[shoplink 15861]
[/shoplink]
Photographyblog (Click here) tested the Olympus M.ZUIKO Digital ED 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 Micro Four Thirds lens. After a five page long review the conclusion is: “Overall, we enjoyed shooting with the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 a lot and have been pleased with the results. Most of our photos came out sharp, with acceptable levels of distortion and almost no chromatic aberrations. However, a long telezoom like this will always be a speciality lens and with the M.Zuiko costing as much as it does, it seems one needs a very good reason to commit to a purchase.”
Check the lens price and availability at [shopcountry 15861]
Pocket Lint (Click here) posted their Olympus XZ-1 review “Shoehorning in almost as many features as its E-PL2 bigger brother, if you don’t want to change the F/1.8, 28-112mm equivalent lens on the front, the XZ-1 is the easier to use, as well as transport. Sure, an asking price of £399 is not inconsiderable, but at least it’s comparable with its immediate rivals that are also priced at a premium. After practically holding a wake with the release of the E-5 DSLR, fortunately it’s now party hats and streamers time for Olympus in the case of the XZ-1.”
Chek the camera price and availability at [shopcountry 19904]
9 Responses
does anyone actually want to buy that olympus lens? f6.7 meh
I already own silver one…
In reality it looks smaller than in this review.
It is 116 mm long at wide, but on tele it is only 50 mm longer.
so was it worth it? the quality you get for that price
6.7 @ 300mm should priced at $300 max
I am quite surprised.
Focusing is nearly silent and faster to the bundled lens with E-P1.
(of course if it fits .. otherwise it hunts a little more)
And re-focusing (if object is already nearly focused) is really short.
BTW: manual focusing from hands (with zoom assist) on 600mm EQ is really imposible => if you think your hands are not shaking, maybe you will be surprised 😉
wtf. shouldn’t it be 300 mm long at tele?
I am also surprised that it is so small .. 150 mm long lens gives 300mm real (and 600mm equivalent). It explains his bad F numbers…
With one glass it have to be 300 mm, but current lenses are more dificult (this one consist of 18 pieces) so it may be smaller.
If you want to see his construction:
http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/telephoto.html#i_075-300mm_f048-067_olympus
ha ha. A 300/6.7! Better off with a tamron 70-300 ld and manual focus by far.
Try it on a bird and you realize that even with this aperture the HO is very small and you have to increase it if you want whole bird to be sharp.
It is different to ultrazoom, when HO is not so big problem.
In a good light F6.7 is perfectly usable.
(in bad light you don’t need to shoot with tele)