Olympus 40-150 f4 Pro?

[Holoholo55]

https://www.43rumors.com/ft3-there-will-be-a-new-olympus-40-150-f-4-in-2022/

I presume this would be a Pro lens with a constant aperture, and there would be no point in a consumer grade 40-150 with the existing 40-150 f4-5.6 R lens still in the catalog. Still, I don't see the point of this. I'd much prefer a 50-200 f4 Pro lens, when Olympus already has a 12-45 f4 and a 12-100 f4. A 50-200 would be a far more useful range. Already have a 40-150 f2.8 Pro and would have zero interest in a 40-150 f4 Pro. Pfftt.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Having owned the 2.8 version and kinda miss it, I think I'd be all over an f/4 version. It should be easier to put in the bag, and f/4 is plenty for me since I'd likely only ever user it outdoors. Curious if it would get the TC support?

In regard to its range, I'm kinda wondering about 40-150 still. The shorter pro f/4 leaves off at 45mm, so could this should be 45-175 or 45-200. That would be nifty.

 

[Bushboy]

It’s a good idea.
The 2.8 is a butt ugly huge thing.

 

[doady]

I think the potential of E-M5 series is still unfulfilled, so a compact 40-150mm F4 Pro lens to complement the 12-45mm F4 Pro would definitely be a good idea.

50-200mm would leave a gap in focal length if paired with 12-45mm F4, so I assume the 50-200mm Pro will be F2.8 rather than F4. There is also a 50-230mm Pro on the road map, which I assume will be F4. As a user of 12-100mm and E-M1 series, I am much more interested in these two lenses, for the longer reach beyond 100mm, and compactness not as important with the larger body.

Hopefully, all three of these lenses will have IS, unlike the 40-150mm F2.8...

 

[Aristophanes]

I agree a 45-200/4 would be ideal. If it is to be (yet) another 150mm max then it must work with the existing TCs or be ultra-compact and sufficiently affordable to pair with the 12-45/4.

 

[jimr.pdx]

Oh please, not another 40-150 to confuse with the other two! Hire a Pentax engineer and crank our a 43-156 instead.

 

[Projectdb]

I stumbled across this yesterday:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65435736?image=0

Apparently a Japanese survey from OMD on what you would like to see for telephoto options in the future. I'm not sure why they included existing lenses (red) though.

A 50-250 F4 I might bite on I guess.

 

[Chris5107]

A 50-250 f4 option would be a great complement to the 12-45. This little extra reach would give it something over the PL 50-200 and maybe IQ could be as good or even better.

 

[doady]

I guess they give existing lenses as an option to see if they should even bother with new lenses at all. And maybe there is the option of discontinuing lenses as well...

Anyone thinks 50-250mm F4 might be too ambitious? 5x zoom up to 250mm? 300mm prime is F4 as well... 50-250mm F4 might be bigger and more expensive than 50-200mm F2.8, not a great complement to 12-45mm F4 at all. Even with my 12-100mm, maybe I would actually prefer 50-200mm F2.8...

Of course, if 100mm F2.8 IS Macro was an option, that would be my number one choice...

 

[Projectdb]

I guess they give existing lenses as an option to see if they should even bother with new lenses at all. And maybe there is the option of discontinuing lenses as well...

Anyone thinks 50-250mm F4 might be too ambitious? 5x zoom up to 250mm? 300mm prime is F4 as well... 50-250mm F4 might be bigger and more expensive than 50-200mm F2.8, not a great complement to 12-45mm F4 at all. Even with my 12-100mm, maybe I would actually prefer 50-200mm F2.8...

Of course, if 100mm F2.8 IS Macro was an option, that would be my number one choice...

Every time I think about getting something longer, I end up hesitating due to overlap with the 12-100. If there was a decently compact telephoto with weather sealing and sync IS, I don't think I'd care too much about the speed. I think my ideal long telephoto is a unicorn, or maybe it's just the 12-100 afterall!

 

[Holoholo55]

Every time I think about getting something longer, I end up hesitating due to overlap with the 12-100. If there was a decently compact telephoto with weather sealing and sync IS, I don't think I'd care too much about the speed. I think my ideal long telephoto is a unicorn, or maybe it's just the 12-100 afterall!

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.

 

[RAH]

It’s a good idea.
The 2.8 is a butt ugly huge thing.

What he said. I want one.

 

[doady]

Every time I think about getting something longer, I end up hesitating due to overlap with the 12-100. If there was a decently compact telephoto with weather sealing and sync IS, I don't think I'd care too much about the speed. I think my ideal long telephoto is a unicorn, or maybe it's just the 12-100 afterall!

12-100mm is the best due to the versatility and Sync IS, but the overlap and size do make pairing it with another lens difficult. I am planning to get 8-25mm F4, but I am not likely to bring it together with 12-100mm very often, if ever. Just choose one and leave the other at home.

Between 50-200mm F2.8 and 50-250mm F4, I would just choose the one that is smaller, to be easier to carry with 12-100mm. 100-400mm F5-6.3 has less overlap and also takes 72mm filters, but it doesn't have full Sync IS.

 

[jimr.pdx]

Just choose one and leave the other at home.

Hm, reminds me of -- a song!

Yes, I'm old - I was in little league while listening to these guys.

 

[Ghostbuggy]

Depending on how expensive, large and heavy the f4 version is going to be, I might be tempted by simply switching my f2.8 for the slower one. The major reason I don't use it that often: It is heavy and takes up a significant amount of space in my bags. If it would be lighter, I'd bring it more often. As of now, I'd rather pack the 75-300 II, even though that one is very slow and, with summer slowly coming to an end, it's going to be more difficult using that one.

 

[jbruce]

It’s a good idea.
The 2.8 is a butt ugly huge thing.

Really? I see it as a rather well balanced lens if you just remove the tripod foot and the goofy (and fragile) mechanical hood. I screw in a 72mm - 77mm deep adapter which also provides the ability to use 77mm filters, etc. Makes a very trim package that provides all of the lens protection needed, added to the fact that the lens is natively quite flare resistant.

 

[Steveinslc]

40-150 F4 would have wayyy too much overlap with the 12-100 and the 2.8. I would have a hard time understanding why they would prioritize a lens like that.
Something like a 70 or 80 to 200 F4 though, I'd be all over that.

 

[Holoholo55]

Hm, reminds me of -- a song!

Yes, I'm old - I was in little league while listening to these guys.

Or this? (for those of us afflicted with GAS). Me old too!

 

[pake]

I don't quite get it either... Unless... It's TINY and cheap. But we are talking about Olympus/OMDS so at least the latter is out of question. And I don't think it will be tiny either. So... I don't see the point. My guess is that it will be similar to 14-150mm in size (yet heavier) and the price will be waaaay too close to the f/2.8 one's.

Oh well... It's not for me and I do hope OMDS will make a profit with it. I doubt it though.

 

[JonSnih]

Anyone thinks 50-250mm F4 might be too ambitious? 5x zoom up to 250mm? 300mm prime is F4 as well... 50-250mm F4 might be bigger and more expensive than 50-200mm F2.8, not a great complement to 12-45mm F4 at all. Even with my 12-100mm, maybe I would actually prefer 50-200mm F2.8...

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.