The 300mm is now listed (without price) at BH....

[Clint]

Yes, and Olympus Imaging is smaller today, whereas Canon and Nikon are larger.

....

Olympus Imaging has always been a smaller than Canon's and Nikon equivalents. That did not stop them from competing head to head in the film days.

 

[Clint]

Let say my need is a fast 600mm FOV for a distant subject. A 300mm lens on a FF isn't going to cut it.

Unless you crop the image - not an issue on the D800.
And a humongous price difference between the lenses. If one does not want to afford the 600mm lens, alternatives such as cropping and teleconvertors are in play

 

[usayit]

Unless you crop the image - not an issue on the D800.
And a humongous price difference between the lenses. If one does not want to afford the 600mm lens, alternatives such as cropping and teleconvertors are in play

I already mentioned the use of cropping and teleconverters (even stacking) in a couple of my posts. My point is that neither is as ideal as using an native 300mm fast telephoto on micro 43.

 

[usayit]

The only thing I don't follow is the need to wait for a 300 2.8. You can buy it today and it is fantastic. Yes it will only work well with the E-M1 and yes it is large and expensive, but it is similar to other 300 f2.8s.

For me it is not the right value proposition, so I'll wait.

I almost purchased the 300 f2.8 4/3 lens. I still may get it if a used one for a very good price comes along. The issue is that at that price I would like a fully operational combination AF. I just dont see buying a lens that is somewhat crippled when mounted on micro 4/3. Besides... the 100-300 is ok for now. I also have an old m42 mount 500mm f5.6 lens that I use on a rare occasion which gives me a 1000mm fov. Its huge, dated optics, requires a gimble, and is royally difficult to focus. Its more of a collectors item at this point.

 

[mattia]

It t would be larger, but would it be as large as the 4/3 300mm f2.8? I wonder about that as I have the 7-14mm f4 and it's considerably larger than the Panasonic 7-14mm f4, and with the new 7-14mm f2.8 coming out, will it be larger or considerably smaller than the former? If not, then a m4/3 300mm f2.8 should also be smaller than the 4/3 300mm f2.8.

It really shouldn't need to be - the 43 300/2.8 is ridiculously oversized for the sensor it covers at 3290 grams. Compare that to Canon (2550 for mk I and 2400 for mk II) or Nikon (2900 grams). Heck, Canon's 500/4.0 is only a pound heavier than the Oly.

 

[dhazeghi]

It really shouldn't need to be - the 43 300/2.8 is ridiculously oversized for the sensor it covers at 3290 grams. Compare that to Canon (2550 for mk I and 2400 for mk II) or Nikon (2900 grams). Heck, Canon's 500/4.0 is only a pound heavier than the Oly.

Format size doesn't really change much with telephotos. It's the size of the front element necessary for the wide aperture that is the limiting factor, not the imaging circle. If you don't believe me, take a look at the specs of the Mamiya 300/2.8 APO, which has an image circle that covers 645 film. It too is roughly the same size and weight as the Nikon 300/2.8, despite the vastly large imaging circle.

The reason why the newer Canon 300/2.8 is lighter is that Canon has spent a good amount of R&D making the lens body lighter through the use of special materials. As to the 500/4.0, it's only a bit bigger and heavier than the 300/2.8 + 1.4X TC, and again, has been specially optimized for weight.

 

[Fri13]

I am almost afraid to see the prices when they do show up! We already have an idea on the wide zoom{around $1800*} but not on the 300mm. However I bet it is the same price or slightly more. Not bad considering the specs but not a bargain either.

* - http://www.43rumors.com/ft4-olympus-7-14mm-f2-8-canadian-pricing-1899-cad/

if Olympus would be smart (and capable), every Pro lens would be same price ($999/749€). it would make very tempting to gather all four lenses then as it would cover 7-150mm and offer 300mm for wild life photographers.

 

[Fri13]

But, on FF, a 300F4 + 2x teleconverter = 600mm F8 - as does 300F4 on m43...

Because a 600mm F8 lens would be nowhere near $12k.

Z...

Oh how I dislike when people start multiplying the aperture....

well you can't!

it only ends up to situation where m4/3 sensor is claimed to get 2x less light and so on being bad.

we don't have ratio for depth of field, as no one can state the distance to subject with magnification and focal length and aperture.

 

[Fri13]

I suspect because a 300 f2.8 would be quite large.

The size isn't comparable as even as f/2.8 it would be way lighter and smaller than what is available to Canikon shooters.

m4/3 system benefit for size and weight isn't rule that lens can't be larger than x+y or weight more than z grams.

it is that all what we can get is smaller and lighter. we can get same focal lengths with narrower angle of view and faster lenses for same depth of field and that is huge benefit when we can fit all to smaller package and carry it more easily around.

We are as well allowed to pay with same money as others so we are equivalents to each other, no?

if we would get paid 2x less it would be sad. but now we are respected 2x less but same time expected to deliver 2x less, so we even have benefit of 2x to surprise others more often with same level photos.

everything is relative!

 

[Fri13]

I think a 300mm f2 would be a great M43 lens. 600mm reach and 600mm f/4 DOF equivalence. If I ever have the money to buy a Nikon 300/2 and I see one for sale, I'll probably get it. Same goes for the Oly 250mm f/2, that one would give 500 f/4 DOF equivalence on M4/3.

300mm f/2 for m4/3:

Angle of view equivalent is 600mm
Depth of field equivalent is 300mm f/2
Light gathering power is f/2

 

[Fri13]

I would just go for the Oly 300/2.8 personally:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

But no one is going to call it small!

I call it as small.... just look the size and weight and compare it to what Canikon owners need to use to get same.

 

[Rasmus]

300mm f/2 for m4/3:
Depth of field equivalent is 300mm f/2

Sure, but I bet DOF would look very much like DOF of a 600 f/4 on FF.

 

[Zee]

Oh how I dislike when people start multiplying the aperture....

well you can't!

it only ends up to situation where m4/3 sensor is claimed to get 2x less light and so on being bad.

we don't have ratio for depth of field, as no one can state the distance to subject with magnification and focal length and aperture.

Oh how I dislike people who read my posts and don't see that I am actually being facetious, and trying to point out the futility of these arguments.

Yes, of course you can't, I'd argue we are best comparing a lens based on it's merits as an m43 lens, but FF seems to be the standard that everyone wants to compare to. At the end of the day, F2.8 gives more light, and allows for faster shutter speeds -however, it is still comparable in some areas, because m43 is sharpest at about half the aperture of FF. It's a stupid complicated argument that just shows me that it's best to compare lenses to other lenses in the same system, because there are just a ridiculous number of variables that don't always compare across.


Regardless, give me a price, put it on the shelves, and take my money already...

Z..

 

[Fri13]

Oh how I dislike people who read my posts and don't see that I am actually being facetious, and trying to point out the futility of these arguments.

Yes, of course you can't, I'd argue we are best comparing a lens based on it's merits as an m43 lens, but FF seems to be the standard that everyone wants to compare to. At the end of the day, F2.8 gives more light, and allows for faster shutter speeds -however, it is still comparable in some areas, because m43 is sharpest at about half the aperture of FF. It's a stupid complicated argument that just shows me that it's best to compare lenses to other lenses in the same system, because there are just a ridiculous number of variables that don't always compare across.


Regardless, give me a price, put it on the shelves, and take my money already...

Z..

I didn't mean it that way (you, not You), it was meant that how other people seriously do so as they want to in many situations to promote 35mm format.

Sorry if You interpret it wrong to be directed at You.

 

[Zee]

All good - no offense meant on my part either - more tongue in cheek - and not clear that it was meant to be a general comment.

Clearly there is a heap of interest in this puppy to promote the discussion - I'm glad they are making it...

Z...

 

[speedandstyle]

Of coarse you can't blame just the people as the camera companies do it too. For instance the new Panasonic FZ1000 has the FF equivalent focal lengths listed big and bold on the lens rather than the actual focal lengths. There are many other examples as well.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Fri13]

Of coarse you can't blame just the people as the camera companies do it too. For instance the new Panasonic FZ1000 has the FF equivalent focal lengths listed big and bold on the lens rather than the actual focal lengths. There are many other examples as well.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I understand very well that for compacts or any camera what has crop smaller than 2x.

have you tried to think what equivalent angle of view you get with 9.12mm from FZ1000 what has one inch sensor?

how about 6.5mm focal length on camera with 1/2.3" sensor?

The Panasonic has written the true focal length to front of objective (9.12-146mm) and then giving a equivalent focal length is really just making it easy for consumers do math.

Enthusiast and Professionals should already know how to calculate physics values from true values.

 

[usayit]

The Panasonic has written the true focal length to front of objective (9.12-146mm) and then giving a equivalent focal length is really just making it easy for consumers do math.

Exactly...

When a customer approaches my counter, I'm not going to show an obsession over the technical details nor bore them with jargon followed by contrived explanations. I'm going to start the conversation with simply; "What is the final intent you wish to achieve?" In the computer design world, we call this a "use case" because it describes what a feature is going to be used for. In all intent and purposes its the same. I'm trying to get a feel for the customers wishes, wants, and needs. What are you going to use this or that for?

If the customer is a seasoned photographer the VAST majority of them have a FOV familiarity with FF 135 format. They already can visualize the frame AND space (compression vs expansion) looks like at a particular focal length. For me to start forcing the notion of "focal length is focal length" and "you can't compare this or that because technically its incorrect" is counterproductive to the discussion. Am I here to help the customer or am I here to show off my depth of knowledge?

So when I posted my first post (which seemed to rub people the wrong way), I approached it in the same manner. What is my intent; FOV of 600mm, faster aperture. I know all of the technicalities involved. Nothing posted here is new to me, I've been on both the service, retail, and even taught beginner classes. I even acknowledge several times that I'm not making technical comparisons. I acknowledge that there are many variables involved in such comparisons but the only ones that are of interest to me were posted in my first post; FOV, aperture. So no, not a lot of variables involved once its been scoped down to just those two things.


Let's take the camera Panasonic posted above but let's consider the FZ200 (I'm more familiar with it). Its a camera that is directly marketed towards the bird enthusiasts. Now be very careful of my chosen words... Bird Enthusiasts/WATCHERS not Bird photographers.!!!! Cameras like the FZ200 will provide enough quality to record the a watcher's discoveries and provide a equivalent focal length of 600mm in an extremely easy to use, comfortable, lightweight, small package. OMG, what do I see? It also provides an f/2.8 constant aperture across the range!! Do you think I'm going to start chatter about equivalency of aperture between FF and 1/2.3 sensor in terms of DOF? Is that really helpful? It will however be very interesting to a birdwatcher that they will have more light to work with on the long end of the range. I would even take out another super zoom (letsay 600mm f/6.3 optic) and compare the resulting exposures out the store window.

Now go back and review all of the replies to all of the technicalities of my original response; do you think this bird watcher cares? Their need is framed by vastly different set of criteria. Mine too are different from many of the responders in this thread.

I can't help but feel that a simple post of what my preferences are and the thoughts behind my preferences have been degraded to a pissing contest of sorts.

 

[Zee]

...

Let's take the camera Panasonic posted above but let's consider the FZ200 (I'm more familiar with it). Its a camera that is directly marketed towards the bird enthusiasts. Now be very careful of my chosen words... Bird Enthusiasts/WATCHERS not Bird photographers.!!!! Cameras like the FZ200 will provide enough quality to record the a watcher's discoveries and provide a equivalent focal length of 600mm in an extremely easy to use, comfortable, lightweight, small package. OMG, what do I see? It also provides an f/2.8 constant aperture across the range!! Do you think I'm going to start chatter about equivalency of aperture between FF and 1/2.3 sensor in terms of DOF? Is that really helpful? It will however be very interesting to a birdwatcher that they will have more light to work with on the long end of the range. I would even take out another super zoom (letsay 600mm f/6.3 optic) and compare the resulting exposures out the store window.

Now go back and review all of the replies to all of the technicalities of my original response; do you think this bird watcher cares? Their need is framed by vastly different set of criteria. Mine too are different from many of the responders in this thread.

I can't help but feel that a simple post of what my preferences are and the thoughts behind my preferences have been degraded to a pissing contest of sorts.

I think part of it is due to the a lens, such as a 300 F4, is far more likely to end up with a bird photographer than merely a watcher, and in the same sort of way, this debate is raging on a photography gear forum, where a larger chunk of participants than regular folk have a very good idea of how all these things work together.

And, being a gear forum, a lot of us are fueled by GAS...

Z...

 

[nstelemark]

So when I posted my first post (which seemed to rub people the wrong way), I approached it in the same manner. What is my intent; FOV of 600mm, faster aperture. I know all of the technicalities involved. Nothing posted here is new to me, I've been on both the service, retail, and even taught beginner classes. I even acknowledge several times that I'm not making technical comparisons. I acknowledge that there are many variables involved in such comparisons but the only ones that are of interest to me were posted in my first post; FOV, aperture. So no, not a lot of variables involved once its been scoped down to just those two things.


Let's take the camera Panasonic posted above but let's consider the FZ200 (I'm more familiar with it). Its a camera that is directly marketed towards the bird enthusiasts. Now be very careful of my chosen words... Bird Enthusiasts/WATCHERS not Bird photographers.!!!! Cameras like the FZ200 will provide enough quality to record the a watcher's discoveries and provide a equivalent focal length of 600mm in an extremely easy to use, comfortable, lightweight, small package. OMG, what do I see? It also provides an f/2.8 constant aperture across the range!! Do you think I'm going to start chatter about equivalency of aperture between FF and 1/2.3 sensor in terms of DOF? Is that really helpful? It will however be very interesting to a birdwatcher that they will have more light to work with on the long end of the range. I would even take out another super zoom (letsay 600mm f/6.3 optic) and compare the resulting exposures out the store window.

Now go back and review all of the replies to all of the technicalities of my original response; do you think this bird watcher cares? Their need is framed by vastly different set of criteria. Mine too are different from many of the responders in this thread.

I can't help but feel that a simple post of what my preferences are and the thoughts behind my preferences have been degraded to a pissing contest of sorts.

The only issue I have with anything you posted is the assumption that a 300 f2.8 for m43 is going to be smaller than any other 300 f2.8, ie like the one for 4/3. So far this hasn't happened.

Whether as a customer you want to call this a 600 f5.6, a 600 f2.8 or a 300 f2.8 or 300 f5.6, is really immaterial.