Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Likely New Pro Lenses

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,566
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 129 Times in 89 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Likely New Pro Lenses

    They look real!

    43 Rumors

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Tyresö, Sweden
    Posts
    715
    Thanks
    51
    Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Likely New Pro Lenses

    now we need an 1.4 or 2.0 extender as well :-)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,145
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 117 Times in 102 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Likely New Pro Lenses

    Both.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Latvia
    Posts
    1,182
    Thanks
    198
    Thanked 192 Times in 144 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Likely New Pro Lenses

    I think Olympus is doing everything right, they just need to actually DELIVER these lenses. Coming in 2015 only - why?

    I would love to have a 7-14mm f/2.8 + 20mm f/1.8 + 40-150mm f/2.8 kit
    Olympus OM-D EM-5
    12mm f/2.0 - 17mm f/1.8 - 25mm f/1.4 - 60mm f/2.8 macro - 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7
    - FL36R

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Traverse City, MI
    Posts
    1,025
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 17 Times in 9 Posts
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)
    Real Name
    Clint

    Default Re: Likely New Pro Lenses

    Well it gives me a year to sell the SHG 7-14...anyone? $950?
    :-)
    Clint
    Rockin' it Mirrorless Style
    Olympus EM-1, E-PM2, LX-7, S110
    7.5, 12-32, 12-40, 14-42, 20, 25, 45, 75
    Asahi 35 2, SMC Super Tak 135 2.5, Super Tak 200 4
    HLD-7, FL-600r, FL-36r, FL-36, Cactus V5 Duo (x2)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NH, USA
    Posts
    2,592
    Thanks
    57
    Thanked 30 Times in 26 Posts
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)

    Default Re: Likely New Pro Lenses

    I'm just curious - from what I can see, there is no way to tell if these are 4/3 lenses or m4/3 lenses. I'm 99% sure that they are m4/3, but it doesn't seem to say this anywhere, even on the lenses themselves. This seems odd to me.

    Also, I agree - where the hell are the teleconverters?!?
    Rich
    Olympus E-M10; Panasonic GM5
    m4/3 lenses: Oly 75-300; Oly 14-42 f3.5-5.6 II R; Oly 17 f1.8; Oly 40-150 f4.0-5.6 R; Oly WCON-P01 adapter; Rokinon f7.5 fisheye; Sigma 19 f2.8; Pan 20 f1.7; Pan 12-35 f2.8; Pan 12-32

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Latvia
    Posts
    1,182
    Thanks
    198
    Thanked 192 Times in 144 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Likely New Pro Lenses

    I wonder what this new 7-14 will retail at. They may want a hefty price tag for that f/2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by RAH View Post
    I'm just curious - from what I can see, there is no way to tell if these are 4/3 lenses or m4/3 lenses. I'm 99% sure that they are m4/3, but it doesn't seem to say this anywhere, even on the lenses themselves. This seems odd to me.
    They are definitely m4/3 lenses, Olympus doesn't make 4/3 stuff anymore and the design is in line with the other f/2.8 zooms (12-40 & 40-150)
    Olympus OM-D EM-5
    12mm f/2.0 - 17mm f/1.8 - 25mm f/1.4 - 60mm f/2.8 macro - 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7
    - FL36R

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,135
    Thanks
    58
    Thanked 22 Times in 17 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0
    Real Name
    Tom

    Default Re: Likely New Pro Lenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmunds View Post
    Coming in 2015 only - why?
    Probably because they need to finish the 40-150mm f/2.8 first
    flickr | "God made the integers; all else is the work of man" - Leopold Kronecker

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Latvia
    Posts
    1,182
    Thanks
    198
    Thanked 192 Times in 144 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Likely New Pro Lenses

    Olympus OM-D EM-5
    12mm f/2.0 - 17mm f/1.8 - 25mm f/1.4 - 60mm f/2.8 macro - 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7
    - FL36R

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pelham, Ontario
    Posts
    747
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 8 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: Likely New Pro Lenses

    Not sure why they went with a f/4 version since as a 2.8 the lens would still be tiny in comparison to everyone else's 300 2.8's. F/8 with a 2X teleconverter is pretty marginal.

    Assuming they make an m2X converter.

    Leigh
    zippski

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    839
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default Re: Likely New Pro Lenses

    Quote Originally Posted by zippski View Post
    Not sure why they went with a f/4 version since as a 2.8 the lens would still be tiny in comparison to everyone else's 300 2.8's. F/8 with a 2X teleconverter is pretty marginal.

    Assuming they make an m2X converter.

    Leigh
    zippski
    I'm guessing they didn't want to price themselves out of their expected market. Looking at Canon and Nikon 300mm lenses the f/4 versions run about $1500 give or take $50 and the f/2.8 versions run $6800 and $5800 respectively. A lot larger market for a $1500 lens then there is for a $6k to $7k lens. And of course the current Olympus 4/3 300mm f/2.8 lens also run $7k so they are probably also looking at offering a lower cost alternative since the existing lens will work on u4/3.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,331
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default C-AF Issues

    Just by looking at the pictures of the 300f4, I can tell you that the C-AF performance is going to suck.

    You heard it here first folks.

    Edit: In all seriousness, who is a lens like this designed for? I will venture to guess that a good percentage of people considering this lens are people wanting it for wildlife. And we know the demands that puts on the AF system. The release dates give Olympus time introduce an additional pro level camera that hopefully can take advantage of "new" AF technology and make the system the killer wildlife system is should have been from the beginning. Thinking of course of the 2x crop factor/light weight. What an awesome BIF system this would make. If it could compete in the AF arena, combined with it's small size and weight.... I'm not going to be the first to buy however

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    839
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default Re: C-AF Issues

    There are a couple of lines in the press release that caught my eye.

    "With the addition of these two lenses the M.ZUIKO PRO series will cover the entire range from super wide angle to super telephoto." What about the gap between 150mm and 300mm?

    "Both new lenses are scheduled to be released from 2015 onwards." Note the last word in that sentence. Hopefully this isn't another 100mm macro lens situation.

    And then this line at the very bottom "* The mock-ups will not necessarily show the final design. " So in other words the pictures of the lenses may not be what they end up looking like. I have to wonder why they made this announcement at such an early stage of development.
    Last edited by saburns; 02-12-2014 at 08:20 AM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Latvia
    Posts
    1,182
    Thanks
    198
    Thanked 192 Times in 144 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: C-AF Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Ned View Post
    Just by looking at the pictures of the 300f4, I can tell you that the C-AF performance is going to suck.

    You heard it here first folks.

    Edit: In all seriousness, who is a lens like this designed for? I will venture to guess that a good percentage of people considering this lens are people wanting it for wildlife. And we know the demands that puts on the AF system. The release dates give Olympus time introduce an additional pro level camera that hopefully can take advantage of "new" AF technology and make the system the killer wildlife system is should have been from the beginning. Thinking of course of the 2x crop factor/light weight. What an awesome BIF system this would make. If it could compete in the AF arena, combined with it's small size and weight.... I'm not going to be the first to buy however
    I am not a pro wildlife shooter. However, occasionally I do need a good, sharp, fast telephoto. Either its fish jumping waterfalls in spring or some airshows in the summer. However, its not my first priority and I am not willing to carry monster lenses weighing much over 1kg and I'm not willing to pay over $1500.

    This lens is designed for me, and might I say, this is a larger market than those looking for f/2.8 telephotos or stuff in 500+ mm range that costs $5000+. Those people have plenty of options and m4/3 cannot compete with full frame.

    I have to wonder why they made this announcement at such an early stage of development.
    I was actually thinking of switching to Pentax for their excellent 300mm f/4. The summer is coming and an excellent telephoto would be nice.

    This announcement just made it less sense for me to do that.

    So I guess Olympus is telling people who are waiting for these lenses - yes, they are coming. Its a pity its only 2015, but it is coming.
    Olympus OM-D EM-5
    12mm f/2.0 - 17mm f/1.8 - 25mm f/1.4 - 60mm f/2.8 macro - 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7
    - FL36R

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    550
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    36 (100%)

    Default Re: Likely New Pro Lenses

    Quote Originally Posted by zippski View Post
    Not sure why they went with a f/4 version since as a 2.8 the lens would still be tiny in comparison to everyone else's 300 2.8's
    No, a 300/2.8 would be just as big as their 4/3 version. Losing the mirror provides no benefits for shrinking longer lens designs.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Posts
    1,723
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 10 Times in 7 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Likely New Pro Lenses

    Sweet. For once the roadmap seems to actually represent the road (although the tele-prime place-holder was ambiguous as to the actual focal length).

    Already use my 4/3 7-14 on the E-M5 so this doesn't fill an unmet need, other than overcoming poky focusing. I've yet to hear from a 7-14 owner how fast it works on the E-M1. Donning my speculating hat--it's possibly a minor workover of the existing design which, as is pretty well known, is a 2.8 restricted to f:4. With in-camera correction they perhaps can wring out the extra speed with sharp results--not the case shooting the SHG at 2.8.

    I'll guess $2000.

    The tele ups the ante over the current long zooms and one hopes, will also hasten the arrival of teleconverters. I'd buy the thing today for shooting soccer with my E-M5. (Same goes for the 40-150/2.8.)

    I'll guess $1600.

    Cheers,

    Rick

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,145
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 117 Times in 102 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Likely New Pro Lenses

    The mFT lenses look smaller because generally they are slower. Less glass, less weight, and less light.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    OK USA
    Posts
    735
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Likely New Pro Lenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Bradley View Post
    ... Less glass, less weight, and less light.
    In the context of the 300mm f/4 I would have phrased that "Less glass, less weight, and a more useable depth of field." ;-)

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    839
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default Re: Likely New Pro Lenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred G View Post
    In the context of the 300mm f/4 I would have phrased that "Less glass, less weight, and a more useable depth of field." ;-)
    Depth of field will be the same on both lenses at the same f stop so how does the f/4 lens have a "more useable depth of field". You get the same DOF on the f/2.8 lens by shutting it down a stop to f/4.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    OK USA
    Posts
    735
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Likely New Pro Lenses

    Quote Originally Posted by saburns View Post
    Depth of field will be the same on both lenses at the same f stop so how does the f/4 lens have a "more useable depth of field". You get the same DOF on the f/2.8 lens by shutting it down a stop to f/4.
    True enough Steve... I'm simply saying that in my experience seldom is f/2.8 @ 300mm a good choice for adequate depth of field so the tradeoff of smaller, lighter, and cheaper at the expense of less light is a good trade (or not necessarily bad) in my opinion. :-)

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    839
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default Re: Likely New Pro Lenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred G View Post
    True enough Steve... I'm simply saying that in my experience seldom is f/2.8 @ 300mm a good choice for adequate depth of field so the tradeoff of smaller, lighter, and cheaper at the expense of less light is a good trade (or not necessarily bad) in my opinion. :-)
    True, but that brings up something that I don't think a lot of people realize. If I have a 300mm lens on a u4/3 camera set at f/2.8 and shooting a picture of something 100 ft away, I have a DOF of about 2.8 feet. If I take a 300mm lens on my D7100 and shoot the same subject, using the built in additional 1.3x crop mode which results in a 2x crop with just slightly less MPs, I get a DOF of about 3.8 feet. As the distance increases to the subject the difference increases as well. At 200 feet the difference is about 4 feet between the two DOFs. People always compare the DOF based on the 35mm equivalent instead of the same focal length. Sort of an apples to oranges comparison.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,331
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default Re: Likely New Pro Lenses

    Thinking out loud from a now ex birder, fully realizing that it's just a development announcement so let's have a little fun.

    F4 is fine until you start adding teleconverters, which are non existent in m4/3 land and maybe for good reason. F4 with a 1.4 tc is now f5.6 which is okay, but you can see where this is heading. Add a 2x TC and now your pushing it @ f8. Is f8 all that bad? Well maybe. I've been down this path with the 75-300 at f6.8 I believe. At that aperture autofocus was severely impacted. Golden hour shooting was almost impossible, pushing ISO up well past my comfort zone with a m4/3 sensor. Talking noise here, and the light available for the autofocus system. Wildlife shooters will always want more focal length.

    300mm f2.8 would be nice, however size and weight is an issue. Canon used technologies to reduce the weight of their new super telephoto lenses but I would suspect an Olympus m4/3 f2.8 with new weight saving technologies would be cost prohibitive. It's always a balance, and for all that would love a wildlife system from Olympus I'm not sure that this is the miracle lens.

    However, Canon's f4 prime is considered by some to be the best BIF tracking lens there is. I could see myself using this lens as a walk around BIF lens which was most of my shooting with the 300f2.8 anyway. So... I can see where this lens could fit, I can also see where it may not be the lens sent from heaven.

    discuss

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,007
    Thanks
    386
    Thanked 62 Times in 56 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Likely New Pro Lenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Ned View Post
    Thinking out loud from a now ex birder, fully realizing that it's just a development announcement so let's have a little fun.

    F4 is fine until you start adding teleconverters, which are non existent in m4/3 land and maybe for good reason. F4 with a 1.4 tc is now f5.6 which is okay, but you can see where this is heading. Add a 2x TC and now your pushing it @ f8. Is f8 all that bad? Well maybe. I've been down this path with the 75-300 at f6.8 I believe. At that aperture autofocus was severely impacted. Golden hour shooting was almost impossible, pushing ISO up well past my comfort zone with a m4/3 sensor. Talking noise here, and the light available for the autofocus system. Wildlife shooters will always want more focal length.
    My thoughs exactly!

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,240
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 61 Times in 43 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: Likely New Pro Lenses

    Quote Originally Posted by RAH View Post
    I'm just curious - from what I can see, there is no way to tell if these are 4/3 lenses or m4/3 lenses. I'm 99% sure that they are m4/3, but it doesn't seem to say this anywhere, even on the lenses themselves. This seems odd to me. ...
    Every one of them says "M.Zuiko" on it somewhere. That's the signature for Micro-FourThirds Olympus lenses. FourThirds lenses are branded "Zuiko Digital".

    G

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Hokkaido, Japan
    Posts
    2,989
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Likely New Pro Lenses

    Quote Originally Posted by saburns View Post
    True, but that brings up something that I don't think a lot of people realize. If I have a 300mm lens on a u4/3 camera set at f/2.8 and shooting a picture of something 100 ft away, I have a DOF of about 2.8 feet. If I take a 300mm lens on my D7100 and shoot the same subject, using the built in additional 1.3x crop mode which results in a 2x crop with just slightly less MPs, I get a DOF of about 3.8 feet. As the distance increases to the subject the difference increases as well. At 200 feet the difference is about 4 feet between the two DOFs. People always compare the DOF based on the 35mm equivalent instead of the same focal length. Sort of an apples to oranges comparison.
    The 3.8 ft. figure is for the full DX crop, not 1.3x crop, though. If you're shooting from the same position, a 300/2.8 lens on four thirds and a 300/2.8 on a D7100 in 1.3x crop mode will deliver the same DOF (if you're viewing the images at the same display size).

    Julie


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •