long zoom for E-M1 with FAST AF

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by zulfur666, Feb 2, 2014.

  1. zulfur666

    zulfur666 Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 30, 2014
    Thought I'd tap into your guys knowledge base as well, even if I posted it on dpr.

    Now that I got an E-M1 I can't wait for the Oly 40-150 f2.8 to finally get released. I'm thrilled with the E-M1 and current 12-40 f2.8. For ultra wide I still use my beloved 9-18, yes its not the fastest but for daylight Landscape great.

    Now I like to replace my 14-150 Oly lens with something faster. Yes the option of the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 is there but more often than not I would probably use the 2.0 digital converter which then gets me down to only 8MP so not much more room for cropping if I want to.

    Or am I wrong about the megapixel being cut in half using the 2.0 digital converter?

    How would the standard 40-200 f2.8-3.5 Olympus 4/3 perform on the E-M1? Can I expect the AF speed similar to the 35-100 f2.8 Panasonic.

  2. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Actually, it would be 1/4. You're cutting each dimension in half, so in the end you're left with about 4MP.

    The Panasonic is faster, by a fair margin. The 50-200/2.8-3.5 isn't that slow, but it's still making adjustments more slowly. The main downside of the 50-200/2.8-3.5 is that if it can't find enough contrast under the focus point (horizontal lines are a particular problem), it won't achieve focus at all. It depends a lot on the subject you're shooting though. The upside is that you can get the 50-200/2.8-3.5 for around $500 these days, or the faster SWD version for a few hundred more. I expect the 40-150/2.8 to be well over $1000 when it comes out. Plus you'll be waiting a while for it - in all likelihood it won't be out for 9 or 10 more months.
  3. Lisandra

    Lisandra Mu-43 Veteran

    Nov 16, 2010
    Doesn't the digital zoom retain the 16mp?
  4. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    If it does, it's upsampled. There's no real advantage to the digital teleconverter for stills in my book. Might as well just crop. Video is a different issue.
  5. zulfur666

    zulfur666 Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 30, 2014
    I expect the 40-150/2.8 to be in the same ballpark as the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 price wise. And perhaps 500g? The other downside of the Olympus 50-200 f2.8-3.5 it WEIGHS almost 1KG! Where as Panasonic's is 365g. HUGE Weight savings.
  6. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    I'd expect the 40-150/2.8 to be closer to the 50-200/2.8-3.5 than the 35-100/2.8. The 50-200/2.8-3.5 could probably be a bit smaller, but having twice the telephoto range as the 35-100/2.8 makes a huge difference in size.
  7. zulfur666

    zulfur666 Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 30, 2014
    copied from B&H
    Panasonic 35-100
    Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 2.7 x 3.9" (6.86 x 9.91 cm)
    Weight 12.7 oz (360 g)

    Olympus 50-200
    Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.41 x 6.18" (8.65 x 15.7 cm)
    Weight 2.19 lb (995 g)

    The dimensions for the "new 40-150 f2.8" should be similar perhaps to the 50-200 but weight should be more like 500g JMO. Just by comparing other Olympus 43 lenses to mu43 lenses. The newly fairly similar mu43 lenses tend to weigh a lot less, while size (length) is about the same
  8. BobbyTan

    BobbyTan Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Dec 26, 2013
    Long Beach, CA
    If you are shooting fast-moving subjects and birds in flight, the 50-200 isn't good enough. The 40-150 may not be long enough but the AF will be significantly quicker and probably as good as the 75-300. Size-wise I think it will be somewhere between the 75-300 and 50-200 … judging by this image.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.