One of our best sources shared the price info of the new 300mm PRO lens. The yet still to be confirmed price will be around $2,499. Too expensive? Well if the lens is amazingly good…
—
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
193 Responses
Crazy Oly , Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM costs 1299 !
To be fair, the Canon 300/4 is an old lens. I’m sure the Oly will be better optically. However, $2500 is still too much. Nikon’s brand new 300/4 is only $2,000.
and Nikon has the camera ownership base to build many times what Olympus can justify.
I’m not sure why equivalency stops being applied for telephoto, but the Oly is a 600mm if we do.
Equivalence applies to the image, not to design and price. For a manufacturer, a 300mm f/4 is roughly the same across all popular sensor formats, with a little more optical resolution needed here and a little larger image circle there. Perhaps the little more optical resolution for MFT does justify a somewhat higher price, but I’d say not that much higher.
4 times higher coverage of an FF lens is not “a little larger image circle there”, and centers are usually sharp on FF lenses anyway.
The image circle needs only be twice as large in diameter – for a sufficiently long telephoto lens, that is “only a little”, because it does not change the design very much, neither on the inside nor the outside of the lens. Only the rear groups are affected at all, and that rear portion will stay comparatively small, regardless of whether it’s full-frame or FT.
It does change the design a lot, look how different lenses sharp in the corners vs lenses not sharp in the corners are (like Sigma 50/1.4 vs the old Canon 50/1.4 for example), now imagine you don’t have the corners and in fact much more than the corners at all.
That’s totally true for short focal lengths, but for long telephoto lenses it makes much less of a difference.
How so?
The thing is, it’s not a 600mm lens. It’s a 300mm lens that gives a field of view equivalent to a 600mm lens on FF. If you put the Canon 300mm lens on an m43 body via an adaptor, it too would have a 600mm equivalent field of view. So in terms of construction, it’s a 300mm lens. I’d be surprised if it tops $2,000 but what do I know. I suspect it will be a terrific lens optically and for a few folks it will be a must have lens. But if it’s $2,500 I think the market is going to be very limited.
600/8 then. 150-600/5-6.3 are in effect faster (taking ISO difference into account) and $1000. Failed pricing from Oly again. If it is a cent more than $999.99, it will not sell well and Oly would wonder again why Canon and Nikon lead.
No, it’s still F4.
Yes, but to get the most similar options and the most similar results out of a FF lens on a similarly resolving FF body a 600mm f/8 would be all that was needed. Or, on a Canon APS-C body, a 375mm f/5 lens, for that matter. Things are different again, though, if we start comparing real telephoto reach through cropping potential which depends on the pixel pitch.
It is still 300mm too. But in terms of the final picture on different-sized sensors from the same distance of the same scene at the same shutter speed (exposure time really), 300/4 on m43 works JUST LIKE 600/8 on FF.
And that’s a lens with FF coverage. Although the size difference gets smaller with telelenses, I’m still pretty sure the Oly version doesn’t need as much glass as the Canon version….
The Olympus 300mm f4 has 17 elements, at least. The Canon has 15. The glass is nothing like as expensive as the processing required to form it into a finished element.
Yes, the difference gets smaller with equivalent teleleses:
http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj524/picrumors/picrumors001/picrumors001148/oly-300-4c_zps4d57b5e3.jpg
Too bad those aren’t equivalent lenses…
… and covers 4 times bigger circle too.
If this is true and the same for the Pana 100-400 I will have another system for tele.
Not sure how it could cost so much more to build this than the 40-150/2.8…..
$2500 sounds high. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s based on a currency conversion like all the other price rumors that turn out to be wrong.
Yes, likely a currency conversion. That would suggest US price is under $2k.
A lot of noise about nothing.
With such an expensive price, I won’t absolutely buy this lens.
If that’s true, then I and others simply won’t be buying it. This sort of price for a 300mm f4 lens cannot be justified. Look at the price of the Pentax 300mm f4, which is weather sealed and optically excellent. It doesn’t matter how optically good this lens is. Most 300mm f4 lenses, and similar lenses are already optically very good.
Yes, definitely too expensive. If that price turns out to be real, for me it’ll probably be one of those AF-capable Metabones EF-MFT adapters instead, together perhaps, for a start, with a second-hand EF 400mm f/5.6 L many of which are always available from different sources for a couple of hundred bucks/quid/euros. The 400mm L has already been reported to work surprisingly well with the E-M1’s phase detection AF…
Can you tell more about that (EF 400mm on E-M1)?
Or link maybe…
Regards Yeti
I’ve found most of the relevant information in the German “DSLR-Forum” (this is the relevant thread, started in October, in German language). The Metabones adapters (both with and without Speed Booster focal-reducer optics) have received several firmware updates in short succession lately which seem to make a wealth of EF lenses working very nicely with the OM-D E-M1. There are several wildlife shooters participating in the thread, and one or two of them have shown results with an EF 400mm f/5.6L which do look very promising. One of them just said that he might even buy the expensive EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L II, rather than the Olympus 300mm f/4, if it was still noticeably sharper than the 400mm f/5.6L prime on the E-M1 (which, I suppose, it is on Canon bodies).
Haha…. Ha….
I am afraid i have to cancel my initial order !
It’s a specialized tool for a very niche audience to begin with. But don’t worry, Oly will put it on sale every other week for several hundred $$$ off.
Well I had my eyes on the Panny 100-400 already. This lens is too special for me. If the Panny does not deliver good enough IQ, I am not going to buy either. Otherwise it will be the Panny.
the new Panny is also supposed to be in that $2500 range but not available until late 2016 so its the idea of a bird in the hand. If Olympus can bring out faster CAF on the EM1ii, then this would make a very small outfit for wildlife and stuff.
Or I could pay almost a year of car payments.
Well, that would make it the most expensive 300mm f/4 lens. Sounds a bit much. But whatevs…
Yawn… A grand too much.
The Nikon 300 f/4 AFS is a super lens, and only about $1000 these days! The new nikon PF/E lens is smaller than this Olympus lens, has VR too, and is only $2000. I don’t get Olympus.
And the Panasonic 25/1.7 is also a super lens and does cost only $99. So the Nikon 300 f/4 is an incredibly expensive lens as well!
and you can get Nikon or Canon for 99$ also when is on sells like Panasonic 25/1.7 / Canon have normal price od 99$ so !?!?!? how much is Olympus 25mm ?
Was the Nikon $1000 when it was released?
If you work out the price of the Nikon, per element, the Oly lens would cost 2125. However, Nikon have for greater economies of scale so it would be reasonable to expect any Lens Olympus makes to be more expensive than performance equivalent lenses made by Nikon or Canon.
For really expensive lenses, it makes more sense to buy the lens with the performance you want and a body to stick on the end of it. Unfortunately there are quite a few of the rare Olympus OM system beige lenses like the 250mm F2 that have been butchered by Ar&^%$(*s who used other systems to change the mount to Leica or Canon etc instead of just sticking an OM-1 or 2 on the end.
A Zuiko 250mm F2 butcherd by converting it to a Canon FD mount:
http://i1351.photobucket.com/albums/p794/An0nemu5/Forum/A20141B00300238_zpsgsvgffzl.jpg
Isn’t that the 350mm f/2.8?
http://www.redwrench.com/2009/camera/_PL_3874.jpg
No, it isn’t. It’s what I said it was.
http://i1351.photobucket.com/albums/p794/An0nemu5/Forum/NoItsnot_zpsv13e1for.jpg
Also pay attention to the front end of the handle .
wouldn’t you be able to convert back since the Oly lenses were supposed to adapt quite easily to Eos?
I doubt it. You can’t get parts. I knew someone who bought a 180mm f2 Zuiko that had been converted to a Leica mount. He was trying to get an Olympus ex factory tech to convert it back to OM but I don’t think it ever happened, and that was when you could still get some parts.
OM lenses don’t have to be adapted for EOS – you just attach an adapter.
is the lens barrel compromised when an adaptation is done because if it is the mechanics in the mount wouldn’t you be able to cannibalize?
I don’t know, I suspect it depends on the format its being adapted to. I suspect the actual rear barrel has to be butchered. I just don’t get it. The cost of a 35mm OM body would have been far less than the cost of the modifications.
Lenses are not sold per kg. The price depends not on the weight or size, it depends on the quality. I just saw the Nikon 300/f2.8 at a price of 6000€. I’m sure Nikon could build a cheap 300/f2.8 for much less or a high quality 300/f4 for much more than 1000$. The problem is, that most people are not able to look for quality, they are only looking for size and F-numbers. High quality and slow or low quality and fast are nor excepted. Nikon and Canon are reacting to this. They produce only lenses that meet the expectations of the customer. M43 is different. It is possible to build small high quality lenses which are not as fast as possible and sell them to customers
We need to wait for the tests to see if the Oly 300/F4 is worth that price.
Agreed. Tests of the best m4/3 lenses show they produce notably better lp/mm results than FF lenses because they must due to the smaller sensor. Thus this lens should be expected to have much better IQ than even excellent lenses like the prior generation Nikkor 300 f4 (which I own and love) being referenced here as a fair price point for a 300mm (though it certainly wasn’t 1K when released). If this new 300 has the IQ of the m.Zuiko 75 1.8 or better wide open it would out perform all the alternatives listed here by a good margin. Of course I would like to see it in the $1500 range too but that kind of quality in a brand new release would honestly be worth the $2500
So for about the same price you could buy the Nikon PF/E and a speed booster and have a 300 f/2.8 lens. Hmm.
more like 210mm f 2.8
I own the 40-150 Pro. Paid $1299 for it new. That’s as much as I will spend for a lens. This 300mm is not meant for me.
For those who really need or must have the 300, I guess they will find the money.
I’ve been waiting for this lens but there’s no way in hell I’m paying $2500.
Wait some more and you won’t have to.
$1800 and I will consider it. I agree with everyone else . The lens is a 300mm f/4. Look at the market for this type of high quality lens. If this lens is not priced within that market…I will pass on it.
Just picked up the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 for my FF. Now there is a leading edge HIGH quality piece of glass at an EXTREMELY reasonable price. Olympus can do that as well with this lens!
I agree that the price is to high, but it´s less than what I payed for my 4/3 150/2.0 when it was new. I Think the price for it was around $2900
An f/2 lens is a lot different than an f/4 lens.
It is an insane price no matter how good it is. 150-600 zooms for FF are $1000.
but how much are the Canon and Nikon 300/f4s? Different glass quality …
The Canon 300mm F4 IS L lens is $1200 and both their and Nikon’s telephoto lenses are of extremely high quality
how many lenses will Canikon produce compared to Olympus?
That should be irrelevant to the buyer. Especially when one can get a premium Canon lens PLUS a quality APS-C body for what this one Olympus lens costs.
considering the vast majority of the buyers of this lens are going to be m4/3s users, buying a Canon 7d2/300/1.4tc really doesn’t make much sense. Many of them will already own the 40-150/2.8 and the 1.4 converter, which is supposed to function on this lens.
Canon 300/4 is $1100, and it covers 4 times bigger area. And on 5Dsr with cropping works like m43 150-300/2-4 would on m43, much more valuable lens than simply 300/4. Again, the Olympus should be no more than $999 if they want to sell it.
then you have the option of buying the Canon – however, if you are a m4/3s user, it is not going to function on an EM-1 as well as a native mount lens, now is it? This is not for newbys to the system, it is for those already in it. And I know a few people already on the list.
those 150-600 zooms are more in the quality ballpark of the Pana 100-300 and the Oly 75-300 though, and those are 500 each.
And you did try that 150-600 zooms so you can tell that they are in ballpark of 100-300 and 75-600 ?? To many of you just talk noncence and crap and didnt ever see or even touch any of this lens but you can produly tell that they are in same ballpark !?!?!?
Let me tell you, I am on olympus from 2010 and E-PL1, I had or try about 100 lens ( manual and af ) with any of body mainly E-M5, now I have E-M1 and 12-40 and 40-150 PRO, before that I had 14-54 mk2, 12-60, 50-200, ec14-ec20 ect..
and latly I get tired of waiting for “another big thing” from Olympus and i bought used Canon 6D and new Sigma 150-600 C, and 70-200 f4 is and 24-105 – and pay for all this less than 2500$,, and I can tell you from first hand that Sigma 150-600 is excellent glas and that is on pair with Olympus 50-200 with IQ, it is not sharp as 40-150 PRO but guess what it doesent have disgusting bokeh and 40-150 PRO, and picture is much more vibrant and realistic and with more information of color not microscopic like form 40-150PRO, even 50-200 have better IQ than 40-150 PRO, because 40-150 while is extra sharp her bokeh is also extra sharp so it makes very unpleasant bokeh so whole picure is unrealistic and bad imho..
next 6D iso on 6400 is far better than E-M1 on 800, 2500 is better than iso 200 on E-M1, dof is ofc 2 ev better so f/8 is like f/4 and so Sigma 150-600 is if you want like 75-300 but 2.8-4, Canon f4 is is like f2 and so on…
Olympus is going on very wrong road with this toxic prices and it will led them to bankruptcy at the and, E-M1 was selling at start for 1800€ now you can buy it for 700-800€, dont know why they overprice everything last 3y
Oly/75-300 is 6.7 at 300, it is like f/13.4 on FF, not the same thing as f/6.3 on FF at all. Pana is like f/11, still not close to f/6.3.
“It is an insane price no matter how good it is”
unless goodness comes with a price. Apparently, this is open to debate…
No matter how good it is, its “goodness” (sharpness etc) is not going to beat 150-600/5-6.3 lenses on FF, especially on 36-50mpix FF cameras. As such, it is not worth more.
I’ll personally wait for proper reviews. Establishing a reference and claiming ahead of any release that it’s unattainable, it’s pure bollocks.
I could have bought the ZD SHG 300mm f2.8 in pristine shape (used) for $2800 a month ago…guess I should have.
ANd you didn’t? HAH!
For that price it would have been cheap.
Just didn’t have the extra funds at the time…silly me, I could have sold a kidney or something.
These price rumor articles are getting dumb. To begin with, regardless of the rumors we have no idea what the street price will be. Especially a few months after release.
Olympus prices have been consistent. They have a 45mm that’s awesome value. They have a 75mm that could be called expensive but the quality is incredible and people who own it don’t complain.
If the 300mm is like a super-tele version of the 75mm then I would gladly pay a premium. Either way it’s way too early to start moaning about price when we don’t know the street price or the quality of the gear.
” To begin with, regardless of the rumors we have no idea what the street price will be. Especially a few months after release.”
Olympus discounts most of their lenses by $50-100. Even 25% is not going to make this lens to make sense if MSRP is $2500.
$2,499 is just way too expensive. But I would definitely buy it at $2,498! That would be a bargain. I suppose I could wait until the actual price is revealed and date when available. Sadly it looks unlikely before 6th February when I go to South Africa. The metabones and Canon 400 f5.6 is a possible, but it is not a cheap combination for what will be a compromise. Perhaps the Canon 100-400 f5.6 might be a better bet?
Well, if the pixels are small, lenses have to be really sharp. Which usually means expensive.
AFAIK, it’s the only 300/4 native M43 lens available? Buy it or leave it, but Olympus is king there… until someone else brings a comparable native M43 lens for a lower price…
It looks like Oly is pricing it against the equivalent field of view full frame primes (600mm) and using that to convince us this is a bargain lens for birding.
funny – a Nikon 600/f4 is $15,000 up here in Canada. Where can I get one for $2500US?
You obviously misunderstood what I wrote
You were the one comparing the Oly 300 to Canikon 600s because of the equivalent field of view.
Ah another mFT mathematical expert lol it is the mFT body [ with its much smaller compared to FF sensor } which gives the crop factor. Put a 300mm F/4 from Nikon Canon Pentax or Olympus on any mFT and you will get the exact same crop factor
really, I did not know that. I assume the AF functions quite well. Does the IS/VR work on the lenses?
… and 1/4 the light.
Can be as contrasty ever, but 300mm prime? NO THANKS!
Make it 150-400mm f/4 and I buy it!
$11,499 for Canon EF 600 F/4.0 L; $12,296 for Nikon 600mm F/4.0
Assuming it’s optically stellar, $2,500 for Zuiko 300mm F/2.8 PRO seems like a bargain. However, we have the issue of AF performance to consider. I’m hoping that Oly is designing this optic to use PDAF + contrast detect so it will be useful for sports and other moving subjects.
You can bet the Image Quality is WAY better than this lens and any M43 camera for those Canikon lenses. You get what you pay for.
Looking forward to the comparisons, if any. The end result will always be, “But, it’s much Cheaper.”
No fanboism here please.
I really hope that is irony for fanboisim is pretty much the only posts you get here
Y’know?
Honestly, I’m tired of the Canikon comparisons myself. M43 is a “compromise” system, like all other formats out there. It just is. You’re sacrificing image quality for portability. And before anyone mentions medium format over full frame, just how many medium format cameras sell in a year, compared to full frame cameras?
M43 is about size. Bit if you put it against a full frame equivalent, it would get DESTROYED, aside from size, where M43 wins, Unless it’s a Sony A7 series.
Point is, be happy with what you shoot, but let’s be real, M43 is near the bottom of the totem pole in regards to image quality. Slightly above 1″ sensors and canon aps-s sensors, that’s it.
“Destroyed” is a bit hyperbole, don’t you think?
AllCrap likes to be destroyed here, don’t worry.
Why are you here? M4/3 is the 35mm of the digital realm while FF is medium format.
Optical viewfinders (present on all those 35mm cameras from Canikon) are a compromise, in the digital world. I prefer a viewfinder which ‘sees what the sensor sees’, myself, and gives a more accurate prediction of exposure settings. Actually, I have preferred electronic viewfinders even when they were not quite as good as they are now.
If you are a pixel peeper you may see some difference. But with a 4 times bigger sensor what would you expect genius?? Fool frame is for the weaks…. lol
I find the JPEGs coming out of my Sony A7, which I’ll admit gets very little use, to be visibly worse than those from the E-P5. Can’t compare RAWs yet, which is what I always shoot on the Olympus.
No, you get probably equal numbers of trollish posts.
The huge difference for me is usability. The Nikon is 8.5 lbs and 17″ long. I hike long distances while I shoot so can’t carry an 8.5 lb lens and a 3 lb gimbal head. I need a 300mm to be less than 2.5 lbs to even consider it.
If you use a FF 300mm F/4 on mFT you will get the exact same AOV, DOF the Nikon 300mm F/4 PF weighs in at roughly 2 pounds. If you used a FF 600mm lens on mFT it would give you an effective focal length of 1200mm you do understand the basics of equivalence ?
Wait a sec. Are you saying that a 300/4 on m4/3 will give you the same angle of view as using a 300/4 on full frame? Cause that is not true at all. And there is no way I’m going to use a full-frame telephoto lens on m4/3. I can’t afford to cripple the autofocus.
All I’m trying to do is get what amounts to a full-frame 600mm focal length. I said why using a 600mm prime lens on my Nikon didn’t work for me. And that I see using this new Oly 300/4 on my m4/3 camera seems to be a good alternative. By the way I currently use the Panasonic 100-300 but it is way too soft at 300mm so will be happy to sell it.
Only you said that. NK did not.
I see that my first comment wasn’t clear enough. I have clarified in the response. But nowhere did I say that all 300mm lenses will give the same angle of view regardless of sensor size. So don’t be snarky and say I did. Maybe NK didn’t claim that either – that’s why I was asking!
I said 600mm on full frame is too heavy and for that reason I’d need the 300mm for m4/3 to be much lighter (less than 2.5 lbs). I clarified in my response that it makes no sense for me to use a full-frame 300mm on my m4/3 body cause of autofocus. That’s why I couldn’t care less what the Nikon 300/4 weighs (it doesn’t give me 600mm on my Nikon body and it can’t be used with effective autofocus on my m4/3 body).
I believe what NK is saying is you can mount another brand 300mm f/4 on m4/3 camera, using a suitable adapter (some Metabones even allow autofocus). For around half the cost, and perhaps at a lower weight. Get it now?
Yes, I originally misunderstood his comment because of poor grammar (no judgement there intended – just saying it was actually confusing to me). I have stated twice now that using a full-frame lens on m4/3 is not an option for me because of poor (if any) autofocus.
Who knows who said what, quite frankly. The number of people completely missing each other in this thread is preposterous. Yes your clarification makes sense, cheers.
[btw, Don’t ascribe snarkiness please. The meaning is in my words not in what you think I might mean behind them.]
If it was f/2.8, it would be a bargain even if image quality was just decent. As it will be f/4, it won’t, even if the image quality will be “stellar”. I might call it “not perversely overpriced”, but I woudn’t be interested, either.
Did you by chance happen to either misread the title of the article or the writing on the lens . It is a 300mm F/4 lens ,as if by magic you can mount a Canon or Nikon 300mm F/4 lens on any mFT with the same effective AOV , DOF as the native mFT lens. The Canon 300mm F/4 IS L lens costs $1250, heck you can get a Pentax 300mm F/4 for $850
How great is your chance to miss focus at 150 feet? Are you good at manual focus?
If you have an E-M1 and you set the focus mode to C-AF (continuous), TruePic7 (in camera) will send the first focus command to the lens, based on phase detect measurements, and fine tune afterward using contrast detect measurements; same is true for all μ4/3 lenses. The lenses do not require special firmware or design optimizations to facilitate phase detect because the direct stepper motors provide translation speeds six to eight times faster than old, one-shot, medium speed motors. Caveat: some of older/cheaper lenses have screw motors, although, haha, I would doubt anyone shoots an E-M1 with the collapsible kit zoom, or the Panasonic 20mm f1.7.
More inventory for Olympus. Waiting for Canon to buy Olympus image division, as it’s rumored that Nikon purchased Samsung’s imaging division.
Canon is looking to buy right now and I’m sure they’re looking at Olympus as well as Panasonic. Panasonic is good for its partnerships, so I can see them teaming up with Canon.
Time will tell.
Sony and others would likely want to buy them as well. You can want all you like but if it’s not for sale – end of story.
Sony cant, they simply have no money and is only making operating profit. And I can see Olympus selling, even if it also involves it’s medical division. Money talks.
If money talks, people don’t always listen.
This makes no sense. Canon is against innovation.
And what is innovation for you? 4K and mirrorless?
Canon launched lots of great lenses in the last few years with unique technologies and parameters, the best video AF today.
It’s funny that if a company does not make a feature what one wants it does not innovate, no matter everything else.
WHAAAT?
“Canon launched lots of great lenses in the last few years with unique technologies and parameters, the best video AF today.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1_Pj92aT_U
You can’t be more than just a Canon fanboy!
He’s talking about the DPAF in the C300ii which is clearly a step above even the A7Rii.
Anything less than FF at this late date would be a mistake for Canon, in my opinion.
Sony is their completion, not M43.
A6000 vs all Canon APSC
A7x vs the prosumers: 6D, 5D
Rumored A9 vs 1D
Sony A6000 vs M43: Sony wins on many fronts, but not lenses or UX
Sony A7x vs M43: Sony lenses are gaining, as is handling. Having left Sony NEX for M43 a few years ago, I’d have a much tougher decision to make today between EM1 and A7ii if starting from scratch.
M43 could use a sensor breakthrough.
problem is that my bag for similar lenses to my m4/3s lenses would be 3x the size. I looked at an A7/24-240 pair for travelling. Then I picked up my EM5ii/14-150ii. My back thanked me. I, like many people, am not looking at making big prints or heavy cropping. I give image quality to Sony, I give carryability to m4/3s.
I’m mainly referring to their tech. And I can see Canon using both a 43 sensor and ibis in their bridge cameras, instead of the 1″ sensor. I can also see them using ibis in conjuntion with their IS lenses, like Panasonic recently did with their GX8.
Good points. Although Bridge Cameras seem to benefit from smaller sensors that let them market reach rather than ISO. Agree that IBIS would be attractive.
But Canon could have joined M43 any time without buying Olympus and could have done 4/3 instead of 1″ compacts. They seem to really want clear lines between high and low ends and M43 blurs those lines.
NX1 was too late. It needed to be FF with same performance. That would have leapfrogged Sony and propelled it into relevance.
Except all the lenses would be much larger, which tons and tons of people don’t want. Why people still act like FF is the holy grail of sensor sizes is amazing to me. The NX1 sensor has higher quality than the FF Nikon D3X did, which only came out 7 years ago and people paid $8k to get, which had “image output at base ISO that can only be described as stunning” (drom dpr review). Now if it’s not full-frame it’s irrelevant? But what if the image quality is stunning in the NX1?
This is why all the talk about Oly or Pana coming out with a full-frame mirrorless is complete madness to me. It is a completely different system and would divert all the resources away from m4/3 R&D. Look at how Nikon and Canon have developed their mirrorless lines (while still developing dslr lines) compared to what Fuji, Samsung, Oly, and Pana have been able to do.
Most of the people who talk as though 135 Format is the greatest have never used it. They probably just think that bigger is better.
You truly are an idiot, MrALLCRAP.
Samsung just denied what you’re saying.
Panasonic can buy Canon with small change.
A list of $2K USD would be practical if they want to move a lot of units. Even at that price, it makes the 300mm f4.0 a hard sell in any of Olympus Americas’ outside USA sales territories with current exchange rates ($2700 CDN, 33440 MXN for example).
Not too into telephotography except for the occasional kids sports game, but I am excited to see MFT bringing what should be stellar long reach lenses. Even the smallest weight and size savings are huge with the equipment built for the small sensor.
I also hope these offerings come in tandem with IQ and AF improvements, which should go hand in hand with more pro lenses.
Olympus product/sales strategy is a repeat of what they did with 4/3. And it expects a different outcome…
I don’t think it is a particular Olympus strategy. Japanese consumers are as bad, or worse, than American consumers when it comes to assuming that “more expensive” is “better.” Odd but true, sometimes dropping a product and reissuing another much more expensive model, with a good story that doesn’t really cost very much, often raises unit sales. Blacker, shinier paint often does the trick. Whether anybody buys it or not, just having the lens on display will bestow a halo effect on the whole system. What we need now is an organic sensor that gives us an ISO noise curve like full frame and 25 megapixels. That would be strategy. So would a middle-of-the-market enthusiast camera that tips the one-inch balance, or a brighter zoom, say f2.5–4.0, to hush the f3.5–5.6 ho- hums. There’s a lot of f1.8–2.8 running around these days.
part of the problem with 4/3s was that the cameras and lenses were the same size as APS stuff but the output was not as good. Glass was amazing. If 4/3s had been the same size as m4/3s with similar output, I think they would have done far better.
If Kodak had been able to produce better sensors, things would have been better. I could put my E-1’s output up against Nikon and Canon of the time but with the later sensors things really fell apart.
with the later E3 and E5, the other guys were pulling away in terms of sensor resolution and the first FF sensors were hitting the market. The early 4/3s sensors were capable and close enough to APS in performance but the bodies and better glass were big and expensive. I have a pair of E3s’ and quite liked them compared to D200s of the time but the D300 pulled away and then came the D700 and I walked.
Personally, if I were to take pictures of birds I would rather have the Olympus set up and a brand new (though cheap) car than Nikon (as a 600mm f4 is about 5X the price).
except the Nikon can put up to 36MP on that 600mm/4 or around 24MP at 900mm equivalent on that 600/4.
versus 16mp on a 600mm equivalent.
Do not forget excellent high ISO performance versus totally crap high ISO “performance”, over 400 ISO is just horrible with any M43.
Not to mention dynamic range (an overstatement in itself when talking about M43).
Man I so regret investing into M43, they should pay users using their stuff instead of having high price tags.
Pfff… Poor artists always blame their gear… m4/3 image quality today beats out full frame from just a couple of years ago. It just goes to show that for some people enough is never enough.
Why don’t you register new nickname “400 ISO is just horrible”?
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a7rii&attr13_1=oly_em5ii&attr13_2=canon_eos5dsr&attr13_3=sony_a7s&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=3200&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=3200&attr126_1=normal&attr171_0=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.7043780193236714&y=0.6873465653153153
It is just so terrible that my eyes just bleeds cream….
Sounds like you’d be a great artist if your MFT gear wasn’t holding you back. What a loss for the world.
Between my Nikon D7200 and Panasonic GH4, GX8, and E-M1, there is marginal high ISO difference, and the D7200 refuses to work half the time in low light that the GH4 and GX8 take in stride. Even the E-M1 is happier.
So, what is higher image quality in low light worth, if you can’t get any image?
This is flat out wrong – completely so.
Not true at all. I have a D7200 and 2 x m4/3 cameras and the difference is only around 1 stop (in the Nikon’s favour) at higher ISOs. You’d barely see the difference up to ISO1600 either. This is using RAW. The Nikon JPEGs do look a lot better, to me at least, but that’s more down to NR handling than noise itself.
My GX7 has lovely dynamic range even as the ISO goes up. I use it for landscape now (at ISO200 mainly) and there’s nothing the Nikon can turn out that would persuade me to prefer it over the Panny for that job.
For wildlife, I couldn’t wait any longer for Oly and Panny so I have the Sigma Sport 150-600 now and it’s great, even at 600mm wide open. I’ll tell you this though – I wish it didn’t need AF tuning (Which is a great feature if you understand DSLR shooting but just isn’t needed on mirrorless!). It’s also bigger and rather heavy (about 4.5kg with battery grip on the D7200, which improves the balance for handheld shooting). Not an issue for me, but there’s a big advantage in m4/3 for achieving similar reach with a lot less size and weight! I’d happily use, say an E-M1, 300mm f/4 and the 1.4x converter up to ISO6400 and put it through Capture One. The image (correctly exposed – underexposure brings noise in very quickly) would hold its own against APS-C cameras if not necessarily quite matching them, I’ve tried it plenty with the GX7 and legacy lenses, also my E-PL7, and the IQ is pretty good tbh.
Jamie MacDonald said this lens is a baddass lens… ridiculously sharp. But he has tendency to exaggerate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqHdzWHy9u4
He also works for Olympus as an ambassador. Can’t take his opinion too serious, because he’s Biased.
Well, let’s assume that he knows to what to compare the 300mm f/4 he handled, can we do that?
He has at least used 75mm f/1.8 (Olympus design, Sigma manufactured) and if we compare 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO to that side by side by anyone who have those two, can see that they are like 95-100% same image quality. And 75mm f/1.8 is praised by anyone (except really the Tony Northrup as he is just so negative and biased DXO fan, even when he sometimes say it is great lens just to cover own mouth) and yet 40-150mm PRO gets little “Meh”, even when the images are like identical.
So let’s consider that if 300mm f/4 images are perceived as sharper than 75mm f/1.8, then what would it make it to be?
What if the quality is on par with 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO?
We can take any Canon/Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 or f/4 lens and compare it side by side with any of their bodies next to Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO and olympus is sharper wide open corner to corner from 12mm to 35-38mm when comparing real world photos taken from same tripod and same subject etc.
And when a Canon and Nikon professionals and even fans bend down to praise Olympus 12-40mm and 40-150mm by the optical quality, It says something among some people.
Does it make it biased to then say coming lens is crazy sharp, when person handles something like 12-40mm, 40-150mm and 75mm?
Of course there is always a change that the 300mm f/4 is just a faster variant from the 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II with slightly better corner performance, but seriously?
And after all, it is his opinion and his statement.
Cool story, Bro.
Exaggerate is point of the opinion.
If you have never seen a camera but you have only seen people to get their portraits painted, then when you see the camera first time and you go to tell others too who were like you, they will say that you exaggerate things.
That is as well the problem when people say someone just made a “hyperbole” (exaggerate in other way) because they just want to make it personal attack and doesn’t really see the point (what was nice to see that you used word exaggerate instead “hyperbole”).
So glad they didn’t go cheap on this lens. Think I’d rather have this versus the 100-400mm being the far end is 6.3 on the Panasonic. With this, you can add the 1.4x TC and get 420mm f/5.6, and if it’s anywhere near the 75mm in terms of image quality, then it’s a bargain. That gets you an 840mm effective FF and if you shoot video with a 2x in-camera tele, it gets you to 1680mm!
I’m glad I’m not a super telephoto guy as I see nothing interesting about wildlife. For me, art is in human portraits. Of course, each person has his own opinion.
For $2,500, I will watch the inventory rise and maybe in a few years pick it up for $500.
See how this works for the 43 150/2.
In my opinion, the reasonable maximum price for this lens should costs 2000 US Dollar. Beyond that price, I won’t consider purchasing it at all.
Let’s compair this Zuiko 300 f4.0 to the 300 f2.8 all the fancy electronics aside which lens would you pay $2.500 for? Given that the older Zuiko 300 f2.8 was stil being made. Let’s not talk about weight difference. Is there a difference in build quality between the two?
Yes I would have purchased the new 300mm lens but I couldn’t keep waiting. Listening to uncle Oly on release delays on this lens was frustrating.
Chris
Since I have two ZD SHG lenses, the 14-35mm f/2.0 and 35-100mm f/2.0, I can tell you that the difference in build quality with the M.Zuiko PRO lenses is rather big.
The SHG lenses have better build?
Oh, yes. The 14-35mm f/2.0 is so much better than the 12-40mm f/2.8 and I have actually dropped the 35-100mm f/2.0 to a pool deck and didn’t have any problem with it…ever.
Shame. PRO lenses should be built like a tank, not with a thin layer of metal over plastic.
You are so right on that Andrei. The new Pro Optics line looks nice but what makes it so light. I assume a lot of plastic inside.
What’s worse is what Panasonic produces. The 35-100mm f/2.8 feels as though it would break at any moment, which is not the case with the 12-35mm f/2.8 and that doesn’t feel particularly well built either but it doesn’t feel fragile.
I was hoping their first long tele would be developed as a true premium lens like the 12 or 75 rather than as a Pro. The Pro line in’t bad but there’s an unmistakeable difference in density and feel with the metal premium lenses over the so-called Pros. I would give up the weather sealing for the better build.
Mike what’s the sense of building the M1. The top camera bodies and lens should be sealed. When I talked to a SIGMA lens tech he stated if you have a manual lens with no electronics then you can get away with out sealing. When you get into the drive motors built into the lens static electricity attracts dust particles. It made sense to me with my basic knowledge of electricity.
That’s is an interesting point Chris. I never considered static electricity from the electronics drawing the dust in but it makes sense especially with the abundance of plastic used in lenses today. On the flip side, solid metal bodied lens like the 75mm and lenses of yore would certainly be less prone to static buildup from internal electronics than the plastic fantastic crap we have to sort through today. Seriously, there are several lenses I would buy if they were not plastic… such as the Oly or PL 25mm 1.8 or 1.4. I would gladly pay hundreds more if either was well constructed, weather sealed or not. It’s not just aesthetics either, the 60mm macro I do own quickly fogs up with the first warm rays of sunlight on cold mornings. A proper metal body would virtually
eliminate this tendency.
The 12mm f/2.0 is cute, like a piece of jewelry. I’d rather use my 12-40mm f/2.8 and not worry about the weather. The 75mm f/1.8 is a worth lens but I will probably never have one.
I own the same along with the mini tuna 150mm and the 90-250mm. I had a Nikon full frame shooter come up to me and ask me about my Nikon Lens and DF body. I smiled and told him it’s a Olympus M1 w/grip and Zuiko optics. The look on his face was priceless. I let him shoot a few frames he smiled he remarked (Dam that’s sweet) and we went back to shooting the football game.
I’m always amused with younger shooters who only know two brands.
I have often wondered if micro Four-Thirds needs SHG-level lenses. The 12-40mm f/2.8 often fulfills my needs because the AF is so quick that it keeps up with me at skate parks where the 14-35mm f/2.0 would be incrementally hunting for focus just in that tiny range.
However, when I need serious still photos, I go back to SHG because nothing else will do.
This is admin clickbait, just like with the Panasonic. I assume the same wrong currency conversions are happening.
I agree.
I own 8 OLY lenses. I love them. I rarely use my Canon stuff anymore. But how can OLY justify $2500 when my Canon 300 f4L IS cost me only $1300 ?
How much would a 600mm f/4.0 Canon lens cost?
The Four-Thirds Olympus 300mm f/2.8 lens is US$6999.99.
Canon does have other cameras than full frame also. I like micro 43 system but why every M43 user thinks there is only full frame available in other systems?
Why do you think I only use micro Four-Thirds?
Because you only think in full frame.
Attaching a 600mm F4 on a 7DII i get 960mm F4 with 20MP. That is exactly double the resolution on subject compared to 20MP M43 sensor.
So they are not really equivalent. And for small size and 600mm equivalent i have 3 very good 400mm options under 2000$.
I am interested in the new Oly lens but i don’t see any size or other advantage compared to Canikon systems. Quality will be great probably but so are the other tele options too.
It will be a great option for M43 users but won’t steal many Canikon users because they have better options even in comparable size.
Now, a 400mm F4 would be more comparable to the 600mm lenses.
My Nikon D7200 has shown me that a similar pixel density does not give markedly better image quality but it does give me larger equipment. The equivalent Canon 70D or even the 7D Mk II aren’t going to be incredibly better either, but they will be larger.
Well, a D7200 might be 200-300 grams heavier than a GX8 but you need less batteries for a day of shooting. Lenses are about the same size.
I don’t consider that significant.
I just don’t like this equivalent calculations of Olympus(remember when they displayed the 300mm PRO next to the 600mm) and the M43 users.
That gives a good excuse not to make anyting longer than 300mm.
I wish my Nikon-compatible lenses were similar in size as my micro Four-Thirds lenses.
I was talking about tele lenses.
The cost of making a high quality 300 f4 lens by top brands should be quite similar, independent of the sensor being used.
Yes, if they’re made to the same quality, but I know from experience that Canon and Nikon make their f/4.0 lenses that are economical substitutes for their f/2.8 lenses are economical, not high quality.
The Canon and Nikon 300mm F4 are both great lenses, super sharp even with TC’sc considering they are ancient designs compared to this Oly.
The Nikon 300mm PF is even better and tiny! No, i don’t think they are economical substitutes, more like small size substitutes.
I personally don’t think the 2500$ is much for this Oly, the new 300mm from Canon would not cost less either but would not be lesser quality.
Welcome to the age of 2.5k m43 lenses, I guess.
I hope this wont translate into 2.5k € + now that the dollar is high as it is…
Where is Tamron & Sigma? – give us good long tele zoom that won’t break the bank! I’m hoping the 2.5k price is wrong and am still waiting for the final price of Panys 100-400.
Most people who complain here about the price do not really need the 600mm eq reach.
Those who really need already bought the 75-300 or 100-300 lenses.
Otherwise, I do not mind pressuring the manufacturers for lower gear price. If I needed the lens, I too would want to save as much as money as possible. It’s just discussion went IMO completely bananas: from the wants and needs into some dreamland where Oly’s PRO prime has to match the price of entry-level 3rd-party APC-S zoom…
I wouldn’t be so sure. I use the 75-300 on a regular basis and while it’s good @ 300, it’s not great (I’m told the 100-300 is no better). When I heard about this lens, I assumed it would be comparable to the 40-150 pro in price. I don’t think many would grouse about $1500 for a REALLY good 300 prime lens, but $2500???
I still seriously doubt it’ll be $2500.
FFS, the Pentax 300mm f/4 is only $890, and it is also considered a stellar lens.
I bought a pentax 300mm F4 super tak m42 for 125 dollars on ebay and use with my camera via adapter. I definitely will not pay 2500 for a lens when there are SUPER CHEAP alternatives
That figure gels with the figure I was given by Olympus UK just last week of £1599. BUT the UK price includes 20% VAT and 6.7% import duty. Once these are stripped out the equivalent US dollar price works out at $1700
I am quite doubtful about Admin’s prices for this lens and the Panasonic 100-400mm. My guess is that he is at least $700 high and probably more.
just so you know guys, you can buy pentax m42 super tak 300mm F4 for cheap on ebay. I bought mine for 125 dollars and use with my sigma sd1m via adapter. the only catch is you have to focus and set aperture manually. one time I dropped the lens onto concrete and bent the built in metal hood, and it still works good. I’m certainly happy that the lens I dropped only cost 125