Our source “Simon” claims to know that Olympus will start shipping the new 300mm f/4.0 MFT lens on November 15. But there is yet no info about the price of the lens.
Reminder: Both upcoming PRO lenses are already listed at BH:
Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO Lens (here at BHphoto).
Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 300mm f/4 PRO Lens (here at BHphoto).
—
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!
To get notified on all upcoming news and rumors be sure to subscribe on 43rumors here:
RSS feed: http://www.43rumors.com/feed/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/43rumors
Twitter: https://twitter.com/43rumors
GooglePlus: https://plus.google.com/+43rumors/posts
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
162 Responses
YUM!
If the Price stays below 1.700 euro, then I Will buy it promptly as a Birthday present to myself.
Otherwise I Will probably buy an ec-14 converter for my 50-200 mm SWD Four-thirds Lens, which performs very good on my EM-1 after the 3,0 firmware.
Unfortunately same Cannot be said when using the ec-20 adapter.
Autofous and image quality is NOT acceptable when shooting at Aperture 7.1 and above.
Seems i missed an important statement:
I meant Aperture 7.1 nd above /1000 sec. shutter speed in average lightning.
Using the combo on a tripod for static or slow moving subjects is actually great, povided you can using aperture 8.0 to 13
$1200? (A girl can dream!)
….and sometimes her dreams can come true!
Just ask Cinderella 🙂 Though why her stepmother and stepsisters didn’t end up in the dungeons hanging by their thumbs I’ll never know
In the Grimm version something terrible does happen to them. I’ll look it up.
Pigeons pecked the stepsisters’ eyes out it seems
For comparison, Canon’s 300/4 is about US$1450, and Nikon’s is about US$1350. So, $1200 is a stretch. I’m expecting it to come in at $1400-1500.
I hope it comes in around 1400-1500, but it is not impossible they try to charge 2K for it either.
That’s not impossible, as the new fresnel Nikon is ~$2k, but it looks to me that Oly is pricing their lenses closer to reality than they did in the SHG days.
I’m hoping for this range too. I think it’s possible, since with the 12-40 and 40-150 oly seems to have realised it’s a good idea to price the lenses somewhat reasonably.
And the price…that’s more important to me so I know how much I need to save for this and the 7-14.
for the size of this lens I think we are talking about 2,000 dollars
That looks to be an awful lot of glass for fixed focal length telephoto. The OM Zuiko 350mm f2.8 had 9 elements – this monster appears to have 17, which is more like what you would expect in a zoom.
I suspect the image quality will be astonishing.
Yes, there appears to be a lot going inside there. I am not sure why Olympus didn’t keep the zoom trend going with their PRO series and make this lens a 150-300mm f/4 instead. I am sure it wouldn’t really need to be all that much bigger since they would simply be adding to the shorter end of the focal range. I am sure such a lens would be much more satisfying as it effectively covers a complete focal range spectrum in the PRO series.
2x zoom would be too little. 150-450mm offering 3x would be required.
F/4 at least but preferred faster like 2.8.
It would be usable in both ends and very dreamy for every wild life / sports photographer.
Sorry but those who want small so not need reach. Those who need reach, don’t mind extra size or weight for m4/3 as it’s always smaller and lighter that 35/APSC offers.
Required? Maybe from you, but this would be rather heavy and very expensive. Maybe this changes with unconventional optics, but this needs time.
In combination with the tc14 you get a 300/4 and a 420/5.6, which is pretty reasonable compared to the 210/4 you get with the 40-150+tc14.
I guess all the elements are needed due to the same AF tech as in the 40-150 PRO, with dual motors moving different groups of lens elements simultanously. I believe that calls for a different design than in the older lenses, where just one group or lens is moving during AF. Moreover, looking at all the different types of glass used, I think more groups are needed to utilize that, w/ the absolute optimal IQ from wide open as the goal. I bet this lens will be nothing but stellar! Zuiko at its best, and mind you, that really counts for something..!
What is the weight of that lens?
Ton
As long as its lighter than my FD 300 2.8 L im happy.
600mm F8 PRO……LOL
Yeah! or a 4200mm F56 Large Format (8×10), HAHA! its so slow even shooting in to the sun will get you motion blur.
A lot of wildlife photographers would like a 600mm f8 lens as they usually stop down to f8 to get the proper DOF. Unfortunately AF slows down at f8 and that is where the Olympus lens at f4 has an advantage.
“Unfortunately AF slows down at f8 and that is where the Olympus lens at f4 has an advantage.”
Maybe for single AF but a true 600mm F/8 on a DSLR would still be preferable for tracking.
If the lens is f4 will not slow down the AF at f8, because the lens is doing AF with the aperture open at the lowest value, in this case f4. The part with DOF it is correct.
The lens is f4. What you’re referring to is the equivalent “depth of field”, which will indeed be f8 equivalent on a FF. At 600mm, depth of field shouldn’t be a concern though.
DOF actually is a concern, but at these focal lengths usually the other way round. Getting the DOF of an f8 while shooting at f4 is a good thing, not a bad thing.
A real 600/8 lens (not catadioptric or achromat) is nothing to laugh at. A 600/8 lens that will fit in a purse, now that’s a winner.
http://leicaapostate.com/index.php?file=20140920__Tiny_Advantage
i hape it will be 1000-1200 €, and than it will be my precious 😉
F8 lol – why always CaNIkon trols have to spam and double F-number, it’s okay to be jealous – but that duplication of F-stop has already become miserable …
May I flag that November the 15th, 2015 is a Sunday?
Not in 2016..
I’m sure it’ll be outstanding – now the price? I wish they’d add some rubber on the focus ring though.
I just received my notice this morning from B&H that the product is NOT in stock, so Simon is correct that it is NOT out yet.
With their much shorter ‘Announce-Ship’ cycles for some of their other lenses, either they put too many lenses into the camera and can’t figure it out or they announced something they can’t deliver at a decent price?? My local dealer got the feeling more like September from their rep. Also, how in the heck can they be specific date that this will be ready 8 months from now?!? Is there a time too?
And for those who would like the “it’s not in stock’ e-mails, you can sign up too!! 🙂
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1031587-REG/olympus_300mm_f4_0_pro_m.html
A 300mm Prime?! And only maximum f4.0? Am I the only one who would prefer a zoom? If you put this up to your eye and discover you’re too close to your subject, you’ll have to go further back. Much, much, much… much further back. Yeah – missed your shot now. Oops, can’t go further back, there’s a building behind me. Damn. It doesn’t look remarkably compact either. Looks frikkin’ huge compared to the Lumix 100-300 f4.0-5.6 (which is a very decent lens, though not amazing). Man, Image quality had better be worth it because I see a very impractical lens there, that’ll probably be nuts expensive too.
You really have no idea.
I have a 300mm so… why would I really have no idea?
You have no idea.
I have a 300mm so… why would I really have no idea? No tell me seriously. You’re the second person trying to sound intelligent by simply opening your mouth and repeating the previous guy who didn’t know what to say. That makes you the fool who follows the fool. Get a life.
Maybe the 12mm f/2.0 is more a prime of your taste.
Well it’s to my taste, but that doesn’t mean *only* my taste. I own several primes primes ranging from between 7.5mm to 75mm, and zooms Zooms ranging from 12 to 300mm.
If you want to frame your shot as well as possible at the time of shooting rather than in post, you’re going to have to develop an excellent sense of distance to you subject, since you can’t zoom in or out. With a zoom you only have to learn an approximate distance and have the option to compensate with zooming in/out.
Fact is, the further you get from your subject the harder it is to judge the distance correctly. You’re going to find yourself having to move back or forward a lot. That gets annoying when trying not to disturb wildlife, standing on the wrong side of a stream or a busy road. If you’re photographing static images in an open field, this lens is great.
Good for weddings though I imagine, the f-stop will create some great bokeh at this range.
I may be wrong, but I think the 40-150 Pro (with the Tele converter as needed) would be better for weddings.
Certainly also a great lens for that, yes. Regarding wedding photography, Can I ask all you haters of the 100-300 Lumix to take a look at this? and remember i’ve been modest about that lens, not saying it’s amazing, but it’s decent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKwJ48GTJWo&spfreload=10
Nice video but pretty much in line with what everyone is saying. Shooting at 270 mm and stopped down two stops (!) from f5.6 to get good results sounds kinda awful to me…
but at the size and price difference – maybe not.
Speed costs money. I think f4 at 300mm is worth 2-2,5x price difference over f8-11 at 270 mm. But an ok compromise would be a small 300 f5.6 prime with Zuiko 40 f1.8 like quality at the same price as the 100-300. The fact just is, you can only pick three of these features: affordable price, zoom, speed, good image quality.
true that
This is for photographers, not for you.
clap….. clap…. clap…. clap… I actually wrote something, had relevant points, arguments, debatable subjects… and you come up with something that sounds dumber than any kid in a schoolyard has ever uttered.
No. you”re not the only one wishing for a zoom. But, I’ll take the prime. On the positive side, part of the reason I moved to 43 was size and weight, and the prime will necessarily be smaller and lighter than a zoom with the same max focal length. It does look large in this photo, but without a hand or something in the image, you really have no perspective. The 40-150 pro is relatively small for what it is, and I suspect this one will be as well. Certainly it will be smaller than the Canon or Nikon 300/f4’s, and they are already fairly small. Oh, and ignore these morons. They all have small genitals and compensate by being “bad ass” on the internet. 😉
I’m rather hoping Tamron gives us a good long zoom at a decent price – a m43 version of their 150-600 (say100-450) would do nicely – especially with their current pricing, but if the 300 is REALLY good and not crazy expensive, I’m on board.
“Image quality had better be worth it… “, considering the last PRO lenses that Olympus made, that quality will certainly be delivered.
I’m not saying this won’t have amazing IQ, I’m saying it had better have it.
Yes you are the only one. With a focal length like this people usually shoot subjects that are almost never too close – wildlife. And 4 is plenty fast, 2.8 would cost 6-7 k. A zoom would be even more heavier and bigger with worse IQ and higher price. And the 100-300 f4-5.6 is far from decent in the long end. Trust me this is the solution with most bang for the buck when it comes to reach & speed.
I just wish it was Pana releasing it so I would get OIS…. Almost have to pick up a dedicated camera for this lens alone :/
In wildlife the subject movement is usually defeating the purpose of stabilisation to some extent. Panasonic OIS uses a set of uncentered lenses, which usually affect the image quality to some extend.
No I’m not the only one apparently.
Also, I DID – and I quote – say the Lumix 100-300 “is a very decent lens, though not amazing”.
I’m not an idiot who has no idea what to do with a telephoto lens, I’m the guy arguing that unless you are really really good at judging the distance to your subject, you’re going to frame your shots badly at this range. It gets harder to judge distance the further away you get. And when you’re trying to photograph wildlife, moving is usually not an option. Zooming is.
On a prime, the option to enlarge the aperture exists. With no moving lens elements (no zoom), getting better IQ with a bigger aperture becomes less challenging – that’s one of the reasons all the large aperture lenses are primes. You could always stop down to F4 if you wanted.
I’m not saying this won’t have amazing IQ, I’m saying it had better have it.
sorry, I didn’t mean to come off as a douche. A stop faster aperture would be indeed nice but it would increase the price about 5 times. And the Zd 300 f2.8 already excists.
Hey that’s OK you make a good point. Dunno about 1 stop making that 5x increase in price though 😉 I just really wish they’d pushed for F3.5. I’m no optics expert but looking at what you can do with primes, I’m pretty stumped as to why the option isn’t there to make the aperture wider. I can see how they might not have been impressed with the IQ at 3.5 so they limited it. But the diameter seems to allow it.
I am CERTAIN that Panasonic will make a move to replace the 100-300mm zoom soon with better optics, OIS and F-stops around 4-5.6 which is acceptable in a zoom, and that’ll be the one for me. I just can’t sacrifice that flexibility for a small increase in sharpness.
Thanks. Actually 5x is pretty close, let’s say this lens would cost 1,300. The stop faster Zuiko 300 f2.8 is selling for 6,500 which equals 1300 x 5 = 6500. I think Oly is very pressed to make the 300 f4 the sharpest lens in the system and performing excellently even wide open.
I would also love to see Panasonic release quality lenses over 100 mm, shame the 150 f2.8 was cancelled. It was probably a bit too expensive to compete with the Zuiko 40-150.
“I’m the guy arguing that unless you are really really good at judging the distance to your subject, you’re going to frame your shots badly at this range”
This is when you have the 300 f4 on one body & the 40-150 on another. 😉 I guess it becomes a heavier kit then. 🙁
Heavier, noisier, more visible and more fragile.
150-450mm f/2.8 or at least f/4 would have been far better.
Or make it 150-400mm with the teleconverter 1.4x compatible.
When you go to wild, you can’t move as wildlife will detect you = lost moment.
You can’t cause noise = wildlife hear you = lost changes.
You can’t limit your movement = lost situations.
That is why wildlife photographers love large zooms. As it frees them from carrying like 70-200mm + 400mm + 600mm and be crippled to a car or boat.
40-150mm + 150-450mm Pro (both f/2.8) would make them be able carry everything, easily have two small bodies or swap those far less often as they cover so huge range from close to far. Be light sucking beasts that every wildlife photographer would buy and get (or rent = good business to convert people to system).
Everyone against idea 150-400/150-450mm are not going to buy such if they don’t even usually need the TC14 to 40-150mm. They are not the target group, instead they are against m4/3 cameras overall as they don’t understand that the m4/3 cameras need super telephoto lenses and size and weight benefit is always there, even with f/2.8!
Such lens would bring more pros to system = more money and fame = more users = more your wanted 12-70mm scale lenses like 62.5mm or 100mm macro or 8mm rectilinear prime etc.
But no super telephotos = less pros = less fame and notice = less users and less unique choices.
Welcome, you just handed the system to Canon M and Nikon 1!
it does become a heavier kit, but as someone else said, you can’t have one tool that does it all. But a zoom is certainly a more multi-purpose tool than a prime, it just isn’t as specialised.
That’s why you bring a couple lenses when you go out shooting. No lens will cover all your needs. Does that really need explaining?
You don’t have time to swap lenses in wild life or sports photography. That’s why you have multiple bodies and mounted lenses. And when you need something between 200-300, you don’t have it. When you need something more than 300 like 400 you don’t have it.
300mm is a huge compromise. I winder why did Olympus make this in first place as long tele primes are more often useless than uselful.
Zooms are more uselful than useless even when bigger and heavier.
nope. You’ll also bring an extra camera right? so you don’thave to switch lenses. OR… a zoom on one camera.
Not exactly new news, I had this information directly from an Olympus rep some weeks ago in Jessops Reading (England) that it would be released “in the autumn”.
So either it’s releasing earlier in Europe than America or they’ve got their seasons mixed up as usual.
The 300mm f/4 is a definite go for launch and it will take the MC14 x1.4 teleconverter too i.e. 420mm f/5.6
It’s still not the 450/F4.5 nor the 600/F6.3 we need but hey – perhaps Panasonic will give us even better stabilised ones up there.
“I had this information directly from an Olympus rep some weeks ago”
Wow, you’re really cool and should have a blog. Or at least a Tumblr.
Yes sure. Panasonic made the only lens I regret, the 100-300, Blurry beyond 200. They need to show they can teles.
jefrs, I am really impressed with your high status and insider knowledge. With that self congratulatory way, and chin leading mobility about you it’s no wonder you chose photography as your craft.
May I suggest just to try shooting with teles before writing such silly nonsense in public?
“It’s still not the 450/F4.5 nor the 600/F6.3 we need…”
Those equal 900mm and 1200mm on FF respectively.
Have you ever used a long tele lens?!
Such extreme FLs brings nothing useable to the table, just atmospherical distortion, contrast loss and blur. The longest viable option whilst still maintaining reasonable IQ is FF eq. 700mm, which is 350mm on m4/3.
Why is this lens so much bigger and heavier than Nikons 300mm F4, which is really a 810mm F4 since it can be used on the NIkon 1?
It’s a fresnell lens, so a different construction in a way. There are advantages and disadvantages. Same with a mirror lens.
Where are the specs that says it’s bigger & heavier?
Serious question: Who is this lens for? (I know, I know…since I’m asking, it’s not for me…and I’m not planning on buying it anyway) But I’m really wondering what photographers are looking for a 600mm (ff-eq) prime lens. My guess is wildlife photography, but wouldn’t a zoom work much better there? Or are good WL photogs really good enough at judging distance to be the perfect distance from their subjects every time? That seems like it would be REALLY tough to do…especially at the distance that this would be useful.
Is there another use case that I don’t know of that people want 600mm?
Sports and WildLife. Yes, it will be harder to position yourself, but these are probably the people that want the ultimate in quality, and willing to pay the price of higher cost and less flexibility. With a Fixed lens, you also can typically use Teleconverters and add further reach with very little quality loss. For zooms, the loss is typically worse.
Ah, sports! I forgot that one. I guess a sports photographer is going to pick a great place to stand, then have this lens on one camera, and maybe one or two other prime lenses on another body or two to get that perfect shot all over the field. They would always have a very good sense of how far away their shot is at all times. Great point. Glad I’m not a sports photographer…it’ll save me the $1,500 that this lens will probably cost 🙂
Check 40-150mm with a TC, quality loss is non existing for what you gain. The problem is the light loss, 1-2 stops depending is TC 1.4x or 2x. Why a zoom is always better as you get flexibility without such need to TC.
Like if Olympus releases a 150-450mm f/2.8 it would make perfect system for many. Those who want small, can go to primes and lose one stop and use TC on 40-150mm and lose one stop for 150-210mm range.
Wooow, I’m still new to photography, but I’m pretty sure a 150-450mm f/2.8 would be HUUUGE in size, weight and $$$$$$. Although it’s fun to dream about 🙂
Your absolutely right Paladaxar, the Sigma 200-500 is f2.8 is a CANNON and costs around $25,000 – and it’s a Sigma! A Zuiko 150-450 f2.8 would probably be over $30,000 and impossible to handhold or move without a tractor 😀
LOL…
excactly 😀 looks comfortable
We get you that you hate wild life photography and sports photography etc. But m4/3 system needs a super telephoto lenses, fast one. You don’t need to even own it or look at it. Because you dislike the idea m4/3 system would win.
Sure big and heavy for those who want a 75mm f/1.8 and consider it big and heavy next to 45mm f/1.8.
150-450mm would be big, but smaller that any same 450mm to APSC/35mm. F/2.8 would make it heavy and thick, but always smaller and lighter than any 400mm f2.8 to APS/35MM.
it would actually be like a 450mm f/5.6 by size and weight in 35mm sensor.
But f/2.8 would give a 2-4 stop benefit for MFT that means faster shutter speed!
It would be like this!
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/150-500mm.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/images/150-500mm/D3S_9455-fm2.jpg
Of course a little more thick from back because AF and a internal zoom.
Is that too big to you? Then go back to pancakes!
Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 Full frame is the closest existing lens I could find. This is a FULL FRAME lens but reasonable, about one foot long and 3 kg heavy… the people who claim such a lens could not be carried need to get off the couch! LOL
IF, you did an equivalent lens for m43 and maybe started it at 150mm, I think you could keep it to under 2 kg… and it would definitely be smaller thant a full frame lens. The price would be interesting as the Sigma is about 3.5 K.
There’s a huge difference between 300 2.8 and 450 2.8. They’re not comparable size or especially price-wise.
Do you really need or want to go all the way to 450mm? I’d happily settle on 150-300mm or 150-350mm F2.8. THIS kind of lens is emminently possible and has a usable size.
Yes, a 150-300 f2.8 would be nice and still very reasonably sized. Just don’t expect to see a price like in the Sigma. The Zuiko 300 f2.8 is 6-7 k and a zoom could mean an even higher price. Still a lens I would love to have but the 300 is much more reasonably priced for the majority of users.Because there is already the 300 f4, 300 f2.8 and 90-250 f2.8 Zuikos, I think a 200-400 f4 would make sense after the 300 f4 is released. Having it f4 instead of f2.8 would keep the price under 10k. I’d still rather have a 400 f4 prime for around 5k though 😛
I think the prices of previous generation of gear were over the top… but I could be wrong. If Olympus can make a superzoom closer to the prices of the current Pro line, then we are talking 🙂
I prefer weather sealed zooms… as I cannot always shuffle primes.
If all this is impractical, I’ll settle for a constant aperture upgrade to the current m43 superzooms.
you obviously have no clue. It would be nowhere near that size, that lens is a f5.6 not 2.8.
You don’t get it. The image circle is 2x smaller smaller and every lens for m4/3 is same size as same focal length but two stop slower one for 35mm.
Like 40-150mm is by size like a 40-150mm f/5.6 would be for 35mm cameras.
A 150-450mm f/2.8 would be like same reach but f/5.6 on 35mm.
No. A 300-900 f5.6 might be the same size as a m4/3 150-400 f2.8 but that tokina is 150-500 not 300-900. See the ZD 300 f2.8, it has the image circle for a 4/3 lens but it’s the same size as a 35 mm 300 2.8 lens (canon, nikon). The advantage is having smaller pixel density > double the reach as a 35 mm lens with same size and speed. The image circle difference doesn’t make that much difference at supertele range. Don’t you think that if a 150-450 f2.8 could be made in the size of that Tokina, every other lens maker would be bankrupt 😉
450mm/2.8 = 160.7mm minimal front lens diameter… that really looks like a perfect system for many…
No, it would not be much smaller than any FF/APS counterpart.
A 400/2.8 is what it is, and the sensor size or mount doesn’t change it much at these focal lengths (FL). The reach though, is another matter on (m)4/3, and that is where the advantage comes in, as you can use half the FL for the same reach, and thus much smaller (and brighter) optics. Making lenses smaller for m4/3 goes for wide angle and std. FLs only, due to the shorter flange back and smaller sensor, but sadly that does not apply for designing long tele lenses.
It’s simple. With wildlife your generally NEVER too close, except maybe when on static hide. A prime is the most cost effective way to go tele and offers other advatages too (sharpness, speed) compared to zoom.
“With wildlife your generally NEVER too close”
Haha…good point. I guess a true wildlife photographer (not someone shooting bunnies and squirrels in their back yard) would never say “Darn! I’m way too close to these wolves…I need to back up” 🙂
Actually you are most often too close in fast situations than too far.
I disagree. I’ve never been too close to wildlife whereas I always have to crop.
Then you are lousy photographer if you haven’t ever been to close!
You are often too close them. Wild life photography isn’t just shooting from ultra far from tripod a non moving subjects. You have foxes, lions, gepards, wolfs etc coming at you. Looks like you have never been in safari or on a hunt as wildlife animals move a lot closer and further at and from you. Around you etc. And you can’t move or swap lenses.
But hey, you can always buy just that 300mm f/4, let rest of us to have a zoom…. It isn’t away from you, like 300mm f/4 is away from us.
A fair argument, but debatable. It would sure suck if the subject was so close you couldn’t focus or frame it, especially when it’s SO CLOSE you’ll be kicking yourself 🙂 Then again – I would have a backup camera with a shorter lens. (not sure I could afford one if I’d bought this one though heh heh!)
I’ve had excactly one occasion where I missed a wildlife shot because of being too close to the subject with the 50-200. And even then I was at full tele but the minimum focusing distance failed me. I always shoot at 200 with wildlife. I use the 50-199 range for portraits and landscapes.
No tool is for every occasion, of course. But shooting (smaller) birds you are often lacking reach. https://500px.com/photo/81063655/barn-s-by-carlos-urtasun?from=user_library
this one I shot at my focus limit of ca 6-7 meters, with a refractor telescope – 600mm on E-M5 mk1. uncropped. Many birds fly away if you get closer. (except of corse those tame city birds 🙂 )
So true – I try to predict the requirements but I always end up with 3 lenses just to be safe. Here’s the basis of my argument though: Flexibility. A zoom will give you that. being able to pull back to from 300 for example. I can predict my position relative to framing pretty well up to about 200mm, but from there it gets tricky. It’s like the ability to judge gets exponentially harder the longer the range. I guess after a few months I could get used to a fixed 300 but it’s still going to limit my ability to adjust framing without moving. I’m thinking I could live with a slightly lower IQ for that freedom.
I second what yves says. On the other hand, as a wildlife shooter who’s been using a Four Thirds Zuiko 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 with and without converters until now, I would indeed prefer a 100-300mm f/4 zoom to the 300mm prime; I think it wouldn’t need to be either significantly more expensive or significantly less sharp, while giving me more flexibility for applications beside “real wildlife” (which indeed tends to be “never too close”).
Because if I have to pack another zoom lens in addition to the 300mm f/4 when I set out on a hike to cover shorter telephoto lengths, like, say, the 40-150mm f/2.8, as excellent as it may be, the compactness and weight advantages of Micro Four Thirds as a smaller-sensor plus mirrorless system are totally and completely gone and away.
So as much as I really want that 300mm f/4 lens, my brain keeps on telling me that it might be sensible to stick to the 50-200 + converter solution until there are even better options…
Hubertus I commend you on being one of the few people in these forums who thinks before touching his keyboard. I agree. A zoom is more practical, though it will have worse IQ. Having to carry 2 lenses or even 2 cameras would be a safeguard, but a heavy one. I really think this Oly will have stunning IQ, but for me it’s not practical.
Depends what are you shooting. For wildlife, especially birds, you need the
longest focal length possible.
Photographers often use a Canon 600mm with 2x TC to have enough FL.
I do mostly bird photography and i would say 600mm (FF equivalent) is the minimum focal length i would buy for this purpose.
Of course it’s good to have a good quality zoom telephoto when you have a subject closer.
Landscape photographers.
That was a good one 😉
No, no, I was serious! 🙂
300mm f4.5:
http://i1351.photobucket.com/albums/p794/An0nemu5/Forum/Conn%20glynsk%202_zpsms7p4rj6.jpg
300mm full frame equivalent? Or 300mm on m43 sensor?
looks like film to me
That was full frame.
It’s for me. It’s for wildlife. Most wildlife photographers use extreme telephoto primes, unless they HAVE to travel light or they can’t afford them.
I’m in the latter category, but I’ve rented both the 300mm f2.8 and the 90-250 f2.8. I never used the 90-250mm at any other focal length than 250mm. The 300mm performed a lot better with the teleconverters and I assume this new 300mm with be a great pairing with it’s own teleconverter as well.
And yes, wildlife photography has a lot to do with pre-planning, positioning yourself and anticipating behavior. It is a skill that requires a lot of knowledge, patience, time, money, the occasional amount of luck and the longest lens you can carry or afford.
Me, too!
A long zoom is utterly suitable for landscapes as well.
I have had the FT SHG 90-250/2.8 for years, and along w/ the SHG 7-14/4.0 it is my most used lens. I of course use it for wildlife too, and it works very well with the EC-14. Not as good with the EC-20, where it exhibits quite some CA and a bit of blur at 250mm, but zooming out to around 200-220 improves IQ a lot. So a long PRO zoom would be great, like a 150-350/2.8-4.0, which in my view is the sweetspot between size, weight, brightness, reach and cost.
Surfing Photograpers…and ANYA general photographer.
I wonder how all those wildlife photographers ever did survive with their 400/2.8s and 600/4s.
Can’t wait! Hope it’s under 1500 €.
I can see the rear lens cap in this picture. Tha means I have an idea of the rear diameter, and the length, so I do have a sense of scale. I’m not comparing this to full-frame lenses, I know it’s a lot smaller. I’m comparing to the Lumix 100-300 which also has the an F4.0 F-stop and OIS and is significantly smaller. I know it’s not as good, but this lens is quite large for the FMT format, especially compared to the Lumix equivalent. I have previously argued that large lenses are OK if they simply deliver what they should, and I think this will, but I’m still saying it’s a bit big.
First, this is a 300mm F4 lens. As somebody mentioned below, you don’t call the new Nikon 300 F4 VR an +800mm F4 lens when you mount it in a Nikon 1 camera. From the pictures I have seen, it looks just like the previous Nikon 300mm F4 FULL FRAME lens. That is the issue. As an m43 lens, it should be smaller. It should be like the current 40-150 F2.8 Pro. I read somewhere, I think in Thom Hogan’s page, that the longer you go, the smaller the size advantage of m43. May be this is a good example.
Yes, but the combo has excellent speed/reach combination with the 4/3 sensor. A full frame system with 300 f4 would need a 64 Mp sensor for the same reach. The Nikon 1 has even more reach but sacrifices noise and shallow dof more than a 4/3 lens. Everything is a compromise. With full frame you get better noise control than with 4/3 but a wider view. With 4/3 you get more reach with somewhat more noise. With the Nikon again more reach but with compromised IQ.
Of course it is a similar size… The are similar focal lengths and apertures.
The size advantages come from the crop. While you can claim it performs the same as a 600 mm f8 lens if you were to use such a lens on a ff system your Dr, noise and color would all be worse off due to sensor gain.
Now as we are taking about a mythical 600mm f8, we can look at the cost of a 600mm f5.6, allow the ff combination a one stop advantage and what do we have ? A few variable appetite zooms… So you have to buy a600mm f4 for the same price as a small car and about the same size.
The advantage is real. You can choose to ignore it or wish it was something else but that doesn’t change reality.
+1000
“While you can claim it performs the same as a 600 mm f8 lens if you were to use such a lens on a ff system your Dr, noise and color would all be worse off due to sensor gain.”
It will still be F4 for brightness, just w/ DOF like F8 on FF.
(yes, I know you know this too, but keeping on repeating this fallacy is just wrong and should stop)
And even 4/3 sensor gain is really catching up, even beating FF at its home turf now
… interesting, but ultimately unbelievable. Larger pixel will always do better in the same sensor tech. The ONLY way E-M5 II could have beat the others, is if its multiexposure mode was used.
Oh, you guys please stop that sensor size battle. I never took a picture with a sensor only. It takes a camera around it. The camera makes the difference and has its ad- and disadvantages. We have free will and free markets. Buy what you want, FF or whatever… This is a m43 rumors site and m43 owners could figure out how to compensate for smaller sensors or pointing out disadvantages of bigger FF systems. I went bird watching in Vaeroy/Lofoten with a 5h walk and a couple of hundred meters up to finally get to the ‘Lunde’ (Atlantic Puffin). The m.zuiko 300 would have been a blessing and the EF 600mm a means to commit suicide. Thats it. Make your choice.
What is your point to the argument above?
Of course I know what I am and am not getting with a m43 camera. For me it is a street and carry anywhere camera. I have other equipment for other situations.
I totally agree. The system matters and we should be happy to have so many choices, instead of bashing systems.
I think micro 43 is a great system for small and medium focal lengths but
i don’t see the advantage for super telephoto photography.
The EF 600mm you mentioned it’s a 960 F4 mounted on a 7D and
cropped a bit you can get to 1200mm with the same resolution as E-M1 for example. And you can still add a TC or use it on FF and get the best IQ when reach it enough.
And if you need smaller, the EF 300 F4 can get you to 600mm cropped on APS-C.
It would be great if Olympus or Panasonic could make a prime lens with at least 400mm and somewhat smaller than FF lenses.
Try a full day climb in the puffin cliffs with an EF 600/4.0 +7D, compared to the Zuiko 300/4.0 PRO + E-M1! Eureka!
Not a fair comparison. With the 600mm on 7D i have more than double(120%) the pixels on subject and still can crop(without adding any TC).
Yes, it’s heavy but the new version is lighter.
And i always have other options, 300mm F4(with the crop i am very close to the focal length of the Olympus setup), 400 5.6,
70-300L, 400 F4 DO, 500mm F4, etc.
My point is that i don’t see much advantage at this point. The weight saving is not that big, camera-body combo is around 2kg vs 3kg for the Canon 7D + 400DO(i’m mainly interested in size/quality and less the price).
Or 7D + 300mm F4 IS cropped to 16MP gives almost 600mm equivalent focal length and the combo is about 2kg.
Or the new 100-400 II a cropped again to 16MP, on 7D can get me to 750mm.
I am interested in the Olympus system and trying to justify it but
i just don’t see much advantage at this point for wildlife photography.
If Olympus will introduce and even longer prime lens with the
same quality…then maybe.
It’s good to see new lenses are added to the PRO line.
I expected the new 300mm to be a bit smaller than the FF Nikon or Canon 300mm but looks even bigger.
Quality will be very good, i am sure about that.
But so is the new Nikon 300mm and its amazingly small.
Does it have to beat them? I’ve an EM-5 and I’m very happy with the image quality. I also love the extra DoF you get as well. Very handy.
Hey Erik,
That is besides my point, the poster I was replying to was saying he was upset that 2 300mm f4 lenses are the same size. That is a silly point to make as one is made to perform like a 600mm lens.
No, it’s the only logical point to be made. Sure, everybody can give their money to a multinational if they like it; but you won’t get any advantage from m43 coz physics dictate it. Think again and give money to poor African children.
Huh… God some comments here make no sense… Multinational, starving African children… Stay on topic.
As to an advantage, you are right, physics is physics, and a slot lens will always be a slow lens… Sensor gain will always be sensor gain and m43s is probably one of the most versatile camera systems on the market today.
I agree.
But I just want this argument stating that any aperure on m43 equals a two stop slower value on FF to end. Endlessly repeated, the ignorant takes it as the truth, withtout ever realizing that it applies for DOF only. Therefore even quoting this erroneous argument should not go without opposition.
I wish it was bigger and 2.8.
That already exists and it’s excellent but expensive – the ZD 300 2.8!
2.8 needs a front lens of nearly 11cm, 4 only 7.5cm. Doesn’t sound much, but that is a lot more glas to carry and pay for.
You wouldn’t mind a price of $6,500 for it? Which is the price of the 300mm f2.8 4/3 version.
This is NOT a “Micro” Four Thirds lens, but a Four Thirds Lens, With a M43 mount.
There is no advantage to M43 once the lens reaches a size such as this one. You’re better off going Full Frame or APS-C.
lolwut? Have you seen the size of a 600mm equiv. lens on APS-C or larger?
Yes I did. It’s a Canon, it’s a f/4. It’s better. It’s 17″ long. It doesn’t look stupid when you mount it to a DSLR. This lens is going to make your kit look very Doofy.
Olympus might as well make 43 sized bodies to match their pro lenses. Then if they do that, maybe they can have ibis AND 4K.
This is just another lens destined to join it’s 43 brothers on the inventory shelves. I give it 4 weeks to end up on Olympus’s so-called refurbished list.
Photogs that shoot birds and wildlife already have kits in order to do so. This is late, very late to the party. It’s just a “we have one of those too” lens. -Inventory.
OK Mr… here is the list of Canon supertelephoto lenses. Not one of them are 600mm equivalent on APS-C at F4 (unless you count the 600mm F4 $12,000 lens, or the 400mm lenses that are over $6,000):
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Lens+Types+for+APS-C+Cameras_Super+Telephoto&ci=274&N=4288584247+4291570227+4109119981
Show me this Canon F4 600mm equivalent on APS-C. There is an F5.6 that’s 2.75 lbs. in weight for $1,339.
Oh, NOW you want to be technical…
You asked to show you a 600mm lens on a APS-C camera or LARGER, correct?
I just did.
And it’s more, because it’s Better. Better build, better optics, has IS built in and is built specifically for pros, its not just labeled “Pro”, it IS a PRO LENS.
Let me know when someone uses this Olympus lens for PROfessional sports. -OH, it’s for birds?
We get it. You think m43 is lame. Why do you feel the need to keep saying so?
But is it possible that a photographer might have good reasons – subjective or not – for using m43? Is it possible that you might have no idea what those reasons are?
Part of growing up is learning that other people know what works for them better than you do. Put down your ego and stop acting otherwise.
You have literally no idea if those lenses are better. But enjoy your unfounded certainty… I’m sure it makes you the fun guy at the watercooler.
LOL. Agree with everyone that you have no idea what you were talking about. 44.7cm? 3.92kg? It better is GOOD!
Panasonic fanboys are as stupid as they can get.
A 400 mmm F 2.8 for example? That costs the same though, bummer. This should show you something my friend.
Idiot as always.
LOL so roughly canon is 43cm vs 20cm Olympus.
Not EVERY lens for m43 has to be as smaller than any dslr lens. Just because mirrorless construction allows considerably smaller lenses at a certain range doesn’t mean there should be no lenses beyond that range. Mirrorless has other advantages (like live view exposure, less mechanical parts, bigger viewfinder that’s stabilised, easier MF) that will kill the dslr when technology progresses (in battery life, autofocus). So by your logic mirrorless systems shouldn’t have any specialty lenses that can’t be made smaller than ancient dslr lenses. Are you a simpleton?
MrALLCAPS says the Canon is better since he’s already compared the build quality and image quality to the Olympus 300mm f/4 already. Olympus sent him a copy and he owns the Canon. Let’s give him some credit guys.
Why do you talk out of your arsé all the time? Using your mouth with your brain connected is both more sanitary, less odious and more welcomed by others.
Of course you do, but never forget you are posting in a commercial forum. That means, no matter how right you are, you are always wrong 🙂
I’m fairly certain this lens will be the sharpest µ4:3 lens to date. Generally speaking, the longer a lens is, the easier it is to design it for ultimate sharpness. The 300/2.8 was the sharpest 4:3 lens. This 300:4 should take the sharpness crown for µ4:3.
In the UK, the lens of choice for many wildlife shooters (well, those that can afford it!) seems to be the 600mm f/4 L Canon on a 1DX. I know a few guys that use it, often adding a 1.4x. So this Olympus lens replicates the effective reach of that on a full frame body, with the image quality compromises that we have to make as m4/3 users (and of course it is a 2x crop from a 300mm f/4 in reality but with 16mp of detail to help with fur and feathers, given a sharp enough optic, plus the extra DOF is often quite handy….).
Having shot for a year with a Sigma 400 5.6 Tele Macro and then a year with a 300mm f/2.8 Tokina (And sometimes 1.4x fitted) I’ve found a few situations where a zoom would have been useful. This is working as an amateur who tends to walk around for subjects, which generally means they’re at a distance of sorts. I’ve just moved to a Sigma 100-300 f/4 and optional 1.4x to convenience as I really did get far too close to a subject to frame it the other week (and one the month before too). So I’ll take a mild hit on ultimate quality for the convenience of a zoom. Having said that I’d like a lens with AF again so the Olympus is very interesting and the IQ should be pretty top notch, surely? All depends on the price, though, or I’ll just stick with MF legacies, or maybe even look at DSLRs again (would rather not though).
i’d like to see a modern version of the older Tokina 400mm f/5.6 ATX made for m4/3, with a polycarboate body and OIS if Panny made it. Would be perfect for m4/3 if the optics were upgraded to modern standards.
Zoom-wise the current 100-300 is dated and not up to the job (certainly not in the UK’s regular bad light!). The Oly version isn’t much different. I’d like to see an up-market constant f/4 version that could take the new 1.4x too. Forget f/2.8 as the lens would just be far too big.
a 200-400 or 150-400 might be interesting too, but it’s getting big again….
Just my opinions anyway and I’m sure not all will agree with them. Any of the above would work for me though and I really think m4/3 as a system needs to start to embrace the “long end” of things for the future (OK and the ultra wide end too!)
If you want reach, use a C or a N. Sadly, the compromises that come with m43 cut no ice. Not so sadly, m43 toys are always overpriced, so you actually save money with C & N.
stumbled upon this… while on the subject of zooms. probably crap but look at the range, haha! http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-650-2600mm-Definition-Telephoto-Panasonic/dp/B0036YUIUY