There is the 500mm for the 4/3 mount though I can't remember the f-stop, that thing is looooooooooooooooooooooooooooongggggggggggggggggggg.
Though the 300mm is already a beast to me considering the size of it and weight. Plus the price tag which is equivalent to a small car. God knows how my cousin bought that lens but he did.
It's a nice lens, no doubt. Reviewed it for a photo site a year ago or so. But I've never really felt more important than the time I was used as a mule to carry two Canon 400/2.8Ls (called a 'bucket' here in Norway), a Canon 300/2.8L, a Nikkor AF-S 300/2.8 and two Canon 200/1.8Ls. That was kind of heavy as well.. I found using the Zuiko 300 without a monopod was heavy, but quite possible. A bucket on the other hand..
Here's another older shot from the same event as before. I love my 50mm but the 2x crop factor can be a pain when it doesn't leave me enough room to move around in/crops too close to subject.
Yeah, well, that's why I for one went for the PanLeica Summilux 25/1.4 ASPH. It's by far my favorite lens for documentary, and the image quality is quite simply superb. It's not in the same league as the 50/2.0 (very few lenses are), but it's not trying to. It's a lens that renders colors, tonality, contrast and light beautifully, even better than the 50/2.0 in my mind, but it's not as sharp. It's more like an old fashioned lens in that respect, it gives me some of the same tonality I fell in love with when I used the 50/1.2L on a 5D for a couple of days in France. Photography, to me, is about more than technical quality. Take the Nikon D3, D700 and D3s. I love what Nikon has done with the tech in those cameras, they are amazing pieces of technological achievement.
But alas, I can't really use them. They don't give me the colors or the tones I want. I get them in spades from my E-3 (and even the E-5 did it), and a Canon 5D1/2 comes close enough. But I've never used a Nikon which gave me colors I could live with. They just didn't feel right, and therefore didn't fit the bill for me.
That's why I love the 25/1.4 for some applications, it's not strictly speaking perfect. That's why it's perfect.
Very nice texture, framing and lighting. I wish the newspapers around here gave enough of a crap to do quality work like that.
Thank you epp. To be quite honest, my paper usually don't spend time to get anything close to that. I'm a hack, and I write as well as photograph. But what I am, when we come down to it, is a bloody photojournalist. I capture moments and faces in frames of photography, it's been my job for a while. So I do it, and so far, I'm the only guy working that sort of photography in my area. There are guys that come close (some of which I've taught to some extent), but the best of those guys don't really have the time to do it anyway. To busy driving ambulances..
It's a pity more and more papers have the brilliant idea that a journalist should be able to do two professional tasks. In truth, most journalists will regard a photographer as a type of unskilled labourer who just press a button, a man with technical ability but no intellectual ability above that you'd find with most young boys. But it's okay, cause we see the journalists as pretensious nerds. But let's face it, photography is as much a profession as good writing. I've done both, so I know what I'm talking about on this subject. Throw in a third professional task to do on location (videography), and you're sure of mediocraty.
All of the super expensive Zuiko telephoto lenses have that;
ZD 35-100/2,
ZD 90-250/2,8,
ZD 150/2, and the
ZD 300/2,8. Today's top tip: Don't try them, they can created cravings. Got close to burning about $2000 on a 35-100 f2...
That's not burning money. Buying a bottle of Laphroaig 10yo is burning away money. Buying a bottle of Glenmorangie, Highland Park 12 or Caol Ila 12, on the other hand, is a sound investment.
The
MV Boudicca, former Royal Viking Sky, departing Oslo
https://pic.armedcats.net/e/ei/eirik/2011/10/01/PA011626.jpg
Struggled a lot with the contrast here... In these conditions there is precious little difference in contrast between the ship and the foggy background. Was supposed to be nice and sunny, but the october sun couldn't burn away the fog...
Ended up quite nice. Fog is difficult, but a nice trick is to work with color range selections in Photoshop, it'll do wonders with skies. It's perfectly moral, you're just extracting what's in the file already.
