Olympus 40-150 f4 Pro?

[doady]

There's been a patent floating around web for some time: a 70-250mm F3.5. It would make sense, I guess. OMDS also has a 50-200mm zoom in the pipeline, it could be a F3.2.

I think 70-250mm was on their older lens road maps, but now it's 40-150mm, 50-200mm, and 50-250mm.

A 70-250mm probably wouldn't complement any existing lens well except the 12-100mm. Zooms starting at 50mm would be much more versatile but still complement 12-100mm well. Even as a 12-100mm user, I would probably choose a 50-250mm F4 over a 70-250mm F3.5.

 

[IMoL]

Pairing with the 12-100 is one of the reasons why I look for a 50-200 f4. I've been making do by using a 40-150 f2.8 Pro + MC-14 to get 56-210 f4. It's a pretty good pairing. It yields a useful extension in range over the 12-100. However, it's kinda big. If there was a way to get a 50-200 f4 reasonably compact, I'd be interested. Yeah, I know the PL 50-200 f2.8-4 would be the right range and size, but I'd prefer an Olympus lens. A 50-250 f4 would undoubtedly be bigger and heavier than the 40-150 f2.8 Pro. Not really looking for that.

I would definitely look at a 50-200 f/4, especially if it had Sync IS.

 

[pake]

I would definitely look at a 50-200 f/4, especially if it had Sync IS.

Make it a 50-250mm and I'm in. My 40-150mm f/2.8 with the TC1.4x gets me this already but the extra millimeters in the long end with sharper image would be welcome.

 

[JonSnih]

Make it a 50-250mm and I'm in. My 40-150mm f/2.8 with the TC1.4x gets me this already but the extra millimeters in the long end with sharper image would be welcome.

Hm. That lens would be on the bigger side. Definitely longer and heavier than the 40-150 Pro. I agree that a 50-250mm range would be very useful.

 

[pake]

Hm. That lens would be on the bigger side. Definitely longer and heavier than the 40-150 Pro. I agree that a 50-250mm range would be very useful.

Yes, bigger but not as big as 100-400mm though. When shooting wildlife the 40-150mm is just too short (and 100-400mm too big). We need more options.

 

[Aristophanes]

Yes, bigger but not as big as 100-400mm though. When shooting wildlife the 40-150mm is just too short (and 100-400mm too big). We need more options.

To complement the 12-45/4, a 45-200/4 (or /4.5) would be ideal.

Needs to be compact as a pairing. The 12-45 is a jewel of a lens for what it delivers at a very reasonable price, especially as a kit.

250mm might make its zoom companion too large, so TC compatibility would be in play if shorter. TCs are add-on sales potential, so there's that. Lens IS might add cost/weight and may be overkill if a certain price point is to be met.

 

[IMoL]

Hm. That lens would be on the bigger side. Definitely longer and heavier than the 40-150 Pro. I agree that a 50-250mm range would be very useful.

I would even be OK with starting from 70 or 80mm on the short end, so say 70-250 f/4 Pro with Sync IS. (I would be partnering mainly with the 12-100, so I may be biased on the short end need).

 

[PakkyT]

I will continue to stick my my crusty old 4/3rds ZD 50-200 as I don't have as much need for a longer lens as I once did. But always pleased to see new options coming out if it means more choices and keeping people interested in the system.

 

[Holoholo55]

I will continue to stick my my crusty old 4/3rds ZD 50-200 as I don't have as much need for a longer lens as I once did. But always pleased to see new options coming out if it means more choices and keeping people interested in the system.

That lens is what sold me on that range. I had an SWD for quite a while.

 

[ac12]

To put some numbers behind the lenses people are talking about, I calculated the aperture size, and got the filter size, for comparison. You can interprolate from there, for the future lenses.

Wide/Standard zooms:

• 8-25/4, 72mm filter
• 12-40/2.8, 62mm filter
• 12-45/4, 58mm filter
• 14-150/4-5.6 mk2, 150/5.6 = 27mm, 58mm filter.
• 12-100/4, 100/4 = 25mm, 72mm filter.
• 12-200/3.5-6.3, 200/6.3 = 32mm, 72mm filter.

Long Zooms:

• 40-150/4-5.6 R, 150/5.6 = 27mm, 58mm filter.
• 75-300/4.8-6.7, 300/6.7 = 45mm, 58mm filter.
• 40-150/2.8, 150/2.8 = 54mm, 72mm filter.
• 100-400/5-6.3, 400/6.3 = 64mm, 72mm filter.
• 150-400/4.5, 400/4.5 = 89mm, 95mm filter.
• 
  
• 40-150/4, 150/4 = 38mm
• 50-200/4, 200/4 = 50mm
• 50-200/2.8, 200/2.8 = 72mm
• 50-250/4, 250/4 = 63mm

Prime:

• 300/4 = 75mm, 77mm filter.

Updated with a few more lenses.
Updated adding the wide/standard zooms

 

[Holoholo55]

To put some numbers behind the lenses people are talking about, I calculated the aperture size, and got the filter size, for comparison. You can interprolate from there, for the future lenses.

Zooms:

• 12-100/4, 100/4 = 25mm, 72mm filter.
• 40-150/2.8, 150/2.8 = 54mm, 72mm filter.
• 150-400/4.5, 400/4.5 = 89mm, 95mm filter.
• 
  
• 40-150/4, 150/4 = 38mm
• 50-200/4, 200/4 = 50mm
• 50-250/4, 250/4 = 63mm
• 50-200/2.8, 200/2.8 = 72mm

Prime:

• 300/4 = 75mm, 77mm filter.

Maybe the missing bullet is the 100-400 f5-6.3 IS, 72 mm filter? I guess your aperture calculation would be 63 mm at 400 f6.3.

 

[ac12]

Maybe the missing bullet is the 100-400 f5-6.3 IS, 72 mm filter? I guess your aperture calculation would be 63 mm at 400 f6.3.

I added a few more lenses.
The PRO lenses seem to use 72mm.
But there would be a value in a smaller/lighter pro lens.

 

[doady]

I'm guessing 40-150mm F4 will take 58mm filters to match with 12-45mm F4.

50-200mm F2.8 and 50-250mm F4 could take either 62mm filters to match with 12-40mm F2.8, or 72mm filters to match with 12-100mm F4 and 8-25mm F4.

 

[Aristophanes]

I'm guessing 40-150mm F4 will take 58mm filters to match with 12-45mm F4.

50-200mm F2.8 and 50-250mm F4 could take either 62mm filters to match with 12-40mm F2.8, or 72mm filters to match with 12-100mm F4 and 8-25mm F4.

What I thought. Ideal with same filter size for the 12-45/4. That's a major selling point and to get to 200mm, 1.4xTC compatible.

 

[ac12]

I'm guessing 40-150mm F4 will take 58mm filters to match with 12-45mm F4.

50-200mm F2.8 and 50-250mm F4 could take either 62mm filters to match with 12-40mm F2.8, or 72mm filters to match with 12-100mm F4 and 8-25mm F4.

The 50-200/2.8, with a computed aperture of 72mm cannot have a filter smaller than 72mm.
I think it will take a 82mm filter.

If you meant the 50-200/4, that could take a 62mm filter.

The 50-250/4 has a computed aperture of 63mm. Too large for a 62mm filter.
I think it will take a 72mm filter.

It is rather uncommon to have the filter size match the computed aperture. Usually the filter is LARGER, sometimes much larger, than the computed aperture. Even with primes, the filter is larger than the front element, by the thickness of the ring that holds the element in the barrel.

 

[JonSnih]

The 50-200/2.8, with a computed aperture of 72mm cannot have a filter smaller than 72mm.
I think it will take a 82mm filter.

77mm is also possible.

If you meant the 50-200/4, that could take a 62mm filter.

The 50-250/4 has a computed aperture of 63mm. Too large for a 62mm filter.
I think it will take a 72mm filter.

Or 67mm.

 

[ac12]

77mm is also possible.

Or 67mm.

The questions are:

• How close can the filter size be to the computed aperture?
• What size will the front element actually be? Since we don't know this, then . . .
• Historically what size has the filter been vs. the computed aperture?
  • See listing above in post #30
• Is Olympus using a common filter size for various lenses?
  • For the zooms, they seem to be with 58 and 72mm.

 

[PakkyT]

Is Olympus using a common filter size for various lenses?

In the old OM days there were but it seems with digital Olympus has been all over the map with this, sometimes seemingly trying to standardize on a filter size between what you would think are complimentary lenses but then other times no so much.

 

[ac12]

In the old OM days there were but it seems with digital Olympus has been all over the map with this, sometimes seemingly trying to standardize on a filter size between what you would think are complimentary lenses but then other times no so much.

With digital it isn't as bad a back in the B&W film days, when I had a set of B&W filters for each filter size. $$$
Nikon standardizing on 52mm, meant that I only needed a set of 52mm filters. In fact I got the 24, because it was the widest lens that still used a 52mm filter.
Although before I converted to all Nikon lenses, using Vivitar lenses threw that standardization out the window.

Having said that, the cost of a Pola filter is not insignificant, and having one for each size can get expensive.

 

[Jon Li]

I have MC14 n MC20 , most of the time the MC20 is attached to Pro 40~150/2.8 which convert it to Pro 80~300/5.6 but when BIF is the order of the day then MC14 will give me 56~210/4 . My wish is in the future they produce Pro 40~150/2.8 with Sync IS but with Olympus no longer calling the shot , I doubt if it will ever happen .