Note: Preorder the 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO lens at Amazon, Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus and at Wex UK.
Pekka Potka is the first Olympus 40-150mm tester sharing his thoughts about the new lens
This is what he writes about the Optical Quality:
Optically, I really would say this lens is outstanding. There should be nothing to be worried about when production models start shipping. I did not run into any negative issues with the lens alone. With teleconverter attached I noticed that the combination is more sensitive to extremely bright object inside image than with the lens alone at same focal length when shooting wide open.
This is what he writes about the Usability:
For me this lens feels as very nice from every point of view. It is not big nor heavy but has speed and quality. I have used it hand held (no monopod) for two 9 hour days in airshow and carried it around in the wild without feeling any fatique at all. The lens and E-M1 body with hood collapsed fit easily into a compact backpack.
Read the full article at Pekka Potka!
Olympus preorders:
Silver E-M1 body at Amazon, Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus. In Europe at Wex UK.
40-150mm f/2.8 PRO lens at Amazon, Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus. In Europe at Wex UK.
LH-76 lens hood at Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus.
MC-14 1.4x teleconverter at Amazon, Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus.
PRF-ZD62 Z protection filter at Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus.
PRF-ZD72 Z protection filter at Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus.
General links to all new Olympus stuff at Adorama.
ALL new stuff announced at Photokina at Amazon.
Panasonic preorders:
LX100 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto. Europe at WexUK.
GM5 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto. Europe at WexUK.
GM5 in red at Adorama.
35-100mm at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
176 Responses
One more hands on. They commented that the 300mm f4 is about the same size as the 40-150mm.
http://admiringlight.com/blog/hands-olympus-booth-40-150mm-f2-8/
And the 7-14/2.8 looks about the same as the 12-40/2.8. Nice. Looks like I could fit the EM-1 and all four pro lenses in a Hadley Pro. Not that I can afford them!
I’m more of a prime guy so I see zooms more as a general purpose solution, like the sweet 12-40 2.8, it makes sense to me to have such a lens as a companion for specialized primes (WA, macros, tele, etc), so, for those who intend to buy it, being the purpose of this pro tele zoom rather specialized, why not go for a prime instead ? Versatility, convenience ? I’m genuinely curious.
All of the above, mainly being better for tasks that call for versatility.
For example: how can I shoot a rugby game with a prime, from the sidelines? OK, I could use my Vivitar 200/3, and I have. But then it won’t enable me to shoot a try being scored at my feet. A 40-150 is perfect for this. And one at F2.8 is also able to be used for indoor netball or basketball. I also like taking compressed landscapes, and a zoom is perfect for this.
Say you are a real estate photographer, and you need an UWA to photograph interiors. You need to cover as much as a room as possible: sometimes more, sometimes less. But you are always shooting from a back wall or a doorway, you can’t zoom with your feet. That’s why a Pro UWA will be a hit, amongst those users.
I’m really happy that Olympus is developing this Pro range. I think it’s a bit selfish to complain about the size, that “m43 is supposed to be about reduced size”. That is one factor, and we have plenty of small, slow lenses. We even have plenty of small, fast primes.
I bought into m43 with the E-PL1 because of the EVF (WYSIWYG), because there would be no issues of lens calibration, because I hoped it would be eventually a system that would cover my wants for sports and not because of the size. As I understand it, they designed the sensor size as a nice compromise between lens size and IQ. The mirrored system was bigger than was useful, because of the mirror. But we have such a spread of lenses of all sizes now, how can folks really whinge about something this good being too big?
There is something fishy about this lens. In some photos (like the one above) it looks like a bazooka. In the demo video with the guy who looks like a wolf, it looks very small and compact but wider in front.
Nothing fishy, just e-m1 itself is rather small, easy can misjudge size. In photo here looks like tc was also added.
You are probably seeing the differences between how the lens hood is placed on it. The photo above does not have the lens hood
The problem is that the OM-D cameras are small and filled with controls. When you mount anything on it, it will look big no matter what when you only have the camera without comparison size next to it.
Look E-M1 with 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro. It looks HUGE, about size of D800. But take it in hands and….
Same thing is with this new 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro. It is small and ultra light when compared to objectives designed for larger format offering same angle of view.
Size, yep there are a few comment regarding that and as some have stated size of bodies misleading us you need remember that all three existing EM’s are different size in themselves, coupled with whether hood is detracted or not, will confuse the issue.
Oh, nice info, without tripod mount the lens is only 760g. Really want this lens, but sadly can’t get it right away 🙁
Me too, but it will take like a year for me to save so much money for this lens 🙁 So, maybe I buy Oly 75 instead 🙂
I wish I was the guy who got to splash the water all over this thing.
Lens looks huge but weighs lighter than it looks. Looking forward to see side-by-side comparisons with the existing 40-150mm at the same aperture and focal length. Hope the quality is there like they claim to be.
Pretty promising looking lens in terms of IQ. Looks like Oly listened to their customers and have made sure the lens is sharp at its longest reach. Would love to see how it compares at 100mm to the Panny 35-100mm as they are both priced the same.
Admin, I’ll ask again, why do you keep deleting my posts ?
I’m guessing, for spamming maybe? Maybe? Maybe?
Maybe?
sorry for that but i needed to test if it was an auto-filtering issue, ip block or something else. it’s not gonna happen again
Admin, I’ll ask again, why do you keep erasing my posts ?
Admin, I’ll ask again, why do you keep nuking my posts ?
Lens looks big for daily use. I wish Panasonic comes with a 100-400 f4 pro lens, I can have a 3 lenses solution with my 12-35 and 35-100.
You think a 100-400f4 lens would be smaller? When the 300/4 is rumored to be huge?
Do the math: A 400/4 has a minimum 100mm front lens… case closed.
George, don’t call the lens big. People will stone you to death for it.
I’ve had my Nikkor D 80-200mm for 5 years now. I wouldn’t call a zoom at this focal range a “daily use” lens. Unless I shoot sports for a living. Then it would just be par for the course, though, wouldn’t it. A bit like how you wouldn’t drive a tractor “for daily use”, but when you’re a farmer than hey, you wouldn’t use a Volvo to plough a field now, eh.
http://i00.i.aliimg.com/photo/107751036/Used_tractor_Volvo_BM.jpg
Pekka, thanks for the info. Could you also check whether the TC work with 43 lenses with mmf3 attached to EM1? I think that the mmf3 could contain the protruding element of the TC without touching the 43 lenses. Could you check it will work? thanks.
Hahaha! That thing is HUGE! I don’t expect Olympus to move a lot of these… The system is “Micro” Four Thirds, not Four Thirds…
Fail.
Seriously, if it doesn’t clearly beat the Panasonic 35-100mm 2.8, it’s done.
It definitely beats the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 at 150mm.
Also at 105mm and 135mm 😉
And yet pre-orders are much higher for much more expensive, but “huge and heavy(760g)” 40-150f2.8 than new 35-100 “micro” pana lens.
The Pana beats the Olympus in terms of size, weight and prize. These are basically the only reasons to buy this lens. Laws of physics are against building a light 150/2.8.
The trolling MORON, MrALLCRAP, is back with his nonsense. The success or failure of m43 does not hinge on what this idiot says. The fact is that this Pro lens is a companion to the Oly Pro m43 12-40mm, and will sell very well. And it is NOT a competitor to the 35-100mm. Two completely different lenses. Your ignorance is showing, as usual. It’s a winner, and you know it, you knucklehead.
Hahahahaha! The amount of name calling is HILARIOUS!!
Childish Laungage? Yet has no problem name-calling…. Childish, you say? Who’s the Troll now?
Also, how is this a Pro Lens? Because Olympus says so? HAW! A Pro would use a 7D and a similar focal length lens to get the job done.
And this lens is not a competitor to the 35-100mm, yet everybody else says it is? They’re both weather resistant, the second lens to their matching lower focal length siblings, but they’re not competing?
Somebody is in denial, and it shows, by stooping down being disrespectful and childish name calling. I’m better than that to join y’all in pathetic shouting matches. But I will continue to partake in y’all playing yourselves. Hahaha!
I guess your parents — being brother and sister — were unsatisfied with the damage that alone would do to you, and thus decided to drop you on your head a few times for good measure, too.
AH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
For all the people condemning MentaYP for what seemed like a rational
argument I would’ve expected a lot more people denouncing MrALLCRAP,
specially considering he’s a know troll for ages. Now, children, THIS is a troll:
– Irrational behavior
– Simplistic, childish language
– Absolutist thought process
– Underdeveloped arguments
Learn the difference, it may save your life one day.
I’m as big a fan of m4/3 as the next guy and think that big lenses have their place in the system, but Pekka is really overselling the claim that the lens isn’t big. Let’s face it: this is a big lens. It’s almost as long as the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8, which for mere mortals is quite a large lens. Not to say that the size isn’t justified necessarily, but let’s not sugar coat it guys–it’s big.
Which 70-200 f2.8 you’re talking about? Even non-IS old version is almost twice as heavy 1310g vs 760g when both lenses without tripod colars, not to mention shorter reach. It compares better with pana 35-100, than oly. Throw in big, chunky and more heavy FF body and you will certainly notice the difference.
Never said it wasn’t lighter or smaller. But it’s definitely a big lens. Just calling out Pekka for trying to wave away the size as if it’s not significant. I like Pekka’s reviews, but this bit felt a little too much like trying to wish away something that will be an issue for a lot of users.
I agree with Pekka than size is not significant, it’s quite long and bright lens, that you can actually carry all day without getting tired. Not to mention easily shoot handhold without the need of a monopod or a tripod. Check the video presentation from olympus where you can see lens handled by a human, it’s not big at all. Well, at least coming from DSLR’s this lens is small for then range and aperture it’s offering
Yes it’s small for the range and aperture. Look at the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 for FF to see what a zoom lens of equivalent max focal length looks like. Spoiler: it’s a monster! Of course the Olympus is much, much more manageable than that. I’d be sorely disappointed if it weren’t.
But that’s a qualified “small”. Objectively the Olympus is a large lens as it’s in the same ballpark length of other large lenses like the Canon 70-200mm. It’s like saying if the U.S. government managed a budget deficit of $10mil it would be a small debt. For the government it would be, but objectively that’s a lot of money. Meh, not the best analogy but best I could come up with this late at night 🙂
It’s all in the qualifications then, isn’t it? Pekka did qualify his comments about size: ” I have used it hand held (no monopod) for two 9 hour days in airshow and carried it around in the wild without feeling any fatique at all. ”
Keep in mind that Pekka is retired, so presumably is also no spring chicken…
That’s awesome and all, it means that the lenght issue (argued by MentaYP) does not affect the handling of the lens, BUT, this lens WILL take more space in your bag than many other m43 lenses, that’s a fact. I understand the need for some people to have this type of lens, that’s what I love about m43, the versatility to deliver something for everyone, but I also signed for small size, not just ¨smaller than¨ size, I mean objectivelly small. This lens falls outside of that criteria for me. Nothing wrong with that since I’m not a wild-life or sports photographer, and this lens is, again, smaller than anything equivalent, it’s just big as a m43 lens.
Yep, but….my “big” bag for travel is a Billingham Hadley Pro. It’s not a big bag, certainly compared to the Billingham bags for DSLR systems. I can fit my entire system (E-M1,12-50, 75-300, 45/1.8, 20/1.7) in it, plus a laptop, and all the techie things I need for a months travel: chargers, iPhone, batteries etc. Plus a water bottle
I’ve worked out that I should still be able to carry the E-M1 and the entire Olympus Pro lens line up in it: 7-14/2.8, 12-40/2.8, 40-150/2.8, 300/4. And still have room for a decent flash and extra batteries, and my MacBook Air. I think it would be a struggle to fit the equivalent lenses for any DSLR in the same bag.
Or, I could choose to stick with what I have, leave the laptop and at home, add the Panny 7-14 and the Olly 60/2.8 macro: and it will fit in a Hadley Digital. This system is awesome!
Not at all. Equivalent lenses :
14-28 F5.6 does not exist
24-80 F5.6 they are very small and cheap
80-300 F5.6 they are not that large and they are cheap
600 F8 you can get any 300 plus a 2x TC
The total size will be similar and the cost will be way lower.
OK, I shouldn’t have watched the Olympus presentation video. I didn’t want it before but now I do 🙂 It will be interesting to see how the dual AF motors contribute to AF speed and accuracy, but in any case it’s an ingenious approach. Thankfully my shooting needs are covered by other lenses so for once I can say that I don’t need a lens and actually mean it.
IT’S AN EQUIV. 80-300 F/2.8 AND STILL SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER (NOT TO MENTION LIGHTER) THAN CANIKONS’ 70-200 F/2.8. WAKE THE F*CK UP!
Some reading comprehension would do you some good. Still yelling about things I never said. Equivalence was not my point. Weight was not my point. But hey, keep putting words in my mouth if it makes you feel better. Obviously you need to let off some steam if you get this worked up about nothing. You can do so at me. You’re welcome.
Awww, I get it: can’t admit when you’re wrong, eh?
What’s that old joke again? Something about Denial and a river in Egypt?
Dude, let it go. You sound like a 12 year old. We’re all m43 advocates here, not need to act so defensive, you’re embarrassing the rest of us. Go read his original post, don’t jump on the bandwagon that easily. What sets us m43 users apart from the FF and APS-C trolls is our ability to engage in mature, rational conversation, do not pull the rest of us to their level.
Honestly, I cannot tell the difference on this site anymore between the honest, conscientious objectors, and the full-on trolls (of which there are many). And this site does nothing to ban them.
So perhaps I got a bit carried away. So apologies for that if I did.
But I stand by my point: this is not a big lens, relatively speaking. Is it big for m4/3? Sure. But then you could argue that the E-M1 is big for m/43, too. But compared to a full frame 70-200mm f/2.8, it’s half of the size mass and much lighter, while offering significantly increased range.
For those needing something with this range and speed, weather resistance, and optics that Olympus claims are the best they’ve ever produced in a zoom lens in their entire history (even superior to the fabled SHG series), this lens is a fantastic piece of glass for the money.
What’s the point in whining about its size? If you think Olympus could have designed something with these specs in a smaller package, then you just don’t understand optical physics. If you don’t need a lens of this range, then why is it bothering you in the first place? The company offers plenty of choices that are much smaller (as does Panasonic).
I just don’t understand some people. There’s nothing “wrong” here.
But you cannot compare it to a 70-200 F2.8. Hasn’t the penny dropped yet?
Not for you apparently … lol.
So true, we are so jealous of your science and wisdom. It’s so weird we take much better pics, and pay less LOL.
You didn’t care about the specs, only about the size.
Well guess what, your Canon 70-200 is way too big when compared to equivalent 35-100mm Panasonic or why not to 17mm f/2.8 pancake.
You see, the size matters. Don’t try to be a size comparison master when you fail in everything.
No, in total light, DOF and FOV it’s an equivalent 80-300/5.6 (I own an EM1, too, so no m43 bashing). Proper comparison is with an 70-300/4.5-5.6 (745g and 80×143,5). You see both are similar in size as equivalent lenses are about equivalent in size. The FF Nikon has even smaller eq. aperture at the low end. But I guess the Olympus will be optically better. Now comparing this to a 70-200/2.8 at 5.6 my guess is that the FF lens will deliver a sharper image (lp/ph not lp/mm) than the Oly at 2.8. But hey, if you buy m43 you are not buying because of shallow DOF, right?
Sorry, but you’re confusing the difference between the total light gathering capability of a sensor, and the total light gathering capability of a lens. It blows my mind that so many people still cling to this erroneous misconception. (It’s like people online who constantly spell ridiculous as rediculous … and argue that they’re right.)
Once and for all: f/2.8 is f/2.8. No matter the size of the sensor, the same volume of photons are transmitted through the lens.
If you want proof of this, try a little experiment: Take a so-called “full frame” camera and a m4/3 camera, each with lenses of f/2.8, set them to the same ISO value, point them at the same subject, under the same light, take meter readings off the same portion of the image, and then see what aperture/shutter speed readings the camera gives you.
I’ll save you the suspense. They’re the same.
So, no, the Olympus is NOT the same as an f/5.6 lens, except in DOF.
I’m not going to bother explaining this to people anymore; so tired of it.
You’re absolutely right, and this misconception needs to be set straight but I’m afraid this, as with the past 1000 times this has been explained, will only set fire to an endless equivalence argument…as you said, so tired of it. Next time just flag the comment, explaining thing to these people is useless.
PLEASE let this be the only reply to this post, let it end here PLEASE, if you think you have the truth about the universe, please keep it to yourself. we don’t need it.
Nobody says 2.8 is not 2.8. Light intensity/unit square is of course equal. But you are not taking equivalent pictures (in your experiment DOF is different. And for equivalence all these parameters need to be the same). Additionally not the same number of photons are transmitted (diameter = focal length/(aperture fstop), so a different opening diameter of the lens. That is logical as the intensity needs to be the same on every part of the sensor, with a FF sensor being larger. Try to distribute the same amount of water on different sized areas, the layer will be of different thickness.). Read dpreviews equivalence article or http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#3 or numerous others, or T. Northrups discussion).
What you (and Dpreview article) claims is that if you mount with adapter a 35mm format objective to m4/3 you would get 2 stops more light on sensor OR two times LESS but NEVER SAME light density.
The Dpreview article is so flawed and wrong, but it is written by FF-idiots.
Well in that case I suggest you to write a comment or initiate a thread on dpreview.com to prove them wrong.
Were you born on Friday 13th?
Guys, no need to get offensive about it. The guy is only saying it’s a big lens overall, and it’s true, even within the system it’s big, you’re reacting as if this was a pancake being called HUGE. When you view the whole camera+lens setup this lens clearly stands out, there’s no question about it, now, is it big for what it delivers ? no. Is it as bad as other mirrorless setups ? not quite. Is it as balanced as other m43 lens+camera combos ? not visually, no.
What will set m43 as a serious system in the industry is not specs or marketing, it is our ability as users to take criticism as adults and present our arguments objectively. This lens is obejetively big, it’s big in comparison to the camera, it’s ergonomically on the big side, it’s big compared to other native lenses. BUT, it’s small for the specs it delivers.
What MentatYP whines is only about size, not about specs or anything else. Even if that objective would be a 800mm f/2, he would whine how it is big!
He doesn’t care about facts, only about the size! He wish it would be a smaller like pancake or something smaller.
Whining only about the size is stupidity or trolling.
MentatYP doesn’t care specs, only the size. And he should not even whine about that because he can go and get and use only pancakes or other smaller objectives as he doesn’t care the specs, only about the size.
Didn’t you hear? It is the size that matters…. Pekka had it in use and say something good about the size!
MentatYP wants it would collapse like 40-150mm f/4-5.6 does, that fits in your palm. The problem is that it has a size!
Not the weight, not the mass, not the volume but just the size!!! Don’t you get it? It is wrong sized! And Pekka has had it in use and said something nice about the size!
And where’s 201-300mm?
Die Troll!
I have been called a troll. I have officially arrived!
yes, in case it bothers you, be more careful when(or how to) writing things, some people are very sensitive.
I was very careful with my words, but people still took it and ran with it, putting words in my mouth I never said and assuming things that they had no reason to assume except for over-sensitivity. Oh well. I still stand by my original point no matter how many people try to twist it to mean something I never said.
I’ve argued with trolls for more than 3 years on this site, and you sir, are NOT one, I can tell a troll from a mile away, so rest easy. I’m a big m43 fanboy but what you say is true, regardless of any comparison to other systems, when looking within m43 line up, the new 40-150mm 3.8 IS BIG, that we can agree on. Is it big for what it is ? not at all, but it ain’t no pancake, that’s for sure.
I also understand the reaction of many here, we get attacked almost daily and that has caused an over-sensitive predisposition to criticism on this website.
No one can say it isn’t a big. It is bigger than 17mm f/2.8 pancake from Olympus. It is smaller than equivalent focal length from Canon/Nikon and it is way smaller than equivalent angle of view and light density from Canon/Nikon.
Problem is that some people believe that m4/3 can be against laws of physics in current technology and make a smartphone size body that gets a angle of view between 105° and 1.5° in size of Olympus pancakes.
Now MentatYP claims Pekka is over hyping the size and weight. Sorry but MentatYPMentatYP has not used the objective like Pekka has. Pekka as well uses the canon 70-200 f/2.8 and knows the difference personally now, what MentatYP doesn’t at all.
A 1/5 difference in size is HUGE when you travel and move around with the objective. That is as well reason why Olympus 40-150mm f/4-5.6 has its place because it IS smaller than this Pro. If you do not need the sharpness and light transmission and build quality but just the angle of view, you HAVE a choice to keep a smaller instead get bigger.
MentatYP is a troll if claiming it is big. It is very twice smaller than equivalent from Canon/Nikon while offering higher quality and even bigger difference to equivalent angle of view objectives from Canon/Nikon.
Some people just don’t understand m4/3 system at all and MemtatYP is exactly such person.
It isn’t how it looks but what it is.
AFAIK a troll is someone who doesn’t deliver any constant or rational argument and MentaYP has already delivered one imo (lens lenght approaches that of a known large lens, therefore it is large/long ), he never talk about volume. If I see a troll I don’t waste a milisecond before denouncing him, you can be sure of it. Regardless, I agree with him that the lenght of the lens is on the long side, specially contextualized within the system if not objectively by itself (it’s not kit zoom sized, nor a pancake), regardless of any equivalency, tough I also agree with many here that the overall VOLUME is small, considering the specs. At the end of the day I’m a m43 user not a Canon one, and if I need these specs I’ll have to carry THIS lens and not a Canon one, and THIS lens IS gonna take up more space in my bag, more than existing m43 lenses, that’s a fact. That said, you’re right to point out the smaller variable aperture 40-150, if you value size above specs, THERE IS CHOICE, sadly though, as of late the tendency of m43 has been towards larger equipment.
You DO need glasses. It’s nowhere near as long, and it’s about half the overall mass. PLUS it tops out at an (equiv.) of 300mm.
Some people really do live in their own reality, I guess.
Not sure if I’m seeing the same image as you, but I measured the lenses on my monitor and the Canon came to 5cm while the Oly is 4cm. That’s a full 1cm less than the Canon, which translates to about 20% less. I don’t see how that could be construed to be “as long as”.
And you’re being up voted by the resident troll.
T…..nice picture. This shows exactly why M43 is getting lost. Its almost the same size and weight. But with FF or even APSC you get so much better quality then M43. Only love blind M43 people would deny this.
Why do you come to4/3 rumors to comment? Do you really think we are going to abandon our 4/3 cameras because a nobody tells us it’s inferior?
My advice to you, ga back and hide under Your rock again.
It’s just fun to pick at you. Plus, someone may be convinced to learn something, which is good for the community (and bad for bluff formats).
FF and APSC is crap. Real Pros use Medium Format!
Do me a favour: put it next to a 70-300 F3.5-5.6, see how it looks.
How hard it is to people read those specs? 40-150 vs 70-200. The difference is only a 30mm at wide end and 50mm at tele end.
Both are f/2.8.
Canon is
1310g
84,6 x 193,6 mm
Olympus is
880g
79 x 160mm
The difference is HUGE when you remember that because smaller size sensor you crop the field of view on same focal length, giving manufacturer a possibility to make lenses smaller and objective diameter smaller as the lenses doesn’t need to draw larger imagine circle around sensor.
The difference is 770g and 5,6 x 33,6mm.
And if someone say 770g isn’t much, then she/he should seen that is almost a second Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro objective being carried with you.
When you cut almost 6mm from diameter it is a lot and if you get it over 3cm shorter it is a lot as Canon is almost 1/5 longer.
Laws of physics can’t be changed. You have 40-150mm f/2.8 vs 70-200mm f/2.8 that are almost identical, now just equivalent. But because sensor you get two times narrower angle of view.
So do not compare only to 70-200mm f/2.8 but you need to compare it to equivalent Canon 300mm f/2.8 that is:
128 x 248mm and 2400g
You get same angle of view in tele end, same light density, two times deeper depth of field (identical to 40-150mm focal length), much smaller (49 x 88mm difference) and MUCH lighter (1920g = ~2kg) + very usable zoom range and higher optical quality.
That means m4/3 system photographer can carry 1-2 other bodies with him in same weight. And m4/3 photographer has 2 stops faster shutter speed or lower ISO for same depth of field to freeze the motion.
If someone say it isn’t remarkable and it is only “overselling it”, then that person can leave the room and not to get anything longer than objective that gets them 46° angle of view.
My point wasn’t to compare against an equivalent lens. I compared to the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 because I own one and know how big it is and the Olympus is similar in length (3cm difference isn’t much), not because they’re necessarily equivalent. I know how to read specs and now how sensor size works; please don’t lecture me.
Again, never said the Olympus wasn’t substantially lighter. But it’s not substantially shorter, which makes it a big lens because it’s almost the same length as the Canon, which is a big lens. That’s all I was saying. People love to read more into things than was written.
Is m4/3 so brittle that we need to defend its honor at all cost, and anything negative about any part of m4/3 is seen as an affront? m4/3 is stronger than that and stands on its merits.
It isn’t long or big as You claim. It is small one.
70-200mm will be much bigger while specs doesn’t seem to tell it.
And if you didn’t spot, I didn’t write directly to You.
You need to be lectured like a child is lectured, because you act as one. Stubborn and knows it all, defending his opinion as if its gospel.
No. You must take the Canon 70-200 F4, and put it on an APS body. That is a meaningful comparison. What do I hear? Canon cheaper? Canon smaller or same size? I save you the rest…
Eye doctor?
Compared to a Canikon 70-200 f/2.8 the Olympus is roughly half the size.
For sure won’t be going to your eye doctor as he’s a complete failure.
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS: 19.8 cm
Olympus 45-150mm f/2.8: 16 cm
Half the size you say?
Half the size meaning volume, I think is what was meant. Otherwise it would have been half the _length_. Criticism of m43 system is okay, so long as it is a valid one.
Many years ago I was the draughtsman working on a project for a landscape architect. We were placing geometric shapes in a garden outside a maths classroom (sphere, cube, pyramid etc). My job was to scale them so they “matched”. Turns out we are very good at perceiving volume, because it was only by matching them precisely by volume that they looked “right” to all concerned.
Half the volume sounds about right. But my original post was talking about length–“It’s almost as long as the Canon”–and how that influences the perception of size. Alasamorph is determined to prove me wrong by bringing in factors that I’m not even arguing.
Let’s try this again. You with me? OK, here we go (I’ll go slow)…
HALF … THE … SIZE (where size = overall mass).
You can’t compare the Canon 70-200 to the Olympus 45-150. It just ain’t fair.
A fair comparison would be Canon 70-200 2.8 vs Panasonic 35-100 2.8
and
Sigma 100-300 2.8 vs Olympus 40-150 2.8
Go figure!
It’s 207mm long and 1,695g in weight, which is so close to being double it’s not worth arguing the difference. Of course if the Canon actually went to 300mm it would weigh 3Kg+
But you cannot compare them: the Canon captures vastly more light. 4 times as much, in fact. It is a different machine for different (much more demanding) purposes.
Thats why it also weighs twice as much and costs twice as much…
Canon? Bah toys and garbage… Real photographers use at least medium format..
I hope the 300mm F4 will be priced at 1500$, like the Canon and Nikon 300mm f4.
Why would you tell the manufacturers how much you’re willing to pay ahead of time ? I really don’t understand this logic, post like yours are pushing m43 into a niche, m43 was first promoted to offer high quality specs for less manufacturing costs yet for some reason people feel the need for m43 to be validated via high prices, as if it was Leica. High prices do not all of a sudden make gear more ¨PRO¨ , specs, QC and good design does. I’m not a cheapskate, there’s enough space withing m43 for pro and entry level stuff equally, and prices should be high when specs justify it, but suggesting prices ahead of time is only going to do harm in the long run (same goes for suggesting ridiculous low prices) because you artificially push the system in one very limited direction. m43 is all about versatility, it’s capable of catering to all sort of consumers, amateurs, enthusiast and pros, there’s no need to turn it into a niche system dedicated to only one type of consumer (pros or amateurs, it doesn’t matter).
Lately Olympus and Panasonic have started to abandon versatility in favor of greater profits, and that only came to be because people online started asking for more expensive stuff, not necessarily more refined stuff, just more expensive. Thankfuly they also delivered the quality but once they saw the larger profits they decided to limit themselves solely to the higher end, That’s a BIG mistake considering m43 has the potential to go mainstream if beginners and aspiring user were to adopt the entry level stuff, if market properly.
Well, for disrupting the entire m43 system with my comment! In my mind, I didn’t wish for a high price. Just something expensive “as usual” and not too outrageous. I’m just fearing that Olympus might price 300mm f4 almost as if it was a FF 600mm f4, which wouldn’t make any sense, but we still see some people here that think it would be fair, those being “equivalent”.
Olympus will have some competition with the Fuji 140-400mm in the mirrorless market, so they probably will have that in mind more than any pricing comment on gear forums.
Besides, 300mm f4 will be niche no matter what, even at 900$, if only because of its size.
About m43 pricing, I surely wish Panasonic would have priced the constant aperture zooms lower when they first introduced them so they would have been used by many more users. As it is, prices have settled at 900-1500$ for that kind of lenses in the mirrorless market (for all makers), and logically big aperture long primes and zooms won’t be cheaper. As for entry level stuff, sadly we still have less choice than with Canikon DSLR.
Sorry for the long rant, it wasn’t strictly aimed at you but rather as a general criticism towards the community here and other forums. Tone can be a difficult thing to grasp in text. As you said, some people online seemingly demand higher prices just to make the system appear more ¨equivalent¨ and PanOly have taken much pleasure in indulging those people. Unfortunately, this artificially and unjustifiably moves m43 away from the reach of most people. m43 was supposed to deliver quality at a competitive price point because of lower manufacturing cost but it feels as if we’re still paying for the initial R&D costs. I’m not saying there should be no Pro or expensive stuff in m43, I’m saying that PanOly shouldn’t abandon the lower market segments in favor of enthusiast and Pro gear exclusively (neglecting the PEN range, no GF or G cameras, no mid tier f2-4 lenses, etc).
Very true. Besides, when they write “pro” they make me laugh. And when they charge like pro systems (or more), they put themselves in a league where they just cannot compete.
M43 should be about the 10mm F2, the 25mm F 1.8, the 50mm F1.4, the likes.
Paul….300mm F8.
I’ve tried several times to get shallower DOF on my (m)43 camera’s from the 35mmFF lenses that I had or rented but never succeeded 😉
The meter insisted the F4.0 aperture stays F4.0 and didn’t become F2.0. The shutterspeed I got matched that of the rented Nikon D800 at the same parameters. The Nikon lens did look ridiculously big on the E-M5, it also didn’t focus automatically what a bummer. It’s also rather strange that the 24mm F1.8 that I have for 43 system which is exactly the same dimensions as the APS-C version for Sony, Pentax e.a. didn’t become a F1.2 on said system or on the m43 camera’s.
Did my point come across?
So why would we (m)43 users be concerned about equiv to 35mmFF if all we can fit our lenses on is m43 camera’s. We DO get the shutterspeed advantage that come with advertised apertures and the FOV is indistinguishably similar with lenses with double the figures on said 35mmFF system only we get a better more useful DOF area for Macro and landscape work as we do by better portrait results of recognisable human facial features.
So this is the end of my rant. With this I hope it’s clear I don’t even give a rat’s ass about equivalency.
What I do care about is being able to have a very portable system that is both capable and light enough to work with comfortably that also gives the results I need professionally.
F4… give it up. You are just displaying your ignorance.
very nice test from Pekka. Interesting detail about his opinions regarding the zd 150f/2 vs the zoom at 150mm.
Haven’t seen any full size pic yet. Pekka only posted pics like 800×600. Not much details. The lens, w/o tripod stand, is 770gm. w it 880gm.
Lens is massive. Big body and big lens. May as well look at DSLRs if you’re in the market for new gear.
What happened to m43 being an affordable, compact alternative to bulky DSLRs?
Buy a GM5 if you don’t like this set up. Whatever happened to people being happy about choice?
Choice is an awesome aspect of m43, and the GM5 is indeed small but it is not entry level by any means, nor is this lens objectively small (although it is small for the specs). What worries me, and I suspects worries Paul and MentaYP as well, is that m43 is committing the same MARKETING mistake that legacy 4/3 did, that is, to walk too close to DSLRs size-wise. m43 was designed to solve 4/3’s body size vs sensor size dilemma and the resulting susceptibility to be unfairly compared to DSLRs, thus reducing body size altogether. The GH4 and EM1 come uncomfortably close to bringing back that dilemma back to life once again. Thankfully we also have tiny bodies now, so I’m hopeful that choice will push m43 further than 4/3 ever hoped to go.
Exactly. I was a M43 early adopter and evangelist. Snatching up the incredible prime lenses and blowing people away with the quality of my little Pens. Small bodies, big sensor, tiny lenses; that’s what m43 is all about. Now we have cameras and lenses that blur the lines with the beautiful yet beefy EM-1, GH4, G6, etc. Heck, even marketing describes some of those offerings as DSLR like bodies.
Don’t has a FF mirrorless body, but are still unable to solve the compact lens dilemma. That is m43 bread and butter. Smaller sensor? So what, this super portable kit rocks.
I fear that mirrorless sales are down in the US market. Perhaps us Yanks still haven’t gotten past the bigger camera equals better photos worldview. Who knows?
Regardless, for a m43 offering, this is a big lens paired with a big body. If I were in the market for a new system and looking to shell out $3500 for a body and two zooms, other systems would definitely be in play.
Apologies, that should read Sony has a FF. And no comments about little Pens, please. You know you thought about it…
Precisely. When I want a high quality 45-150 that is getting around this size, I will get a D610 or 6D with a lens. I don’t need another dslr created by this combination.
Have fun finding a 300mm zoom lens on your 6D that doesn’t weigh as much as a Yugo. This lens has a field of view of 80-300mm. It exposes the sensor at a constant aperture of f2.8. The closest you can come to this is the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8. That thing weighs 7 freaking pounds.
Correct, light intensity is that of a 2.8 lens. But as the sensor is smaller, integrated over the area of the sensor the total amount of light is smaller and therefore the noise is larger. Additionally DOF is larger when using the same f-stop. To get the same picture, use a 5.6 70-300 zoom at 4xISO on the D610, which is of similar size and weight (Nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6, for example). The FF 2.8 zoom is of course much larger and heavier, but you can have less DOF and less noise, for example (for larger size and weight). So you get nothing for free, there are always compromises to make. The Oly zoom is certainly of very high quality (IQ + build) and will be a great tool. But there are things you can’t do with it compared to a FF/2.8 lens.
This is choice between pee and poo, not real choice between sensible products.
No dSLR offers an 80-300mm f/2.8 and if they would, it would be even bigger and cost more. The closest lens they got, the 70-200mm f/2.8 by both Canonikon costs more and is significant larger.
Want a smaller setup? There is a Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8. Want an even smaller setup? Get a GM5 or E-PL5/6/7 and a variable aperture zoom or a prime.
m4/3 is all about choices. Affordable is subjective; for me compare to Canonikon prices it is affordable, with few lenses even being a bargain.
Athonline……you mean 80-300 F5.6.
No, he actually does mean 80-300 f/2.8.
The light in your eyes is 2 stop lower I think, isn’t it?
Are you saying that Viezevure is 2 stops dimmer? lol.
Indeed!!! 🙂
Here we go again: The 40-150mm is an f/2.8 full stop.
Block of text – Optics 101 follows:
The focal length, f, is the distance from the lens to the point which
parallel incident rays converge (If I remember from UG degree: f = um /
(m+1)). Thus in a smaller physically lens, such as in cropped systems,
you get smaller focal lengths written. Thus what ALL lenses manufactures
say as the focal length for their lenses designed for cropped-factor
usage is technically correct.
The aperture number is defined as the diaphragm, smaller than the diameter
of the lens. The diaphragm is the equivalent of the “pupil” in the human
eye. The pupil opens and closes to “automatically” adjust light into
the eye. In a similar way the aperture opens and closes to allow more or less light into the lens. The “f-stops” of the aperture is simply the
focal-length divided by the aperture diagram.
The aperture diameter basically tells you how big of an area you are
blurring over. This is a physical constant and is due to the lens NOT
the camera sensor/film size. Now if you double the focal length or halve
the f-number, you are quadrupling this area. In other words a 50 mm
f1.0 lens will have about the same control over depth of field as a
100mm f2.0 lens. This is the reason that tele-lenses give you that yummy blurry background at slower apertures.
The reason larger formats have shallower depth of field for the same f-stop and framing is because you are using a longer focal length for the same field of view. If you use a 25mm lens to get a 50mm perspective on Micro 4/3, and a 50mm lens on full frame, you get much shallower depth of field on the FF because I’m using a 50mm lens instead of a 25mm lens.
If you shoot a 50mm lens at f/1.4 on either format, the SMALLER format will have shallower depth of field due to the different circle of
confusion. The area is magnified more on output to the same size making the blur easier to view and making sharp areas look sharper. Obviously the framing will be different as the 50mm on the smaller format, m4/3 in this case, will give you the FoV of a 100mm in FF.
At the end you get shallower DoF in larger formats not because of their
sensors, but because a longer focal length is needed to produce the same FoV as a smaller sensor would.
Now the 40-150mm has the FoV of an 80-300mm, it is f/2.8 in exposure and the DoF of a 40-150mm in FF.
No… learn before wasting your mom’s money, I say this for your own good.
Thank you for your concern. Unfortunately I buy stuff with my own money for a few years now. I call it: Having a job with a good salary. Try it! It pays off.
I trust your “job” has nothing to do with physics or photography?
Has to do with Computer Vision; part of my UG degree had optics and eyes as an intro. Done physics in A-levels.
What about you Tom?
I clean toilets.
But you must be very bad at your job because I expect better physics from a highschool student. Gotcha! You clean toilets right?
Post-graduate degree holder actually. Read above. If you fail to understand it, don’t worry. Physics and logic isn’t for everyone -nothing for you to feel ashamed off.
You can argue as much as you like; you can’t change the way things work.
Have a look in the book “Programming Computer Vision with Python”, if I remember correctly there is an intro chapter on the way the eye works and explains how similar it is with a lens. If that isn’t the book let me know to search for the correct one.
If you remember there is a chapter in a software development book… Amazing… So much for Fantasyland PhDs…
Enough with feeding the trolls.
If you have a simple clue about optics you will understand what I said. If not, have a good day and have fun shooting. L
It depends on how you define it. In terms of light gathering ability (Intensity/unit area) it is of course an f2.8 lens. But the pictures taken with it are different when using a 35/2 on m43 or 70/2 (same ISO, 400 say, same shutterspeed) on FF, as DOF is different and the FF picture has less noise. So many people are not happy with describing a lens like this, instead they equalize the total amount of light amongst lenses, together with FOV and DOF. Then it compares to a FF 70/4 at ISO 1600, same shutter speed and delivers same FOV and DOF and noise. If both sensors are using the same electronics and pixels the picture should theoretically be the same. Noise and DOF are extremely important characteristics (a wildlife shot with only the mid body section of a bear in focus is useless (well, most of the time), for example). So, I, for one, can only compare images technically when different lenses are used, if certain parameters are the same (not from a visual art perspective). That’s why I (and many others, see dpreview, equivalence artivles, discussion initiated by T. Northrup) find it more useful to compare lenses based on total light, instead of f-stop and focal length alone.
Canon santas should learn about how crop factor translates. If you are talking about DOF you are right you will get F5.6 FF equivalent which means less bokeh (and it could be advantage depends on situation) But if you are talking about amount of light passing to the sensor F2.8 is F2.8 same for m4/3 or FF. It is not the fist time I see Canon trolls got confused this way!
Dude, they shoot with Canon. They’re automatically trolls.
Five year old sensor technology. BA-HAHAHAHAHA!
I’ve tried several times to get shallower DOF on my (m)43 camera’s from the 35mmFF lenses that I had or rented but never succeeded 😉
The meter insisted the F4.0 aperture stays F4.0 and didn’t become F2.0. The shutterspeed I got matched that of the rented Nikon D800 at the same parameters. The Nikon lens did look ridiculously big on the E-M5, it also didn’t focus automatically what a bummer. It’s also rather strange that the 24mm F1.8 that I have for 43 system which is exactly the same dimensions as the APS-C version for Sony, Pentax e.a. didn’t become a F1.2 on said system or on the m43 camera’s.
Did my point come across?
So why would we (m)43 users be concerned about equiv to 35mmFF if all we can fit our lenses on is m43 camera’s. We DO get the shutterspeed advantage that come with advertised apertures and the FOV is indistinguishably similar with lenses with double the figures on said 35mmFF system only we get a better more useful DOF area for Macro and landscape work as we do by better portrait results of recognisable human facial features.
So this is the end of my rant. With this I hope it’s clear I don’t even give a rat’s @ss… about equivalency.
What I do care about is being able to have a very portable system that is both capable and light enough to work with comfortably that also gives the results I need professionally.
Probably my reaction was moderated due to perceived explicitness?
Look at my comment below. Your shutter speed advantage comes with increased noise unless equivalence is met.
Exactly. That’s why we should instead have gotten a PRO quality 75-300 that is, say, a constant 5.6. It would have been much smaller than this, and I would have easily forked out $1,500 for it.
For the reasons you state.
Bah…. f5.6 is crap. I wouldn’t pay a single $ for that…
affordable? Maybe you’re too poor
compact? Maybe some prefer verstaility and not only f4-5.6
Btw. It’s still way smaller than any comparable aps-c or ff lens.
MMM…..a 80mm-300mm F5.6 lens and its quite big and expensive to. I like the looks of it but i do not see any reason to buy this expensive combo over a APCS or FF set. Maybe if you already sunk into M43 but if you going to buy something new this M43 is just ridiculous. It looks nice but picture quality does not in comparison to APSC or FF.
Here’s a thought: show us your wonderful APS-C or FF photography.
No?
I thought not.
Show us yours, then we show you ours. OK? I am talking photography, nothing else please!
No, he asked first.
Then we must obey… http://www.manscaping.com/page7/files/hairy-butt.jpg
I’m not the one making the idiotic claims. If I were, I’d happily back it up with my work to prove I was right.
As to anything else, you just wish, right big fella? Oh, mmyyyy…. 😉
Dear Viezevure, it’s a 2.8 lens, not a 5.6 😉
And it’s much smaller than FF lenses with the same quality. Even cheaper as well.
So it’s definitely a great option.
Also: how can you say anything about “picture quality”? So far, there are not many samples available.
Oliver……..get real every M43 combo vs the same APSC or FF combo is going to look rather bad.
What’s the matter? Small phallus? 😉
A FF f2.8 is not f2.8…. a medium format f2.8 is f2.8 and but a pathetic small FF is only a crop sensor compared to that so don’t kid yourself with your FF garbage…
What kind of person loser spends hours reading rumors about and then arguing against a system he’s not even interested in?
Very true, and very simple. Just basic common sense and basic physics. I wonder what our salesperson-who-posts-under-many-names keeps smoking…
Hm…restrictions on the size of images because its a pre-production model. Yeah, sure, because full image quality is definitely not the issue that people who are interested in this lens are concerned about. Rather, they read this kind of article to improve their English grammar. VEry helpful.
For me, this already starts raising questions.
Stop being an idiot. If you are actually over the age of 15, then you know about NDAs and agreements to only post low res images from preproduction equipment. EVERY manufacturer does it. Now go leak your stupidity elsewhere, you troll. You are not wanted in this forum by anyone but your troll brethren.
Pekka Potka has one 100% crop of the center. Looks freaking tack sharp. Once the lens is in the wild, we’ll get a deluge of reviews with the types of images you are looking for.
Raising questions? Then you have lots of question every time a lens is released.
I will point out the obvious, which Olympus and many people forget.
The quality of an image at a given ISO has improved by a few stops, at least, since even 8-9 years ago, regardless of the system. I remember when ISO 800 on my budget Canon APS-C was a hit and miss thing. Now, in 2014, we can shoot confidently even with an m43 at 1600 with few worries, and even those get nicely cleaned up with today’s superior post software.
My point? When people want a high quality zoom, they don’t, in 2014, USUALLY need 2.8. Most of the time, f4 or even 5.6 will do. Ok, let’s not drop down to 7.1 or 8 unless we choose to. but I would submit that shooting even with an m43 at 5.6 today is a much more pleasant experience than shooting with f/4 was 5 years ago with an APS-C.
So why the big f stop numbers? Stupidity. A HIGH QUALITY TELEPHOTO ZOOM (ACTUALLY, ANY VERY HIGH QUALITY LENS) CANNOT SELL UNLESS IT GOES DOWN TO F/4 OR EVEN F/2.8, and if you complain about the fact that it is now 4 times heavier, you are dismissed.
I submit that for the vast majority of people who are interested in a PRO quality 45-150, they would MUCH rather have a lens that weighs 4 times, and less volume, than those additional 3 f stops.
Well I guess the usual enthousiast photographer might be sufficiently served, but as one who has to make a living of something that is mostly seen as hobbyist activity, I’d beg to differ. I didn’t rent 35mm equippement for nothing I’d have used the 43 35-100mm F2.0 if it would have sufficed for my gigs. But I need fast autofocus and lens speed (light) for the really demanding sports gigs. Up to some time ago I used Canon gear for that, today Nikon stuff for the most demanding tasks and maybe due to this lens and camera (E-M1) combination I’d be able to stick to one system, though I doubt it. For the moment m43 is missing the last step to take that hurdle. Though on the Olympus stand this very combination has surprised me very much about gain in AF speed. I’d need to be in the real world (real sports gig) to tell if it would be enough or not.
That I will find out in roughly about a month when this lens will be available to me.
Maybe there will be people luckier than me that will already have the possibility to show this on an earlier date.
I hear you loud and clear… Some weeks ago, I had to shoot a graduation. I have an Olympus OMD EM5 with kit lens and an assortment of manual lenses, Calumet doesn’t hire out Olympus lenses so I had to utilise my Canon EOS 1v and hired a 70-200 II due to the nature of the job (no room for mistakes) the lens was huge built like a tank and did the job. I used my Olympus at certain times but I loved that there Canon zoom. I hope that the Olympus lives up to its claims (durable) cannot wait to have a hands on with this lens. I wish in the future it will be available for hire at Calumet, though I doubt it.
This is where format size matters. I hate talking “equivalence” because I think it’s BS, really. Just shoot on the format you’re used to.
Now, think about a 80-300mm ƒ/2.8 CONSTANT zoom on a full frame? This lens is much, much smaller!!
Honestly I’m just hoping we get more third party players into the system who also think like this and they start making some f4 zooms (or even f2.8-4). Really sad that Panasonic gave up on their 100-300 f4 zoom.
A sport photographer told me this last year : People think we don’t need those f2,8 tele monsters anymore. They are wrong.
Wildlife photographer agrees behind sport photographer.
Portrait photographers agree with wildlife and sports photographers, shallow DOF makes nice pictures (but only shooting wide open is boring, too).
I agree an the stupidly large apertures, they are used by manufacturers to extract money from suk_kers. However, 43 with slow lenses will look much like compact cameras. Is it worth the money? Not to me.
Even worse if 43 with large lenses: I can get 135 for less $$$ and same size.
So, where is the sweet spot at which m43 still makes sense? I’d place it in long teles and fastish primes (like 25mm F1.8).
Another point is, a (decent) 5 years old APS-C is still superior to a current 43. That is not going to go away, either; which does not mean that m43 is not good enough, but surely puts more pressure on this system.
Prices are also a problem, they are actually a gross mistake. All in all, I would not bet on the system surviving another 5 years.
And what is that 5 years old APS-C sensor that is better than one in E-M1/GH4?
Wow, you have me at a loss. What am I going to answer now? Well, all of them, of course.
and yet, outside of troll fantasy land, none of them
We should really check the definition of “troll”… Lying dishonest salesmen? Angry ignorant fanboys? Experienced people who tell the truth? Not the third, surely…
That’s a lot of talk for a guy with no facts on his side
No … the same idiot who posts under multiple handles.
Troll.
Yeah, uh, which 5 year old APSC is “superior” to modern MFT sensors?
DxO gives 74 points to the best modern MFT sensors. According to their database, no APSC sensor scored higher than 74 until the Sony A580 in August 2010, at 80 points.
So: four years, not five, and not a huge difference anyway. (It’s not even a huge difference compared with the best modern APSC sensors… less than a whole stop’s worth.)
What is DXO? I run my tests on my own. Try it, it’s better than trusting someone else you don’t even know.
lol – you have a bunch of 5-year old APSC cameras that you’ve tested against a bunch of modern MFT cameras using a variety of technical analyses & controlled situations?
dude, you’re a joke
“Another point is, a (decent) 5 years old APS-C is still superior to a current 43.”
WRONG. Your statement is utterly erroneous. So sick of folks who post here who know nothing about photography or camera technologies.
I am in the minority then in wanting those additional 3 f stops. The weight doesn’t bother me.
You also forget the fact, that real max aperture helps with focusing and EVF image quality in bad light. f2.8 is obviously not needed for all photos, but it is a good tool that gets a lot of use.
By the vast majority of people you mean that you don’t need it, so it must be stupidity.
And btw, m43 has good choice even here, 12-32 from pany is tiny and rather good optically, you won’t really see big difference in iq, new 35-100 should be same or better. Why complain? Just let people who need this buy it and enjoy the goodness.
Wow Pekka Potka and M43. A dream come true!
LOL