Discussion in 'Micro 4/3 News and Rumors' started by Amin Sabet, Feb 19, 2014.
Here's the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO lens
Here's a look at the upcoming 40-50mm f/2.8 PRO lens from Olympus. We now have a better idea of its size, seeing it mounted to an E-M1. Check out the online brochure on page 17.
What do you think of it? :smile:
Thanks for posting that Ulysses!!!! Its a pretty chunky lens thats for sure but 80-300mm F/2.8 the whole way, its more than acceptable to me
Here are some screen shots for you peeps to see instead of digging through that link :
I saw that earlier today and wondered about the quality. Generally, the highest high quality zoom lenses have tended to be around the 2x or 3x max and once you start to go beyond this, maintaining the highest levels of quality becomes difficult. Then again, it's listed as a pro lens and perhaps Olympus intend to create top pro lenses in future for m4/3s.
OzRay, I don't follow. Could you elaborate a bit more?
Maybe in the past, but zoom lenses have come a very long way. Just look at Canon glass. All their newer zoom lenses are at least as good as or better than their prime lenses i.e. 24-70/2.8L Mk II, 70-200/2.8/L Mk II, and 200-400/2.8L.
I have no doubts that the PRO-grade M. Zuiko 7-14/2.8, 12-40/2.8, 40-150/2.8 are just as good as the m43 primes.
If you look at the top pro Olympus 4/3 lenses, they have all been under 3x: 7-14mm, 14-35mm, 35-100mm, 90-250mm. Look at Canon lenses and the best have been all under 3x, as per the examples just given in the other post.
Very much agreed. :smile:
Here's how the 40-150mm f/2.8 compares in size to the 12-40mm f/2.8. At first it does look a bit chunky for our favorite µ43 camera. However, in the larger scheme of things, it's still really small compared to a FF equiv. And considering I'm getting out to 300mm… pretty amazing.
I just need it NOW !!!! hurry up OLY !!!!!!!
and the ultra wide to hurry up
Anyone want to hazard a guess whether it has an internal zoom?
Looks interesting. A little shorter/smaller than the 50-200 43 lens, but not hugely so.
It looks like it has a focus ring at the front, so that would usually indicate internal zoom.
Wait.. how did this lens become a 80-300 f/2.8 lens??
GAS coming on strongly......
Unsure that's an appropriate indicator. It looks no more forward than the 12-40.
Trying to find the text at the moment, but pretty certain the dude that handled the prototype said the lens would zoom internally (and I'm pretty certain he was paraphrasing the Olympus rep that gave him the unit).
35mm equivalent focal length. Micro Four Thirds has a magnification factor of 2x.
You double the focal length ONLY...aperture remains unaffected unless using a teleconverter.
I know the 2x crop factor.
But why doesn't Olympus advertise it as a 80-300 constant 2.8 lens than?
Wouldn't it be more impressive for them to advertise as a 80-300 constant 2.8?
I have my 75/1.8 lens box sitting right next to me and it doesn't say 150/1.8.
It says 75mm f1.8 and under that print in a film box says 150mm. But with no aperture listed.
It must be internal zoom : weathersealed, and big enough to accommodate the full 150 extension inside. The front optic looks very reasonably 'small' considering the aperture, I wonder how they achieve it?
I expect it to be at least as good as the 4/3rds 40-150MkI
<RANT>That label on the side of mZD lens boxes annoys me.:irked:
I prefer to call my 75/1.8 a 75/1.8, and referring to it as equivalent to 150mm on 135 doesn't help. Many of us came to mFT via DSLRs with APS-C sensors... Seriously did anyone using APS-C ever pick up a lens and stop to "convert" it to 135 before using it? What are the options?
Look at the lens barrel, note the focal length, remember the correct factor for this camera - 1.5, 1.6? - multiply the focal length by the factor, then visualise the scene before you in terms of your memory of that focal length equivalent on film?
Or carpe momentum!* Just put the eye to the VF and look?
I never felt the need to convert my lenses to a 135 focal length equivalent when they were mounted on an APS-C body. Now that I almost exclusively shoot mFT, I think in mFT focal lengths; if I pick up the 'blad I think in 120 terms.</RANT>
* Okay, so I didn't study Latin, but you can probably work out what it was supposed to mean.
Because it wouldn't be accurate advertising? It's a 40-150 f/2.8 lens. Period. The angle of view is equivalent to the 80-300 on a full frame camera shot from the sam position.
Their promotional materials do include occasional references to 'ff equivalents', although they leave off aperture because the depth of field is NOT the same as an 80-300 full frame lens at f/2.8, but the light gathering capacity is. I'll leave it at that, but if you want to drive yourself nuts, go over to DP review and enjoy the 'equivalence' wars. Or save yourself the pain and, y'know, don't.
My 50-200 had a sticker on it (which I removed) that said '100-400 equivalent' or somesuch. I find it useful because I used to shoot full frame.
Separate names with a comma.