Image via DC.watch.
–
Yesterday Olympus unveiled the two new PRO lens specs and today these mockup lenses are being displayed at the CP+ show in Yokohama (more images at DC.watch). But we will have to wait until 2015 to see them in Store and as claimed by Olympus final design may change too! We have no clue about the price yet but below you can find the press text and before that a simple question to 43rumors readers:
[poll id=”229″]
Image via DC.watch.
Official Olympus PRESS text:
Hamburg, February 12 2014 – Olympus is pleased to announce the development of two new lenses in the M.ZUIKO PRO series: the wide-angle zoom lens M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 7-14mm 1:2.8 PRO and the super telephoto lens M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 300mm 1:4 PRO.
Both lenses conform to the Micro Four Thirds system standard. Their mock-ups* will be shown at the Camera & Photo Imaging Show CP+ starting Thursday, February 13, 2014 in Japan. With to these two additional lenses the M.ZUIKO PRO series will cover the entire range from super wide angle to super telephoto.
M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 7-14mm 1:2.8 PRO lens
The new splash and dust-proof M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 7-14mm F2.8 PRO is the first wide-angle zoom lens in the M.ZUIKO PRO series to cover 14-28mm**. Not only does the compact and lightweight design of the lens portray the well-known ZUIKO Quality. Its excellent depictive power and the superb clarity from the center of an image up into each corner of the picture are another highlight of this outstanding new Micro Four Thirds lens.
M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 300mm 1:4 PRO lens
The M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 300mm 1:4 PRO is the first fixed focus super telephoto lens in the M.ZUIKO PRO series with a 600mm** focal range. This mobile lens offers top-level image quality with a dust and splash-proof housing that makes it perfect even for professional use.
Availability of all four M.ZUIKO PRO lenses
The first interchangeable lens of this series, the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-40mm 1:2.8 PRO is already available while its successor, the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 40-150mm 1:2.8 PRO, is scheduled to go on sale in the second half of 2014. The final two Olympus system lenses of this M.ZUIKO PRO quartet – that will cover everything from super wide angle to super telephoto – are currently under development. Both lenses are scheduled to be released from 2015 onwards. More details will be announced prior to the launch.
* The mock-ups will not necessarily show the final design.
** 35mm equivalent.
151 Responses
Um, I’d certainly be interested in both these lenses, but actually purchasing either would be highly dependent on the price. Definitely interested if it comes in at ~$1,000.
I agree. It’s great that they’re releasing “pro” lenses for the system, but as a non-pro, I’d LOVE a fast 7-14mm with decent — rather than near-perfect — build and image quality.
I’m hopeful that Sigma or another 3rd party lens developer will help out in this department.
I definitely agree with that. I wish sigma made lenses specifically for MFT. It’s hard having no money and no lenses!
I’m more interested in the 40-150mm f2.8. But I’ll get the 7-14mm also.
I had hoped it’d at least have a shipping date by now. This lens would probably cover 90% of my portrait needs, assuming it maintains quality throughout the range.
It looks like the 7-14 can’t be used whit filters because if the fixed lens hood.
Yep, the design is in the style of the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 with a huge front element 🙂 It’s going to be razor sharp but non ND or polarizers accepted…A 8-18 f2.8 would have been nicer…
I have estimated the front element with picture and my 12-40 yesterday evening, the front elemenmt diameter should be around 74mm. Having compared Nikon 14-28 and Lee 150mm holder, I think put it with a Lee 100mm filter holder together by a proper adapter will be perfect without problem
I totally agree that a 8-18 f2.8 would be better if it could take filter directly. I use my MFT 9-18 with ND filter for waterfall shots to get the silky water effects. I guess there will be a way to fit a filter holder on the lens but it will not be a nice compact solution as directly threading a circular filter onto the end of the lens.
Anyhow I will most likely get one but I would have been happier with a lens that could directly take filters.
Hightech have filters and holders for these type of lenses. A 165mm filter and lucroit holder.
They also have a great set of 67mm filters and holders (plastic and alloy, the alloy one is excellent) for smaller lenses m43 and rangefinders.
https://www.formatt-hitech.com/en/category/hardware~3.html
“The mock-ups will not necessarily show the final design.”
The final design might have filter tread if more people complain.
Exactly, this is just a mockup. If we complain, we might get drop in filters at the back or a filter thread
Especially with the high raw base ISO of m43 cameras…
That and even more worrying early diffraction kick-in of M43.. Guess I’ll have to stick with my 9-18 for the time being..
…at least until 2015 🙂
Considering the angle of view at 7 mm, what diameter do you think a filter would have to be to not cause vignetting? Maybe 30 cm? There’s no chance that lens will have filter threads on the front. As for drop-in filters, who wants those on a digital camera? Do you like dust much?
Hightech have a 165mm filter system for ultra wide lenses.
The OP was talking about integrated filter threads. Any inbuilt filter threads would have to be in a ring protruding far beyond the integrated petal lens hood.
What filter would you like to use on an ultra-wide lens anyway?
A graduated neutral density.
Do you realize that ultra-wide angle lenses record such a wide field of view that the brightness of the sky varies considerably across the field of view? The graduated ND filter apporach may be less useful than you expect.
Do you even ask yourself why such ultra-wide lenses don’t come with front-filter threads? Do you know what unfortunate things happens when you should with a bulging front element through a pane of glass?
nd and polarizing filter. Polarizing filters can be used not only to increase sky saturation.
Where did I mention saturating the sky? As for removing refelctions, the angle under which that works with an ultra-wide lens is relatively speaking very narrow. Better use a more suitable lens if you have to use a polarizer (It is the most overused filter by amateurs).
Again, I suggest you ask Olympus or any other lens maker why theur don’t provide filter threads on UW zooms and primes. Maybe you will believe them.
and so what? this is very common on lenses like these. is it really a show-stopper for you??
I prefer to buy a lens than a new body. With ISO and shutter speed limitation of my existing bodies, filters add flexibility FOREVER!
As for Panasonic 7-14mm you can build your DIY filter holder.
What I really hope for is a better control of purple fringing and lens flares.
Yep.
There’s a guy on the DPReview M4/3 forum that adapted his 7-14mm to take filters in the back.
I bought a second lens cap, cut out the center (with a Dremel tool) and epoxied a 72mm to 77mm step-up ring into it for filters. I haven’t used it yet.
So, yeah, it’s doable, but from things I’ve read, using filters can add distortion, or because of the curvature of the front lens element and 114 degree angle of view can cause problems. Sorry I can’t be more specific.
I do like the DIY Option, but somehow i dont like the idea of “cuting” things of a 1000€ lense…
I like to See a 8mm F2 Prime 4 Startrails 🙂
I cut the lens cap, not the lens! I may be nuts, but I’m not crazy! 😉
I bought a second lens cap from Panasonic for $15 or so and cut out the front plate. It was pretty simple.
Can you try it and tell me if it works? My thought is that it vignettes.. Below I linked a youtube video where they show the WonderPana accessory: it allows to mount filters on these wide angle lenses. It looks nice but also quite expensive (I try to find out now)
I did the same for my ZD 714, the probleme either the black corner (if you want to avoid reflection on you big stopper) or the reflection (if you want to avoid reflection, then moves the holder backward a little)
The thing will be a little different with Pana 714 and MZD 714, becuase the diameter is a lot smaller and we can make a perfect cover…
Marco try
https://www.formatt-hitech.com/en/products/Lucroit-Holders~80.html.
They also have a great 67mm filter system for small lenses with an alloy holder.
This doesn’t work so well for polarizers where you need to constantly adjust the rotation. Also, can you get a high quality 10stop ND filter for the rear filter mount? Though clever, the DIY method outlined by Anders W. on DRP doesn’t really work for using a polarizer in any practical way.
Maybe I’m not too good in wide angle photography, but why the heck one would need such a big constant aperture as the DOF is anyway close to infinite and the reciprocal rule lets have rather slow shutter speeds?
Why do people need faster apertures at all? One of the main reasons is to get faster shutter speeds in order to minimize motion blur.
Also, DOF is dependent only on aperture and distance to subject. If you get a particular DOF with a 25mm f/2.8 lens, you can get the same DOF with a 7mm f/2.8 lens as long as you move closer (frame the same thing). Sometimes this is desired because of the perspective 7mm can offer.
One more f/stop can significantly improve you IQ (lower ISO ) in many situations. It’s not rocket science.
I do a lot of indoor shooting with my 7-14mm for my design projects, so a constant f2.8 would be fantastic. It would allow me to use much higher shutter speeds. That’s always a good thing!
Aurora, star trails, astronomy…
For fast shutter speed in low-light, obviously.
F/2.8 is great even on a wide angle because there are many situations where you still don’t have a lot of light and would like to keep the ISO down or the shutter speed up.
Also, though the DOF is pretty large at 7mm and f/2.8 on m43, it’s still not all that large in reality if you really want sharpness through the image at both far and near distances.
Rats! I’m about to switch from a DLSR system to mirrorless and was set on going over to Fujifilm (because of the X-T1). But with a 300mm f/4 on the horizon … and Olympus is right back in the race for my dinero.
The EM10 my friend.. I am in your same boat. These lenses are sweeeeet
So you Sella are switching from DSLR to mirrorless and you are interested in a 300 mm lens? There are no (payable) 300 mm lenses in mirrorless mounts, so why are you switching at all? It makes no sense.
Check your facts before throwing money away: mirrorless is not on par with DSLR yet, and 43 sensors are particularly bad.
Just trying to help.
Or maybe you need to crawl back into your coffin & go back to sleep.
Sure, with that alias you are “just trying to help”? No you are one of those Canikon turds that we have way to many of here. Go back to Canikon land and stay there. Noone needs your so called help.
the newest m43 sensors are not particularly bad, quite the opposite, read some reviews…
Well I don’t like reviews, so I tested some myself, and I am sorry but they suck.
That’s it! Reviewers suck! Everyone else in the whole world are wrong. Only you are right. There is a huge conspiracy amongst reviewers. Eh…
Trying stuff oneself works, for those of us who have a brain.
You are obviously in a different league, so keep reading your reviews and tossing over your specs. Those of us who have a brain will be out taking great pictures – and mostly with Canon or Nikon cameras.
So you have to tell people you have a brain. Doesn’t people notice that, if you don’t tell them?
“Those of us who have a brain will be out taking great pictures – and mostly with Canon or Nikon cameras.”
That sounds like a brain of a sheep! You just follow the crowd & jump because others did it in front of you, even though there is nothing there. That is why most people just go & buy a Canikon, because every other sheep like person did it before them. Those that have a brain will research what gear is a available out there & try to go for the correct gear that will suit them, not what Joe Bloggs next door said or even the biased shop salesman & those with brains & not just brawn will also think about how big & heavy the kit will be & will consider the pros & cons of both systems. It’s good to read some reviews & in the past they were somewhat biased but now a lot more are waking up & noticing how wonderful the latest gear from Olympus & Panasonic as well as the other smaller brands (compared to the big two) is now & realise that carrying around a backpack full of heavy gear is much less of a sensible thing to do when there is an increasing lot of gear that performs well & is so much lighter.
It’s the sensible, intelligent brain you need, not a sheep’s brain!
What part of “think with your own head” have you not understood?
The trouble is, you cannot, so you buy junk. Are you very young or very old? Or you work for the junk factory?
Olympus 75-300 & Panasonic 100-300 and the m4/3 sensors are excellent.
But of course you already know that because you’re just trolling.
If there are no native M4/3 lenses in the focal lengths you want… just ADAPT!
I have a bunch of Nikon AI-S lenses that I adapted… 105mm f2.8 macro, 200mm f4 IF macro, 300mm EDIF f4.5… for about $300± each. A good deal and I can always re-sell them at some point.
I can only imagine what that Oly 300mm will cost! But, it’s on my list… as is the 7-14mm f2.8.
Thanks Oly! But having to wait a whole year? Sheeesh!
Adapter Jeff, did you ever had the chance to try the Nikkor 105 f/1.8? just curious.
Fuji will have a super-tele zoom lens in 2015 (something like 120-400 probably with f4.5-5.6 or f5.6 according to some rumors).
Me, just like you, I’m going to drop my Nikon gear (this spring) to get into the mirrorless world (mirrorless is the future imho). The A7 is not a conteder because it has some great flaws imo (and few native lenses).
The X-E2 and the E-M1 are the principal options for me. (X-T1 has weather sealing but there are no weather sealed lenses yet so it’s kinda redundant plus I like more the retro rangefinder stile than the classic slr one).
The E-M1 was in pole position but after I’ve compared the IQ…well I think Fuji is better (for me). Micro four thirds is a mature system and that’s a very good thing but noise is one big problem. And I’m not talking about high iso noise but low iso noise. All images produce by the E-M1 are grainy and have artefacts (shooting raw is a solution but still in eliminating low iso noise you get pretty unsharp results). For a travel photographer MFT is great but for more serious work like stock, landcape, architecure, Fuji has the edge. I don’t shoot action so I don’t care about CAF. Also lack of a advanced flash is not an issue with Fuji because Elinchrom has great portable flash systems that are much better than normal flashes for serious off camera work.
Also, I love the Fuji lenses…the metal, the feel, way above everybody else.
…you make me always smile…really a funny guy…micro43 has artifact???…have you ever seen fuji raf files…pls…and what about grain sky???…yes if you don’t devolp the file in the right way you could have that, but if you know what to do do with LR you have wonderful noise free file…
By the way, you said yesterday that stock photographer will choose fuji over micro43 for their work….David @Soundimageplus said a couple days ago that , if he has to choose a system for his work, between the two, it’ll be micro43…because at base iso is better then fuji….
You are a MFT user and you are very subjective. There are tons of bloggers and pros who prefer Fuji. I on the other hand I’m a Nikon user just about to change gear and embark on the mirrorless journey. I can judge more objective my choice. I’m not a fan of Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji or Sony. I will pick what’s best for me. For me, after months of comparisons, Fuji is the best. You are more funny than me mister G spot 🙂
Can you pls list here the” .. tons of bloggers and pros who prefer Fuji. ..”….just curious…:)
A friend of mine has a xpro1 and he lent me his camera for a week. I shot several shots with the camera and I developed the raf file with lightroom and photo ninja that in my opinion is the best raw program for fujj.
After spending several hours checking the file, I see that at base iso micro43 has better sharpness and way better color reproduction then fuji especially in the red and green.
Another big problem is the really really poor highlight recovery that fuji file have in comparison with my OMD files.
Fuji use a lot of NR in their raf file that look cleaner but with less detail…another problem with fuji are the artifact and color shifting….to my eyes bayer sensor are much better the xtrans sensor.
I think fuji marketing did a wonderful job with people like you…:)
Hey Andy,
You heard the man. Show us the links 🙂
http://www.bestmirrorlesscamerareviews.com/2013/09/27/10-awesome-professional-photographers-who-use-fuji-x-cameras-for-work/
http://blog.tashian.com/review-of-the-fuji-xe2-mirrorless-camera
There are a lot, lot more. Just search using google. It’s easy 🙂
A tons ( and you post Just 2 Link…) of blogger and pro that prefer Fuji ….Yes to dslr ,not micro43…..none in the link you post say they prefer Fuji to micro43……as you state before…you are really a funny person…..and a true Fuji fan boy!
One it’s a fanboy if he uses or ever used a system and it’s crazy blind about that system. I’ve only used Nikon, Pentax and HP (yes back 2000 HP was making digital cameras) for personal work and a Canon 60D for paid work for a sport federation in my country and I’m not crazy about those brands. I shoot whith whatever brand I have available. Every brand and format has advantages and disadvantages. Buying into a new system made me do extensive research on the internet and at the biggest camera retailer in SE Europe (f64.ro). Everybody knows how to search the net for information and complaining about two links (there are 10 photographers in the first) and not searching makes you an ingnorant and a fanboy (you are using MFT right now right?). Fuji marketing? I’m not the average burger eating and cola drinking American to fall for stupid marketing tricks. (and I’m sure on this site we all have knowledge about photography but some are just crazy blind about a system)
And if those photographers and a lot others on the net (searching is easy you just have to goagalit as a joke says in my country) are choosing Fuji X system over a DSLR one that means that they have chosen the X system over other formats including MFT. It’s a logical fact 🙂 because they aren’t using MFT.
” are choosing Fuji X system over a DSLR one that means that they have chosen the X system over other formats including MFT. It’s a logical fact 🙂 because they aren’t using MFT.”..hahahahah super funny!…there ara a tons of pro using Micro43 coming from dslr and they don’t use fuji…so????what the point..???
But the most funny is this:”… At pixel peeping level the difference between a MFT sensor (Panasonic in the E-M1 as I’ve read a couple of days ago) and a Fuji APS-C is noticeable (the E-M1 produces grainier/noisier images). The sensor in the E-M5 is cleaner than the one in the E-M1 (probably Sony or Toshiba) and comparable with the Fuji APS-C sensors.”…so for you em-1 produce more grain then OMD em-5…can you show the evidence of this…a link, a blog, a review that stated this???
I’m not disputing your choice but you are aware that the Sony m43 sensor gets better scores than any Canon APSC sensor ?
Now I know the Canon sensor is lagging behind the opposition but millions of good photographs are taken and prints produced everywhere by those Canon sensors (as well as m43).
Do you really think you’ll notice a difference at the final image size (not pixel peeping).
There are good reasons that you may prefer the Fuji cameras (legacy controls, form factor, film modes etc.) but I don’t think the IQ differences between any APSC and m43 will make any significant difference.
For that you’d have to go to FF
I know that when printing (at A2 or even A1 sheet sizes) the differences between base iso MFT, APS-C and FF is almost nil. However I want to begin to do stock photography and to have an image accepted, that image it’s going to be pixel peeped by the judges. At pixel peeping level the difference between a MFT sensor (Panasonic in the E-M1 as I’ve read a couple of days ago) and a Fuji APS-C is noticeable (the E-M1 produces grainier/noisier images). The sensor in the E-M5 is cleaner than the one in the E-M1 (probably Sony or Toshiba) and comparable with the Fuji APS-C sensors. But I don’t like the E-M5 body and feel compared to the E-M1 and X-E2. I don’t know why Olympus chose to use a noisier sensor for its flagship…
The other big plus of Fuji are lenses (beside the build quality and materials) is that they exibit less distortion. I know that distortion is correctable via internal software for jpeg or in pp for raw but you lose more sharpness…
It all depends on what you need and on your skills. If you plan to do mostly still life, then go medium format. Too expensive? Go with Sigma dps: the cons are a slow buffer and a frustrating RAW reader, but output is outstanding, at base ISO.
Do you need to move faster and lighter? M43 is the best.
Not afraid of bigger lenses, and AF in poor light does not matter? Go Fuji.
Need to shoot at sport events? Perhaps it’s better for you to keep your heavy DSLR.
By the way, noise of Em1 looks more grainy (read appealing) than that of Em5.
Often, when shooting at 1600, I do not need to go through SilverEfex because with the right setting a photo can look like taken on an Ilford 400 ASA film.
Noise is a problem if you crop the image, but it’s not my case.
On what basis do you state that images will be unacceptable unless they are perfect at the individual pixel level?
Hi Andy,
I don’t disagree that Fuji might be right for you, but not sure where you get the images are cleaner at pixel peeping level. I thought the biggest complaint against the X Trans stuff (by people who appear to know what they’re talking about, like Ming Thien) is that they kind of fall apart there, and are not as clean for post processing and pulling out finer details. If you put any stock in Steve Huff, his findings seem similar.
For myself, I can’t notice any real difference between E-M1 and E-M5 files but, like yourself, much prefer using an E-M1 for the ergonomics.
But seriously, if ultimate pixel peeping matters, the Nikon D800E is pretty hard to beat. Mirrorless may well be the future, but the DSLRs have earned their current top spot for a reason.
P.S. From a usability perspective, I hate every Fuji I have used or owned (but that’s just my feeling)
MarcoSartoriPhoto:
“It all depends on what you need and on your skills”
Thats a sensible answer, each and every format and vendor has strengths and weaknesses.
I would love to own a MF system for studo Work, a Nikon D4 and fast long primes for sports and bird in flight, but even then I would most probably use my light mirrorless system the most of the time (travel, walk around and street for instance).
Regarding Fuji versus Olympus: I own the Em-1 and the EPM2, but I am very impressed by the Fuji one of my colleagues owns.
Both vendors produces great mirrorless cameras and lenses, very compentent and mature systems.
You will have to Work more with the RAW files in post processomg in order to compete with full frame and MF files, and these bigger systems will always have the edge in absolute IQ quality.
But IQ quality in the mirrorless offerings are more than good enough for most users, and remember: you buy into a system not just a camera body.
As for noisy Pictures: Noise is very subjective and can be pleasing in many circumstances, that why many adds noise in post processing.
I order to produce great photoss, you don’t need the Worlds best equipment, you need to be able to see the possibilities, compose and expose using competent camera equioment and if a pro: user good post processing oftware to fine tune the output.
Now forget about Gear and go out and enjoy taking Photos 🙂
@Flemmings that’s exactly my point.
Today each system can deliver a good quality picture. Pixel peeping is a waste of time, since a printed photo should be looked from a distance that’s twice its size.
If you need to crop, let’s say because your customer needs an extreme close up on the pearl of that necklace, you should go MF.
I saw files from MF and they wipe the floor of stitched files from a D800, for example, from a friend.
When I say “it depends on your needs” it’s exactly this that I want to say.
Roaming the streets with a big Dslr? You can do that, but I have seen friends giving up shots after a full day o shooting with their big gear, because they were tired or lazy.
One of my best friends uses Fuji xe2 (two bodies) and x100s. He’s very happy of that, their only flaw is struggling AF in low light. He says Capture One works nicely with xtrans sensors.
So we have plenty of choices, and the best camera is that you have with you and use.
Love your work on flickr Marco but the problem of unclean output I was talking about is present in most of them. Here are two examples (look at the sky)
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3821/9432673057_816ef30925_o.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7436/9538064764_61bc720c41_o.jpg
It’s either aggresive sharpening, playing too much with exposure/highlights/shadows or the noise specific to small sensors (at low iso in those examples). I’ve seen this in most of the pictures published on flickr by E-M5/E-M1 users and in the review samples of the E-M1 from cameralabs, dpreview etc. On the other hand I’ve never seen this on reviews of cameras with APS-C sensor.
These are heavily processed files, I dont think it has anything to do with the format (Though I dont deny the existence of the MFT’s base ISO, as long as you keep the looks intact its not an issue when printing large, only for the close inspection folks)
From what I’ve read about stock photography is that the judgess prefer less sharp images (good focus of course) because the future clients will apply the sharpness they need…
Those days a lot of users are “sharp aficionados” but overprocessed sharpness won’t make the picture better, on the contrary and the general feeling is that oversharpness hides some faults.
Aurea Mediocritas seems to be the latin quote that best applies to sharpness. Too much will ruin the picture and very little will make the picture look dull.
The first picture was almost “broken” by the sun light: taken with 7-14mm highlights blow up and PP is necessary to reduce them, and to increase the depth of shadows of clouds. I could have spent more time on LR to do it better, but since I do not pixel peep, the problem is hardly noticed. As I wrote above, the correct distance to look at a picture is twice the size of it. If you have eagle eyes, then that noise (actually it’s not noise, I believe it’s called vibrance) might bother you.
Same thing for the second shot, taken with Zuiko12mm.
I can tell you that also some of Salgado pictures look noisy. And they were taken with “full frame” cameras. That does not prevent them to be amazing photos.
Again, each system has its own pros and cons. Speaking of Fuji, it’s a really good system, I don’t like its AF performance and sometimes the watercolor effect, but if you like it, well the better for you! (Be aware though, you’re in m43 land here 😉 )
My comment is under moderation, in the meanwhile look at the picture taken in Marseille (view from the old port) with 7-14mm in the right light condition. There’s no noise.
That noise you are referring is caused in PP to reduce the heavily blownout highlights.
Fuji will have a super-tele zoom lens in 2015 (something like 120-400 probably with f4.5-5.6 or f5.6 according to some rumors).
Me, just like you, I’m going to drop my Nikon gear (this spring) to get into the mirrorless world (mirrorless is the future imho). The A7 is not a conteder because it has some great flaws imo (and few native lenses).
The X-E2 and the E-M1 are the principal options for me. (X-T1 has weather sealing but there are no weather sealed lenses yet so it’s kinda redundant plus I like more the retro rangefinder stile than the classic slr one).
The E-M1 was in pole position but after I’ve compared the IQ…well I think Fuji is better (for me). Micro four thirds is a mature system and that’s a very good thing but noise is one big problem. And I’m not talking about high iso noise but low iso noise. All images produce by the E-M1 are grainy and have artefacts (shooting raw is a solution but still in eliminating low iso noise you get pretty unsharp results). For a travel photographer MFT is great but for more serious work like stock, landcape, architecure, Fuji has the edge. I don’t shoot action so I don’t care about CAF. Also lack of a advanced flash is not an issue with Fuji because Elinchrom has great portable flash systems that are much better than normal flashes for serious off camera work.
Also, I love the Fuji lenses…the metal, the feel, way above everybody else.
I think these lenses are a great addition to M43, but it is unlikely I will buy them. I expect they both will be over 1000 dollar/euro, and probably a lot over that. I can not afford/justify that kind of gear when I am not doing photography for money. But gear like that is what is needed to keep M43 alive, even with few actual customers.
You would be surprised by the actual customers. Keep in mind the system is growing both on video (GH4) and traditional hybrid / stills. Let’s see where we are in 2015. And keep in mind these lenses are built for the new gen sensors we still have no idea about.. M43 will be be a very different place in 2015, me thinks. For better.
I wish they’d do a super wide angle *prime*. It could be much smaller than this tube here.
The Oly 9-18 is rather compact, but the quality is visibly not on par with for example the bulging Pana 7-14.
+1
+1
A 9mm f2.0 or 2.8 would be very nice. It will go good with the 12mm f2.8.
+1 exactly
I think this oly 7-14 is a bit larger than the 75 1.8. Yes a wide prime would be so nice. Still waiting for a kowa news update.
Honestly a filter thread is *mandatory*! For polarizer and for a close-up lens too.
A polarizer on UWA doesn’t work well. The effect will vary a lot across the frame, looking weird and unnatural. In fact, an UWA this wide works in fact kinda like polarizer in itself, where especially skies get way deeper/darker/saturated compared to conventional FLs. ND gradadtion filters OTOH would be nice. And for those you can get holders already (don’t remember the make/brand). In a pinch you can even hand hold a 100×150 mm filter in front, which actually covers it (even on the bigger SHG 7-14/4.0). Just make sure you keep it exactly centered, to also cover the extreme corners…
Exactly. ND filters have a reason, while a polarizer is usually not necessary. On 12mm the effect is usually not nice.
There are many instances of needing a polarizer on an UWA lens that don’t include trying to deepen the blue of the sky. Eliminating water reflections, increasing the saturation of foliage, haze reduction, etc. all are aided by using a polarizer on an UWA lens. Don’t blindly regurgitate such things.
The polarising effect cannot extend more than 90 degrees and usually it is much less than that. Which means you can get uneven exposure across the frame.
They really don’t work well at all once you get down to 12mm or wider.
First of all, the filter would have to be extra large to avoid vignating & secondly, why on earth would you even consider putting a (cheap) close-up filter lens on the front of this quality, extra wide angle zoom. That would just be total crazyness!
If you want a polarising filter, then maybe a Lee filter might be possible, but then, maybe not.
Try Formatt Hitech. Nice 67mm filters and alloy holders fir small lenses, up to 167mm for UWA with Lacroit holder.
They look interesting & worth considering if a filter is really desired for the wide angle lens. I have to get a wide angle lens first. 😉
If you’re referring to the 300mm f/4 lens instead, then I can understand it.
Bring ’em. I anticipate the 300mm image quality will be as stellar at the current 75 f1.8.
is it just me or the 300/4 mft lena looks to be the same size as 300/2.8 full frame lens?
making the oly about 3 stops slower while remaining the same size
Huh, it’s one stop slower! And probably smaller to since Oly 300/2.8 is around the same size 300/2.8 on so called FF.
I think it’s just you. 😉
f/4 is one stop slower than f/2.8
No, this one is far smaller. More like the 50-200 actually, just slightly fatter/longer, but not by much.
I use my 150/2.0 with an EC 20 and a MMF-3 on my E-M1 and I hope that this new 300 will be smaller and lighter than what I use today, for wildlife.
since i have no money i will settle with a mockup.
Me to!
It will make my bag look highly proffesional, and make me more credible using my 12-50mm for asignments. 🙂
I use the 12-50 for video/macro – for me, it’s too soft for stills – so I use the 12-35 for stills, but I wish Oly would do a m43 version of the 12-60, maybe fixed f/4 to keep the weight down, so I could trade both of the lenses and just use that.
agree, same here
this is definetly aimed for pro shooters or well-being hobbiest
but nice that m43 evolves
I’d understand the 300mm if there were 1.4x and 2.0x converters, too. But there aren’t. 300mm isn’t nowhere near enough for wildlife/birding, and it’s too long for, well, everything else.
Also, LOL at people wanting to put a polarizer on the 7-14. Just LOL.
There is a 1.4X teleconverter patent found by Egami some months ago.
link here http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-11-25
They coupled it with the 40-150mm, but I think it should be workable with all mirrorless lenses. The new 300mm will only be released in 2015 so there’s still plenty of time for many things…
http://youtu.be/2_khyq3R1Yg
For those interested, here’s a solution for adding filters to wide angle lenses like these.
A 300mm isn’t nowhere near enough for wildlife/birding?
Err… I suggest you try once more then. Oh – remember to leave the car too 😉
>>>>But there aren’t. 300mm isn’t nowhere near enough for wildlife/birding, and it’s too long for, well, everything else.
…I’m not a birder, but I’m curious about what sort of focal length would be ideal for wildlife/birding photography?
300mm on a m4/3 camera has the same AOV as a 600mm on a Full Frame camera, but this is still not enough ?
No matter what you have, it’s *never* enough. Grab a 70-300 from someone and try it out.
300mm on 4/3 might seem a lot, but it’s really not. You have to hide even from half-domesticated, non-skittish city birds.
You’ll do well with 300mm for large birds and zoo animals, though.
Everything else requires camouflage and a lot of waiting until the animal comes really close by (unless you’re happy with cropping to 1.5 Mpx).
I think most people know for wildlife the combination of tele lens plus effective hiding spot is a must. Unless we want to wait for a lion approaching us(then a wide angle would suffice).
If the lion is hungry, you’ll want a 5000mm lens.
Nonsense. I capture tiny birds with my 75-300mm on my Olympus OM-D E-M5 regularly. I took this photo of a much larger animal today, and I was standing a good distance from the tree while the eagle was 50 feet or more up. This sure as heck wasn’t in a zoo! https://scontent-a-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t31.0-8/1780235_10202172931818903_984538841657331701_o.jpg
And a tiny shy bird taken with the same lens: https://scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t31.0-8/1781649_10202113530133898_1394639299_o.jpg
No filter thread on the 7-14, no buy but in any case I suspect it will be too expensive for me…Still wainting for a 8 or 9 mm f2.8 tack sharp prime, with filter thread…
If you think you need a filter thread on this lens & it might be too expensive for you, then I suggest you stick with a 9-18mm lens instead, because it doesn’t sound like you understand the physics of an extra wide angle lens.
There should be a Option that says: Both!
🙂
The 7-14 being more popular in the poll surprised me. Both the 100-300 and 75-300 are a little weak at 300. I do not own one but always heard the Panasonic 7-14 was a very good lens. If I buy the 300mm it will mostly be because I want better optical quality at 300mm, not for the extra stop of speed. My 100-300 is OK at 300 if I stop it down to f8 but I want better than OK.
Is it the extra stop of speed that makes so many of you want the 7-14 f2.8? Or are there some significant flaws in the Panasonic 7-14 f4 I am not aware of?
I would want the extra stop of speed as well as the quality for birding etc.
I think it’s cute, but the capture code for this posting is DON & it brings to mind a preserved meat TV ad in Australia where he says, ‘Is Don, Is good!” Quite apt for this lens. 🙂
Pana7-14 is a good lens, really sharp. Its main flaw is a bad control over lensflare and a lot of purple and green fringing.
This last can be solve with two clicks in LR, but lensflare can be annoying.
” Or are there some significant flaws in the Panasonic 7-14 f4 I am not aware of?”
Yes, it’s prone to give purple blobs in some occasions, especially when used on Oly bodies, but on (some?) Pana bodies as well. Like here (towards bottom page):
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_G_7-14mm_f4_H_F007014E/
There is a super easy fix for this. Replace the rear baffle with the Panasonic 8mm fisheye baffle that has a gel holder. 3 screws and you are done.
The extra speed of f/2.8 is handy for video, so yes I am glad to see that.
The 7-14/4 Pany has some ghosting and flare issues – two completely different things that people tend to use interchangeably. It’s still pretty good though.
I already have plans to sell my M3 with 50mm summicron DR to funnance all the current lenses…
To bad I dont have 3 to buy others as well.
Damn you Olympus!
these photos give us a point of reference for the size of the lenses. the rear lens cap, 7-14 is 16,5 times the rear lens cap thickness (to the tip of the lens hood),right now i don’t have the rear lens cap with me to measure it’s thickness but if it’s 5mm thick then this lens is about 82mm long to the the tip of the lenshood, if it’s 6mm then it’s 99mm long, if its 7mm then it’s 115,5mm long.
and 300mm is 2 and 1/3 times the length of 7-14 so it should be long about 191mm,231mm or 269mm respectively (yeah, i know, got nothing better to do 🙂 )
Should be nice lenses, if a little big and expensive for my taste. In the spirit of mft, I like my tiny 9-18 on my G5. I find 9mm wide enough and prefer the 18mm to the 14mm for a walk around lens. Actually a 10-20mm f2.8 would serve me better..but probably just me 😉
thanks olympus for completing about 4/3s of my m4/3s lens wish list – the weather-sealed mzuiko 300mm f4. give us a similarly weather-sealed 1.4x extender and my m4/3 birding set-up is complete. i know and expect this lens to be expensive but compared to those other monstrous birding lenses, it will be tiny. while substantially heavier than my lumix 100-300mm, it will be feather-light compared to my beloved zuiko 300mm f2.8. this handholdable birding combination will give me greater stealth and the ability to get nearer and nearer to my subjects, instead of expending most of my energy and focus on lugging the 3.2 kg big tuna and accompanying tripod and half gimbal. with a 1.4x extender, i’ll get an equivalent angle of view of 840mm at f5.6.
the wider zoom i’d rather pass at this time. i already have, and still love, my old zuiko 7-14mm and it gets very well with my em1 and even the em5.
I am interested in the 7-14mm 2.8 but not if it´s 1500EUR – 1000EUR is my limit for a ultra wide angle.
I have the 7-14mm 4/3 model. Had it for about 4 years. It’s crazy wide. So much that a few shots have my feet in it. Although I’m a landscape photographer, I haven’t had much use for it over the 12-60, but damn, the lens is near perfection. I doubt the new one will come close to the corner performance. The new EM-1 really takes advantage of the resolving power too. It’s astounding.
I put the 7-14 on ebay ( http://www.ebay.com/itm/171235926157 ) because I just didn’t see many uses for what I shoot. 10-20 pics a year with it at best. Probably won’t get the new one. But it is an epic piece of glass.
Despite the wider aperture of the new one, it must make compromises over the old one, so I’m sure it will suffer in the distortion/edge sharpness area.
A fast and wide lens is what m43 is missing, so this is interesting! First questions that came to my mind: Will it rely on digital correction for distortion… Corner sharpness… Filter threads would be nice but I understand the problem… Coma…
It would be great if they could actually produce enough lenses to meet demand. The 12-40 is STILL backordered in many places.
Is the E-7 idea definitely abandoned? It would be great if Olympus could keep the 43 line (in addition to m43), and make it mirrorless if they want. The 43 lenses are so great and there’s already a good choice. Why leave that part of pro market to Nikon/Canon? The E-5 is getting a bit old, although still perfectly usable.
I think the E7 was abandoned in favour of the mirrorless line. The EM-1 and adapters MMF3 work as well with all the FT lenses as the E5. The MMF3 + TCx2 + 300f2.8 is better than the E5 because it copes better at higher ISO and the IS. I just need to get out more to use it (and strengthen my arms)
>>>>Is the E-7 idea definitely abandoned?
I hope so, as I’ve been waiting forever for Olympus to start converting their SHG lenses over to the Micro 4/3 format. I don’t see any advantage to the 43 body type, other than the great lenses available for it.
One thing is certain, Olympus lenses are drop dead sexy to look at.
Like others I was a bit disappointed to see the size of the 300/f4 lens. I would rather like to see a very fast 100mm/f2 and a 200/f4 for smaller size.
Looking at this 300/f4 size one can see the attraction for the smaller sensor superzooms like the Fz200 which goes from 25-600mm all at f2.8. Add an tele extendar and you go all way to 800mm f4 or 1200mm f5.6 for birding.
So… do you think the qualities are the same between FZ200 and Micro4/3???
In case of the lens size and focus range, i think it’s still pretty small compare to the aps-c or full frame systems.
In my opinion, if you want a better bokeh, you can afford the 600mm/4, and you don’t have the problem to carry that lens around, well… you just go to the shop and buy D800 and 600mm/F4.
or if you think the IQ of the FZ200 is the same as the Micro4/3 system, or you think the IQ of FZ200 is enough for your need, just go to the shop and buy and use it.
but if you think, the IQ of the FZ200 isn’t enough for your need but you also can’t afford for the full frame camera na lense and you can’t carry those things, you have the choice to use this lens.
so, the point is you have to accept that there is no perfect system for everybody need. you have to choose the most suitable system for your need. That’s all.
i will buy the 300mm f4 if i am still useing MFT when it comes out
i dont think it will ever be made it just olympus answer to fujis new camera
if i worked for fuji i would get a pice of plastice pipe and put a sticker on it that says 400mm f4 out in 2015 that is all olympus has done
i hope i am wrong 300mm f4 MFT is a very exciteng lens its just what i want
i hope they fix the no filter thing with the 7-14mm
can some put up the link too the price ever one is talkeing about i can not find it eny were
I use a DIY fix using a second lens cap on my FT 7-14 with Lee filters see http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/36893455 for Jan’s (now moved to Nikon) 2011 method. I would do the same on the MTF, unless of course Olympus sees a reason for a fast buck to make one themselves.
I totally agree that a x2 1.4 and x2 TC would be the complete icing on the cake… ..
The original f2.8 300 will be hard to beat in terms of Dof and light gathering but then the E5 wasn’t that good above ISO800, the OM-D by the time the 300 is released will probably be good up to 3200 (fingers crossed) (the big 300 works very well with TCs and the EM-1 though!)
I think they are final design.
Once again, I’d like a higher quality 75-300 or 100-300 than what is available now. Doesn’t even have to have a bigger f stop.
At least it’s certain that the 7-14mm will come with a lens hood. 😛
Any info about Olympus 300/4 size/weight? it looks actually bigger than 300/4 from Canon/Nikon for full frame…
It wouldn’t be as big, although, because the flange distance is shorter than the DSLRs, then the lens would need to be that little bit longer at the mount end to make up for some of that difference. For example. The M4/3 40-150 lens is a little longer than the 4/3s version because of that flange difference (but would need to add the MMF3 for M4/3s use).
How about a fixed aperture, f8 only, 100-300. but very sharp? LOL that would be cool. Daylight lens:-)
Actually if they release a 2x TC then pairing it with upcoming 40-150mm f2.8 will give you 80-300 f5.6 zoom. That will surely be better than 75-300 mkII, and be about the same size.
You wont save any money but putting your money towards a 2X TC will save you space in your bag and add versatility to your kit cause you can use it on other lenses as well.
dream OLY zoom bag:
7-14 f2.8
12-40mm f2.8
40-150mm f2.8
2xTC for m43
OK maybe a few primes…
25mm f1.8
45mm f1.8
75mm f1.8
or hell forget all these primes and just buy one Panaleica 42,5 f1.2 !
no more text required
Its good to see Olympus is going back to Pro lines now. Something like the 300mm f/4. Cos 35mm equivalent works out 600mm lens. Its not for everybody. So its definitely for some pro shooters 🙂
“With to these two additional lenses the M.ZUIKO PRO series will cover the entire range from super wide angle to super telephoto.”?
Shouldn’t they be showing another lens that handles 150-300mm?
They should make it a pentet of lenses and add a 200 f2.8 to the lineup.
Sucks we have to wait so long for all these announced lenses. 40-150 not till September or so. 300 sometime likely late in 2015. Don’t need the wide zoom as I have the panny which performs fine for me. 2.8 isn’t really fast enough for info of shooting so I’m still waiting on a wide angle prime. 9mm f1.8 or 10.5mm f/1.4 would be sweet. Going to be waiting a lot longer than 2015 for those though. Ha
*fast enough for indoor shooting