A source told me that while the new Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 will be announced late 2014 the lens will be available only in very early 2015. It will cost around $1200-1300.
—
For sources: Sources can send me anonymous info at 43rumors@gmail.com (create a fake gmail account) or via contact form you see on the right sidebar. Thanks!
For readers: Don’t miss any news. Join our group on facebook and follow our tweets.
Rumors classification explained (FT= FourThirds):
FT1=1-20% chance the rumor is correct
FT2=21-40% chance the rumor is correct
FT3=41-60% chance the rumor is correct
FT4=61-80% chance the rumor is correct
FT5=81-99% chance the rumor is correct
248 Responses
bought! Thanks for the heads up 🙂
It would perfectly match a GF1 😉
Looks great on the GM1. I wish Panny would remove the “Lumix” branding from the front of that camera and add a left side EVF and weather sealing. It would be perfection.
For WHAT? It’s a LUMIX.
let me guess, you don’t want any wording but Olympus on your Product?..
Tell ya what, go write Olympus a letter and ask just what you typed. Add “Pretty Please” and maybe they’ll oblige.
He never said anything about olympus. Its sounds like he just wants it to be more stealthy.
Theres no way you are a panasonic fanboy… no one is that blatant. I think you are an olympus fanboy who’s putting on an act to try and make panasonic users look dumb. Either that or you are 12 years old.
Oh boy…
look, come with a better response next time. You’re sounding quite Stale… The Internet wants it 12 year old joke back.
Anyways, my comment was simply because I’m used to seeing his pro Olympus comments, at the same time downplaying Panasonic gear.
Anyways, try harder next time…
Loser
I just picture yourself looking at a mirror saying that to yourself, every time i read your lame comment.
Now, back to ignoring you. I was always told, don’t feed the Trolls.
Why, MrALLCRAP, you’re the biggest troll on here, you moron. We tolerate you for sheer entertainment. Idiot.
Well, there are also some people who does not care at all abound brands names and enjoy photography.
Too bad everyone doesn’t think that way, especially here.
Huh? If anything, I’d say I’ve repeatedly pointed out Olympus’ refusal to listen to a large segment of users who want pro features in a Pen, like EVF and weather sealing, and that they should simplify the Pen line to a model emphasizing portability and price with no EVF and an enthusiast model with left side, integrated EVF and EM1 specs. And I pointed out that the rumor of Oly not enhancing focus peaking in a firmware for existing users while saving it as a differentiator of the 7 was a horrible choice if true, and suggested that they take a page out of Fuji’s play book and actually listen to what users want. Panasonic, on the other hand, seems better tuned in. The GH3 was a direct reaction to seeing the market hack the GH2. The addition of aperture rings also feels like a company attuned to enthusiasts’ tastes. Yeah, I’ve been very positive in comments about my EM1 purchase. It blows away my Pen 5 in every way but style and out performs my older G5 by a wider margin. But I’d like nothing better than for a GX8 to up the ante on the EM1 and push the M43 system along. Maybe a Panasonic/Fuji M43 organic sensor will do that.
Why are you threatened by positive Olympus comments? Panasonic and Olympus are building the same ecosystem, so a great camera from either company helps the entire ecosystem gain traction, while also fostering healthy competition between the two, resulting in better products for us.
I’m a fan of the entire M43 format and own both Panny and Oly cameras and lenses. This article featured a beautiful (IMHO) camera that would look even better (again, IMHO) without the branding. But I’d happily say the same of Olympus. To me, vintage Leica (sans dot) and Fuji’s XPro 1 get it right: stealthy in front, classy, subtle branding on top. I’ll never understand the Panny vs Oly knee jerk partisanship that sometimes pops up here. Both make the system stronger. Both are why I bought in. Both will need to keep supporting it for m43 to continue to survive.
I cover all my camera logos with black electrical tape. It’s cheap, fast, works great and looks even better.
Got the last one from Kenmore
Awesome! Fast aperture and great focal length! This lense will be a winner!
I’m waiting for more test verdicts – if this indeed proves to have faster AF than the good old Lumix 20mm ƒ1.7 (which is one of my absolute favorites despite slow AF), I’ll probably get it. Can’t say I’d mind 5mm more FOV, and maybe it’s going to be sharper too?
I think it’s guaranteed to have faster AF than the 20mm, just because all the new lenses do. But it’s unlikely to be sharper (the 20mm has very, very good resolution). It’s also larger than the 20mm. The tiny size, good speed, and excellent sharpness of the 20mm are more than enough to let me forgive it for its slow AF.
The 20mm is supposed to be incredibly slow so if its not faster than that its going to crash and burn. A more realistic benchmark for it is how it places against the Olympus 12mm f2 since that is a good lens for the the Micro 43 system.
The 20mm is tortoise-like slow to focus…got rid of mine for the Oly 17mm f/1.8…didn’t look back.
Does it have the aperture rattling sound on Olympus cameras? My 20 and 25 does that and it’s the only gripe i have with panasonic lenses.
I own Oly bodies..and noticed no rattlesnake with the 20mm..but my Pany/Leica 25mm occasionally will do that…but it is pretty subtle…it doesn’t bother me at all…and it’s a great lens.
Admin, any word on whether the silver version or the new GM1 kit will be coming to the US? Only Adorama seems to be taking preorders for the silver model.
It is in stock. I just purchased it (yet to be delivered – just shipped). It also comes with a few freebies and $100 giftcard.
http://www.adorama.com/IPCDMCGM1KSA.html
Sorry, I meant the silver version of the 15mm lens, and the new GM1 kit that would include the prime lens. Both were mentioned in the original Panasonic announcement, but unclear if they were destined for the US.
have been using this lens for a while now and based on my “hobbyist” eyes, it is about as sharp as the 20mm but definitely faster to focus (as expected of new lenses). got mine from where it’s manufactured (japan). build quality is very good, very similar with the 17mm f1.8
what about the ring focus, is it smooth like 12/2, 75/1.8 ? because i’m 100% manual.
yes, the focus ring turns smoothly. though it’s not like the olympus 17mm that turns with a slight resistance when in mf mode
Have Olympus managed to enable the aperture ring yet?
Not yet, nor is there word that they will. My guess is, if we see a few more lenses like this from panasonic, Oly will likely feel obliged to respond and send out some firmware updates to make it happen. Won’t be for awhile though I’d imagine.
I’d love to see both companies commit to aperture rings and weather sealing across the board, even for kit lenses. It would make the whole ecosystem more consistent and compelling, and would reinforce the premium market direction things seem to be heading.
Agreed… and really, how much more expensive is adding weather-sealing? It already is a selling point for the EM-5 and EM-1… might as well expand the range to check off another pro in the m4/3 column.
GM1 would make a great travel camera; if only it had a good battery life (oh and an EVF). The lens looks nice but it is a big lens on the GM1 – what was wrong with the 14mm?
Why didn’t they put a hot shoe+port on the GM1 so that us loyal Pana buyers could use our expensive LVF2 viewfinders on it -that would have been cool -maybe on the GM2? (if they copy Sony RX100 progression that will also come with a tilt screen)
something’s wrong with the comments…
All the comments following this one are 10 days old and pertain to a different topic.
I was just about to post this on Panasonic 150mm post than I saw this, “Because this lens is sure to be much smaller than Olympus 40-150mm, I will be interested in it depending entirely on it price relative to the Olympus. For example:
Panasonic is $700-900 and Olympus is $1600+ = Panasonic
Panasonic is $700-900 and Olympus is $1100-1400= Olympus
Panasonic is $1000+ and Olympus is $1100-1400= Olympus
Panasonic is $1400 and Olympus is $1400-1600= Olympus
If either are $1600+ = Neither (I will wait for Panasonic 35-100mm sale of $1000)”
Looks like I will be buying Olympus unless the Panasonic is $400-600 which is highly unlikely.
Panasonic will be sharp and expensive. They will justify it due to IS. I expect it to be priced similarly to the 40-150. Olympus would be wise to prioritize this lens and get it out faster. It is/will be a system seller. I’d much rather carry a zoom of this range at the same aperture than be stuck at 300mm eq. The 40-150 will sell more EM-1s and potentially EM-5s if and when they update the sensor and add crucial video features/improved engine, codec, etc.
Followed by the 300 f/4 and an extender and you’ll have a complete system on the Oly side.
Just in time for an EM-1 update with better AF tracking and the video features from em1.
A guy can dream right?
Video from updated em-5 I meant
If the price is as estimated, I’m buying one~ I personally love the 70-200 F2.8 for portrait.
Especially this one is 80~300 F2.8 range~ Awesome~
…nice price 🙂 …
Early 2015. A lot of things can happen in the meanwhile (but the price is interesting, compared to that of 7-14mm f2.8)
I bought the 12-40mm for $900 when I heard the 7-14mm rumored price because I’ve needed a wide angle for m.4/3 for over a year. I this rumored price is true I will buy this unless Panasonic 150mm is a crazy good deal. It will be sweet if the 7-14mm comes out at this price too, I will have the whole trifecta. Which works out awesome because I had Nikon trifecta, but when I switched to Canon I went primes to lessen the weight and get extra low light abilities of primes. Having the convenience of zooms in a smaller size and weight and a FF kit for when I want subject isolation, I will have my cake and eat it too. Or however the heck that’s saying goes.
The 40-150 was due out at the first part of 2014, then we hear slip to later in 2014, then maybe September, now early 2015. At this point I’m not sure I would want to buy a lens with this many problems. I picked up a FT 50-200 f2.8-3.5, with the new E-M1 firmware there may not be much of a reason to bother with it. I’m really disappointed With Olympus, the 40-150 shipping soon was one of the reasons I jumped bought the E-M1 back when it came out.
Problems? How fo you have ANY idea there are “problems”? Businesses prioritize their R&D and manufacturing NOT based on what Bob Patrick thinks, you self serving, arrogant nightmare of a consumer.
How can you justify such a response? Is not this man’s opinion allowed in your little dictatorship? What he has stated is true. Oly seems to be pushing this product further and further into the future. Seems to me that Bob Panick has a point, he has invested in Olympus believing their press releases and is disappointed in Oly’s follow through.
There may or may not be problems that are stalling the release of this lens. ( I would think that after experiencing the plastic lens mount failure of the 12-40mm Oly zoom, Olympus was forced to reconsider using plastic lens mount on a much longer and heavier lens.) …. just an example I don’t have any more knowledge about this than anyone else.
There is no just cause for your name calling diatribe. Obviously, you are too emotional to show any restraint on this matter. Chill out.
Are you dense? 12-40mm has no plasic lens mount, the metal mount is attached to a composit body. have a look at other “pro” lenses and a number are similar construction. There might have been a batch where the material failed or where the bolts were fastened too tight causing hair cracks. Any way I’ve read many fora and only 2 or 3 complaints. This doesn’t make it a bad design or a bad constructed lens.
Thanks for the defense :). In defense of Olympus, the firmware upgrade on the E-M1 may make the point somewhat moot for me. The FT 50-200 f2.8-3.5 is working out pretty well now.
If the Olympus Rep I talk with is right the original release date for the upcoming 40-150/2.8 was going to be late Q1 or early Q2. For whatever reason it appears to have been delayed to Q4 r even Q1 of 2016. This Olympus Rep now thingks official announcement at Photokina and then starting to reach stores in limited numbers in December. Anyhow, I got tired of waiting for this lens and got the excellent Panasonic 35-200/2.8.
I think many, let’s say an awful lot of people would be buying that Panasonic lens if it were 35-200/2.8. 😉 I think you would be meaning 35-100/2.8
Sorry man, you trusted a multinational’s public plans for a purchase? And this is no ordinary multinational, it dropped two lens formats in 30 years and also got in trouble with fumbling up the numbers…
Yeah, I know, I was overly enthusiastic about the camera. I do like the E-M1.
> It will cost around $1200-1300.
There is a hope then that the 35-100 would finally drop in price.
So no big things expected from Olympus at Photokina this year (EPL-7 is not a big thing). Sad…
Maybe the replacement of the E-M5. Other than that I think Olympus has much covered with a new PEN.
If it renders images similar to the 12-40mm, it will be an amazing bargain at that price.
How much is a cheap ff cam and a cheap 80-300 F5.6? And how large? And how much better does it focus? Just wondering, in case Oly *don’t* want to kill the system.
you really think that too much DoF at 300mm on FF or 150mm on m43 is the problem…?
I uderstand the problem with short lenses, but for long ones? the problem for long ones is too get enough light for handheld shooting, not thin DoF. Well, this is my point of view, so I’d like examples on where this does not apply.
Exactly right… DOF control will not be a problem for this lens. Most FF shooters run at F5.6 for maximum sharpness / more manageable DOF at 300mm anyway.
Guys, n stops more DOF comes with n stops worse ISO perf. For those times when you want thin DOF, a larger sensor will simply give you more, at larger sizes. If you know you are never going to need thin DOF, you can still use a larger sensor, for no size or quality penalty. A smaller sensor will still produce less iq, because it places more demands on the lens, unless you use a very expensive lens; but that makes no financial sense, and still (let me repeat that) bears no size advantages.
Again, smaller sensors are fine for “good enough” but give you no gifts whatsoever. But then, the price must be lowered in proportion – this is the biggest problem with this system.
That is not a problem with the system, just with your viewpoint. You see no value in sacrificing some DOF for lens size, but others do.
The size advantage is NOT at the same DOF, but rather the size advantage is a tradeoff for less DOF control at the same aperture. It’s pretty simple if you take a minute to think about it instead of regurgitating the “FF uber alles” propaganda.
You can disagree with the value of such a tradeoff since we all have to choose our comfort zones, but trying to present it as if there are no benefits to m4/3 doesn’t make your position any stronger.
Hello, that is the 101. You don’t sacrifice anything with a larger sensor, you probably get a cheaper setup, too. Let me rephrase it: you don’t pay any penalty. Physics is hard to many, that’s ok, but sure you can go out and try for yourself?
Size penalty, weight penalty, glass quality penalty. I can carry two m43 cameras and five lenses all day without fatigue. With FF, no way. Also, my m43 glass is better at the edges than my old Canon L glass.
I understand the physics just fine. I shoot both FF and m4/3 and know the differences both in theory and practice. I’m well aware of the theoretical 2 stop difference, but in practice things don’t work out that cleanly. Numbers can tell us a lot, but there are practical considerations that affect how we work with these cameras in real life.
“You don’t sacrifice anything with a larger sensor…”
You absolutely do. At the telephoto end and particularly with zooms the difference between m4/3 and FF lenses at equivalent DOF isn’t much (see Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 vs. FF 75-300mm f/4-5.6). But let’s look at some other lenses:
Olympus 75mm f/1.8 is tiny for a 150mm equivalent. I know of some old manual focus 135mm f/3.5 lenses but no AF and no 150mm f/3.5. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 is small for its quality and range. FF would be 70-200mm f/5.6, which nobody makes. The closest is 70-200mm f/4, which is massive compared to the Panasonic.
Olympus 45mm f/1.8, 25mm f/1.8, 12mm f/2 are also tiny. Where are the FF equivalents?
And that’s just talking about size. There’s also the larger max aperture which allows more light in to the sensor for AF. I guarantee the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 will AF quicker and more accurately than a 75-300mm f/4-5.6 on FF. There’s also the fact that most high quality m4/3 lenses are at almost peak sharpness wide open, whereas many FF lenses in equivalent focal length ranges need to be stopped down for optimal sharpness.
If you take a moment to consider the evidence it’s really easy to see why m4/3 is relevant and has its own niche in the market. Again you might not consider these benefits useful for your use and more power to you for that, but your attempt to “educate” us is just showing your own ignorance.
Correct and well-said. I also have FF and m43, and after a year of using both side-by-side in my professional event, portrait and travel work, I’m ditching FF.
I’m strongly considering going all m4/3. My main concern now is flash capabilities. Single AF speed is incredibly fast and accurate (more reliable and consistent than DSLRs), continuous AF is now very usable unless you’re a full time sports photographer, image quality is excellent, and lens selection is fantastic. There’s a lot to like about m4/3. Theoretical photographers will never get it though.
Good idea, go ahead. All M43 is perfect for you.
Liars (like you, just in case) rarely make it… We need to educate the public here, don’t we?
Yes, and that would mean more going m43 from 35mmFF iso the other way around. There is no IQ penalty for pro work.
People buy prints for albums or want a nice enlargement etc. for all other purposes even a 3-4Megapixel camera is enough. Come on who looks at their foto’s on pixel level, you can’t even see the difference on monitors since they are max 4k, please. Enlarging picture too 400% on screen only shows you the limits of your monitor.
No one comes back to me with the prints and tell me they don’t like the “IQ”, people don’t even see the difference between MF and m43.
Yes, I use m43 professionally and occasionally rent camera’s with other format(s) if the situation /job calls for it.
IMO discussions in favour of 35mmFF is just utter nonsense in light of personal/amateur use, and most here are just that.
You need to be creative as a photographer if you want to sell your work, no camera is making you pro, if you are not in mindset and capabilities.
I agree. From the viewpoint of a working pro, what counts is whether the photos are good enough to make money. I have two IQ tests. Can I make sharp, detailed prints of landscapes at 24″x36″? Can I make clean, detailed prints of low-light events at 8″x10″? m43 passes both tests. My 1Ds2 provided all the sensor performance I needed. I upgraded to a 1Ds3 mainly for the non-sensor improvements. m43 gives me 1Ds2 IQ with AF and other features that surpass the 1Ds3. And, I can carry two cameras and five lenses all day without fatigue. For my purposes, it’s a no-brainer.
“I wanted to be mean”…
Then stop. Everything MentatYP wrote is true, relevant and reasonable. If he’s wrong, point out where, but stop slinging unsubstantiated slanders.
What do you see as a challenge in terms of flash? Shooting events, I mostly rely on a pair of Godox V850s on stands to light the stage. For audience shots I’ll put a Metz 36 TTL flash on my second body or maybe use a flash bracket & double-shoe cord so I can have both TTL flash and a radio trigger. In an ideal world, Godox would make a transmitter with a TTL pass-through or a flash like the Nissin i40 with a built-in transmitter. Fingers crossed.
Two of my favorite things about my G6 & GX7 over my 1D3 & 1Ds3 are face detect AF – ignores microphones – and Touchpad AF – the fastest most intuitive way ever to manually select an AF point. When photographing presenters moving about onstage, these things really make life easier.
Hear, hear. I still use all three formats for work. They’re all useful in their own respective ways. But when I travel or walk around after office hours, I never carry a full frame or APS-C with me. I don’t even carry them when I travel nowadays, either.
I also use many formats, and my experience is way different. I shoot *a lot*. I must call you out as a bad teacher then. If you had tried yourself, and had a clue, you would not have written that.
I see you haven’t bothered to counter any of my practical points. Just a bunch of hand-waving, vague talk of physics with no application, etc. You said there are no sacrifices with FF. I said there were and pointed out specifics. Where is your rebuttal? There isn’t because you know you’ve been proven wrong and have nothing substantial to say in return. All you have to offer is name-calling. Have fun. No sense in continuing this discussion when only one of us is interested in actually defending his position in a logical manner.
“Vague talk of physics” . . . Exactly, vague talk of physics but no specificity. I have noticed that the troll constantly refers to “physics” like it’s a trump card of sorts. In thousands of his posts referring to “physics” he has never yet stated what physical law he refers to.
In my college days, my physics professor enumerated specific physical laws and only then did we set out to test and prove those laws and then extrapolate by endless testing.
Our troll seems to think he can win every debate by throwing around the word “physics”. It’s all just baloney until troll enlightens us bumpkins with “physics”.
The first person to say “physics” wins any debate because “physics is hard”. The troll’s “physics” are a “a heaping hunk of steaming junk”
Please enlighten us: why do you find it such a drastic need to come over here and educate anyone? True m43 users here have tried and liked m43, some like me have tried and still use APS-C and full frame, while others have junked their APS-C and full frame cameras to go fully mirrorless. Is option 3 the one that scares you? Come, boboy, tell Papa.
I would take issue with your claim that you shoot “a lot”. That is the most ridiculous claim you’ve made so far. It is not possible for you to have time for much of anything whilst flame-trolling these fora about 20 hours per day.
When would you ever find time to take a picture?
Many responders to your posts have encouraged you to “get a life” – “get a job” – “Give it a rest” – take your silly-boy antics to a Full Flame site and find some fellowship, etc etc.
“I must call you out as a bad teacher” . . . You imagine yourself to be such a good teacher, constantly prattling about some vaguely defined physics principles yet . . . ALL of your students reject your pedantic preaching and are in open rebellion against your tiresome lecturing. I have never seen anyone less qualified to teach others. You would be fired by any school board, just as you are universally rejected here.
When you claim to “shoot a lot” you must mean shoot off at the lip, or maybe shoot spit-wads at your superiors.
OK nobody is so stupid, so you are simply totally uneducated then. I see no other explanation.
Then show us your work so we can have an actual conversation. Or is that too challenging for ya?
“n stops more DOF comes with n stops worse ISO perf” What?
well, that’s the best comparison I got:
http://camerasize.com/compact/#312.294,482.366,ha,t
you need to get similar lens quality (your cheap 70-300 won’t cut it here, and there is no ). Given, Canon is f4, so in term of light gathering (total light, i.e. flux * sensor surface) , it’s one stop better, but it is significantly bigger.
So, back to basic: it’s a 2 variable (size and quality) optimization, which have conflicting effect. If you put emphasis on quality only, go FF or larger. If you want a balance between size and quality, m43 is well placed
No. It would be well placed if it was cheaper; but for those prices, you can get the real thing and pay less. Bigger? Not if you use equivalent lenses.
Yes, if you pair the cheapest FF body 6D ($1900) with a cheap consumer equivalent lens, you will pay about the same thing as the E-M1 with its top-of-the-line f2.8 lens. And maybe the FF lens will even be equivalent size. But the body will still be much larger and heavier. And the IQ is nowhere near guaranteed to be better on the 6D when you raise the ISO to match the signal-to-noise of the E-M1…certainly not with respect to dynamic range, anyway. A 70-300 is not likely to resolve much more detail wide open than the 35-100 f2.8 or 40-150 f2.8…
But you are getting close, do yourself a favour and actually try these things, you may get even closer. Just sayin’.
Meh, I’m in M4/3 because I can’t dream of affording full-frame right now. I know that it’s “good enough” for most situations I use it in, and wouldn’t want to carry around the bulk.
For what it’s worth, I’m also not in the market for any of these f2.8 zooms. Equivalent quality tends to cost equivalent money, regardless of format. But I do like that some professionals are beginning to adopt M4/3, because it’s good for the system, and there’s a trickle down effect with bodies and lenses that I can afford.
Your oft stated theory concerning equivalences is falling on deaf ears. Nobody actually cares what you say or think about FF. The best evidence that nobody cares about your dogma is the recent announcement of Lumix FZ1000, the Sony RX100M3, the Sony RX10, etc.
Everyone who cares about sensor size knows full well that the sensor in these exciting new products is a 1″ sensor (even smaller than the m4/3), which you spend every waking minute of your life hating on.
While you are fuming and sputtering about how awful these options are, the camera buying public is pre-ordering them without the slightest regard for your tired, broken-record Hosannas to FF.
Most people here are well aware of Full Frame and have decided they don’t need it.
+1.
We know that FF had some performance advantages, but m43 has others, like size and lens range. Pick what you need and want to pay for.
No it hasn’t, and it costs more. But hey, feel free.
Remind me why you spend your time on this forum then?
I don’t ever visit hasselblad forums just to tell them what I think has become of the company. Doesn’t do much for me.
I am so sorry. They pay more for less, and end up carrying the same weight. It’s basic physics mate.
Well no, they don’t pay more for less.
I pay for a specific idea/need, I’m not of worse/don’t cost me more. I know what it is to drag along a big backpack with 35mmFF gear, now I sometimes only need a deep holsterbag with 2 sidepockets to carry 1 camera and 3-4 lenses (of which 2 can be tele’s or zooms).
I used to own Canon gear, years ago I still know what the L lenses cost, sometimes I rent some of them, but nowaday it’s more Nikon lenses.
I’m well aware what a good 35mmFF camera kit can do and still don’t see the need for owning one again. Don’t get me wrong I can buy it and tax deduct the costs partly, but it’s a drag to own 2/3 systems because of the workflow afterwards.
In my case if ‘d own 2 systems I’d end up bringing both to gig and not using one of them on the site. I know because i’ve been there did that and learned 35mmFF isn’t exactly end all be all.
You’re not sorry. They don’t pay more, and I carry much less weight now. It’s not physics at all. “Mate” yourself. Oh wait, sorry, that would be solicitation of a minor. I take it back. Go photograph your cat. Again. Then, if you still feel compelled to open your yap, come out from behind your mother’s apron, use your real name, and show us some of your work so we can see what a great photographer you are and how FF makes all the difference for you.
Show me the APS or FF equivalent of Panny’s 35-100 f2.8 that’s the same size and weight. Go ahead. Give us an actual concrete example. You can’t. If you’re looking for validation of your viewpoint, go post on a FF forum about how FF makes you such a great photographer. I’m sure they’ll appreciate your high-resolution photos of sunsets.
What is the point then? Much bigger and heavy with lower performance? Total price also will be higher. Cheap lens won’t resolve more. You will have to rise iso on ff to get equal exposure, so similar noise.
Well, think about that. I shoot in theatre. It’s really dark, and most of the time i have 2 or 3 people on the scene. Well, with FF (i own a 6D and 70-200 2.8) i have to close from 4 to 8 to have the right DOF. Well. it means increase ISO. With this lens (i own a E-M10 too) i could shoot from 2.8 to 4 having the same DOF. Result? Use a small value of the ISO. The benefit to have a bigger sensor is swept away. But not the weight of the gear! narrow DOF is not the only thing you want to have. So this lens is 80-300 2.8 for me! Light is the most important thing.
Why don’t you put a 70-300 on your 6D? It’s good enough if you stop down, and it won’t be bigger than this – let alone pricier. Sure, the 70-200s allow more, but if you don’t need them, you are wasting size.
Yes.. i have to close to f11? iso 51200 and f11.. wow.. Yes.. i have to try!
Would you like to compare IQ, colors, AF and IS performance of the two lens? I need light. Sure when there is only 1 person on the stage i use f2.8 to decrease ISO to 6400. But with my E-M10 with 45mm and 75mm I use 3200 iso at f1.8/2.0 (f4.0 DOF, and not light on FF).
Reading these lines seems that photography = 99,9% bokeh! There are many other things too.
Please take your enlightenment out of here and save yourself. This place has fallen to the equivalent darkness already. They will only see the DOF DOF DOF DOF DOF.
Ok we obviously cannot discuss basic physics and photography on a level basis. I was not expecting it either. Just leave it.
And that is because of you.
Now if you go away just a little, buy yourself an ice cream or something.
Oh you have a brain. That’s something I guess. Must be small though.
Don’t forget to factor in the cost of replacing all of my current m43 accessories and lenses with full-frame equivalents. And since I bought some of these lenses for their low-light abilities, you can’t just pick one with an equivalent depth of field. (e.g. a 20mm f/1.7 lens can’t be replaced by a 40mm lens capable of f/3.4 — it actually has to go down to f/1.7. And don’t tell me to use a higher ISO, either; for that I’d need a good full-frame camera, not just a “cheap” one.)
I wish Panasonic have 5 Axis Image Stabilization on their camera bodies. Because I would love to shoot videos with this 40-150mm f/2.8 lens on my GH4 🙁
Tell us about your GH4. It would be informative to hear something from one of our fellow forum users rather than take all our information from official sources. You say you would love to shoot videos with a long lens on you GH4, how is your video with normal lenses turning out? Have you shot any 4k video yet?
How about still image quality? I’d be interested to see a few of your photos taken with the GH4 and whatever lens you are using.
Let me get this straight, …. You bought the GH4 with full knowledge that it doesn’t have the 5-axis Image Stabilization??
It is highly improbable that you have had your GH4 longer than a couple weeks, yet different than any reviewer on the internet, you’re whining about features not included on the GH4 yet you knew even before you “bought” yours that the GH4 did not include Oly style 5-axis Image Stabilization.
You are either a fool or a troll.
Ridiculous response.
Really? I’ve had my GH4 since mid-April (not sure why length of ownership is important, but I’m including it since you did), really enjoy using it, get good quality images and video, and yet I also wish it had IBIS. I knew it didn’t when I bought it and I’m not complaining that it doesn’t, but it would have been a very useful tool had it been included.
LoveLumix may or may not be a fool or troll, but their comment doesn’t suggest either. Yours, on the other hand..
Panasonic has stated that including IBIS in the GH4 would have created more heat around the sensor during continuous use (like in video) which creates more noise in the sensor output. So basically they said that IBIS is great for stills but not professional level video quality.
Hey…that price seems reasonable….of course, Olympus could have branded the lens with Schneider (or pic a manufacturer)….and upped the price $500 even tho the lens is being made in house..but they didn’t!!!!! 🙂
If thay can brand it “ZUIKO”, no need for SCHNEIDER branding, to assure users they are buying quality equipment..
I was taking a shot at the $1700 Panny/Leica 42.5mm …. which I think is WAAAAY overpriced.
I was not inferring that Olympus does not make great lenses in-house.
Their legendary “Zuiko” brand is more credible than Schneider and ‘can’ even compete against a Zeiss or a Leica. Just saying. 😀
1200-1300 would be a great deal, However, having to wait until 2015 and without a specific date seem ridiculous.
Yes, I’m tempted to look for a 4/3’s 50-200 (SWD) lens beforehand. I could still drag out the E30 (it gets pretty neglected now) & use it on that for the fun of it too.
Given Canon 70-200 f/4L IS has listed price of $1349 (the non-IS version is only ~$700)
Sounds not as bad as the 42.5 f/1.2L….
Although I think $1000 is more reasonable
Let’s see how Panasonic going to price her 150 f/2.8 FIXED focal length lens
it has to be priced around $800 or everyone is going to get the 40-150 instead…
If Canon redesigned these lenses they would cost +$500 more than what they currently sell. That is the beauty of an old established system, adjusting for inflation, the lenses came out at a high price at the time of release, but after years of production they recoup R&D costs, lower manufacturing costs and keep the prices similar to release date while maintaining or increasing profits. Just look at Canon’s recent 70-200 II and 24-70 II examples of price increases. So $1200 is reasonable.
Why don’t you compare it to the 28/135? It is rather equivalent, no need to touch the 70-200s.
I mean equivalent to build, not equivalent optically. Similar build should make for similar prices.
An optical equivalent would be a 80-300 F5.6, they are a dime a dozen.
Yes but the Canon is slower (ie: need to increase shutter speed or ISO to take the equivalent shot) and likely bigger/heavier than even this lens. Also, the Canon only reaches to 200 whereas this goes to 300. That is a huge difference imo which makes the price worth it.
2015 is a major bummer. I was hoping for an early Fall release. I currently use the 35-100 f2 via an adapter on the EM1 and it is an amazing lens, but just too large. I often opt for the 75mm, but there are occasions when the zoom and extra reach is needed. Ah well, I’ll still need it next year!!
80-300mm equivilent f5.6 – $1200-1300 Is this a joke? …yes tiny four thirds fanboys that is the equivalent aperture due to your little sensor being 4 times smaller – if not buy yourself an iphone and claim the f2.4 lens gives lens/sensor set up has the same quality as full frame. We know you love your massive depths of field tiny four thirds followers so why don’t you sell all your four thirds gear and buy that iphone – you will be able to boast about that fast f2.4 lens to everyone and claim it is much lighter and just as good as full frame!
LOL
I think so Mr ‘Douche’ man sounds right for you
How witty, cheap school I guess…
Bare go fodya
good luck translating that
Hey Fool, YOU are the one who exhibits an inferior education. Every poster on this forum, ( other than you and your 10,000 aliases), is capable of polite conversation.
It doesn’t matter how much your parents paid for your schooling, they wasted their money – you never learned a thing after 7th grade.
Haha nice comment bro 🙂
Really Mr Douche? Is that polite? I am just quoting from our less gifted friend here… Go on, school us.
So trolls are bringing more trolls?…Brace yourselves guys, WW3 is coming
I get it, you’re a troll. But, why do you waste your time coming to a site that clearly doesn’t interest you? I think I already know why, but I am not sure which is the precise reason why you do what you do. Perhaps fellow fans of this site will pick which reason that I list below as to why you comment on this site.
1 – You own expensive full frame equipment but you lack any discernible talent as a photographer. You believe that owning a full frame camera grants you some sort of legitimacy in the world of photography, but again, you are a terrible photographer so you lash out at other talented photographers in order to combat your own insecurities. Further, you wish to be a competent professional but as we have previously addressed your skills as a photographer can be considered nothing more than elementary.
2 – I think point #1 covers everything fairly well.
To fellow m43 shooters, my apologies for feeding the troll. I had to get my thoughts off my chest.
Who knows if he even owns ‘any’ camera, let alone full frame
Why not just go MF instead of 135 format for DOF? Equivalence is not really a good argument for bashing a product that you don’t use.
It doesnt work out so well for MF as firstly there are very few fast lenses and the sensor size of MF digital while larger than 35mm is not the same size as MF film cameras used.
You hide behind an alias like a 4-year-old behind his mother’s apron.
Jacques 90% of people using aliases on the internet the other 10% are idiots.The internet is filled with nutters especially this forum
Discourse would be more civil if everyone used their real names and could be held accountable for their words. There’s nothing wrong with aliases, per se. But anonymity brings out the worst in hateful cowards.
Jacques, you are a civil grown up trying to talk sense into an 18 year old college dropout who is paid to spread anti-43 FUD. We have been detecting their presence for a while now.
80-300mm f5.6 still gives you enough shallow DOF. Shooting 200-300mm on a FF, I seldom shoot wider than f5.6 anyway. And you still get f2.8 of light. As long as it’s sharp wide open like the Canon 70-200 f4, it could be the lens that take me back to the M43 system.
It’s a troll man….no use telling him anything….btw don’t worry man, I’m sure this lens will be sharp, just like the Panasonic one
Yeah man, trolls are bad. Yeah man, this lens will be sharp man. Ever thought of joining the marines?
Marines?..US marines u meant?
I think he’s trying to say, in his ineffectual English, that there are a lot of sharp trolls in the marines. Or something like that. Who knows what these creatures are really saying — mostly they just spout gibberish.
You could see through it with a bit of education.. But no, it’s easier to write junk in a free forum.
This little coward hide behind the internet and belittle everyone on this forum. I guess you are just another troll among the countless number of them on the internet. Why should we bother with you? You think you gonna change anything here? Your life and your words are as insignificant and shallow as your brain.
+10,000
The troll has wasted 10,000 man-hours trying every form of deceit, spewing hate, pretending to have m4/3 cameras all the while trashing everything m4/3, insolent name-calling, trash-talking, forcing his point of view down everyone’s throat, pretending to be a “pro”, a scholar, and engineer, a scientist, a optical physicist, a camera man, on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
He has NEVER convinced anyone of anything. He hasn’t hindered even one sale by Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica or any other manufacturer. He is the lamest, most ineffectual excuse for a troll ever. The totality of his influence or persuasiveness, adds up to nothing, zero, nada, In 10,000 fever-brained troll posts his best efforts add up to nothing. No converts.
10,000+ posts – zero accomplishments, . . . who would hire such a worthless worker?
Yes. It’s basically just the same guy posting here over and over. He sounds Eastern European. The anti-m43 FUD campaign paymasters are really scared nowadays, by the sound of it.
I agree! Yes this one troll posts as many comments per day as all other forum participants combined. I don’t know where he “Hiels” from but he does suffer from totalitarianism. He obviously despises the freedom that allows other camera buyers to make their own choices.
I also agree that there is a certain desperation in his cliche’ comments. If this geek is the best Canon & Nikon have to offer the camera world, they are in deeper trouble than I would have thought possible.
Honestly, I try my best to see the good in Nikon FF cameras (my son has the Nikon D600 and my daughter is getting the Nikon D610), and looking at their pictures I can see a superiority in some instances, but then again, neither of my kids takes any video.
The excessive trolling for FF makes about the same impression as a street preacher wagging his finger at everyone who will not repent. The troll is literally making camera users hate Full Frame. Worst ambassador EVER!
In trying to slaughter others’, they’re really just killing their own cow. I use all 3 systems — m43, APS-C and FF — and I have no problem with it. But man, these FF trolling idiots are so annoying, I swear I’m not going to buy another DSLR item just to spite them. I get by just fine with the gear I already have, so I might as well spend more money building up my meagre m43 system.
but but they get 50 cent for every post…
Don’t be angry, learn a bit of physics-photography-whatever instead. I am amazed how many (verbally) pay several grands for “pro” lenses and don’t even notice they don’t keep up with the cheapest. Do you want to be one of those sukkers? No? So for fkkkk sake, take a look, the “trolls” might be right after all. I am just suggesting you should try for yourself, before making conclusive statements or feeling angry. No harm meant.
I think it’s just the same guy posting here over and over and he sounds Eastern European. I wonder why the anti-m43 FUD campaigns are paying Eastern Europeans to come and trash the system?
To start WW3
Get out.
I FEAST on your M43 fear!
Yes, feed me! 🙂
I’ve seen some nice pictures taken with iPhones, but they lack interchangeable lenses so I think I’ll stick with m43…
What’s an iPhone?
Great price against the Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8(retail price), no IOS but more reach, and it looks like better build too.
“looks like better build too.”
Yep, its a pro lens just like the 12-40mm F2.8 , its not as if that lens could break apart mow could it ?: lol
It’s a shame that this is pushed back to 2015. Originally they said it was going to be late 2014. I’m definitely getting one even if it costs more than $1300. This is especially good if the optics are as good as the 12-40/2.8.
I have no doubt it will be sharp! But, that price is hard to take. Can’t wait to see some user reviews- still a long time off.
Why does everyone beg for magical glass and then complain about price? The Canon 70-200-2.0 L IS is more than this and it is a relatively pedestrian lens judging from its ubiquity and its competitors in the segment.
I think the release date probably coincides with the announcement of a new flagship. That’s my guess anyway. I’m sure they could bump up the release date, but smoothing out sales and timing is everything.
Replacing the E-M1 after only ~18 months seems unlikely IMO, though it would be interesting.
I do like your thinking about it coinciding with a camera release. Maybe the E-M5’s successor?
That is an amazing piece of equipment! It’s not for me though just too big for me to be carrying around. I guess this would be good for sports but CAF on Olympus needs to really improve.
This could be real interesting to me if it is close focusing… but seems ages away (especially if I’m waiting for a used/referb unit)
please don’t muddle up with an aperture. 40-150/2.8 lens on MFT mount is 80-300/2.8, comparing with *DOF* on FF Body. NOT 80-300/5.6. f value signify itself light intensity per unit area.
So says our local dung-brained troll.
you mean most of the trolls in this local have thought an aperture on MTF mount must be doubled and have regarded it as the must-change requisite for conversion to DOF on FF even though that’s a mere baseless assumption?
Mr. DSLR – you are wrong. It is far from a baseless assumption and has been proven countless times. Very easy to test. Your shot with a Pana 25mm at f/1.4 will have the same FOV and DOF as a Canon/Nikon 50mm shot at around f/2.8. Please do yourself a favor and read this article – http://photographylife.com/depth-field-comparison-nikon-fx-cx-sensors
And your canon or Nikon FF body will now perform slightly worse than a m43rds body. ISO is not a free lunch for a slow lens, and the 24 and 16mp full frame bodies underperform at high ISOs (slightly).
Have a look at DXO or DP and set the FF camera 2 stops slower say 800 vs 3200, and while shutterspeed can slow as well having fast stabilized primes buys back a little for the smaller system as well.
Truth be told, th bigger system is only better if you can live with shallower DoF (by using a physically larger aperture).
Who told you that rubbish? It’s amazing what you marketing guys come up with. If you knew just a little physics and photography, you wouldn’t dream of writing that crap.
Please explain “physics” to us. What Law of “physics” are you using to bash everyone over the head? You keep saying that “physics is hard” . . . well perhaps it is hard for you but others here are not intellectually handicapped like yourself nor are we impressed with your resort to “physics” to trump every discussion.
Not rubbish at all, if you comprehension wasn’t so poor, or your FF fanaticism wasnt so rampant you would see that what I said is actually based in reality.
But then you are a shill, so who cares what you write.
The trouble is, physics is hard. Plus, 90% of the posters here are paid trolls with multiple identities. I don’t think there are so many “hapless consumers” about.
Look guys all that matters for equivalence is total light :.
Total light = Exposure x Effective Sensor Area.
In case you are wondering exposure The total light per area (photons / mm²) that falls on the sensor while the shutter is open, which is usually expressed as the product of the luminance of the sensor and the time the shutter is open (lux · seconds).
The only factors in the exposure are the scene luminance, t-stop (where the
f-ratio approximation for the t-stop), and the shutter speed (note that neither sensor size nor ISO are factors in exposure).
An 80-300mm F5.6 on FF will do the exact same job as a 40-150mm F2.8 , same AOV, same DOF and critically same total light
quote the armchair photographer. who takes photos by reading blogsites.
critically a photographer is not trying to emulate or replicate anything. the narrow angle of view at telephoto end spread over the capture medium (=magnification) provides all the compression needed to obliterate background and provide apparent subject isolation. CRITICALLY, the FAST f2.8 allows faster shutter speed needed to stabilize shots at the tele end.
go back to scouring blogsites to learn how to take photos of cats.
Naaah! Too pricey! Olympus should make 12-120mm f1.8 and sell if for $300. Anyway, this lens would be just 24-240mm f3.6 in FF equivalent so nothing special.
Says the Jack@$$
Grow up your camera’s sensor, douchebag.
OK. Before you start typing another evil stuff I must say this
“You and sarcasm can’t live together”
Thank you.
“Nothing special?”
Dude, a 24-240mm constant f3.6 FF lens with decent optics would sell for $2000. At least.
$300. What a joke.
EDIT: Oh, it was a joke. I suspect people around here are just a bit sensitive given the quantity of pure trolling going on…
the troll needs a Hubble Telescope sized diaper, the goop is running down his legs.
Always smart and funny huh? Did you get that job at Walmart in the end?
Did you?
Dude he won’t get a job at cleaning the walmart toilet even
Wooooooooosh!
No, this lens is like an 80-300 F5.6, which is really nothing special. And don’t start with the superb quality fibs, these toys are heavily software corrected, even those with “pro” or “leica” printed on…
The right price would be 400, but then again, 2.8 is expensive to produce. And this is an excellent reason to stand away from this format. One can as well get a bridge camera.
It’s not “like” anything. It’s a 40-150mm F2.8. It would show a different field of view on different size sensors; not that that is of any relevance.
Not a bad price. I hope that the 7-14 comes out cheaper than it is predicted, though.
If the 7-14mm had been an f/4.0 maximum aperture, as the Four-Thirds version is, you could probably expect it at US$1499.99 but being that the maximum aperture is f/2.8, the price will likely be US$1799.99 or slightly higher.
Reasonable price, was expecting it to come in much higher.
Dat size though. I’d probably stick with the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 myself.
Agree on price but the size is not a problem considering the range. Physics at work.
I’ll be glad to switch, especially at such a reasonable price, even if the image quality is only similar, because the flare resistance will be so much better.
I’ll be glad to switch, especially at such a reasonable price, even if the image quality is only similar, because the flare resistance will be so much better.
I wish to share this blog i came across from http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/2/. Lets gain an accurate understanding
the difference between FT/MFT and FF.
The blog wrote:-
“While crop factor has a use simply to compare focal lengths between
formats and such, the constant comparison of a smaller format lens to
its full frame ‘equivalent’ aperture is largely unevenly applied and
misunderstood. It’s often used to show that a smaller format is inferior
or not capable of the same things as a larger format. In some cases,
this usage is correct, but it is also nearly never used the other way.
I’ve heard many times “Yeah, your 75mm f/1.8 is crap – it’s like a
150mm f/3.6.” No, it’s not, it’s a 75mm lens with an f/1.8 aperture and a
field of view that is the same as a 150mm lens on full frame.
What IS true is that the 75mm f/1.8 is not capable of the same ultra
shallow depth of field as, say, something like the Sony Zeiss 135mm
f/1.8 on full frame. However, this is essentially the ONLY way that it
is inferior. It passes the same amount of light, and it exposes as an
f/1.8 lens because it IS an f/1.8 lens”
while you are studying have a little look at total light to see why you are wrong and the idiot at the website is wrong, don’t feel too bad .Equivalence is kindergarten simple but to many here it is as difficult to grasp as quantum physics
It isn’t that we can’t handle physics. It’s more like we don’t care for YOUR physics. You only ever use physics as an opportunity to discredit others. The gentleman at AdmiringLight – Jordan Steele is quite the respected photographer who has established a GOOD NAME for himself and his work. He is a trusted and respectable resource who goes by his REAL NAME rather than concoct thousands of aliases.
Your ugliness toward him stems from the fact that after using Canon gear for years, he made the switch to a mirrorless system (Fuji X) and Olympus OM-D.
You are going to see a lot more of that. Better prepare yourself for the inevitable.
Haha. That’s the problem with these guys who come over here to teach everyone, isn’t it. They seem to think that we care what the other formats are like. Who gives a damn? We’re in an m43 site. We know why we’re here. I wonder if they do.
Hahaha nice point……but then there are some genuine camera geeks too
There’s only one physics. Oh, you may live in a parallel universe – I can’t discount that.
Are you impaired “doc”? there is only one explanation of equivalence it has been used for decades. Presumably you are a follower of the American religious loonies that believe that evolution does not apply to them if the ignore it.
I have one user name I post with my full name is Robert Thomson Butler , the BobTB thing is a joke using my initials to make up the name of my sons favorite children’s character Bob the builder . I am a physicist a keen photographer and mFT user. The admiring light site littered with mistakes and errors.
Please enlighten us more about physics your majesty
So, what is the equivalence of Medium Format to 135 Format?
What makes your photons more happy?
but… but…DOF…
The depth of field in Medium Format is ultra impressive, if 135 Format DoF is impressive, and micro Four-Thirds is unimpressive.
MF digital sensor is not as large as MF film was ,so the advantage is less than 35mm film vs 120 film, plus there are very few fast primes and no fast zooms for MF making the difference even less significant. Not forgetting they really do weigh a ton and cost a fortune.
http://www.hasselblad.co.uk/products/lenses-and-accessories/h-system-lenses.aspx
Happily I am delighted with my mFT gear it is better than I am
However, it’s funny when these people tout the size advantage and forget that the surface area of Medium Format is huge compared to 135 Format, even if the digital sensor isn’t 6×4.5 or 6×6 or 6x7cm.
Explain, please. I may have majored in computing but I minored in math and took several physics and optics courses, so don’t be afraid to go into too much detail.
That right there is the problem, for anyone not mentally impaired or in kindergarten, equivalence is ridiculously simple.
Yet it has had to be explained, possibly thousands of times in forums all over the net .Sadly , no matter how it gets explained no matter who explains it the typically Olympus mFT and FT fans before that ,simply cannot grasp it.
Okay. Well, go ahead and explain it then.
Panasonic and Olympus converted the weakness of MFT (small sensor) into their strength
I enjoy when people take photos of people where the whole face is not in focus, as though they’re selling reconstructive surgery, because the DoF is so thin.
I’m sorry, but you have a fundamental misunderstanding of physics. A 35mm sensor collects 4 times as much light as a M43 sensor. No matter how hard you try and rationalise this it will never go away. But keep shooting regardless.
So? Russia collects 1.74 times as much light as the United States. It doesn’t mean the Sun is any brighter there.
Jiklo re tu ! (Its nothing offensive, it just means ‘You just won bro’) 🙂 😀
A lot of peole don’t understand this BASIC physics. You nailed it. F/2.8 on a 35mm FF sensor gathers more light than on a F/2.8 on m4/3. The light intensity is the same but the gathered light is not. BTW I shoot using OM-D E-M1 98% of the time. I love m4/3. As long as your happy and satisfied with your gear that’s all that matters.
Great finally a 150mm lens with a fast aperture! Decent prices as well, very decent!
Couple this 40-150mm with the current 12-40mm f/2.8 is a dream combination for travel shooting. Looking forward to switch to MFT……… 🙂 Hopefully soon…..
SOLD!!!!!!!!! But seriously, just a rumor and I hope it is true. Bit disappointed I have to wait till 2015. Might as well get on my pre-order list
We’ll have to wait for the tests to see how this compares to Olympus’s current 40-150mm that I was once on sale for a mere $100. Sure, that was a slow and cheaply made consumer product but was capable of producing impressive image quality. If this pro lens does not perform exceedingly well, the cheaper zoom may ultimately win out on a relative value basis.
I’m sure it was impressive for $100. I bought my Panasonic 45-200mm for $100 and it still wasn’t impressive. It couldn’t even focus in mediocre light.
Neither does my Pentax K5 with its f4 zoom or Canon 5D with its f2.8 zoom. So?
So, that means you paid way too much.
I like the smaller size and IS of Panasonic’s 35-100. For longer reach, I’d rather see a 100-300 f2.8 or 4 (constant).
It wouldn’t be small though & would weigh a bit in the process.
Yes, but I’d have that in addition to the 35-100, not as a replacement for it. I’d keep the smaller 35-100 on my camera and use the bigger lens only when needed. Plus, I could leave the big lens at home when traveling light.
Large, expensive, thick DOF. I can as well get a bridge camera then.
Ok. I recommend you buy one then. They are readily available on the market.
And we need to know this because…?
FZ1000 might be perfect for you.
Please buy what works for you.
considering that the L and the Nikkor equivalents are twice as much, this lens is a steal. i’m sold.
Equivalent? What equivalents? That would be the 70-300s, which are hardly over a grand. Or do you mean “marketing equivalent”?
Nice try, but eh, the L lens is US$1,599 at B&H Photo. That’s hardly “hardly over a grand”… that’s 50% more than a grand.
I thought that it would be 59.99% more.
so you’d opt for the non-OIS version just to win an argument over the internet?
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens $2396
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens $2499
Also from B&H.
Wellllll…
I know it’s not exactly the equivalent, but a Nikon 80-400 f4.5-5.6 costs $2700. That’s more comparable to the quality of the M4/3 2.8 zooms than the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 that costs $600. You do get an extra 100mm at the long end though.
The guy’s a paid shill, come on. He gets paid 50 cents for every comment he makes against m43.
That is a proper lens on a proper system, you cannot compare that to m43 rubbish… And this thing costs over a grand already.
I heard you are paid 50 cents for every anti-m43 comment. Is it really that low? I’d have thought supermarkets paid more.
nah 50.01 cent, you are slow to adjust for FF new equipment price inflation :D.
I was referring to the 70-200 f/2.8 that is the go-to fast aperture Tele-zooms of canonikon. I’m looking forward to trying this lens when it arrives. If its anything like the 12-40 it should be amazing.
And also, don’t feed the Tony Northrop “educated” troll.
Can you get a 70-300 constant f/2.8 zoom lens for under a grand??? I didn’t think you could find that.
If you don’t need f/2.8 you can get a much dimmer 70-300mm under a grand, and if you don’t need 300mm you could get at least one 70-200mm f/2.8 (Tamron’s older one) for under a grand, but zooming to 300mm at a constant f/2.8 would cost a lot more than this, wouldn’t this?
So much for second half 2014.
Ahhhh, it’s too long and too fast. Make it a shorter zoom, slower, and more expensive! rabble rabble rabble