Why no olmpuses?

[Village Idiot]

Like I said- I think that some people don't buy Olympus because of its lenses. They are top quality no doubt and probabaly some of the best lenses out there are Olympus, but they are definately more expensive than other companys which you could get a good lens for $150. Olympus you would have to pay at least $300+. The Evolt E-410 camera body sells for around $330, some places are ridicolous and go with $600 for it, I found a good deal for $329.99.

I thought you were going to talk about real lenses. Those $150 lenses for the other manufactures are normally crap.

Now something like the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS sells for about $1600-$1700 new. Olympus's 35-100 f/2.0 sells for about $2100-$2200. It's essentially the same focal range and has a slightly wider aperture, mainly because of the sensor, but even Canon's lens with IS built in is still cheaper. If you compare it to the non IS version at about $1000, then that's a big price difference. And I believe their 7-14 is over $1000. It's one of the only wide angles for the system.

Their first party glass is expensive.

 

[Bifurcator]

I thought you were going to talk about real lenses. Those $150 lenses for the other manufactures are normally crap.

Their first party glass is expensive.

I agree with the 1st sentence. But when I look in my 1400+ page catalog with reviews, bench-tests, and prices for every SLR lens still in production in 2008 the 33 Olympus lenses available aren't mush more than the equivalently rated lenses from among the 133 Canon lenses, the 117 Nikon lenses, the 76 Pentax lenses, or the 77 Sony lenses. There's just not allot of overlap and trash lenses like there is for Nikon/Canon.


I would use the "you get what you pay for" statement but that's actually untrue and rarely if ever honestly applies. It's usually what people who don't do their homework say.

 

[Steph]

Now something like the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS sells for about $1600-$1700 new. Olympus's 35-100 f/2.0 sells for about $2100-$2200. It's essentially the same focal range and has a slightly wider aperture

Slightly wider aperture?? That's a full stop difference between the Olympus and the Canon (the same way it is a full stop between the 70-200 f2.8 anf f4.0 from Canon). I would be curious to see how much a 70-200 f2.0 from Canon or Nikon would cost.

 

[Village Idiot]

Slightly wider aperture?? That's a full stop difference between the Olympus and the Canon (the same way it is a full stop between the 70-200 f2.8 anf f4.0 from Canon). I would be curious to see how much a 70-200 f2.0 from Canon or Nikon would cost.

Probably significantly more. But then again, they're designed for a bigger sensor and it would take a lot more glass.

The DoF on The 35-100 @ 35mm (effectively 70mm) with an aperture of f/2.8 is 2.11'

The DoF on the 70-200 on a 5D a 70mm with an aperture of f/2.8 is 1.03'

Even with the Olympus shooting at f/2, it's DOF is still 1.48'. It needs the wider aperture to get anything close to the larger sensor cameras because of it's 4/3 sensor. Canon doesn't need to make their telephoto lenses any faster.

The rebels or xxD's shooting with the 70-200 @ f/2.8 has an even shallower DoF at .65'

 

[reg]

This thread is now officially about pants. Go!