Likely New Pro Lenses

[Don Baldwinson]

They look real!

43 Rumors

[caurt]

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

[Daniel Bradley]

Both.

[Edmunds]

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

[doofclenas]

Well it gives me a year to sell the SHG 7-14...anyone? $950?
:-)

[RAH]

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?!?

[Edmunds]

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

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)

[tomsi42]

Coming in 2015 only - why?

Probably because they need to finish the 40-150mm f/2.8 first

[Edmunds]

Better pictures

Two New Olympus PRO Micro Four Thirds Lenses Shown

[zippski]

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

[saburns]

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.

[Ned]

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

[saburns]

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.

[Edmunds]

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.

[dhazeghi]

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.

[Rick_D]

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

[Daniel Bradley]

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

[Fred G]

... 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." ;-)

[saburns]

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.

[Fred G]

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. :-)

[saburns]

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.

[Ned]

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

[dh202]

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!

[Godfrey]

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

[windsprite]

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