This could be the next Konica Patent likely for the Panasonic branded Micro Four Thirds lens. Egami spotted the design of the 150mm f/2.8 MFT tele. As you know the Panasonic will be released in 2014. UPDATE: A highly trusted source just told me that the previously rumored $3000 price tag for the lens is plain wrong. It will cost much less!
Some specs from the patent:
β = 0 – 0.0214 – 0.1429
Focal length f = 146.32-144.30-133.80mm
Angle of view 2ω = 8.60-8.72-9.40
BF 38.48
Total length 133.49mm
Fno. 2.91
Image height Y = 11.00mm
14 images in 11 groups Lens construction
Two super ED glass
Positive and negative positive negative
(3 group and the second group) inner focus
(Part of the fourth group) anti-vibration
76 Responses
F2.8 too slow. At least F2 for MFT prime.
The Olympus 40-150 f2.8 zoom sounds more attractive (& affordable) to me. 😉
F2 zooms don’t make any sense for the system at this time. They had f2 zooms for standard 4/3, and that system died on the vine.
Better sensors are improving low light shooting without the need for exotic glass. If you’re that hard up for DOF control that you’d spend the big bucks for a big bulky f2 zoom, you’ve probably picked the wrong system.
If you still want f2 zooms that bad, the great 4/3 f2 zooms are still out there and work with an adapter… Only problem is they show you the size and price of f2 zooms. 😛
> If you still want f2 zooms that bad, the great 4/3 f2 zooms are still out there and work with an adapter… Only problem is they show you the size and price of f2 zooms. 😛
Actually, they show the size of equivalent full-frame F2.8 zooms with built-in focal reducers – and that’s what they are.. Theoretically, they should have been F1.4 zooms: in that case, they would probably make some sense. Alas, in reality their speed was axed, and as a result, they are simply overengineered beasts – too big and expensive for what they do.
These F2 zooms were the biggest design mistake of Olympus in the 4/3 era, which will (hopefully) never be repeated…
There was (unproven)speculation that the 35-100 was a 70-200m F2.8 with a focal length reducer. It may be right.
There are others like the 90-250mm, 300mm, 7-14mm which this isn’t the case.
It’s amazing how these stories gain a life of their own.
1. We’ve been speaking about the F2 zooms, not the others that you mention. The fact that the former ones are bigger and more expensive than corresponding full-frame F2.8 zooms, while still delivering less light (in total) to their respective sensor, speaks for itself.
2. The other SHG zooms are too big as well for what they do. Just compare the huge Olympus 7-14mm f/4 to the corresponding Panasonic m4/3 zoom. Okay, it may be a bit better, but at what price?
What exactly do you mean? the ZD 35-100 is a superb perfpormer. its one of the best, if not the best zooms in its class.
I did not say that they are bad lenses, just too big and expensive for what they do, if you compare them to the competing lenses from other systems.
You mention the 35-100mm f/2.. Okay, let’s compare it to the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II, for instance. You’ll find out that the Nikon lens is better in nearly everything: it offers better DOF control, it is sharper (for the same DOF), focuses faster, WHILE still being smaller, lighter and cheaper (despite incorporating the optical IS)! The only advantage of the Olympus lens is its (arguably) better weather sealing.
Fortunately enough, current Olympus’ lens strategy is much more reasonable, and instead of producing ‘me too’ monsters, they finally offer what they’ve been promising since the dawn of the 4/3 system – good quality in smaller package!
Martin, I don’t think you understand the optics. An f/2 lens for any format, 43 included, will deliver twice the light to the sensor as an f/2.8 lens for any format, FF included. The amount of light which is delivered depends solely on the aperture. The size of the sensor plays no role. As far as DOF is concerned, when you shoot long you usually want more DOF not less. Finally, CDAF is faster and more accurate than PDAF, and that’s more a function of the body than the lens.
The 43 lenses won’t AF as well as m43 lenses on m43 bodies but that’s because they represent older technology and weren’t designed for CDAF or on sensor PDAF. A FF Canon lens wouldn’t do any better. The Pro 12-40 on an E-M1 will focus faster and more accurately than any Canon lens on Canon body.
> Martin, I don’t think you understand the optics.
DonC, I beg your pardon, but I think I understand not only optics, but also physics in general much better than you do…
> An f/2 lens for any format, 43 included, will deliver twice the light to the sensor as an f/2.8 lens for any format, FF included.
Yes, that is the misconception of the ‘f/2.8=f/2.8=…’ crowd. It simply isn’t true. What you are talking about, is the light INTENSITY, or ILLUMINANCE (when speaking in photometric terms). ‘The amount of light which is delivered’ (to the sensor) of course also depends on the area of the sensor. So whilst it’s true that the illuminance of the 4/3 sensor with a f/2 lens in front of it is twice that of a FF sensor with a f/2.8 lens, ‘the amount of light’ obtained by the bigger sensor is still twice bigger.
> The amount of light which is delivered depends solely on the aperture.
You probably meant f-number (in the context of your reply). See above. FYI, the f-number is NOT an aperture, but the RATIO of the focal lentgth and the ‘aperture‘ (entrance pupil diameter of the lens, to be precise). It is a big difference…
BTW, if you meant an ABSOLUTE aperture (i.e. the entrance pupil diameter), you would be much closer to the truth, in fact. The absolute aperture of the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens is of course bigger than that of the 35-100mm f/2 lens.
> As far as DOF is concerned, when you shoot long you usually want more DOF not less.
1) Please speak for yourself, so that it would be clearer that you are speaking of your subjective feelings. 2) What you say has nothing to do with the topic of our conversation.
> Finally, CDAF is faster and more accurate than PDAF, and that’s more a function of the body than the lens.
Focusing is a function of both body AND lens, with both components being equally important. BTW, I was comparing two PDAF lenses: Nikkor 700-200mm f/2.8 is a DSLR lens, and it focuses (yes, on a Nikon DSLR) quite a bit faster than the Zuiko 35-100mm (on any 4/3 or m4/3 body).
Martin.
“Yes, that is the misconception of the ‘f/2.8=f/2.8=…’ crowd. It simply isn’t true. What you are talking about, is the light INTENSITY, or ILLUMINANCE (when speaking in photometric terms). ‘The amount of light which is delivered’ (to the sensor) of course also depends on the area of the sensor. So whilst it’s true that the illuminance of the 4/3 sensor with a f/2 lens in front of it is twice that of a FF sensor with a f/2.8 lens, ‘the amount of light’ obtained by the bigger sensor is still twice bigger.”
Problem here. “depends on the area of the sensor” it is the image circle not the sensor, which could be any size within that circle (a 35mm lens on a m43 camera). Which itself makes nonsense of the “total light” concept.
Also” ‘the amount of light’ obtained by the bigger sensor is still twice bigger.” ” If given the same photosites and same relative density the light per photosite is the same. If the amount of light criteria you like was true. Then putting a led in the sensor box would fix that. Wouldn’t it? No, so rethink your explanation. The explanation is flawed.
Jim,
> Problem here. “depends on the area of the sensor” it is the image circle not the sensor, which could be any size within that circle (a 35mm lens on a m43 camera). Which itself makes nonsense of the “total light” concept.
Problem here: If you put a 4/3 sensor behind a 35mm lens, you’ll get a totaly different picture, absolutely incomparable with the result that you would get from a 35mm sensor, for the same exposure, that is.. If you compare the two pictures AT THE SAME OUTPUT SIZE (which is the most meaningful way, of course), simply EVERYTHING will be different: – field of view, – depth of field, – relative sharpness (lines pph), – brightness (if you enlarge the illuminated 4/3 area, it will obviously become darker).
Now please tell me what exactly makes nonsense of the “total light” concept?
> Also” ‘the amount of light’ obtained by the bigger sensor is still twice bigger.” ” If given the same photosites and same relative density the light per photosite is the same. If the amount of light criteria you like was true. Then putting a led in the sensor box would fix that. Wouldn’t it? No, so rethink your explanation. The explanation is flawed.
I’m sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you wanted to say here – please check the sentences you wrote and try to reformulate them to make some sense. Again: What exactly in my explanation you think is wrong?
@martin
“Problem here: If you put a 4/3 sensor behind a 35mm lens, you’ll get a totaly different picture, absolutely incomparable with the result that you would get from a 35mm sensor, for the same exposure, that is.. If you compare the two pictures AT THE SAME OUTPUT SIZE (which is the most meaningful way, of course), simply EVERYTHING will be different:”
Why is that the most meaningful way to look at this for this specific case? I’d rather argue its not.
Its much easier to see it for what it is, an approx 1/4 size crop of what the 35mm sensor will give you. That you’ll blow it up to the same viewing size later, sure, but thats not what is being captured, so not the thing to look at imo.
All the misunderstanding about things like ‘total light’ are actually introduced by forgetting you are simply looking at an 1/4 size crop of a 35mm frame when wanting to compare both formats.
When you do simply consider it a crop it is easy to understand why a picture made with a 4/3″ sensor behind a lens uses 1/4 of the amount of light that a 35mm sensor behind the same lens would.
Yes it obviously results in a different picture when viewed at the same output size
” – field of view, – depth of field, –”
Yes, through you could get the same by simply cropping the 35mm frame, given enough pixels.
” relative sharpness (lines pph),”
Depends on the actual sensors and the lens, through getting more lines pph with a larger format is easier of course.
” – brightness (if you enlarge the illuminated 4/3 area, it will obviously become darker).”
Nothing is being enlarged optically by making the sensor smaller, so no loss in brightness.
Martin.
The point I was making was about light related to image circle and sensor size. Nothing to do with AOV or print size and the other misleading items you have thrown in. Which, I mostly agree with anyway. I do however beg to differ on your comment “(if you enlarge the illuminated 4/3 area, it will obviously become darker).” This depends entirely on how it is done. Projected light would of course require more brightness to project part of an image to the same size as the original image with the same perceived lighting qualities. This does not apply to images viewed on an electronic screen. I do not have to adjust a cropped image to be able to see it. Nore does the monitor itself know its a crop so do it automatically. Your concept of total light is still flawed. Sensor size has nothing to do with the value of light per pixel. The number (density) and efficiency along with the firmware determine the amount of light needed to make each pixel output its designed response to light.
Thus the second point. Let me put it a second way. I have a sensor 50mm x 50mm and it has 50 million pixels. I use a f2 100mm lens and take a shot. I have image A. I flip a switch and the sensor only uses 25 x 25mm in the centre of the sensor. I take image B. Image B is in reality a simple crop of image A. The pixel in the middle, and all its relatives around it, has measured and recorded exactly the same thing for each image. Try this out on any camera that allows format change such as 16.9 from m43 or the Sony A7 from APSC and 35mm. So the recorded image has no difference in the commonly recorded areas. Any difference is only seen at the time of viewing and that depends on the method chosen as to the need to adjust light. Yes, the AOV and the perceived DOF may also be different.
So “total light” should be a concept that is indicative of a set amount of light over a set area (read surface, if you like, but define surface first). A crop from within that set area shows the same characteristics. Irrespective of where it is in that set area, or how it is derived. It is not a concept that a bigger sensor has more light than a small one. It is a concept that a smaller one needs less. A bigger sensor merely requires a bigger (brighter, more intense, simply larger) light source to work as well as a small one.
Hence ratios, and the flaw in total light concept as used so often here.
Martin, the only way this would work as you claim it does is if the lens didn’t concentrate the light. If you have three 300mm f/2.8 lenses, one for MF, one for Ff, and one for 43, all three lenses will capture EXACTLY the same amount of light. The MF lens will concentrate the light and create an image circle for the MF sensor. the FF lens will concentrate the light and create an image circle for the FF sensor. And the 43 lens will concentrate the light and create an image circle for the 43 sensor. In all cases EXACTLY the same amount of light will reach the sensor.
You seem to be thinking of an ASP-C sensor being used with a FF lens. In this case the ASP-C sensor will receive less light than a FF sensor. But that’s quite a different case than using a 43 lens with a 43 sensor. Match the lens format to the sensor format and lenses of the same focal length and maximum aperture will deliver the same amount of light to the sensor.
@ yaa
> Why is that the most meaningful way to look at this for this specific case? I’d rather argue its not.
The problem is that somewhere far above, we were originally comparing two EQUIVALENT lenses used with two different systems, e.g. 35-100mm on 4/3 vs. 70-200mm on full-frame, which is a totally different comparison.
Then JimD came and turned the debate into the the problem of the same lens in front of two different sensors. Your approach to that problem is certainly valid, HOWEVER.. The goal of the comparison, at least for me, is to compare the actual OUTPUT, i.e. the pictures created by the two formats being compared, instead of comparing ‘sensors in the process of light capturing’. And when comparing pictures, you should of course normalize them, i.e. set the same viewing size – only then you are comparing ‘apples with apples’, and not ‘apples with pears’.
Otherwise, I agree with your way of looking at things. But let me stress that what you say is not in contradiction what I say. These are just two different ‘angles of view’ on the same thing…
Jim,
> Projected light would of course require more brightness to project part of an image to the same size as the original image with the same perceived lighting qualities. This does not apply to images viewed on an electronic screen.
It does, actually.
> I do not have to adjust a cropped image to be able to see it. Nore does the monitor itself know its a crop so do it automatically.
Let’s stay with the requirement of viewing the compared pictures at the same size… It does not matter much if you project an analogue image on the wall or display a digital image on the screen – the means used for imaging and image normalization (i.e. resizing AND brightness levelling) are different, but the result will be similar with both imaging methods:
– With an analogue signal (i.e. image recorded on film), the bigger image simply needs less magnification, and also less noise amplification. The bigger image picture will yield better sharpness AND the better SNR of the projected image.
– With a digital signal (image captured by a sensor), the bigger image simply provides more information to work with (than that from the smaller sensor) and the NORMALIZED resultant image (same size and brightness) will again necessarily have a better S/N ratio, and will be sharper as well.
> Your concept of total light is still flawed.
What is flawed, is your understanding of the discussed problems.
> Sensor size has nothing to do with the value of light per pixel.
‘Light per pixel’ is a variable of secondary importance. The number of pixels primarily influences the RESOLUTION of the resultant picture, and the influence on other things like the amount of noise is relatively small (again, for the normalized image output!)
> I have a sensor 50mm x 50mm and it has 50 million pixels. I use a f2 100mm lens and take a shot. I have image A. I flip a switch and the sensor only uses 25 x 25mm in the centre of the sensor. I take image B. Image B is in reality a simple crop of image A. The pixel in the middle, and all its relatives around it, has measured and recorded exactly the same thing for each image
Right. And the smaller recorded image contains four times less information. It’s something that you seem incapable of absorbing and processing 🙂
> Try this out on any camera that allows format change such as 16.9 from m43 or the Sony A7 from APSC and 35mm. So the recorded image has no difference in the commonly recorded areas. Any difference is only seen at the time of viewing and that depends on the method chosen as to the need to adjust light. Yes, the AOV and the perceived DOF may also be different.
If we compare the NORMALIZED images, their resolution (pph) and SNR ratio will be different as well, INDEPENDENTLY of the imaging method! So in fact everything will be different, not just such secondary properties as AOV and DOF 🙂
> So “total light” should be a concept that is indicative of a set amount of light over a set area (read surface, if you like, but define surface first). A crop from within that set area shows the same characteristics. Irrespective of where it is in that set area, or how it is derived.
To simplify your approach, you compare different crops of a sensor, and basically say “Their illuminance is the same, hence the images will be the same as well (maybe except for AOV and DOF)”. If I should pick some cardinal flaw in your argumentation, THIS would be it. See above.
> Hence ratios, and the flaw in total light concept as used so often here.
One advice for you: Go study some basics of signal processing. That’s something that you obviously miss.
That’s enough from me, I don’t like walking in circles 🙂
@martin
My objection to your explanation is in the last part, the blowing up the 4/3″ image and hence it getting less bright. That is simply not what happens, and hence I don’t think our explanations are 100% equivalent.
> Your comment is awaiting moderation.
What foul words did I say 😕
@martin
“What foul words did I say”
Can’t argue my points without admins approval! 🙂
@yaa
You are right, I did not express myself too well in that respect. I was talking in analogue terms, and actually meant the PROJECTED images (not the image pictures themselves), when using the same light source for the projection.
Anyway, with digital imaging, the situation is similar. It’s just not about the brightness of the displayed image (which should be the same for the two normalized pictures), but its S/N ratio…
I dont know if you have experience with both the Nikkor and the ZD 35-100. For me, I did shoot with the ZD, while I was still on the E-1. So Icant say a personal opinion between these two. But based on quite a few online reviews, when it came to comparison, both LensTip and Kirk Tuck regard the ZD 35-100 as the better zoom, better then canon,nikon or sigma competitors, Maybe the VR II had caught up in quality, but the ZD 35-100 performs excellent wide open where as the Nikon needs stopping down 1 stop to get it right.These are Kirk’s words, but i know from experience that the the Zuiko is marvelous wide open thru the whole zoom range.the reason that i dont have it anymore is because i sold it in order to get my E-M5, but I still miss it. Especially the 100 mm at f/2.0…….
Martin.
You seem to be off in a different tangent again. When does normalisation apply. Photographers tend to pick a large format camera when they want a large print and a smaller one where it does not matter. The commons sense (and reality) of less enlargement equals better applies. It is something that only enters the mind of a pixel peeper generally. I am quite happy with my occasional a3 print and a4 common size. If I was aiming at Railway Station hoardings I would have different equipment. So like most here the question never arises and is a non issue. Yes a throw away. Also like me, many would have problems focusing eyes at the ideal normalised image and viewing distance.
You really should step out of your little box with the thought processes. You miss so much with your blinkers on.
I said “I have a sensor 50mm x 50mm and it has 50 million pixels. I use a f2 100mm lens and take a shot. I have image A. I flip a switch and the sensor only uses 25 x 25mm in the centre of the sensor. I take image B. Image B is in reality a simple crop of image A. The pixel in the middle, and all its relatives around it, has measured and recorded exactly the same thing for each image”
Your reply. “Right. And the smaller recorded image contains four times less information. It’s something that you seem incapable of absorbing and processing :)”
I think you should re read this and try again. The small image contains 25% of the information, Yes. It also contains only 25% of the original image. So each contains 100% of the area chosen by the switch. Take off the blinkers and try again.
I said. “Try this out on any camera that allows format change such as 16.9 from m43 or the Sony A7 from APSC and 35mm. So the recorded image has no difference in the commonly recorded areas. Any difference is only seen at the time of viewing and that depends on the method chosen as to the need to adjust light. Yes, the AOV and the perceived DOF may also be different.”
Your reply. “If we compare the NORMALIZED images, their resolution (pph) and SNR ratio will be different as well, INDEPENDENTLY of the imaging method! So in fact everything will be different, not just such secondary properties as AOV and DOF 🙂
1. Take reading lessons.
2. Why is the concept of using different formats (or different image circle lenses) on the same sensor impossible for you to grasp. You keep referring to the larger and referencing the smaller as having information/parts missing, different SNR different and many other differences….. By choice they are both complete and the same as cropping a print of the larger. (also in reality cropped in camera, rather than having part of the sensor turned off).
3. Your total light is flawed because of 2 above. Also. You cannot see beyond the need to apply a ratio. A ratio that does not always need applying. DonC talked about aperture, you ranted about no such thing its a ratio, you said “FYI, the f-number is NOT an aperture, but the RATIO of the focal lentgth and the ‘aperture‘ (entrance pupil diameter of the lens, to be precise). It is a big difference…” DonC was correct, in any individual lens, the f stop ratio its derivatives is applied by the maker and then utilised by the user as the aperture, always has been, DonC’s understanding was correct, he sees that f8 is ‘this’ wide on this lens but f8 might give a bigger or smaller opening on a different lens.
You just clouded the issue with your blinkers again..
I don’t doubt one second that the Olympus zoom will be great. But none of these are out and we don’t know the price of either one yet. How can you tell which one is more affordable?
There already is a 150mm f/2 prime by Olympus
3000 euros? Does it also shoot rainbows out of its ass?
…and there should be unicorns and fairies…lots of fairies!
F/2.8 at that price for a 150mm?????!!!! No one will buy it.
Given that the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 is about 800 euros (and is a macro, with IS, and very good quality to boot) £2500 for a M43 150mm f/2.8 would be ridiculous indeed.
No.
Lightning.
Rumor say it will cost much less that $3000. No further details.
Zuiko 150mm f2 can be easily found for 2500 euros. Perhaps it’s a little bit fatter/heavier, but this Panasonic is not that tiny either.
Doesnt make sense. There will be the Olympus 40-150 which is also more flexible, for less money and looking at the pictures almost same size
I don’t really see the point of this lens. Now with E-M1 you can get AF with old Zuiko lenses, such as 150mm f/2(2500€ in Finland) and 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5(1300€).
This should be Faster and Cheaper to make it sensible.
Why this lens reappear again ?
Now under different brand .
Likely Pana aware this lens can’t sell much , F2.8 is not fast enough in m4/3 sense & can’t stand up against APSC lenses .
Make it F2.0 & everyone will be surely happy on it .
Use the Canon 135 f2 with an adapter. PITA and shallow DOF all in one relatively inexpensive package.
Olympus is doing a great job with their f2.8 zooms, however a super-tele prime must be f2 or f1.8. 3000 euros? 1500 is the price if they want to sell it. More than 2000 euros for a MFT lens is daydreaming from the manufacturers…
Yeah, well, the Panasonic obviously will have Power O.I.S. The mockup bears the HD logo and seems to have a switch on its side. I don’t get why some Olympus body owners always think they’re the main target audience and think any MFT product has to make perfect sense for them.
I understand OIS will have some appeal, but for that amount I can buy the em1 + 50-200.
True, the rumored price is somewhat shocking.
For such a long lens, F2.8 is fine. But I don’t need the lens 🙂
I think so too, nothing wrong with the speed. just use this setup for soccer event and stand beside a 24×36 shooter with a 300mm 2.8, you will see the advantage here.(but just pray that free Adriana Lima ticket is included when you buy it)
I thought they scrapped this lens. A few months ago it was reported they took it off the roadmap. It just doesn’t make any sense with the Olympus 40-150 2.8 coming out.
Make it f1.7 and you have something special. Otherwise this thing is dead on arrival.
With that size and that price one might as well buy the upcoming zuiko 40-150/2.8. Better bang for the buck. Of course we have to wait for practical tests.
150mm f/2.8 MFT for 3000 Euro!?!? OMG! I recently got hold of a perfect second-hand Sigma f/2.8 43 (discontinued) for 280 Euros. So, almost 3000 Euros for a single reason: less bulky and heavy. And even this is not guaranteed at all, judging from the picture above. Oh, no, Oly&Pana have totally gone mad with their prices!
maybe they have a valid reason for such price(like an included freeticket to do some boogie oogie session with Adriana Lima)
…or maybe a housesitter for a whole month so you can go out taking pics all day/night long 😉
if the housesitter happens to be Akiho Yoshikawa I prefer to stay at home.
Does Panasonic or Olympus make anything themselves??? What a tiny sensored embarrassment of a system!
i dont understand, isn’t the Pana 150/2.8 canceled?
Reported so on this site in fact.
In all fairness to Admin, this does not sound like the 150mm that Panasonic had planned to build but another design by Konica/Minolta which could be built and badged for Panasonic.
It was postponed/on hold as far as I understood it.
Waste of money.
I thought that this rumor was already dead. I personally hope Pany will design and produce an small affordable 100mm/f2 instead.
Olympus should make the promised 100mm f/2 come true in mft mount.
It would have to be very affordable, maybe less than $1000, lets face it, given the choice between a 40-150 f2.8 and a 150 f2.8 on sheer resolution alone it would be hard to justify, but if the Olympus is $1299 and this is $899 many people would choose this.
Choice is a good thing, we just need justification for the choice. This coule be KM now to save on the Leica badge and have a product with a lower pricepoint.
As to any form of embarrassment for using third party lensmakers… well APSC for Canon and Nikon should be ashamed then.
IMHO it’s a very attractive lens. It’s likely very high quality compared to zooms and smaller. KonicaMinolta designed some marvelous lenses. It also fills an important gap. I still would want to see a matching 300mm/4. I’d certainly buy both, regardless of price.
I think it makes lots of sense. Zooms don’t work well with TCs, so comparing a zoom at its longest with a prime of the same focal length is an apples to oranges comparison. For reach purposes, on a FF system this is equivalent to a 300mm f/2.8. With a 2X TC it’s equivalent to a 600mm f/5.6. That’s a lot of reach is a very small package.
As for the 43 f/2, that lens is way larger heavier — think 2X or 3X — and, since it doesn’t have the newer focusing technologies, won’t AF nearly as well as this one.
Agree that at $3000 it’s a non-starter. However, Panny has been coming out with great lenses. If it has the resolving I’d expect, it could be $1500 and be very appealing.
That said, I’d rather have a similar quality albeit larger and heavier 300mm f/4.
I am certainly sick and tired of another 40mm, 42.5mm, 43mm or another 14mm, 15mm, 17mm or another 25mm design. There are plenty of them available now.
Time for some good telephoto and wide angle designs. How about a shift as well?
Exactly what is missing! I don´t really understand why Pan/Oly are so shy in making that kind of lenses. Maybe they believe that their target customers don´t really use wide angles and big telephoto lenses – because they target girls and girly-boys (Hipsters).
Shift-tilt should be done by manual control over IBIS. Simple and works with all lenses.
Full movements include being able to shift/tilt the lens as well as the focal plane. While you can get similar effects, using a tilt/shift lens, or tilting/shifting the sensor isn’t exactly the same thing.
Ok, WTF? Seriously. Why do you all want f2 zooms and f1.8 long primes so badly? They tried it for 4/3, and the system flopped. They make even less sense now for most shooters as sensors get better and better.
Such products would be commercial failures, and would hurt the progress m4/3 has built so far. 4/3 never got well established, and missing the market/ignoring its strengths was a big reason why.
Many Nature photographers use Canon or Nikon because of their 400mm & 600mm f2.8 lenses. Olympus and Panasonic seem determined to ignore this section of the market. There is a real weight and size advantage carrying a 200mm f2.8 equivalent particularly if they also made a 1.4 teleconverter. Personally I think such a lens would attract a number of converts to the M43rds system. Anyone who travels knows that the M43rds weight advantage makes it a lot easier to get through as cabin baggage than conventional SLR with 400mm or 600mm f2.8 lenses.
Tnt1, I agree with you completely that telephoto zooms are a gigantic untapped opportunity for Micro Four Thirds. Talk about a huge advantage in terms of size and weight vs competing systems. Panasonic/Olympus are crazy not to take advantage of this and if they won’t it’s a real opportunity for another lens manufacturer.
I love the 100-300 from Panasonic. In my opinion it’s a really under appreciated lens. It’s capable of sharp photos when used correctly.
Would love to have zooms with even more reach. The 150mm 2.8 is not exciting to me for this reason.
Problem is these are not large volume lenses. Olympus launched 43rds with the goal of attracting professionals with some of their superb optics. It didnt work, these people are heavily invested int heir system.
Not they are building from the ground up, establishing a userbase and introducing the larger, more expensive lenses as the system matures, there is little hope of many of the competition catching up in this space, so better they ease into the market with reasonable lens releases then bang out 2 or three long FL in one year at a huge cost to the companies with little opportunity to sell.
It is unfortunate that Olympus didn’t achieve better market acceptance for 43rds system, particularly their telephoto lenses. By all accounts the 300mm f2.8 and 90-250 f2.8 were/are excellent. I think there were two issues. Price – both are expensive and neither presented a compelling size/weight argument. It’s not that they aren’t smaller than the equivalent focal length Canon/Nikon lenses it’s just that they are still fairly hefty bits of gear.
A 200mm f2.8 on the other hand could be much smaller and hopefully significantly cheaper than the 400mm f2.8 competition. I am continually amazed that Oly haven’t modified their 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 zoom to suit m43rds. If manufacturers want people to change systems they need to present a compelling advantage over what people already own.
“It’s not that they aren’t smaller than the equivalent focal length Canon/Nikon lenses”
They are not smaller than “equivalent” FF lenses, now that you have mastered the art of multiplying the FT focal length by 2x to get the “equivalent” AOV on FF. You just have to take the huge leap and multiply the effective aperture to get an “equivalent” lens.
A FF 300mm F2.8 lens on say Nikon FF with a 2x TC mounted will give the exact same AOV,DOF,total light and assuming you need to raise ISO to get a suitable speed the same noise. The Olympus 300mm F2.8 costs £5800 compared to the £4000 of the Nikon 300mm F2.8 It is also heavier than the Nikon + 2xTC.
You are also stuck with the poorest C-AF and tracking of any major system , it is even worse now as these monster lenses need to be stuck on adapters and use even worse AF than the E-5 .
True, but now they have the EM1 and it seems to focus the 50-200 reasonably well… But here is my prediction:
12-40 f2.8
40-150 f2.8
AND
150-300 f4 (or f3.5)
You heard it here first. 🙂
Couldn’t agree more.
What i would like to add is that a GH4 is much less obtrusive which is nice in any under-developed country. And it attracts less attention from the bloody thiefs.
F2.8 at 150mm is pretty good, even on 4/3. Problem is the 40-150. This prime should be 60% the price
I agree with Charles and Tnt1. Actually, I’d like to see a portable 300mm/4 and I’d also see a m4/3 incarnation of the 300mm/2.8. This would certainly a dream lens line-up and cater to a certain segment of the pros that would realize the size benefit.
I agree that a compact 300mm f4.0 would be a good option for m43rds. Now that the E-M1 has phase detect autofocus I wonder if Sigma will re-launch some of their 43rds mount lenses? 70-200mm f2.8? 100-300mm f4? 150-500mm? Just a thought….
I have never used such a focal length so I have no idea if it is expensive or not. I would get the Oly zoom if the reviews prove that it does not lose anything in terms of performance. Glad we have yet another lens on the system though!
While we can’t be so sure to judge from an image of what likely is just a mockup, if this lens and the Olympus 40-150f2.8 are about the same size, weight and are in a similar price bracket than things don’t bode too well for this Panasonic lens especially if the Olympus forthcoming Pro spec 40-150 has iq like the 12-40.
Panasonic could modify the lens to be a macro lens offering 1:1 or even 1:2 magnification and that would be an added incentive for potential customers shooting bugs from a distance otherwise they should consider offering this lens at a competative price point as an alternative to Oly’s 40-150 to give it a clear and distinctive position in the market rather than risk being a lens that isn’t making sense on any level. Price can change all though .
I’ll most likely buy one. I used to travel with a 5DII along with a 70-200 L IS II. It is as heavy as a boulder ! Sold it quite well and i haven’t spent it yet. Can’t wait actually ! I’ll bet it will be a lot sharper than the Canon as well.