The small image on top shows you the first image of an Olympus 250mm f/5.0 mirror lens patent. The first thing you will notice is that it’s quite a compact lens! The patent has been spotted by Egami and I would really like it to see this lens make it into mass production.
The closest lens we have right now is the Tokina 300mm f/6.3 (price and specs here at BHphoto).
58 Responses
Donut bokeh makes me hungry 🙁
Oh, but donut bokeh is the best! I’m serious! (I’ll see if I can find something I can post.)
I would love an AF catadioptric, and f/5 would be quite amazing. Low chromatic aberration makes up for the low contrast in my book. Still, if they come out with a 300/4 or /5.6 refractive, too, no doubt I would be totally torn!
OMG, I sound like a shill! Somebody pay me already! 🙂
Normally I would say “oh God no!”…to such a lens….but if it made well…what it truly has going for it is a lot of tele punch in an incredibly small size. So I will have some coffee with my donut bokeh!….This lens makes sense for the COMPACT system that is MFT. Wonder it will be produced?
Agree. A tiny 300mm lens is nice even if it is limited to scenes with no light spots at the back. The only question is – Can it AF?
Could be interesting. I tried to use an OM 200/f4.0 with my E-620. Focus was difficult even on not so wild animals. Bokeh showed strong chromatic aspects. And it is heavy (~500 g). So a light mirror lens could be interesting, especially if it is in the budget range.
Watching the patent drawing, it seems to have an inner focus part.
Intriguing comment as I’ve used the same lens with a 2XA converter on my 620 with excellent results, all be it mounted on a tripod, focusing with little difficulty.
What kind of subject did you took with your setup? Static animals?
And how did you do the focusing? View finder or back screen?
I was shooting wildlife hand-held because animals were moving around. I tried to evaluate the focus using the optical view finder but it is difficult without microprism. Can’t use liveview with hand-held tele. I can imagine that focus peaking on m43 can help. Moreover, it seems that this tele mirror have AF so I think it will be much more usable than old MF lenses.
I would be interested in such a supersmall 250. but I think the picture is just a symbolic drawing, based on the first mFT14-42 it even has the lock lever…
Such a lens makes sense for m4/3 indeed.
Here is an E-M5 mounting the tokina 300/6.3 to get an idea of how compact such a lens can be:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrobjective/9052549158/in/photostream
Thanks got posting that…That photo really gives a feel for the small size…Looks as though the Oly might be quite a bit smaller and the faster f/stop could have its advantages, too.
The faster f-stop is likely to be an advantage in more then one way:
– brighter (through, with mirror lenses that also depends on the size of the obstruction/secondary mirror
– better pixel level detail (at a slightly lower magnification)
If they make such a lens with AF I’m pretty sure its gonna get added to my kit.
Unfortunately, on mirror-bases designs like these, the larger aperture means lower contrast. I tried many similar lenses for various purposes (including some as telescopes 🙂 and I still own one (a 2000mm f/10).
Everything faster than f/10 has very poor contrast and I would not use for anything “serious”. However, it’s better than nothing and if it’s priced sub-$500 it can be yet another of these “fun” lenses, even if the quality is not good.
yeah…don’t know much about the design…but it makes sense that a mirror reflection would flatten everything out….at least contrast, sharpening and clarity in PP would help to make the image better than the old days…..
The lower contrast is first of all a function of the difference between the ‘aperture’ (actually diameter of the primary mirror) and the obstruction (diameter of the secondary mirror).
Also, there are a number of designs for making such a lens, some are a variation on the Schmidt cassegrain design, others use a variation on the maksutov cassegrain design, and there are a few more variations by now. Most cheap mirror lenses are variations on the maksutov design, which is easier to make, but not as good as the Schmidt design and some more modern variations.
With AF, this lens would be a great addition to the m43-System. You can take it everywhere and when you see some wild animals on your way, you can shoot it, while your big telezooms stays at home. But for pure photography i would never buy a mirror-lens. Aperture f5 is great in comparison to my old Tokina 500/8 (MD), but i don´t believe, that the sharpness is much better than on my 500/8. Also the Tokina 300/6.3, i tested on photokina isn´t really better…
Mirror lenses like this will always give lower contrast then a purely refractive lens, so will always look less sharp. What you need to look at is what detail level you get, as contrast is something you can usually deal with in pp.
That´s the reason, why i don´t believe in better sharpness. My 500/8 was bought between 1978 and 1982 by my grandfather, so it is at least over 30 years older than the current Tokina 300/6.3 and they hadn´t found a way to improve image quality…
Is it an old patent? Because the 250/5 is mounted on an EPL-1
Also the lens is shown in the old style of MFT lens.
exactly, the design is like an 9-18
And f/5.6 at 300mm with the 100-300, is this 250/5 usless?
Well…thankfully Olympus has focused on producing more important lenses to the system during the past two years..but I could see this project coming to fruition in a year or so…..could make sense…although their focus on lenses right now is undoubtably the pro-line for the M1.
This is interesting!
The Minolta RF 250mm f/5.6 lens is one of the most sought-after legacy lenses that seldom sells for less than 800 € these days. I wish I had bought one back in the eighties for my XE-1 and X-700 cameras, but I stuck with a Tokina 300mm f/5.6 then (which wasn’t too bad a lens either).
The Olympus patent shows four remarkable aspects:
1. With f/5.0, it’s quite fast for this type of lens.
2. Nevertheless it seems to be even smaller than the Minolta lens.
3. Because of internal focus it stays that small regardless of focusing distance.
4. It looks like it has AF! The only other AF-capable catadioptric telephoto lens ever built is the Sony 500mm f/8 (formerly Minolta AF).
If it’s optical quality will be decent, it will be a great little lens. Even though close-focus distance seems to be 4m, if I read the translation correctly. But that could possibly be remedied by macro tubes or close-up lenses.
The Minolta rf lenses are among the best mirror lenses ever made, surpassing their iq will be pretty difficult, hence the somewhat high prices for 30 years old special purpose lenses.
Interesting closing paragraph here, though what I would question Hubertus comment is ‘Why would I want to focus a mirror lens closer than 4 metres, I’d hardly consider this type of lens for close up, let alone macro work.
At closest focus, the Tokina 300/6.3 does 1:3. Through not ‘true macro’ in the book of macro purists, it does allow you to be relatively far away from your subject. When photographing ‘dangerous’ insects and such, or simply when not wanting to disturb the subject, this can be quite useful. Additionally, there is less risk of covering the subject with the shadow of the lens (or yourself).
This said, fixed aperture and donut shaped bokeh make macro use of such lenses a rather double edged sword.
Traditionally, every telephoto lens I own gets used for tele-macro purposes, too, like shooting butterflies and dragonflies. I don’t see why a 250mm catadioptric lens shouldn’t, given that I don’t have any aversions whatsoever against its “donut bokeh”…
I own the Minolta 250mm mirror lens, and it is pretty good. If the Olympus lens (which has a better aperture than the Rokkor) is as small, has AF, and has a decent optical quality, I might be tempted to buy one…
The diagrams clearly indicate it is an AF lens with rear (internal) focusing. This also means that the length of the lens will not change while focusing close from infinity.
Why isn’t therewa a donut bokeh pwugin?
It would fwind low-contwast circuwar objects and fwill the donut hwole
automagicawwy.
No mwore circles.
Have at it, pwogwammers.
actually …
Peeping Tom lens!!!
Very interesting, but where is the 25mm 1.4 from Olympus ???
Why and what for? What’s wrong with the Panasonic/”Leica” 25/1.4?
I think what Olympus needs is a cheaper alternative- I would love an Olympus 25mm 1.8 the same size, price and quality as the 45mm 1.8
I also wait for a smaller&cheaper 25mm. The rumor of an oly 25/1.8 is quite old now. I’m hoping for a pancake, like the old FT one, but brighter.
True, but then again there’s the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, which actually is a very good lens for a moderate price. And it’s very small and light to boot. If you’re willing to tolerate the slight wide-angleness of the lens.
The 20 is a great lens, I just wish they took care of the focus speed in the mk II version :-[
At the moment I think there is room for a cheap, 1.8/25. I loved the nikon 35/1.8, which is a bargain with good quality, an my start into prime lenses. From my point of view, every system needs a set of affordable primes in the ff equivalent 35/50/85 with the 50 as standard lens.
I’m heading for a 15/25/45 prime setup in the future- the pana-Leica 25 is a really nice lens, but a little bit bulky for me.
I will stay with the 14/20/45 set for now, so I have time to wait 😉 but I just hope somebody fills the affordable fast 50 gap- don’t care if it’s Olympus/Panasonic/Leica or sigma.
could be very interesting depending on price and/or performance!
I know it probably isn’t likely but I really hope this is somehow an autofocus lens if it ever comes out. One of my favorite lenses is the Sony 500/8 reflex with AF (used on a crop sensor). Its a completely different experience than shooting with my Samyang 500/6.3 reflex MF.
Hit rate with AF is ~66%. MF it is <20%.
Cool. They finally patented.. the EPL-1
LOL
Thanks for posting it! I think it is super nice that they would make it. Would be a swell combo with the GM1. 🙂
could be interesting
but i would pay a lot more money for a nomal
250mm f2.8 or 400mm f4
The 90-250 2.8 is available for FT now (and with the EM1 should be decent at focus). 300 2.8s go for close to 4k for other brands, and while the 90-250mm is more expensive (zooms tend to be, see the 200-400 2.8 from Canon), you can get them used for cheaper: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Olympus-90-250mm-f-2-8-Zuiko-Lens-for-E-Series-DSLR-Camera-Great-Lens-17683-/190949040649?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2c75732209
400mm f4.. the canon one I found was $6300, which is similar in price to the 300mm f2.8 for FT as well, which goes for $6999 or $4999 used.
A 300 F4 would probably be more reasonable, as long as it’s very sharp.
Hope this is not the indicated Pro tele lens… 🙂
Olympus had a 500mm f8 lens in the OM series. I haven’t used it myself but it ranked among the better mirror lenses of it’s era.
For me the bokeh is unimportant as I don’t usually like parts of the image out of focus. So, if it’s lightweight and affordable I am interested.
At 250mm, f5 and no way to stop it down unless you are shooting pictures of walls it is going to be pretty hard to keep everything in focus.
“That mirrorlens on the otherhand could be cheap, and small, and really interesting for travel photography”
That would dance nicely with an OMD-M1!
Distant landscapes?
Hmm yes, it would quite work for something like this, and would have been quite a bit smaller and lighter then the 135/2.8 + 2x TC that I used.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrobjective/5730397585/
OK, that makes sense. Since both distant landscapes and mirror lenses tend to be low contrast the combination could work well together.
With 100mm more, refractor type, the same aperture and AF it would be a very good lens, and I’d buy it a heartbeat.
But a CAT? really? the only point of a lens like these is a small toy to have around to those who very occasionally need a tele. A lens like these will sell less than any “true” tele would sell, even if it is cheap.
Where are the true telelenses for the wildlife shooters? something with decent quality for once, enough with the slow, small, and compromise quality tele lenses.
A good 300 F4 at the very least is more than needed, with size not being a priority.
I m not sure about the urgency of a 600mm equivalent- you can use the really good ft lenses if you need it.
Such extreme lenses are always really expensive with small market share. it would be much easier to make a good 2x converter-and turn the upcoming 40-150/2.8 into the wildlife tool.
That mirrorlens on the otherhand could be cheap, and small, and really interesting for travel photography
I can use a FT lens with a EM-1, if I want decent AF. What about all the other bodies?
A 40-150 F/2.8 with a 2x TC is a 80-300mm F/5.6. With a 2xTC on it, I’m willing to bet either the Panasonic 100-300 or Olympus 75-300 will be a better lens…and cheaper.
I have my doubts the market share for a 300mm would be that small, I’m not the only wildlife photographer looking for a light hiking system, capable of still some long range imaging.
And judging for the other manufacturers tele lineup, a 300mm F4 (or equivalent) would make the m4/3 more good than harm… I’m not exactly talking about a full set of wildlife lenses, just one.
Well most 600mm eq. Primes are priced higher then a e-m1+mmf 3+FT300/2.8 😀 so mFT is the cheap way to super-tele 😉
I just don’t belive that there are many customers for a 2500$ prime… But anyway, Olympus already said that the new pro line will get a super tele prime, so just give them some time, and buy enough Olympus pro gear to show them the demand 😉
I agree, a long telephoto prime is one of the few missing components for making m43 a complete system. And it’s such an obvious one!
300/4 or 350/4.5 could be less than 1000 g. I’m afraid $2500 will be what oly will charge us. But maybe the hood will be included. 🙂
And no, there’s no current 43 lens that will do the same job. The 300/2.8 is heavy and expensive. The whole point would be to have a lightweight wildlife lens.
I have just got a 500mm f8
OM CAT lens on my EM-1 and must say impressive 1000mm. It is small and
relatively cheap for the few times you make use of it as amateur photographer.
I have to test it with good light still, but for me it seems good enough