These are the pictures of the next two Olympus PRO zooms. The M.Zuiko Digital ED 7-14 f/2.8 and the M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm f/4.0. Both are weather sealed. Price has not be unveiled yet.
Small disappointment: The lenses will not arrive until 2015.
via Facebook and SystemKameraForum.
320 Responses
Love to have a fast 300mm, but my goodness, that thing is the size of a small car!
Stop whining. It’s a 600mm FOV lens. Real photographers who shoot with big glass would consider this tiny. It’s a 600mm FOV lens! This lens will most likely be razor sharp at f/4 and with the upcoming 40-150mm 2.8 and 5-axis IBIS, I can see many long distance shooters seriously consider this setup. M43 is starting to get interesting!
Well if you’re going to throw equivalent 35mm FF values around when it comes to zoom range, then why not mentioning equivalent f-stop being f/8?
Now, all of the sudden that new 300mm m4/3 lens doesn’t sound that crash hot, does it?
… because it is not equivalent to f8.
Actually, I’d say it is a lot better than a FF f4 zoom, because you get more DOF to nail your focus more often while still getting the same light gathering abilities to keep ISO low.
And now don’t tell me that you need more possibilities for creative control via thin DOF at this zooom level!
Yes, it is equivalent to f/8…do the math yourself.
And f-stop isn’t all about DOF, for these telephoto zooms is much more about autofocus ability then thin/deep DOF.
These are 101 lens basics…
DoF only is f8 equivalent, Light gathering capability is f4.
It is an F8 equivalent lens on FF, equivalent means same AOV, same DOF and same total light. No matter how much you try you cannot change physics,a 300mm F4 on FF with a 2 x TC would give the exact same AOV , DOF and total light on FF as a 300mm F4 on mFT.If you are really trying to argue that F2.8 is F2.8 then the Panasonic FZ200 with its 600mm [ equiv AOV} is surely the best camera in the world 🙂
Don’t worry about the final image stuff like, DOF, AOV, resolution, DR, noise nothing matters . Its funny why the only people who seem to struggle with this incredibly simple fact, especially the Olympus users. I love my E-M1 and GX7 with a lovely selection of mFT glass but facts are facts
The light gathering ability is the same. f/4 gives the same exposure on FF and m4/3.
F-stops are a ratio. The FF lens may gather more light, but it also has to spread it over a larger area.
If you take a FF 300mm f/4 lens and put it on an m4/3 camera, you get the same effect as this lens.
But the same exposure (as in photons per area) doesn’t give the same amount of noise per image. So, what the exposure (light density at the sensor) is has almost zero direct influence on image quality and noise.
This always boils down to some people believing that light density (light per area) is what drives noise and image quality. That a FF sensor operated at ISO 1600 has be worse than a m43 sensor operated at ISO 400. All the while the math is very, very simple. Everybody agrees that more light is always better. Now, for a given AOV and scene illumination, how much light enters your lens and thus your camera is given only by the entrance pupil of your lens (which for tele lenses is close to the front lens diameter). F-stop, sensor size, ISO, all don’t matter, your image quality will always be dictated by how much light actually reaches you sensor, aka, how much enters your lens. And a 600 mm f/8 lens has the same entrance pupil as a 500 mm f/6.7 or a 400 mm f/5.3 or a 300 mm f/4 or a 200 mm f/2.7 or a 105 mm f/1.4.
At this focal length, the ability to shoot at faster speed and the added DOF will no doubt play in favor of the MFT lens, whatever the equivalency is to FF.
+1000!!!
Bingo.
Yeah, keep believing that 1/500 s at f/4 at ISO 400 on m43 is better than 1/500 s at f/8 at ISO 1600 on FF. I have yet to see a FF lens that cannot be stopped down to get the same DOF that people would realistically would choose on m43.
m43 only has a bigger DOF if you believe ISO X on m43 is better than ISO 4X on FF.
“m43 only has a bigger DOF if you believe ISO X on m43 is better than ISO 4X on FF.”
No, it has a bigger DOF when using the exact same exposure at the exact same FOV. That doesn’t anywhere say it has more or less noise or any such thing, as there are other factors also playing a role in that.
When using an ‘equivalent’ relative aperture and sensitivity, you get the same DOF, regardless of format, that is exactly what equivalent means here.
Now, noise depends on many things, among which the number of photons/time that reach the sensor, which is a function of the active area of the sensor. But other factors also exist, such as the quantum efficiency of the sensor and heat. Besides, for many uses, both will simply produce low enough noise levels that this is purely academic for the large majority of people. Maybe not to you, more power and choice to you, but please stop believing that is true for most people.
If sound of the word ‘f/4’ makes you feel warm and fuzzy, good for you. On its own, the f-stop has zero meaning (well unless you approach f/1 because then lens designs get difficult). And in the same way, on its own, exposure has zero meaning. Exposure is energy density per area but there is nothing that is a direct function of that.
It’s like saying, for the 100 gold coins I have here I worked only half as long as you others, but the others also can twice as much for their gold coins. You had to work less, because your coins only have half the weight as the gold coins of the others. But if knowing you have 1 0 0 gold coins makes you happy, good for you. Equivalent f-stops work exactly like, eg, equivalent gold coins. We could say your 100 gold coins are equivalent to 50 Kruger Rand gold coins.
But you obviously know that having 100 gold coins isn’t really worth much if you don’t know the size of them. What you, likely subsconsciously, assume is that sprinkling 1000 photons over a 4 square inch sensor must give a worse signal than sprinkling the over a 1 inch square sensor, because surely , noise must be a function of the photon per area density, and not only of the total number of photons. It seems ingrained in a lot of people that noise comes from the sensor trying to count the photons, whereas for a very wide range what matters is the total number of photons because the noise doesn’t come from the bucket trying to measure rainfall, the noise is in the random distribution in time and space of the raindrops.
I get so tired of this stupid argument that gets retread over and over again as if total light matters in any way shape or form. Yes, it casts (something like) half the total amount of light, but the total amount of light cast by a lens DOESN’T MATTER AT ALL, IT’S COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS. Oh, look, I’ve got this amazing lens that casts true f/2.8 over a FF area! But who cares if the sensor is smaller?
Here’s something for you to ponder: total light isn’t what you’re trying to measure with F-stops (or T-Stops). You’re measuring the amount of light PER PHOTOSITE. That’s what matters, and if you think otherwise, you’re just daft. Period. End of story. Because it’s so that you can accurately measure…wait for it…EXPOSURE. And exposure doesn’t care if you cast more light off the side of the sensor. Do your lenses all of a sudden require a different exposure setting when you put them from your FF to an APS-C camera? (Pro-tip: They don’t, I know because I use the lenses from my D3s on my D7100 all the time! Amazing how that works!!)
Notice that the transmission (T-stop is a far more effective measurement) of a FF Nikon 50mm f/1.8G is 1.9 T-Stop according to DXO, and the Oly 45mm f/1.8? 2 T-Stop. Transmission per photosite is what actually matters. Go home and stop trolling.
They can’t stop. They will never stop. Some of it is trolling, but there seems to be a contingent of people who are simply immune to logic on this issue. More than that, they won’t ever ever shut the F### up about it.
Exactly. Total light – the latest sensation. But totally meaningless.
So, the noise (eg, as measured in standard deviation of the brightness value of a screen pixel on your monitor in spatial dimension) is not a a direct function of the number of photons reaching during the exposure the area of sensor which provided the input signal for that one pixel on your screen? So, what if not the variation of the photon signal reaching the sensor area whose output gets mapped to pixel on your monitor is causing noise to appear?
Really, what physical phenomenon is causing the noise you see in images? And thus which physical parameter needs to be changed to change the amount of noise?
“If you are really trying to argue that F2.8 is F2.8 then the Panasonic FZ200 with its 600mm [ equiv AOV} is surely the best camera in the world :-)”
In other words, you do not know what f-stop is based on.
Diameter of the entrance pupil as seen through the lens front divided by the focal length of the lens.
That simply means that yes, f/2.8 is f/2.8 is f/2.8, and always means the same thing: aperture/focal length = approx 2.8
It doesn’t say anything else, and things like the amount of light used for making a picture depends on how much light the sensor actually uses, which is a function of brightness, area and efficiency of the sensor.
The issue isn’t people who say f/2.8 is f/2.8 not understanding things, but people who think f-stop is a direct measure of DOF and amount of light used, and think that somehow the quantities for those from 135 format ‘full frame’ is the only one where you get the ‘real’ f/2.8, those are the people not understanding basic physics and the meaning of that physics.
It’s equivalent to FF f/8 in terms of Depth of Field.
It’s equivalent to FF f/4 in terms of light-gathering capabilities.
And as the previous poster said, this equivalency actually improves Aufofocus capability in theory, because it has both the same “brightness” as a fullframe f/4 lens, while having the larger depth of field of an f/8 lens (i.e. more to lock AF on).
Yes, that’s right. Telephoto and macro are areas where you really can’t get enough DoF. You also want lots of depth of field wile doing landscapes, making both of these lenses very well-suited for the system.
FF really only has an advantage at moderate focal lengths (portraits/group shots) where you actually want shallower DoF.
Exactly. But “Full frame” users (let’s call them fanboys) will never learn, it’s a waste of time..
The fanboys are the users here who cannot grasp the most basic of facts.As a long term mFT user and dare I say it a bit of a fanboy about it :-).I actually find it embarrassing that a point that has been explained literally thousands of times does not seem to sink in to many mFT users brains.
There are 3 components that make a lens “equivalent” to one on another format it couldn’t be simpler
1: Same effective AOV
2: Same DOF
3: Total light { this is the most critical factor}
A 300mm F4 on mFT will give you the exact same AOV,DOF and critically same total light as a 600mm F8 on FF.
It seems like you’re incapable of grasping the basics about physics. There is no “equivalent light” because the sensors are two different sizes, you dolt.
Total light is meaningless. Light over the sensor area is what matters.
An FF sensor needs 4x more light than an m4/3 sensor.
“A 300mm F4 on mFT will give you the exact same AOV,DOF and critically same total light as a 600mm F8 on FF.”
Only if you assume that both sensors have same amount of pixels. When ~60Mpix FF sensors hit the market, and you use 300mm FF-lens, you can crop that 600mm AOV and still retain 16Mpix in the same area as the current 4/3-sensors. Basically you will have 300-600 zoom (60Mpix at the 300mm and 16Mpix at the 600mm). How cool is that for FF-users?
Always some one! The light gathering does is equivalent to F4!! Don’t you find it strange that 5 people are correcting you and you still think you got the facts straight? Maybe stop for a sec and check Google.
That’s right. It is not light gathering ability of m43 value F4 is EQUIVALENT to 35mm value F4, F4 really IS F4. The other comparisons to 35mm are just equivalent matters that you can enjoy to keep on nagging about.
Ever used an old 35mm lens with an adapter on your m43 camera? Or even a medium format or large format lens? Did you notice the shutter speeds on your m43 camera were suddenly surprisingly fast? Even without using a speedbooster? No? Correct.
Well, iPhone has a f2.8 lens. And a small sensor. Please tell me its “real” light gathering, if you’re so sure about what you wrote. 😉
To be accurate, ISO would need to be changed too, to equal exposure, for equivalence (300mm/f4 at ISO400 gives equivalence
when compared to a FF 600mm f/8 at ISO 1600). There are many sources and scientific paper dealing with that issue.
So people are scrambling trying to figure out why this is false, because clearly it is. The reason is simple: same AOV, same f-number, same light *per unit area of the sensor*. The same f-number on a wider lens equates to a smaller aperture but more light concentrated down to the same area. Crop that, and it doesn’t change how sensitive the sensor has to be, just how much sensor is there.
So the lens isn’t brighter or darker, but it does make designing that sensor a bit more of a challenge, although not an impossible one. You can go the route of lower resolution and have pixels the same size as a FF sensor. Or you can pack more pixels in and have them smaller. Or you can improve the technology and take advantage of the smaller size of reduce the area devoted to routing.
In either case, it’s fallacious to equate it to f/8. It is an f/4 lens.
“The fanboys are the users here who cannot grasp the most basic of facts.”
I guess that makes anyone posting that a μ43 f4.0 lens is equivalent to a 35mm f8.0 lens with regards to anything but DoF a fanboy.
And a 4/3 sensor requires half the light to acheive the same level of brightness. So exposure is the same for aperture. If what you claim were true, then a 50mm f2 lens for FF would rpoduce a faster shutter speed that my 4/3 50mm f2 lens does on my E-30. The thing is that when both lenses are at f2 and the same ISO, I get the same shutter speed. Look at it another way, does a 200sqf room need the same amount of light as a 400sqf room to be as bright? No, it doesn’t. Aperture for exposure remains constant accross formats because of this.
I am familiar with the issue of total light and the mathematics behind the argument. FF will be better in low light situations. I argue that it does not matter for most photographers. You just have to shoot with adequate light for the sensor. The current 300mm Oly zoom can take good pictures — this one will be a major step up and a fraction of the weight and cost of the hero FF glass.
Just wait until the pixel size with FF sensors catch up to a point where the APS-S and smaller sensors are. After that say good buy to so called crop factor-benefit. At that point no body want’s to use smaller sensors any more, because the FF-sensor have all those smaller sensors “included” after the post-production cropping.
That is like saying no one will be using the cellphone cameras because you can crop it on a FF. The top selling point of m43 is not the # of clean MB. Have you ever held a 600mm ff lens?
-You’re not just carrying around the sensor.
-Too much is not enough, right, Bruno?
I think they will always be a good buy too!
I’m not waiting for anything 😉 Things are now. And now, as light gathering, f2.8 is f2.8. Check shutter speed when comparing, if you don’t believe me. Or google it. Spreading misinformations is a bad thing. For readers and for you.
Yes, Marco, you are right, let the “full frame” fanboys waiting. I’m afraid they don’t understand one simple thing – an exposure. They can operate only with DOF equivalency which has nothing to do with the exposure. In terms of light gathering, the m4/3 format is doing just fine, most of the lenses are f1.8 not to mention the f0.95 trinity ;).
I’m a fanboy of taking pictures 😉
I use a 5D and EP3.
I understand WHY people would say there’s a loss of light with the smaller sensor, but that’s literally like saying you lose light gathering capability when you crop a picture.
It’s the same exposure, MFT just doesn’t handle as high an ISO as cleanly as current FullFrame yet (does it NEED to???).
300 F4 would be great for the system! But the cheapo in me is still looking at F-mount manuals….
“but that’s literally like saying you lose light gathering capability when you crop a picture.”
I’ll print that quote and pin it to a wall
I can assure you, it is the ones who only use one system who are the fanboys, not the ones who use several systems in parallel. If you use several systems in parallel, you don’t have any incentive to paint one as better than the other one, only if you use just one system will you be tempted to do so.
Please show me one user that is shooting both m43 and FF that says total light doesn’t matter. You won’t find one.
I am shooting both m43 and FF and I know what to expect when shooting with either.
“Please show me one user that is shooting both m43 and FF that says total light doesn’t matter. You won’t find one.”
‘Total light’ as related to lenses and as used by many people in this kind of discussion DOES NOT matter, and I say that as someone who learned photography on 120 format, has been using 135 format for the last 4 decades, and since more recent times also smaller formats with various crop factors.
If you really insist on talking about total light then make sure you are talking about total light being used for making a picture, which isn’t the same thing as total light delivered by a lens.
First of all all that ‘total light’ delivered by a lens that doesn’t hit the image sensor doesn’t contribute in a positive way to your image, rather the opposite actually, and hence total light delivered by the lens is simply totally irrelevant, but what it delivers directly to the sensor matters a lot
Second, it then matters how much of the light that hits the sensor actually hits the light sensitive parts of the sensor (aka fill ratio)
Third it then still depends on the quantum efficiency of that sensor (ie, how many of the received photons are actually used)
And when looking at the ‘all determining’ result, noise, there are other factors as well, such as heat.
“I am shooting both m43 and FF and I know what to expect when shooting with either.”
Good, but you either are posting such a simplification of the why that it becomes nonsensical, or you don’t understand why you get what you do.
Here we go. This user who even rents the 35mmFF gear for some stuff, saying total light DOESN’T matter ONE BIT.
The sensor of m43 doesn’t need the extra light.
What matters is, that it will be possible for me, to get my result much easier than with a 35mmFF for those times that needing F4 or even F2.8 gives a risk of having important bits of your subject oof due to too shallow DOF.
I keep being surprised to what length people go to deceive themselves, to lull themselves in the sweet sound they hear when saying ‘f/4’. Maybe it is because their gut feeling, their intuition gives them an incorrect answer, which is translated as to ‘There is something wrong with the correct answer, I don’t what, but it feels wrong and thus it must be wrong’. They waffle about the light a lens projects vs what a sensor collects, even though it is crystal clear that in a generic comparison of a m43 lens with a FF lens, we assume both lenses are sampled to their maximum rectangular extent which is a m43-sized sensor behind the m43 lens because there is no other camera with a larger sensor that lens could be mounted to and ditto for the FF lens. And even if you could mount both in front of a MF back and the ratio between the native sensor diagonal and the image circle where different for the two lenses, that is such an unlikely use case that they know full well that is not what they assumed when the discussion started but with an apparently dishonesty to try to imply so by talking about that everything really depends, hoping they manage to muddy the waters enough that people believe reality is too complex to be actually understood. Ditto for the QE, if they had believe that the QE for smaller sensors is higher than for larger sensors, they could have said so from start. But its the same tactic, throwing some words around (without actually using them for any concrete statement) to create the impression that everything is so much more complex in reality, that things cannot be really understood, or at least not predicted.
But of course, the best comes last: talking about 120 and 135 film which makes it absolutely clear what was the sole semi-rational explanation for their behaviour. With film the noise aka the grain size was given by the film, and less by the amount of light hitting it. Film behaved like a sensor a huge read noise component, that noise was visible even in brightest skys for a given film. Of course, if read noise is high, light density reaching the sensing plane mattered, it had to be sufficiently higher than the read noise. But guys, that was ten years, before you got your first digital cameras. And digital cameras have come a long way since then as well. We are down to about 2 electron read noise with the best sensors. And one electron corresponds to one photon. We are not that far away from counting photons, once you can do that that it is obvious largely only the noise of the photons matters.
It’s hard to say what is more deplorable, your inability to realise on what misconceptions your gut feeling, your intuition is based on, or your fervour in wanting to ensure that things stay muddled, at the very least in your own minds.
Hey, I am excited about getting a compact, high-quality 600 mm equiv. lens (funny that when there is something to gain, people quickly jump on board with equivalency, but when there is something to loose they don’t want it to be true). m43 was always partly about the promise of compact high quality reach which the consumer zooms simply don’t .
Most of us wildlife photographers don’t want more DOF, we want less so that we can isolate backgrounds.
Thom, it is good to know that “most” wildlife photographer want subject isolating D0F. However the real question is, for small animals such as birds, would 600mm and f8 be enough to isolate the subject? I think so, depending on your subject distance.
As the animal gets larger is may be more difficult, but isolating an elephant is about how high on the list of wildlife photographers goals? Or are you suggesting wildlife photographer would jump at a F lens 400mm f2? Because of course they want shallow”er” DoF, or as usual do the FF arguments always center around the perfect ba;ance being struck at the 35mm level 🙂
Some subject isolation losely around the FL and aperture we are talking about:
http://500px.com/photo/60758746?from=popular
http://500px.com/photo/60803096?from=popular
http://500px.com/photo/60754362?from=popular
http://500px.com/photo/60802768?from=popular
http://500px.com/photo/60439068?from=popular
http://500px.com/photo/60455814?from=popular
I doubt the differences betwen any of these would be made by a bit more or less isolation over photographers timing, placement vision and post processing.
Sure, but you can get the same DOF as 300 mm f/4 on m43 produces with 600 mm f/8 on FF (or 400 mm f/5.3 on APS-C). Unless you have a mirror lens, you can always stop down to get more DOF, you don’t need to move to a smaller sensor size. So, 300 mm f/4 on m43 might be completely sufficient for a lot of uses but it offers zero advantages over, eg, 400 mm f/5.3 on APS-C.
EVeryone who says this seems to live in a a vacuum, or just enjoy theoretical conversation.
Bumping up 2 stops of ISO gain due to a weaker signal across the image sensor does not lead to equivalent performance. Compare all the recent Canon FF bodies, the Sony A99 to the m43rds bodies at 2 stops higher ISO on DXO, and look at the Colour, DR and Noise… While Nikon is actually quite close, even the stunning D4 still sits behind when it is forced to shoot at 2 stops higher ISO.
ISO is not a fix-all for slow lenses. There is a cost.
Now, all that aside, you CANT buy a 600mm f8 lens, only a 600mm f4, you can buy a 500mm f4, and you can buy a 400mm f5.6 which you would have to crop a bunch of pixels… None of these REAL comparisons works well at all. Sony has a 500mm lens… used on the a99 and cropped… I dont feel the quality will really be there…
Of course you could use a D7100 and 300mm lens in 1.3 crop mode… I would be interested to see if that really does work as well as claimed by so many.
And everyone who uses individual examples to declare the underlying physics to have no significant bearing on the results without having an explanation for that runs the risk of limiting the validity of his or her finding to those individual examples. And since we talk about a lens here that can and will be used on multiple cameras, quite likely for many years into the future, what matters is the expected performance over a wide range of cameras.
Whenever you see a result you cannot explain, there is a factor you are overlooking. And you thus have no idea how that factor will affect you personally (unless those results are tested under exactly the conditions that matter to you) or how it will develop over time. If you don’t understand how something works, you cannot extrapolate. Sure, you can extrapolate from experimental data but if you have theory to tell you what to expect, such extrapolation can fail quite significantly.
But let’s start with DxO. NR of an 18% grey, which for these cameras is what is reflected in the DxO low light score (at least the four I checked this for 1DX, D4, D3s, E-M5) and thus is a proxy for quantum efficiency (I did not put in the A99 as it needs a correction for the light-robbing mirror, you apparently not taking that into account is already a warning sign as whether you lack knowledge, rigour or unbiasedness:
FF: 1DX +2786, 5DIII +2293, D6 +2340, D4 +2965, D3 +3253, D610 +2925, D800 +2853, D800E +2979, Df +3279, average +2853
m43: E-PM2 +932, E-M5 +826, E-M1 +757, E-P5 +895, E-PL5 +889 GH3 +812, GX7 +718, G5 +618, GM1 +660, average +790
That is best against best: 1.81 stops, worst against worst: 1.89 stops, average against average: 1.85 stops (worst against best gives 1.30 and 2.41) So yes, it is not quite two stops but given the variation within each group, I think it is safe to say that the theoretical value of 2 cannot really be disproven with this.
Now, you can look at other measures like dynamic range at high ISO which is for two cameras with the same QE a proxy for read noise at high ISO. I have not looked at all cameras but comparing one of the worst against one of the best (and vice versa), I get 1.0 stops and 2.8 stops. Which is an even wider range than for QE (but that is expected).
All of this shows that picking a few cameras can lead to widely different results depending on which you pick. And even if you take the average of several cameras, it will still depend a lot on which cameras you pick.
BTW, bobn put up a comparison at dpreview of their test images from about a dozen cameras, m43 and FF, rescaled them such one is viewing the same sized content, with the FF taken at, I think, 25600 and the m43 at 6400 and asked people to identify cameras or least separate them into m43 and FF cameras. Almost nobody even got close, what you could pick out were a few low QE/high read noise cameras but apart from that they had to be seen as equivalent. To know whether that is statistically meaningful, you’d need to first establish the error margin of people ‘measuring’ noise visually and do comparisons with differently spaced ISO pairs.
But then there other factors, depending on whether your final image is 4:3 or 3:2, you will get a crop factor of 1.77 or 2.11 (instead of 2.00 when making the diagonal the point of comparison).
All this proves (and I stopped going to DPR because of this pedantic nonsense) is that the two stop “measure” does have a cost, how much of a cost is dependent on the particular body/lens combo.
Now if you want to buy a 5Dm111 plus 600mm f4 (sto pdown to f8) lens and resize to get the same performance as an E-M10 plus 300mm f4 be my guest. If you want to choose a D800 and a 400mm f4 and crop be my guest… If you want to use a D4 and get slightly lower noise, DR and Colour fidelity with a 600mm f4 stopped down to f8, be my guest.
But saying there is NO cost to cropping, stopping down or buying a slower lens is wrong, and currently this is absolutely the case.
Just to quickly finish and make my original point. There is NO ADVANTAGE to a larger sensored camera using the equivalence argument. Unless you are willing to exchange DoF for IQ larger sensored cameras have very little to offer.
Do you see my point now?
My point was that the notion in the post Thom replied to was a rather ridiculous one the a slower lens is better than a faster one because it gives your more DOF (oh yes, if we take the broadest data we have, you get 0.15 stops more DOF with m43 for the same SNR, which is miles away from that original notion).
And I misattributed that notion to you, while your argument was more that a FF lens+camera would not be better if you want that ‘deeper’/’less shallow’ DOF, and that one might want that more DOF. ‘Not better’ is quite a different argument than ‘obviously worse’. Sorry for that, you were by far the most reasonable person I replied in this comment thread, but my ‘excitement’ over the others coloured my reading of your post.
When Thom mentioned isolating the animal from the background, the image in here was one the ones by Thom I remembered. http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-400mm-f28-lens-review.htm. Out the images you linked to, I liked the elephants, the bear and swarm of birds the most (all quite different from a straight-up close-up portrait of an animal ). The elephants and the bear profited from lens veiling (or just mist and dust) to make the background more monotone and less distracting. Though in the birds image, the background is blurred fully sufficient by f/5.6 @ 400 mm, though one could add that it was shot wide-open, suggesting noise and shutter speed might have been more important parameters than more DOF.
It is interesting that Thom is not asking for less DOF but for more subject isolation and you ‘are’ not asking for less background blur but rather more DOF (or a compact, cheaper system).
yes but alot of mft users are anti-shallow dof it seems.
No we are not. Shallow DOF can work very well for you.
But always wanting to see an eye in focus without the rest of the subject is not very good photography. It’s the composition that counts.
A good photographer knows when to get the results he needs, subject isolation is far from impossible at 600mm F8 equiv.
the “one eye in focus” claim is just sheep talk, at least i dont belive in this forced rule. I see shallow dof as a part of a style, and using it does not automaticaly mean that framing become a secondary issue just becaue you cant recognize the background details anymore. You can come up with any sample you find on internet as example but it proves nothing. For me, shallow dof in portrait or modelworks best with dead center composition, no extreme to the border placement as you put more accent on the blur. subject isolation is sometimes not as effective as you think, just by using 600mm aov. You almost make yourself sounding like the shallow dof fetishists who think they can neglect the background framing just because its blurry. Especialy colors/hilights in the back can have significant minus or plus effect in composition, be it with a short fast lens or a slower supertele.
Not at all, there is a very significant difference between shallow DOF and too shallow DOF however. Most of the responses you see are about the obsession with getting as shallow DOF as possible, whereas DOF is a tool, and you typically want the right amount of it for your subject but often shallow enough to be able to render the background oof.
Its generally a matter of balance, and hence the obsession with ‘this gets more shallow DOF so is better’ is what is being addressed, and not the desire for useful shallow DOF for subject isolation as such for example.
well Bart then I see it different then you. I find most people quickly coming up with general eaxamples of poor use of shallownes. And even with the introduction of the Nocticron, lots of people trashing the f/1.2 setting, saying it gives no difference with slower stops, or suggesting if really need a lens that fast, why choose mft and not go bigger instead or(this makes a bit sense)finsing it too expensive. I have never seen a forum where lots of people(I say NOT ALL)have the impression that shallowness is overused and in the case of a fast aperture, they only need it for gettin fast shutterspeed.
Yes it’s a 300/f4 with a FOV like FF 600mm and DOF like a FF f8, and that’s it. You know what FOV is?
Btw what do you mean by zoom range? This isn’t a zoomm lens.
I think by “zoom level” he meant focal length. He’s probably a beginner/amateur if he uses terms like that.
It is a 300mm f/4. Because of the cropped sensor, you need a 600mm on a FF sensor to cover the same image (approximately) — from the same distance. Wrt DOF, the FF must be stopped down to f/8 to be equivalent.
However, it *is* a 300mm f/4, so from a light gathering point of view (aperture-shutter-iso combo), it is an f/4 lens.
Of course, if you use a 300 mm f/4 on an FF at the same distance as with this new mZuiko lens, and then crop the FF image to get the same scene in both cases, you get the same DOF on both the FF and the m43.
“Of course, if you use a 300 mm f/4 on an FF at the same distance as with this new mZuiko lens, and then crop the FF image to get the same scene in both cases, you get the same DOF on both the FF and the m43.”
you don’t get same DOF, but same FOV
You do get the same DOF if you display the final image at the same size.
That is because DOF relates to the circle of confusion and that relates to the ratio of the original image to the final image (amount of enlargement).
A cropped FF image (to m43 size) will have the same enlargement ratio as the original m43 image
@Balthier: you are wrong. You do get the same DOF on the m43 and the FF on my listed assumptions. To make it clearer:
* use a 300mm at f/4 on the Nikon D800, and the coming mZuiko 300mm at f/4 on an E-M1.
* shoot the subject from a distance of 20m in both cases.
* crop the image from the D800 so that it covers the same image as from the E-M1.
Result? Identical DOF.
Of course, with a larger sensor you can get *closer* and then avoid cropping and still get the same image. And in *that* case you get a smaller DOF.
Point: you cannot always get closer. What if you stand on the North Rim of Grand Canyon and shoot a bird? And even if you can get closer, a small DOF is not always an advantage.
At 50m distance, DOF of a f4 300mm lens is 3.32m, for a f2.8 lens (would be extremely expensive and heavy) 2.34m.
At 30m distance it would be 84cm (f2.8) to 1,18m (f4). So the difference is not that large, especially if it would be sharp already wide open. The Canon f4 is around 4-5 kg (depends on version) in weight and costs 12000$. Well thats a big plus for m43, since I’m sure, it won’t get more expensive than 4000$.
The Canon 300mm F4 costs $1450 add on the 2xTC an you have the “EXACT” same results as shooting a 300mm F4 on mFT . Same effective AOV , same DOF and critically same total light. The Canon 2x extender costs about $440 for a total of $1900.Considering the Olympus 300mm F2.8 costs $7000 I fully expect the 300mm will be well north of $1900
And your shutter speed would be?
Yeah right…
Yes, you can boost ISO – and lose IQ.
Advantage m4/3 then.
This is what equivalence gurus miss. If you use an equivalent lens such as a 600mm f8 vs a 300mm f4 (on m43rds) and shoot ISO 3200 vs ISO 800 (on m43rds) you have worse colour fidelity and dynamic range, plus, shoot a current Canon body and you also have slightly worse noise performance.
Shoot a 300mm f4 with a 2x TC and you may well end up with an image that is slightly softer all over allowing you some leeway in noise reduction on the smaller format, plus the ISO difference.
FF’s advantage DOES NOT COME shooting equivalent settings, but when one can exchange DoF for Noise performance.
Agree, option to go to shallower DOF (smaller f-stop) thereby reducing ISO can be an advantage.
Abraham: a smaller sensor has smaller ISO abilities, all the rest being equal. So a 135 sensor will have a 4 times edge on 43 (2 stops). Yes, also a Canon sensor would have that edge – I am sorry but DXO has no field relevance whatsoever.
In fact, it all makes perfect sense.
Why do you think exacting photogs shoot large sensors? Because they are stupid?
And do you really believe the marketing hype around M43? You do know it’s dying right? Just look around.
Isaac,
you dont seem to understand what I am saying. Theoretically it makes sense, but in the real world there is a cost to bumping your ISO by 2 stops. You can see it with you own eyes at DPR or imaging resource. Take a FF file, and a m43rds file, lets say a 5Dm111 and the EM5.
Compare 800 on the EM5 to 3200 on the 5D and take a look at the 5D file. you will see there is an IQ hit… It is right in front of your eyes. DXO bears this out.
Now if you want to buy a 600mm f4 lens, or a 400mm f5.6 lens and crop the hell out of your file go for it, but I would be a little smarter. Even a D7100 with 300mm on 1.3 crop mode would probably do better than the FF described above.
I dont need to worry about hype, I actually understand the tradeoffs, you need to open your mind.
I will say it one more time. Using Equivalence a bigger system has NO advantage, and possibly a disadvantage. Larger systems enjoy their trade off when they can put MORE total light on the sensor, but this ALWAYS comes at the cost of shallower DoF (when using lens speed as the control mechanism).
With a 2x teleconverter you use 2 stops of light. Here we compare lenses, not other options, which exist, of course.
It’s not unlikely, though, that TCs will be available for m43 lenses in the future. Then again you will have advantages in weight, but of course on FF you could in principle have shallower DOF (at the expense of bulk and weight).
I mean loose 2 stops.
Yes, that magic telecoverter has the special pixie dust that prevents the loss of 2 fstops that other 2x converters must contend with.
Why is the word zoom being thrown around? This is a fixed-focal-length prime? No “zoom”.
In short easy to understand words, fstop is fstop and focal length is focal length.
Also, a little extra depth of field is not a bad thing.
Got that?
Extra DOF, compared to what? 300 mm f/4 on m43 has more DOF than 600 mm f/8 on FF? Only if you believe that ISO 400 (and f/4) on m43 is better than ISO 1600 (and f/8) on FF.
A high quality 300 mm f/4 on m43 is useful for a lot of things, the same way high quality 400 mm f/5.6 is useful on APS-C, but it is not better.
Haha. Thanks for starting my morning out with a laugh. Go troll some other bridge, troll.
Sorry ZinZan but I guess you hurt your head in one to many rucks.
I would love to see the specs – length, weight, filter size. If it is bigger than my OM Zuiko 300mm f4.5 – manual focus for 35mm OM mount…?
What I really appreciate is how these lenses are all of the same design gestalt.
Looming forward to both. But time to release the 40-150 Olympus!
I dont think so, most 300mm f4 on bigger formats are still compactish, considering the FL (I believe the OM 300mm f4 was around 13-14 cm)
correction 17-18cm
Most important of all 🙂 it had a built-in lens hood! Olympus – why did you abandon that design?
As a size comparison,
Nikon 300/4 is 90mm x 223mm (l) & 1440g
Canon 300/4 is 128mm x 233mm (l) & 1940g
Pentax 300/4 is 83mm x 184mm (l) & 1070g
Of course, these lenses have to cover a 135 sensor, and may have IS.
The mZD version will be designed for a 4/3 image circle and no IS, so while it will be large compared to the pancake kit lenses or the small primes, it should be small and light compared to the current Canikon lenses.
Tempted? Yes! Rushing out to pre-order as soon as it is announced? Definitely not at the price I anticipate! I’m happy to wait until 2016 and will continue to enjoy adapted MF lenses for by tele needs.
It’s a lot smaller than the 500 f/4.0 I’m currently using with my EM-1.
Without any reference object, how can you say that?
I’ve been wondering the same thing. A lot of people in the comments have some amazing eyeball tape measures that are able to determine scale even without reference objects and no matter what size monitor they’re using. It’s quite impressive.
You know mount size.
How much for the 300mm? Nikon and Canon 300mm primes are in $1300-$1400 range.
Title says 7-18mm f2.8 I think you mean 7-14mm. Also, I just ordered a 7-14mm f4 hours ago…
No, it’s a new lens, 7-14.
That’s what I just said. The title at the top of the page said “First pictures of the next two Olympus PRO zooms: 7-18mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4.0!”
Admin, the f2.8 is a 7-14 (not 7-18).
The OM Zuiko was F4.5 – 181mm long, 80mm wide, 1000gr :
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/300mm.htm
That 300mm is a BEEFY lens. Though, with that 600mm fov, DAMN, that’s nice. Though I have no need for that lens, I’m glad it exists.
Oh wow! Gonna start saving now…if its like the 12-40 it will be a good one.
Just hoping the built-in lenhood doesn’t mean no filters thats tough to give up.
I’m guessing the L-Fn button on the side is the same with Samsung’s iFn?
If so, great!
You can customize that button (lock focus i.e.)
If the front element won’t be changed, for sure no filters. Too bad.
Torn between delight and despair.
Really looking forward to the UWA (after the 40-150 is made available, but gutted there isn’t anything sitting between 40-300.
Now…just get to leaking/announcing a PRO fisheye,PRO macro and release the first native perspective/tilt-shift.
“but gutted there isn’t anything sitting between 40-300.”
I suppose you mean between 150 and 300.
A f/2.8 UWA? Nice!
But I can not wait, so getting the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
How is a 300mm f/4 a zoom lens? 😉
Aside from that, great news! The 300mm f/4 looks like the first serious telephoto lens for any mirrorless system so far. And now we need teleconverters, too! With the a 300mm f/4, both 1.4x and 2x would probably make sense.
The zooming can be achieved in 2 ways:
* walking closer/further away from subject, or
* sitting in a car: by driving closer/further away
I guess..
With your “logic”, we all should just have one 35mm lens and walk really far to photograph. Go away please.
Irony is not your strongest side, huh?
Moon shots…?
rent a crane or take the elevator :))))
logic enough?!!!!!!
A definite buy, both of them!
A terminology correction, please … the 300 lens is Telephoto, but not Zoom.
M.Zuiko 300-300mm F/4-F/4
No, the 300-300 zoom has a _constant_ F4!
As soon as the 300 will be available I will buy it. I have saved for years to afford to buy the 300/2.8, but I think this will cost less, and will be better on my E-M1. I hope they make teleconverters for it to.
I’m sure that 7-14mm will cause a lot of divorces in 2015!
The 300mm sounds interesting with the f/4. For supertele effect with modelphotography I wonder how to deal with the FOV though, now where did I put my megaphone again.
it would certainly bring the moon a bit closer
600mm fov for “model photography”. Pervert.
on the 1st remark, 300mm has been used alot in the past for fashion style, but the fov on mft is indeed bit problematic if you still want to be able communicating with the model.
no need to correct the 2nd remark.
You need a walkie-talkie Ulli! 🙂
Personally I would find it a bit too long, for model shooting, but it could be interesting to try it.
I hope Olympus will release a special kit where they include the walkie talkies, Marco.
Let’s not forget the close focusing figure, it could be superb for shooting your models nostrils.
Macro photography is not my thing,
Try this…
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kqiUGjghlzU&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DkqiUGjghlzU
The 300/4 is just what I was waiting for!!! Especially with the 150/2.8 being uncertain. 2015 release date is fine, as it will give me more time to save for it.
The 7-14 is cool, but looks like it won’t allow filters, so I’ll hold out for a 9 mm prime. Actually, the 9-18/4 serves me plenty well enough, I’ve found.
You can see that the convex front element won’t allow filters, as it is with the Four-Thirds version and Panasonic’s micro Four-Thirds lens. It’s rather typical of ultra wide angle zoom lenses.
The fact that it’s f/2.8 instead of f/4.0 is brilliant. It opens up opportunities to be used in real estate where the other brands have been.
Well, the famous ZD 7-14 has an important distortion too, but who cares! It’s a great lens!
Lol……14/28mm F5.6 and 600mmF8.0. Whats pro about these lenses? Only the price is pro.
Trolling Moron. Idiot.
Trying to end the ignorance here is not trolling abusive comments to any one who points out the fact that 300mm F4 on mFT is the same as 600mm F8 on FF.By same I mean same AOV,same DOF and critically same total light.As a mFT user the ignorance and downright lies posted by Olympus fanboys is frankly embarrassing.AmFT is a wonderful system and it suits me perfectly that does not mean it is the best
“… the fact that 300mm F4 on mFT is the same as 600mm F8 on FF.”
No, that is not a fact.
Stopping down an FF 600mm to F8 gives the AOV and DOF all right, but not the same exposure. What’s so difficult to grasp about that? Yes, the FF sensor captures 4x the light due to its size, but the light must also be distributed over 4x the sensor area. Hence you must compensate by increasing the ISO two full stops. And the overall IQ will suffer, as the FF IQ is not 2 stops better.
Besides, optical IQ will also lose out w/ an FF 300/4 + 2x converter.
And a 600/4? Yeah right – the size, the weight, the price… Capish?
You’re not very bright, are you?
Not as dim as you, obviously.
I you don’t understand that stopping down two full stops results in a different exposure, then I suggest you go get some sleep (and a long one at that), as you must be suffering from sensor overload. At the same AOV and DOF, you have no other way to go w/ FF than raising the ISO. And then lose out on DR, color fidelity and noise. And since FF is in fact not two full stops better than m4/3 in that regard, the resulting IQ will suffer. Now don’t sleep on it, that will make you suffer too.
@ERIK – since it wasn’t obvious to you the first time around – the comment was meant for gx7allday or whatever he calls himself. He is the one who is not very bright.
But apparently, you are not very bright either, since you do not understand the significance of indented text and how it relates to replies.
Good day to you, sir.
It must also be embarrassing to only be partly correct.
What’s pro about these lenses is that you’ll not have them.
Thanks for that well placed comment! Very fitting.
Never learn.. your existence.. what a waste.
LOL, 28-56mm f10.2, 1200mm f16 medium format, nothing pro about this at all
/sarcasm FF
Can’t see the 4/3 or m4/3 logo on any of these – so which is it? Will we need to use an adaptor or not?
If you look at them it says m.Zuiko digital, so they are m4/3 and you don’t need an adapter.
Engage brain
I never noticed the difference between M. Zuiko Digital and plain Zuiko Digital. At least Panasonic have the decency to use the official M4/3 logo on their lenses. I have a Zuiko 70-300 which requires an adaptor so, fair question in my view. Next time you call someone stupid for asking a fair question, ask yourself if you gained all your knowledge by yourself or if you’re a self-absorbed hypocrite. Asshole.
it doesn’t take a genius to establish that Olympus would not be making any new lenses for FT mount. You’re not too sharp are you.
Rchard answered by question like an adult and I have what I need – THANKS RCHARD!
Sarah, I’m not shallow enough to actually care what you think. I thought your remark was worth a shot but it appears you didn’t get my point, and you need things betoken down into small portions so your mind can cope. The only reason I’m writing any more, is that I think you need help.
Your friends (assuming you actually have any with that attitude) are assholes. Stop seeing them. Maybe your parents or an abusive boyfriend are to blame. Whoever it is, they bring you down you when you don’t know something, You’ve been mentally bullied you into being an asshole yourself. You attempted to raise yourself above me, because you know a really geeky detail that I don’t, and that’s a typical response from someone who has been treated that way by their peers.
I mean… just look at how you talk to me. Just because I don’t have an in-depth knowledge of Olympus production history, you *attempt* to make fun of me. But… nobody here is laughing at me, and I guarantee that nobody’s laughing with you. So you’re just making a fool of yourself. You see how that works?
Jeez – I hope you don’t have kids… poor things! I’m not afraid of learning new things, asking questions or admitting my limits. You on the other hand obviously laugh at those who try and that’s not only immature, it’s actually really, really sad.
I hope you learned something. I’m not going to dignify you with any more words.
Looks like the Olympus 7-14 doesn’t address the biggest grief held against the Panasonic 7-14 : won’t take filters.
Actually the bigger grief of Panasonic lens is the lens coating: not enough to avoid purple flares and spots, sometimes even in normal light conditions.
Neither does the Oly 7-14mm lens for the 4/3 system. It’s not like this is a new development.
This was in reference to the “no filters” comment.
In any event, it will be interesting to compare price, build quality and IQ between the both pf them.
I hope the new lenses don’t rely too much on electronic compensation like the 12-40. I found the distortion disappointing for a lens at that price point. It’d be esp. nice for the 7-14 if it had low distortion. There’s already the Pana 7-14 for a sharp but high-distortion alternative.
So do your pics look bad because of software correction?
If it is sharp it cant be so bad, ehh?
What matters is the result and not how it is achieved.
Also I would rather have a software corrected lens and carry a lot less if I could not tell any difference.
It’s just gear collecting folk, who don’t use equipment for photos, just comparing numbers on forum. Doesn’t really matter that end result is really sharp and almost no distortion left. Oh well, purists will have to step down eventually, same happened with film. Sooner or latter will understand that using software correction in lens design is actually superior to fully optical correction.
I also hope that these new (quite beautiful), offerings don’t have the special sheer-off, break-away lens mount that the 12-40mm has?! 🙂
But you see, that’s just the lens sacrificing itself in order to protect the camera!
Yes! Olympus should list that in the specifications!
Olympus is definitely the leader in the camera industry – they are now able to produce prime (fixed focal length) zooms! It’s like redefining the laws of physics or something!
The 300 is a prime, NOT a zoom.
You can call it a prime, but it is referred to as a telephoto lens.
“Prime means” the lens has one focal lenght, as opposed to dual or triple focal length, vario and zoom lenses.
“Telephoto” refers to the design, which means the lens is physically shorter than its focal length. For example, a 200 mm lens that is 200 mm long is a “long-focus lens, while a 200 mm lens that is 150 mm long is a “telephoto lens.”
2015!!!
We’ll stick with C-Mount zooms..
Wow, that’s great news. Regarding the 7-14, I must say that I already own the 43-version. Therefore, I am not sure, if buying the m43-version makes sense. But the 300/4.0 will be a definite purchase for 2015. I was considering to swap my Sigma 135-400 for the Olympus 50-200 with EC14, but I am pretty sure the 300/4.0 will perform much better on E-M1.
The difference is that this new one is 1 stop faster than the 4/3 version and you don’t have to use an adapter.
And is half big and half heavy!
300/4 looks beautiful, but I hope Olympus also launches 1.4x teleconverter to get a 400/5.6!
+10000
TC for m43 is more problematic than for normal system.
As distrotrion correction will change so messing up in cam lens processing.
What?????
Ooh, if the UWA is priced right and has the optical quality of its sibling, it looks like a significant step up over the Panasonic, which was already at the top of my “buy next” list.
Don’t need the 300mm, but I’m glad it exists for those who do.
When are they going to release the 40-150 2.8?
2015?
Well, time to start an investment scheme that will yield around $5000-$6000 by the time the lens is available for retail.
Now, I’ve really got to think about the 7-14mm f/2.8 over the FujiFilm 10-24mm f/4.0. This changes a lot of what I was thinking.
The 50-140mm f/2.8 vs the 40-150mm f/2.8 decision was already on my mind. FujiFilm or Olympus, my bag will be much lighter.
That 7-14 f2.8 would be a great addition to the 12-35 f2.8 IF it wasn’t an Olympus lens and thus unstabilized. :/
Get a camera body with IBIS, problem solved. Its silly to put stabilisation in each lens:
1 – it constrains the design
2 – it adds to cost
mmm. What you said is true but taking that further. M4/3 is Olympus then? Olympus might think they have a clever, different strategy from Panasonic with IBIS but as they both dont have IBIS then m43 is split and we are not seeing the benefits of competition. Think what you want but Olympus would have sold more lenses with IS in it. I don’t know about bodies but m43 would have been in better shape overall.
That said it will be seriously overpriced but people will buy it because its small. But then its a 300mm lens and isn’t small and anything you take with a 300mm lens doesn’t really need a small body so you might as well buy something cheaper. Hi-lights the problems with m43. It’s needs a full system to compete but only parts of the system are worth the larger premium that is justified by the small size (of m43)…
Great move Olympus- watch the money roll in!
“M4/3 is Olympus then? Olympus might think they have a clever, different strategy from Panasonic with IBIS but as they both dont have IBIS then m43 is split and we are not seeing the benefits of competition. Think what you want but Olympus would have sold more lenses with IS in it. ”
Panasonic and Olympus are together in developing the m43 standard but are not Siamese twins, Olympus doesn’t have to accomodate Panasonic by putting IS in lenses while having excellent IBIS in it’s bodies and thus not needing IS in lenses. as for benefits of competition, it’s there even if you don’t see it (prime example oly 12-40mm/2.8 vs pana 12-35mm/2.8).
“But then its a 300mm lens and isn’t small and anything you take with a 300mm lens doesn’t really need a small body so you might as well buy something cheaper. Hi-lights the problems with m43. It’s needs a full system to compete but only parts of the system are worth the larger premium that is justified by the small size (of m43)”
if you want small native m43 300mm lens, you have tokina 300mm mirror lens. that mirror lens and this 300mm lens are so far the only options in long tele range, so yeah oly will milk it as much as it can, until there is a proper competitor.
“Great move Olympus- watch the money roll in!”
and money will roll in, as soon as photos made by those lenses show their quality
Then it’s up to Panasonic (and whoever else that joins) to enable IBIS on their camera bodies, they already started with the GX-7.
The IBIS in the GX-7 is an half-ass attempt, ignoring the videographers completely. If only the GH-4 had one similir to the OMD’s or E-P5, it would like a wet dream come true.
I don’t know about anyone else…but I find that the 5-axis Ibis in my E-P5 to be better than the IS (mega or otherwise) in the Panasonic lenses that Imown.
As an E-P5 owner you may be interested in this news. Or perhaps you seen it.
http://fourthirds-user.com/2014/02/olympus_pen_ep5_firmware_update_brings_pen_wifi_functionality_up_to_date.php
Thanks Richard! …I guess that they were tired of being embarrassed by Panasonic!
Hoe did Admin miss that…he does not miss much an I do not think that that info was posted here, (I may have missed it, though).
At this focal length IS is not that important.
Well as a pro sports photog for many years and having owned various 600mm and 300mm lens over the years – I can tell you that IS is really useful. All successful modern long lenses have IS.
Whether people want to accept it or not we are in a global recession and most camera manufacturers, indeed the whole market, is in a state of flux. m43 prices are too high and Panasonic and Olympus are key players and yet don’t actually compete that much in m43. This is not good long term.
So Panasonic has some in body IS now. None of the other M43 manufacturers do?
Sorry just don’t see the point in a 300mm /4 m43 lens without IS. I can not see it selling that well. It would certainly sell more with IS. But more than that m43 should not compete with DSLR so directly. m43 is niche…
If you are a sports photographer, explain to me, how does IS stop people?
“OK guys, can you hit that ball a little slower? I’m photographing with a lens that has IS”
Obviously you have never owned a lens longer than your dick. IS is invaluable in a telephoto lens, show me a manufacturer that is launching such lenses with IS?
I think the comment was that IS is unnecessary at very short focal lengths – i.e., for the 7-14/2.8.
IS certainly can be useful at long focal lengths, but I have found the IBIS of the E-M1 to be very effective, so I am not at all worried if the 300/4 relies on IBIS.
1. the OP talked about the 7-14mm zoom.
2. if you shoot sports, than you want short shutter times anyway to get sharp images of the subjects. If you need IS for that, than the sports must be lame anyway 😀
If you are an elderly person or have a nervous medical condition with involuntary tremors than I can see your point. Otherwise, not.
Sorry, the post above was meant as a reply to Marcus Wolschon.
Who in the world needs stabilization on a 7-14mm lens? That is a waste of time
Stabilization is unnecessary with an ultra-wide. Taking the time to properly compose with an ultra-wide often requires a tripod.
I’ve got the Panasonic 7-14mm and have no trouble shooting interiors either way.
I wonder what about dof in uwa shoots. Will interiors look sharp focus with big appertures?
Yes UWA can be sharp, but you’ll probably be making the mistake of zooming in more than normal without realizing it.
I keep doing this all the time – I have a 15-30 for my 5D. It’s sharp, but when I use it, and I’m pixel peeping, I end up zooming in more than I should 😉 Pixel peeping is fine, but set your expectation accordingly – individual objects in the photo simply use less pixels than you may realize at first.
But the Panasonic 7-14mm F4 while being one full stop slower sin’ stabilized either. Those ultra wide angle don’t really need stabilization since you can use very low speed without risk of motion blurr 1/2x the focal length is the norm. So if you are shooting at 7mm this would allow a speed of 1/15 sec. and at 14mm you’d be OK with 1/30 sec. With these speeds you are already in subject motion territory.
sorry rrr-hhh this is off topic
but you have takled about tilt-shift lens on a speed booster befor
have you tride it out
any feedback will be good have tride to get hold of metabones with
no luck
Panasonic 4/7-14 isn’t stabilized either.
So, it’s similar to the Panasonic 7-14mm f/4.0 lens, except that it has a larger maximum aperture and is less likely to need IS of any kind.
I am just curious if they are using the same design for the 43 version. Cuz in the older version, the aperture 2.8 can be achieved through some tricks. Sharpness will definitely not be in the same league as before.
Of course it’s not the same design as the native 4/3 F4.0!
This is a brand new lens, designed for the micro mount from ground up, with less need for retrofocal construction due to shorter flange back, smaller mount, different motors, different mount… It will be more dependent upon SW correction (just like the 12-40), but OTOH it will be smaller and double the brightness (good for i.e. star trail and aurora photography). Looks like it has the same manual focus clutch like the 12-40 too 🙂
Hello Erik, I would just like to say that your wonderful images have done more for Olympus sales than all their advertising dept put together. If I was Olympus I would be rushing my new lenses to you post haste and see what can be achieved in the hands of a skilled photographer, test shots of brick walls just don’t do it .
Oh wow, thank you so much!
Way too much of course, but appreciated nonetheless 🙂
I’ve started collecting these, by adding the 12-40/2.8 to my E-M1.
I do want a lighter and more compact lineup, to supplement my SHG’s, especially for mountaineering and kayaking. Guess I’ll eventually swap the 7-14/4.0 with the new PRO version. But for the rest of the SHGs, I really have some qualms letting them go… They are double the brightness after all, w/ a bokeh beyond description, and and optical formula close to perfection. We’ll see, seems almost excessive to fill in on both the PRO and SHG series, but again – life is short! Ought’a live it to the max, right? 😀
Great news! The 7-14mm is a must buy for me. One thing though… i cant see any “ED” letters on the lenses. I hope thats because there are preproduction units and not that they wont have ant Ed glass in them.
This is great news. Although I feel a little ambivalent about it. The lenses get bigger and more expensive but the sensor quality (at least in my opinion) can´t match the lens quality yet. Too much noise and bad noise reduction going on.
The lastest M43 sensor has better output quality than most of 135 film. So, I think you should buy a IQ280 to fill your requirement, and never browse this site anymore.
You compare digital output with film? Srsly? Moron!
Looking just great!
Along with a PRO EC-14 this tele will be fantastic, with AF speed really up to the task. That said, I really hope they will release a long tele zoom as well, to fill in the (huge) gap between the 40-150/2.8 and the 300/4.0. A compact PRO 150-250>350/4.0 (or something in that range) to replace the native 90-250/2.8 is a logical fulfillment in the next step. The gap between 150>300 just cannot be left uncovered in the PRO series.
Could the existing EC-14 work with this lens and a m43 body?
No it will not work. 4/3 and m4/3 have different mounts. That is why you have to buy an adapter to mount your 4/3 lenses to m4/3 cameras. To do what you are asking would require a lens -> m4/3 to m/3 adapter -> 4/3 TC -> 4/3 to m4/3 adapter -> camera. The simple solution is to make a new TC for m4/3.
True, a FourThirds 300/4 + EC14 would work on a m4/3.
Wow that 7-14 is completely unexpected. I was considering the panny or even the old 43 version, but I shoot indoors a lot so that extra stop is very well appreciated
The 300 prime is too big and slow. At that size the 40-150 f2.8 zoom makes more sense.
“The 300 prime is too big and slow. At that size the 40-150 f2.8 zoom makes more sense.”
if this is too big and too slow,then you won’t find any 300mm prime to your liking.
faster then this would be f2.8 that would be even bigger, smaller then this lens would be slower. anyway weight of this lens can only help to stabilize it. and gap between 150mm and 300mm is just too big for uses 300mm is usually used (birding comes to mind)
Anyone care to guess the estimated price on these? Any chance we could see these coming in at about $1,000? How about ~$1,500? Or is that being way too optimistic?
The 7-14 will probably have the same MSRP as the 4/3 version. So $1800 with street price of $1650-1700
Nikon and Canon 300/4 lenses seem to be around $1500. They include IS and are designed for a 135 image circle, so you you could discount that price slightly for a μ43 version, then add a premium for the Olympus brand name.
The 300mm F4 for Nikon and Canon are old designs. Their replacements will likely cost 2.5-3k. That is where I expect Olympus to be pricing their lenses along will similar IQ (ie. better IQ than current Canon and Nikon 300mm f4 lenses).
Really? I find that hard to believe when the Panasonic 100-300 comes in at ~$500. Sure, you lose a stop of light at the long end, but that lens also zooms!
I’m not interested in that tele, not now at least. But I see it as a good news for the system.
On the other hand I’ll sell my lovely panasonic 7-14mm to get this MZuiko: lens flare can’t be worst, and it will still be loveley but also faster.
I only hope it’s weather sealed, that would be really usefull.
Since these are pro line lenses they are weather sealed.
Marco, the info says they are both weathersealed.
Thanks Richard and Ulli. This makes it a must have lens to me!
“The small bad news: The lenses will come in 2015 only.”
Good things comes to those that wait! 😉
I can wait to 2016-2017 too, it lens is good. 😉
I might need to as well to afford them & to persuade my wife that I need them. 😉
Olympus actually said “released from 2015 onwards” which would seem to suggest that these lense may get delayed beyond 2015.
No problme, I’ve to save till 2016 (crying face icon)
Having seen the MZD714 is small enough, I hope the front element will be be bigger than 72mm, so I hope Olympus could make also a thread convertor for this lens finally we can easily use it will holders from Lee, Hitech without cornes masked…
Isn’t better to buy a 75-300 or 100-300 at f/5.6 for 300mm? is it really big difference between f/4 and f/5.6. Those are not expensive and more compactish.
yes …thats my thought too f4 vs. f5.6…even I understand that prime will be lot sharper …but for hobbiest cannot justify the price
especialy pana 100-300 is great lens which I plan to by once I upgrade my old epl3
in the previous posts was mentioned that Pana representatives take the note to update 100-300 with a pro glass or something …so maybe there will be markII
I read the 75-300 and 100-300 are not sharp at all at 300 mm
The 100-300mm can be plenty sharp at 300mm if you stop down to f7.1 and use higher shutter speeds. A tripod can help, too.
The 300mm f4 looks DAMN tempting! Thank the Gods it has a tripod mount! I got one of those Rösch tripod collars for my 100-300mm and it makes a big difference in terms of balance and stability on a tripod.
It must be National Tripod Day, with all these tripod references… 😉
The reason why nature photographers such as birders usually prefer something like a 300mm f4 prime, rather than an f5.6 zoom is more to do with image quality than aperture. Often they have to crop or shoot wide open, so they need maximum sharpness wide open. Typically an f4 prime like this is very sharp wide open. Whereas not only does a zoom never reach these levels of sharpness, often they need to be stopped down a bit for better performance.
and the m.zuiko 7-14/2.8, it’s not possible to mount any filter.
Having seen the M.ZD 714 is small enough, I hope the front element will NOT be be bigger than 72mm, so next hope will be that Olympus could make also a thread convertor for this lens finally we can easily use it will holders from Lee, Hitech without cornes masked…
I currently own the ZD7-14, I made a Lee holder by myself but I can’t use it withour black corners until 9mm..
A 7-14 f2.8 😮 – Finally, a replacement for my 9-18. Though, shame about the wait!
Ephotozine has better images on their website already up.
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/two-new-olympus-pro-micro-four-thirds-lenses-shown-24048
Too bad (for me) that the 7-14mm is a F/2.8, it would have been lighter and cheaper with F/4, and it would have been enough for me.
But the Panasonic is so bad with flare and ghosting that if the Oly is good on this parameter and not too expensive, i will perhaps consider it as replacement.
I am so hoping for a *portable* UWA prime for travel landscape photography… (light, not too expensive, sacrificing some f-stops).
This announcement makes it pretty unlikely that Olympus is gonna come up with one :(.
Let’s hope for Panasonic or maybe Sigma…
oly 9-18?
Take a look at this, probably provides you with what you ask for, http://www.olympus.co.uk/site/en/c/lenses/om_d_pen_lenses/m_zuiko/m_zuiko_digital_ed_9_18mm_14056/index.html..
That one is small and light, but it’s not a prime.
A 7 or 8 mm rectilinear prime would be awesome.
I hope it won’t fall apart as easy as the 12-40 with it’s weak plastic behind the mount…
We know that 3 or 4 have broken, any one know how many have not? I have one that hasn’t.
So how much does it weight? mft still of advantage in for proper tele?
Otherwise: 300 f4 is perfect for mft. hope that normal people can afford this one, or it would be a clear statement that olympus does not want normal customers using their system.
reading comments here most Olympus users are quite abnormal, so…
When talking about a lens, please consider three aspects: IQ, size, fastness. You can have only 2 of theses 3 qualities, the 3rd will be a con. (Good IQ and small, but slow. Good IQ and fast, but big. Fast and small, but low IQ. And so on.) Throw in a 4th aspect, price, but this will usually be consider a con because people are never happy of it.
Fastness? So far the finish hasn’t washed off any of my lenses! 😛
Velocità di apertura are the Italian words 😉 A wide aperture should be enough to understand what I wrote. I think you got the point though. 😉
Just call it a “fast lens.” 😉
Why “fast”?
And why lens?
There are several lenses in one “lens” actually.
There are idioms and jargon. You could call them linguistic conventions. Often they make sense, sometimes they dont, and that goes for all languages.
In English, a “fast lens” is one with a larger than average size maximum aperture for the given focal length. A “slow lens” is the opposite. “Fast” and “slow” refer to obtainable shutter speeds at maximum aperture.
In German, the terms “lichtstark” (literally: light-strong) and “lichtschwach” (literally: light-weak) are used. Does that make more sense than “fast” and “slow”?
In English, a “photographic lens” consists of “lens elements” that are installed in “lens groups” in barrels.
In German, a photographic lens is called an “Objektiv.” Sometimes you will read the term “(photographic) objective” in English, but usually only in expert circles. The term “objective” is not commonly understood by photo amateurs, but more often by people who use microscopes or telescopes.
As I said, nomenclature comes down to linguistic convention.
Did I answer your friggen question? 😉
Great lenses! Fantastic to see Olympus back to their roots in making awesome lenses!
7-14 does not allow to use with any filter. This is really bad news for my B+W C-PL and Lee RF75 filter. This offers no choice to me and have to consider Fuji XF10-24 for Ultra-wide solution.
maybe 7-14 will have rear filters or integrated ND filter, who knows
Ryan , a spare hood and a an old cokin filter holder is easily adapted to work with filets. I am able to use 2 filters on my 7-14 with no problems.
do you know what’s funny? 110+ comments here, 9 comments on same dpreview announcement…
well, the party is over here 😉
Well “you didn’t” we are all mFT users here{ give or take } whilst on DPreview mFT is just a small part of the wider readership
Regardless of need I think it shows Olympus real commitment to this system, would like both lenses
Nice, gives me a year to save up for the 300mm f4. And they likely wouldn’t be releasing such a lens unless they also had a body in the works that has no-compromises tracking for action and BIF photographers. If so, the complete Olympus Pro-mFT system is falling nicely in place.
I would have much preferred a new 100-300, with significantly better image quality, and smaller than….this.
Seriously, though, I love m43, but when one is starting to talk about a lens this big, even I would say to go to a much larger sensor. It’s rather silly to have a small sensor camera attached to a monster lens.
But the girls will take us serious finaly.
There aren’t any specs out on either of these lenses yet, so how do you know it’s a monster? Guessing that the 7-14 is about 3″ long, and I could be way off on that, the 300/4 looks to be about double that length so about 6″ long, only an inch longer than the pany 100-300.
I just did a little B&H check on Canon equivalents (dirty word here, I know). The Canon 300/4 with IS/USM is 8.5″ long and weighs over 2.5 lbs. I don’t think the new 300/4 will come close to that “monster.” Btw, I also checked a Canon 600 f4. That beast is over $12,000 usd and weighs 8.5 lbs and is 18″ long !!!
These new “pro” lenses along with the 75/1.8 and Nocticron show that m43 is not just for the GM crowd but will have much broader appeal, and I for one am very happy about that. Now if the 300/4 will only come in matching Colette blue I’ll be super happy.
The 7-14 f/2.8 has got to be an industry leading spec. I’m thinking seriously about getting it.
And I’m absolutely getting the 40-150mm when it comes out. Can’t wait!
Nikon have had the excellent 14-24mm F2.8 since 2007,my mate has it and I just saw some of his shots from his new A7r and the images are spectacular
Sign me up for both of these, they look so good. Waiting until 2015 is a bit of a drag through. Especially considering I was told in an email today from Olympus Australia not to expect the 40-150 f2.8 until early 2015 as well. Going to be a big year for glass 2015, just kind of sucks I bought my pro grade camera in 2013 and am kind of desperate to round out my lens collection.
Those lenses are great but I think Olympus should have developed a 12-40 f2 instead of the 12-40 f2 and a 40-150 f2 instead of the 40-150 f2.8. The wide 7-14 f2.8 is great as the 300 f4.
Maybe they will do a super pro 12-30 f1.8 in 2018 😉
f2 was the maximum aperture of the FT pro zooms. Those were real pro zooms, while the new pro zooms are more semi-pro or prosumer zooms (considering the sensor size and IQ of the E-M1), just like the Canon 24-70 f4 IS or the new Sony Zeiss FE 24-70 f4 OSS.
Not quite sure of your meaning here Andy, suggests that the 4/3rd sensor is bigger than the u4/3 sensor, when in fact they are the same size, the difference comes from the shorter flange distance.
Admin — any more word on the 40-150? Maybe a more-refined approx. release date?
The 300mm f4 is excellent, and I waited for years in vain for such a lens for 4/3. I think it will make Olympus m4/3 very popular with nature photographers and birders, as long as it isn’t too expensive. Although Olympus does most definitely need a matching 1.4x converter and really a 2x converter to go with it. My only surprise is that Olympus didn’t do this a long time ago, because the extra crop factor of 4/3 is a positive advantage here. Most birders using Canon and Nikon regularly crop, and often use crop sensored bodies as reach is everything. So in reality most birders using Canon or Nikon APS-C are in reality using a format as small or smaller than 4/3 most of the time. The regularity of cropping in this type of photography means all this talk of equivalent apertures etc is meaningless, because a large proportion of photos are effective taken with a smaller format than the nominal one, if cropped.
anybody hazard a guess on price for these babies?
$1,700 for the 300
$1,400 for the 7-14
300/4 will be well north of 2000. As one of the previous posters pointed out, already the current crop of 300/4 from canikon is about 1500, and the have had a history of increasing the price by at least 50% for new lenses. And then add the Olympus premium…
These are very nice lenses that I will be renting when I go on vacation.
However, for daily use I prefer small and light.
A 7mm rectilinear prime would be awesome.
Excellent! Finally some new focal length / aperture combinations. Pity about the release date though, but it’s at least good to know what is coming.
Looks great. Just got the 12-40 and it is blisteringly sharp and focuses instantly on my E-M5.
If these two live up to that standard I can imagine them being very, very appealing lenses, and look at the aggressive pricing of the 12-40… I would agree with others that this 300 will come in under $2000 and the 7-14 around $1300.
While there are lots of people running their mouths about equivalence, they show a distinct lack of understanding here. Shoot equivalent settings and get worse IQ from the larger sensor. DXO bears this out. Take any Canon FF body and compare its image quality scores from Colour tonality to noise to DR and see that say 800 v 3200 the Canon does not have better or even the same IQ as the m43rds sensor. While Nikon bodies fare better they still do not match the smaller formats when comparing at 2 stops higher ISO.
The adavantage of FF comes when you can exchange DoF for image quality. Thus getting more “total light” than the smaller format. Otherwise all you are doing is spreading a weaker signal across the sensor (shooting f8 vs f4) and suffering the IQ penalty.
Having said that, the the 300mm f4 can focus anywhere near the current crop of m43rds lenses, it will be blisteringly fast, and the 7-14 if it performs like its big brother was a stunning lens.
So, this system just got a lot more real with a “pro” designated lenses now running:
7-14 f2.8,
12-40 f2.8
40-150 f2.8
300mm f4
Throw in the plethora of primes from a host of companies and m43rds is without a doubt one of the most interesting formats around today.
Abraham
Dear Olympus:
Please hurry. But no so much that real or imaginary mount snaps like the otherwise drool worthy 12-40 2.8 haunt our dreams.
Thanks and keep up the mostly good work!
Your pals,
Doug & the Denizens of 43Rumors.com
Wow “PRO” stuff, let’s see the new silly prices. A 300/4 is where this format could shine, but they will screw it up as usual.
The wide angle zoom is probably rubbish as usual.
Buy compacts, not 43s, and keep the good money children…
“The wide angle zoom is probably rubbish as usual.”
As usual?
What are you smokin’?!
Do you consider the SHG 7-14/4.0 rubbish?
Have you ever held or used it – or seen what it can do?
The new PRO 7-14/2.8 is aimed to be it’s successor in the m4/3 realm, so you just wait and see. If anything, it will NOT be rubbish. Oh my, those people out there… :/
WOW this is great!
Now for some TC’s and its almost finished.
Too bad the 7-14 looks like it wont take filters. I am sure there will be weiners about that soon.
@Admin
These look great but has there been any hints of more sigma/tamron/samyang lenses for peasants like me? Too me it seams that real native MFT SIgma lenses would sell very well…
People always think you are doubling the fstop. The way I look at it you are cutting the ISO in half. M43rds lets in 2x the amount of light of FF. Compare the EM1 ISO 800 to D4 ISO 3200. Yep they are the same quality.
I just read through all 233 comments and am still confused. Explain that FF vs M43 on the 300 mm F4 DOF, total light thing, etc to me again.
What exactly are you missing?
A micro four thirds camera is just like a full frame where you crop the middle out.
So using a lens on MFT appears to give longer reach – if you and I are standing in the same spot and snapping the same subject, the full frame with the same 300mm will be “wider”.
So to get the same framing without changing your position to the subject, the full frame needs 600mm. Doing this cuts down the depth of field. Conversely, you can also just use the same lens and get halfway between your current position and the object to get the same magnification, but getting closer to the object again reduces depth of field.
Light gathering is a little different You’re have a smaller area – that’s it. Exposure is identical, but obviously, if your pixels – i.e. light buckets – are smaller, you gather less photons than a larger pixel on a full frame camera (generally…), so sensitivity suffers a bit – that’s the “light advantage” with full frame. It’s not any brighter at the same exposure settings, it just handles higher ISO better.
If this lens is the hot shit goodbye FF alpha here I come Olympus. The only reason for me to hold onto my alpha is the tokina 300 f4 at this point. Well, at all my zeiss glass! But damn, this can be a game changer for the M43. Pricing please!
A FF 300mm at f4 is the exact same thing as M43 300mm at f4. Same DOF same amount of light. What changes is the field of view. The 300mm on the M43rds has the same FOV as the FF at 600mm so people compare the M43 to 600mm on FF. The problem is the DOF of 300mm is 2x’s that of 600 so people say its a 600mm @F8. The problem with their thought process is you get the same light as FF 600mm @f4. The advantages of M43 is 1. you don’t have to stop down to get sharp images so your ISO is lower. M43 is really a better low light camera than FF. I prove this all the time with my Canon friends.
“M43 is really a better low light camera than FF” Utter f*cking rubbish. By your logic we should be using even smaller sensors. The new megazoom from Sony offers a 1550mm f/6.3 lens. How can the oly 600mm f/4 compete with this!!!!
YES
the 300mm f4 will likely be the frist lens i ever peorder very happy
i will take this with a pich of salt when i have it in my hand i will be
happy not befor then
7-14mm no filters not so good
from reading most of the comments here one thing is clear
veary frew people here have used supertelephoto lens
Nice! But 2015?! Well… that should give me some time to save up when they are finally released.
Been waiting for this, I fully agree with Scott and robfi.
My canon 300f4 on my 20d was great, sadly I no longer have these.
600mm pulling power and dof at f8 and probably a bit lighter than the canon lens.
I will be getting this lens for my EM5, the sooner it comes out the better.
We’ll done Oly.
The 300 f/4 is exactly what I’ve been waiting for. Sweet.
A whole year to wait? and no 150 out yet? I thought if they came out with a new faster 300 I’d be happy as a birder, as the current 300 just isn’t cutting it. Damn, I really don’t think I can wait.
YEEEES!!!!
Goodbye Nikon 600mm
A 300mm on a 16MP mFT body is approximately the same as a 300mm on a D7100 in 1.3 Crop mode (15.4MP). Of course the D7100 will give much better focus tracking and have a slightly better sensor, but an E-M1 will beat it on buffer size.
I don’t see how you figure that a 300mm mFT lens could replace a 600mm Nikon, for that you’d need 600mm on mFT.
A Nikon 600mm would be a full frame lens, quite possibly on a full frame camera. The D7100 isn’t the only Nikon camera in the world, and someone shelling out for a 600mm can probably afford the full frame, heavy as it is. Many m43 users are former and/or current full frame users who wanted a smaller camera, either as a supplement, or a replacement.
I know D7100 isn’t the only Nikon body, but it’s the highest performance crop model and much closer to a GH3/4 or an E-M1 in size and pixel density. If you want to compare what you gain by switching from Nikon to mFT then you should compare it to the closest Nikon body.
If you have fullframe and want a lighter system then you can achieve a lot by switching to a crop model of the same brand – at least when it comes to tele and high end bodies. If you look at GM1, GX7 with kit zoom, and wide angle or a few primes then the difference is much bigger.
No doubt the D7100 plus 300mm f4 would be pretty good. However there is one additional caveat that you are now framing from a distance and any focus errors would be amplified as you are cropping. You subject is smaller in your frame (optical viewfinder) which also has its own challenges.
I am also not sure that the final resolution, once you have cropped away will match a dedicated 300mm INTENDED to be used as a 600mm lens. Remember this lens is supposed to resolve on a m43rds crop body.
Well, we will only know how good this will be, and what it will cost, once it is launched.
Abraham
Just putting an E-M1 with 12-35/2.8 (not exactly the smallest combination) next to a D7100 with in field of view comparable lens already tells a nice story about this. Did you? I did, and in size and weight the real difference is quite substantial.
I was hoping someone would make this lens, and I rather figured it would be Olympus. As a 600mm 35mm equivalent in terms of field of view, this lens will be perfect for air shows and preferable to something like a $10,000 Nikon 600mm f4 – a lens weighing 11 pounds!
However, without optical stabilization, this lens won’t be the best for Panasonic users (save perhaps the GX7), though it should be okay on really bright days with higher shutter speeds. I haven’t had any problems with a Nikon 300mm f4 adapted to my GH3 on sunny days. On cloudy days, mounting the Nikon on my E-P5 is definitely the better option.
If only Nikon would sell crop-camera models….
I bet it will cost twice what Nikon or Canon’s 300mm F4 does.
Nikon new 300mm f4 will cost twice as much as well.
You don’t win a lot of bets, do you?
Well only going by precedent. You are right though I have no other inside information on the price other than….
There are no other three letters in the world that will do so little for your photography and pull so much money out of your wallet at the same time then PRO.
Olympus M Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro Interchangeable Lens – $1000
If those specs
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0528662139/canon-powershot-g1-x-mark-ii-a-quick-summary/?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_1
are true, this is the lens that Oly should have been offering instead (12,5-62,5/2.0-3.9 weather-sealed pancake, preferably with zoom, focus, and aperture rings); and a tiny weather-sealed body, with 5-axis IBIS and full manual controls, hybrid autofocus etc.
Yes, I am becoming repetitive, I know. But, at least, now no one can say that I am asking the impossible.
I’m actually looking to buy that camera, and you should to. That way you can enjoy the advantages a camera of this type offer. Although, then you would probably complain about the disadvantages that come with it.
Also, the quality of this Canon lens is not known. Panasonic and Sony both made attempts at a pancake zoom that needless to say, didn’t exactly ignite the artistic fires of their owners. Besides, even your “dream camera” would not be pocketable.
BVP – “that” camera is, I presume, the GM1? So am I, since it is the first (second, if you count the RX100) camera that comes even marginally close to what I need. But this is not the point. The point is that the real strength of m4/3 is its potential to put almost-pro gear in your pocket. The GM1 is only a first step in the right direction. The GH4K, the EM1, the pro-series lenses, are really the equivalent of the Canon “greys”. Great to burnish their image, great for pros who are less concerned about size and weight, not so great if space and weight are at a premium (which includes everything from hiking to city breaks and from adventure traveling to urban walks). So, if we want more cameras like the GM1 (I do) we must vote for it not only with our wallets, but also with our voice – and the louder, the better.
300mm/f4 ist für tierfotografie nicht wirklich gut brauchbar bei dämmerlicht, insbesondere wenn man einen konverter (wird es wohl auch irgendwann geben) benutzt.
ich bleibe daher lieber beim perfekten FT 300mm/f2.8.
mir folgendes lieber 7-14mm/f4 und 300mm/f2.8 gewesen. oly das ist ein rückschritt.
Your caps key is not working.
Well, you would most likely only change from the 300/2.8 to the 300/4 for two reasons;
– Weight
– Faster AF
If you don’t have the 2.8 already, price will be a third reason.
Regarding the f-stop; Higher ISO works amazing these days.
good and correct arguments.
the 300mm/f2.8 FT, besides the weight I don´t see any reason for “longing” for the MFT 300mm.
AF is perfectly all right with the FT300mm + e-m1. the e-m1 generally makes accurate shot´s in wildlife.
and considering the price for used FT glass, it´s a bargain in comparison to canikon and most likely also to 300mm/MFT comming.
not many photogs out there know about this combinations e-m1 + 300mm/f2.8 or 90-250mm/f2.8 and it superb picture quality in wildlife.
i bought both combinations for a price, that is far less than a 500mm/canikon.
Where’s the darn 40-150 2.8?
I would like to know this too??? Was waiting so patiently for this one.
300mm is not a zoom. It is a prime. No?
Is it wishful thinking that another manufacturer would come out with larger (mm) lens? With the m4/3 line taking off I was hoping the Bigma or even new lenses like the new Tamron ( ) would come out in m4/3 mounts. I guess I can keep dreaming.
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-di-vc-usd-lens-review-23866
Does it still make sense to buy the 300mm f2.8? What is the difference between ZD top Pro line and the MZD Pro line? Any quality difference?