with a pond full of semi-tame ducks. I sat there on the bench taking pictures of ducks and coots. Many of which almost literally wandered past my feet. It was good practice in capturing sympathetic poses. Catching their heads at the right angle. All the focus on their eyes and their shining personalities. It was a very valuable exercise. Though there were times when the birds were out of photographic reach. The far side of the quite modestly sized pond lacked the immediacy of the countless close-ups I was framing and timing so carefully nearby.
Which meant that I needed 200mm minimum in 4/3 lenses for 400mm effective at 35mm. That gave me a nice excess of reach to bring distant subjects nearer than the TZ7. Moreover, it promised to give me much sharper and brighter images than the TZ7's tiny lens and sensor. But which lens should I buy?
I formally searched and then watched every, single, 4/3 telephoto lens review, use and abuse on YouTube. Plus I read all the forums, websites and blogs which reviewed and discussed these long lenses. Decisions-decisions! I couldn't make my mind up! There were so few options, in reality and I didn't want to make a mistake and have to buy a second lens.
What I did discover was that there was either a wide range of quality control in optical production. Or, that some photographers were simply far better at taking fantastic pictures than most others. Which rather muddied the waters for me. Because some photographers produced wonderfully sharp images. With exactly the same lens as those who voiced criticism of them as not being sharp enough.
I knew I wanted a telephoto zoom. No prime lens could do all I needed on my morning walks in the Danish countryside. It needed to provide wide views and to reach the other side of a lake or pond. It had to reach a soaring bird of prey and manage a bit of [modest magnification] macro in the verges.
The Leica 100-400 was too much of a handful for informal nature walks. I couldn't get far enough away and didn't want to carry the considerable burden. It was more of a wildlife lens for the stationary photographer. The 200mm Leica prime was fixed focal length and very expensive. Olympus lens options were well liked but foolishly absent minded in not providing for dual IS. Being denied in body IBIS and lens IS combined was incredibly limiting at these very long focal lengths.
Which reduced my potential shopping list to the Lumix 100-300 or the Leica 50-200. The Lumix had more reach but was slower and generally considered rather soft at 300mm. Though not by all users. The Leica was twice the price but I'd only need to buy it once. It was considered very sharp by most reviewers and pro photographers. I took a deep breath and placed an order for what I hoped was the safe option.It certainly was on sharpness. I could crop heavily and still have a usable image for my blog or for posting on a forum. I was taking lots and lots of images. Capturing things well beyond the TZ7 could ever dream of. Its only obvious drawback was a lack of reach on small or distant subjects. Notwithstanding cropping for increased impact.
I took the 50-200 on my morning walks and practised endlessly. Downloading hundreds of images per hour's wandering in the local countryside. I was seeing things in a completely different light after ten years of using the TZ7. It was mind expanding without any of the the usual pharmacological risks. Only the local pond was a little disappointing when all the birds retreated to the far side.
So I spoilt myself rotten and cycled to a village with a pond full of semi-tame ducks. I sat there on the bench taking pictures of ducks and coots. Many of which almost literally wandered past my feet. It was good practice in capturing sympathetic poses. Catching their heads at the right angle. All the focus on their eyes and their shining personalities. It was a very valuable exercise. Though there were times when the birds were out of photographic reach. The far side of the quite modestly sized pond lacked the immediacy of the countless close-ups I was framing and timing so carefully nearby.
~~
