Casey Gutteridge shared those two new Leica 100-40mm MFT lens pictures on Twitter. Thanks!
Casey Gutteridge shared those two new Leica 100-40mm MFT lens pictures on Twitter. Thanks!
*Please also check your spam folder if you don't get the confirmation mail. And mark the mail as "non-spam" to see the future newsletter.
49 Responses
Whoever said this lens is not huge is out of their f’ mind!
Are you f*-in blind? It’s 400mm (at 800mm equiv.) vs 200mm, not to mention the 4 times zoom range vs 2.86 times. It STARTS at the same equiv focal length as the Canon.
I love it how everyone loves a comparison with full frame… but when you have to compare to a sliiiightly smaller sensor, such as a Nikon 1, which happens to have a 190-810mm equivalent lens, with a max aperture of f/5.6 on the long end, well, apparently then smaller sensor cameras are just not good enough? huh?
This lens is huge and goes against everything m4/3 is all about.
The Nikkor 1 with that 70-300mm can be great actually, depending on what you need out of it. At a whopping 810mm equiv it’s sure compact. 🙂
But yeah one has to draw the line somewhere. And of course look at the whole system, it’s never just about a single comparison. Aside from size and fast fps, the 1 system doesn’t have much else going for it.
Goes against everything *brand or system here* is about? Well that is just not up to you is it. Apparently this can be difficult to understand for people, but what anything is about is everybody’s own decision.
Multiple strawman fallacies ahoy! Although image quality from the Nikon is significantly poorer than M4/3, which you’d know if you’d actually used it…
For me M4/3 is about maximum punch st a reasonable size and weight. It doesn’t have to be the smallest thing ever, or even the highest quality; just a suitable compromise.
Exactly. A 450g +/- body lets me use whatever lens I want and still not feel overloaded, rather than start out bogged down by a 1kg body.
If I had a free assistant to haul a FF kit around for me wherever I go, then no problem.
With due respect, saying “This lens is huge and goes against everything m4/3 is all about.” would have to be a totally ignorant statement, even a dumb thing to say. Are you saying we are not supposed to have any long focal lengths because everything has to small. I think you better just stick to using your P&S if that’s what you believe.
Nobody said that, so you’re basically making up arguments here.
And that Nikkor 70-300/4.5-5.6 is as big as the same zooms for full-frame DSLRs. A 70-300/4.5-5.6 lens will be roughly the same size regardless of sensor size and mount. That’s just physics. The longer the lens, the less of a size benefit from smaller sensor and shorter flange distance.
Same rules apply to MFT.
And saying that super telephoto lenses go against everything MFT is all about, is so moronic that it’s not even funny.
If the one inch sensor is slightly smaller (half the size) than its lens is slighlty smaller too (over half the size). You can’t have it both ways.
That’s right, it’s NOT HUGE!
There’s really only one word to describe it…
WANT!
Will granted .
Don’t forget to show photos from the lens once you have it .
Want and BUY are two very different things. ?
I think I WANT it too, but somehow I think the price is going to deny me that (& I preferred to stay married 😉 )
Married?
Just think of all the hot babes hovering around wanting to touch your long lens. ?
Want? That’s for sure, looks awesome!
Buy? If the price rumors are correct, I’ll have to pass :/
Slow and expensive is how I’d describe it.
You might need to re-read the dictionary definiton of huge 😉
That’s what she said…
It isn’t huge, but it isn’t exactly compact either… not a whole lot smaller then the canon 100-400… which is the only valid comparison btw. as the 70 200 up there is again a 2.8!!!
It’s a fair bit smaller as a package. Remember that the Canon needs a 1″ long adapter or a bigger body in order to use it.
The fact that it’s the same Chicago range but still smaller is a nice advantage.
That is a 70-200 mm f2.8 lens. A very standard lens for anyFF or even APS-c user. Giving a 200 to 320 mm reach…In stead of this one that gets you 2,5 to 4 times as much reach. You can buy the Nikon 70-300 for the 1 if you like. It is clearly smaller.
This comparison is meant to give an idea of the actual size of the lens. After that, if you want to cherry pick sensor size, go ahead.
I’d say that’s probably a fair size for a 100-400 lens. Not too big but also not small. That’s physics, not much to do there.
image from http://camerasize.com with the 100-400 mockup according to the size of the image above (70-200 comparison)
edit: lenses (from left to right) are: Oly 40-150mm f/2.8, Canon 70-200mm f/2.8, Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, Panasonic 100-400mm f/4-6.3
No doubt this is another desirable lens in m43 collection .
Would buy it till I see a truly innovative sensor to pair with it .
The current 20MP sensor still not good enough for the lens .
$2500 @ f/6.3..um…I’ll pass.
I love how they compare it to the 70 200 2.8… well what can I say the Panasonic really is no where near 2.8… btw. canon 70-200 4.0 somewhat shorter and much slimmer….
Middle 4.0 vs 2.8 on the right…
Well…I have the lens on the right…with a FF capture..it is spectacular!!!!
And it’s also only 200 mm…. What a useless comment. The 70-200 f2.8 is a well known lens and therefore a very good comparison.
Well, I don’t think it’s that useless of a comment, if the general attitude is that “it is so small compared to this lens” which also has a much bigger aperture (and yes only focal length of 200mm) … you’re comment at the end of the day also just shows how uncompareable these two lesenses truley are… it’s comparing apples and oranges… even if it might be a good refrence point, it is still a rather useless comparison…
As far as telephoto lenses go the 70-200 2.8 is probably the most ubiquitous, therefore it’s the perfect lens to demonstrate the size of the 100-400, and on a more practical level, probably the most likely lens available to hand.
People place coins next to small objects such as computer components to give a sense of scale…I doubt anyone thinks ‘yeah, but they don’t do the same job, do they’!
Nobody is suggesting that the lenses are in any way comparable.
I love it, but $2500 is way too much considering the state of the M43 sensors…
Sounds like you’d better switch to Sony.
Good luck finding a 800mm equivalent. Of course with 36/42MP one could crop, but then you’re quite literally not using the full-frame any more are you. 😉
An adapter could work, but that doesn’t exactly help with the size issue. Unless of course size and weight Are no issue, then Mike should go FF indeed. 😉
If you ask me at these focal lengths larger sensors do more harm than good,
most of the time. But you knew that already.
FF.
Nothing else is worth it.
Everything else is just a toy.
seriously, the state of the M43 sensors is – if you are not making a living from it- perfectly fine. I know our kids and loved ones deserve the very best, but in terms of “sensor quality”, does it really make a difference? or do the specs on paper maybe matter a bit too much?
2500$ for me is acceptable for this special lens, although i would never buy it for my photography. but who knows, maybe i like birds more and more at some point huh?
Indeed. 🙂
Medium format or nothing. 35mm is a toy.
Canon doesn’t have a comparable lens for the same reach. They do have a fixed EF 800mm/f5.6. This one weighs 4.5kg, is 46cm long and 16cm diameter. Cost is only just €12,499. So yes, I think this 100-400 is incredibly small and cheap 😉
Canon have a 100-400mm. Used on Canon’s 24Mp 1.6 crop cameras it will give about the same reach.
if you would use “similar” instead of “the same”, i would be with you…
640 is similar to 800 as is 40 to 50 or 22 to 28. You get the drift…
of course you can crop the canon image to 16 MP to have more reach…
lol
M43 rules!
What he means is with the 24MP 1.6X crop sensor you get the same resolution from the Canon body with the 100-400 as you’ll with anything other than the GX8 on m43 for a given field of view. The new Canon APS-C sensor is basically a 16MP m43 sensor scaled up to APS-C.
Of course, 800mm/5.6 gives 14.3cm aperture diameter. What do you expect? Take the 1500$ 200-500mm Nikon on a d7200 and you get to 750mm FF eq. with 24MP, and even higher when cropping. Nevertheless, the Panasonic lens is interesting for some. I wonder how large a percentage of m43 users goes for it.
For those who wonder…the Canon is their 70-200 F2.8…So the Panny is THAT small
400mm/6.3 < 200mm/2.8, so what is so special about the size?
Nothing, just what it’s supposed to be. 🙂
A great addition to the line-up.
I don’t care what anyone says… Micro 4/3 needs these longer focal lengths. I can’t wait for the Lumix 100-400mm lens – starting to save up for it this month. It will be nice on one of my GX8 bodies. 🙂
Looks bad-ass for birds and wildlife if I can afford it and justify the cost …
Two questions – price and performance?
I knew the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 was big, but compared to the 100-400 (retracted) – wow!
I’m waiting on Nikon 1 V4 (V5?) + 70-300CX (eq 189-810 f5.6) vs GX8 + 100-400 (eq 200-800 f6.3)