Updated: 100-400 may be imminent, new camera registered, Olympus to be sold. What next?

[RAH]

I think I can be confident in saying it won't be compatible with a TC. That would be reserved for use with Pro lenses only.

I agree. It's interesting and worth mentioning, however, that back in the 4/3 (not m4/3) days when I had my E-520, I routinely used the consumer-grade Oly 70-300 lens (rumored to be made by Sigma) WITH an Oly 1.4x teleconverter. So they were compatible. I have upped my expectations since then and don't know if I could stand the IQ of a consumer-grade lens with even a 1.4 TC, but it would be nice to have the option with the 100-400.

Someone else wondered whether they would discontinue the 75-300. I doubt it VERY much. There is a place for both a 75-300 and a 100-400, IMHO. I do think they might come out with a 75-300 with IS. I mean, it's already kind of a pricey lens for standard grade, so it could stand an upgrade to IS, I think.

 

[Ross the fiddler]

I agree. It's interesting and worth mentioning, however, that back in the 4/3 (not m4/3) days when I had my E-520, I routinely used the consumer-grade Oly 70-300 lens (rumored to be made by Sigma) WITH an Oly 1.4x teleconverter. So they were compatible. I have upped my expectations since then and don't know if I could stand the IQ of a consumer-grade lens with even a 1.4 TC, but it would be nice to have the option with the 100-400.

Someone else wondered whether they would discontinue the 75-300. I doubt it VERY much. There is a place for both a 75-300 and a 100-400, IMHO. I do think they might come out with a 75-300 with IS. I mean, it's already kind of a pricey lens for standard grade, so it could stand an upgrade to IS, I think.

That 70-300 was a ssllooooooww & noisy focussing lens though, wasn't it. I got mine in a kit with the E520 too. I tried the EC14 with it, but light had to be really good though.

 

[RAH]

That 70-300 was a ssllooooooww & noisy focussing lens though, wasn't it. I got mine in a kit with the E520 too. I tried the EC14 with it, but light had to be really good though.

Yes, it was slow. Sometimes I would say when I went to take pictures of wildlife that I was going "hunting" (i.e. to "shoot" animals and birds), but actually it was the LENS that did most of the hunting!

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I can’t imagine it will work with the TC with that aperture range. Based on this range, I’d expect this to be a no-nonsense lens of reasonable size and weight. The Pro version will likely be heavier and support the TCs, if only because you’ll still get something workable.

 

[RAH]

I agree. The old Oly 4/3 70-300 was an f4-5.6, and quite a bit larger than the current m4/3 75-300, so it was faster (somewhat ) than the consumer-grade m43 stuff.

 

[Phocal]

I am interested in your use of ISO 2500. I have always removed those "intermediate" ISOs from the choices on my cameras, leaving just the "f-stop" ones - 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, etc. I do this because I have read that the ISOs in between are some kind of a fudge (to use a technical term) - I mean something like tweaking the shutter speed or some other operation to give you what you asked for, but not really giving you that ISO itself. This may not be true, may be true only for certain brands, may not matter even if true, etc. etc. But I am interested in what others think.

That is all internet rumor that came about years ago during the infancy of digital cameras.

 

[Biro]

I have no basis for this guess but based on current prices I am thinking the 100-400 with be about $2500.00 if it is any good with weather sealing and dual IS. But this is just pure speculation, but hopefully we will see soon.

I may be unrealistic, but given that Oly's 12-200mm f/3.5-6.3 travel zoom is $799 in the U.S., I'm expecting this new 100-400mm f/5-6.3 to come in at about the same price or slightly higher. The same price if it doesn't have stabilization and slightly higher - say $1000 U.S. - if it does. So that might be AU$1400-1500. I expect the 150-400mm f/4.5 PRO to list well over $2,000 U.S. - perhaps even three grand.

 

[RAH]

That is all internet rumor that came about years ago during the infancy of digital cameras.

Interesting. So would you recommend that I reactivate all the potential ISOs that the camera offers (I mean, for example, is that what you do)?

 

[Phocal]

Interesting. So would you recommend that I reactivate all the potential ISOs that the camera offers (I mean, for example, is that what you do)?

That is up to you. Personally I have all of them enabled.

 

[davidzvi]

I agree. It's interesting and worth mentioning, however, that back in the 4/3 (not m4/3) days when I had my E-520, I routinely used the consumer-grade Oly 70-300 lens (rumored to be made by Sigma) WITH an Oly 1.4x teleconverter. So they were compatible. I have upped my expectations since then and don't know if I could stand the IQ of a consumer-grade lens with even a 1.4 TC, but it would be nice to have the option with the 100-400.

Someone else wondered whether they would discontinue the 75-300. I doubt it VERY much. There is a place for both a 75-300 and a 100-400, IMHO. I do think they might come out with a 75-300 with IS. I mean, it's already kind of a pricey lens for standard grade, so it could stand an upgrade to IS, I think.

So like the Sigma 50-500, the rear element moves enough so you can use TC? As I recall you could use a TC on the Sigma if you stayed above 150mm (? can't remember what the actual limit was before the rear element would hit the TC).

I may be unrealistic, but given that Oly's 12-200mm f/3.5-6.3 travel zoom is $799 in the U.S., I'm expecting this new 100-400mm f/5-6.3 to come in at about the same price or slightly higher. The same price if it doesn't have stabilization and slightly higher - say $1000 U.S. - if it does. So that might be AU$1400-1500. I expect the 150-400mm f/4.5 PRO to list well over $2,000 U.S. - perhaps even three grand.

Well according to the road map the 100-400mm will have OIS.

$2,000, maybe $3,000 for the 150-400mm Pro? It's a nice dream, I like dreams like that. And I really would like that dream to become a reality.

But.....

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

I really hope it doesn't push the prices like the Nikon and Canon versions. But when you consider the Fuji and Sony variable aperture + external TCs regular retails of $2,348 and $3,046 respectively. I think $4,000-$5,000 might even be wishful thinking.

I'd LOVE to be proven wrong but.....

 

[RAH]

So like the Sigma 50-500, the rear element moves enough so you can use TC? As I recall you could use a TC on the Sigma if you stayed above 150mm (? can't remember what the actual limit was before the rear element would hit the TC).

I don't know about the rear element or anything, but the old 4/3 Oly 70-300 had no limitation on what focal length you could use with the EC14 teleconverter. You just used it. Interesting you mentioned the Sigma 50-500 ("Bigma"). I had one of those also and the 70-300 plus 1.4x TC was only marginally less sharp than the pretty mediocre (and very large) 50-500 (with no TC).

 

[Phocal]

So like the Sigma 50-500, the rear element moves enough so you can use TC? As I recall you could use a TC on the Sigma if you stayed above 150mm (? can't remember what the actual limit was before the rear element would hit the TC).

The EC-14/20 didn’t have the protruding part and could be used with any 4/3 lens. I have the Bigma and have used it at all focal lengths with both TCs.

 

[TNcasual]

So like the Sigma 50-500, the rear element moves enough so you can use TC? As I recall you could use a TC on the Sigma if you stayed above 150mm (? can't remember what the actual limit was before the rear element would hit the TC).

Well according to the road map the 100-400mm will have OIS.

$2,000, maybe $3,000 for the 150-400mm Pro? It's a nice dream, I like dreams like that. And I really would like that dream to become a reality.

But.....
View attachment 831098

I really hope it doesn't push the prices like the Nikon and Canon versions. But when you consider the Fuji and Sony variable aperture + external TCs regular retails of $2,348 and $3,046 respectively. I think $4,000-$5,000 might even be wishful thinking.

I'd LOVE to be proven wrong but.....

If that lens is south of $5000US, it will be a miracle.

 

[ac12]

Nice picture, @ac12 .

It does show the 75-300 to good advantage, and your copy seems to be like mine - sufficiently sharp out to 300. I have seen no difference on mine between 270 vs 300, even with pixel peeping. I suppose if I went back to say 220 or some such, it might be sharper, but I haven't bothered to test it because I wouldn't want to do it anyway, at least when I am using it for telephoto shooting where I need all the magnification I can get. I suppose if I were taking closer shots where the composition and other factors are more important than reach, then perhaps I would care. But I mostly use the 75-300 for long reach, as I think most people do, so I don't want to be backing off anyway.

I am interested in your use of ISO 2500. I have always removed those "intermediate" ISOs from the choices on my cameras, leaving just the "f-stop" ones - 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, etc. I do this because I have read that the ISOs in between are some kind of a fudge (to use a technical term) - I mean something like tweaking the shutter speed or some other operation to give you what you asked for, but not really giving you that ISO itself. This may not be true, may be true only for certain brands, may not matter even if true, etc. etc. But I am interested in what others think.

(We are getting pretty far-afield in this thread, I suppose. Sorry if this is a hijack!)

Yes, I suppose I was lucky with a good copy.
But I wish the zoom ring was smoother and easier to turn.

I was shooting Shutter priority, auto ISO, so the camera selected the ISO level.

 

[RAH]

That is up to you. Personally I have all of them enabled.

I did a little searching and found some interesting info about "intermediate" ISOs. I first heard about them not when the internet first started, but quite a bit later when I think they were first introduced in digital cameras (I think by Canon). Up till that point, they were not available, and there was a lot of talk about them. At least that's how I remember it.

According to this (very technical) article:

https://photographylife.com/riddle-intermediate-iso-settings

"If one is shooting raw, they might be interested to know if there is any benefit in using intermediate ISO settings like ISO 125, 160, etc. There is no single answer to this question, because it depends on implementation of these intermediate ISO settings in the particular camera. Sometimes they are implemented the same way as the main ISO settings, but other times they are a result of certain manipulations, like digital multiplication."

So I guess I didn't dream it. It doesn't mean I won't be changing my E-M5III settings to make all the ISOs usable. I think I will. But I just wanted to clarify what I was talking about earlier in this thread.

 

[Holoholo55]

I agree. It's interesting and worth mentioning, however, that back in the 4/3 (not m4/3) days when I had my E-520, I routinely used the consumer-grade Oly 70-300 lens (rumored to be made by Sigma) WITH an Oly 1.4x teleconverter. So they were compatible. I have upped my expectations since then and don't know if I could stand the IQ of a consumer-grade lens with even a 1.4 TC, but it would be nice to have the option with the 100-400.

Someone else wondered whether they would discontinue the 75-300. I doubt it VERY much. There is a place for both a 75-300 and a 100-400, IMHO. I do think they might come out with a 75-300 with IS. I mean, it's already kind of a pricey lens for standard grade, so it could stand an upgrade to IS, I think.

Unlike the MC teleconverters, the EC 4/3rd teleconverters were widely compatible with 4/3rd lenses. No protruding lenses for one thing. I used an EC-14 successfully on a 4/3rd Sigma 105 f2.8 macro. I too doubt very much that the MCs will be usable on the 100-400. They are not even compatible with Pro lenses except the 40-150 f2.8 Pro and 300 f4 Pro.

 

[davidzvi]

The EC-14/20 didn’t have the protruding part and could be used with any 4/3 lens. I have the Bigma and have used it at all focal lengths with both TCs.

I'll take your work for it, I think I've used a TC or adapter maybe 1/2 dozen times. It's why I REALLY hope I'm close to the mark on my guess for "B", a 50-225 would be more than enough for me. I could see myself picking up a 1.4 TC, but that would be just for those special times.

If that lens is south of $5000US, it will be a miracle.

Well I did say $4,000-$5,000 might be wishful thinking.

 

[Phocal]

Well I did say $4,000-$5,000 might be wishful thinking.

Actually you said $2,000 - $3,000

$2,000, maybe $3,000 for the 150-400mm Pro? It's a nice dream, I like dreams like that. And I really would like that dream to become a reality.

Honestly @TNcasual was being very optimistic, based on the price of the Canon and Nikon similar lenses I am expecting $8,000 and even that is a conservative guess.

 

[davidzvi]

I may be unrealistic, but given that Oly's 12-200mm f/3.5-6.3 travel zoom is $799 in the U.S., I'm expecting this new 100-400mm f/5-6.3 to come in at about the same price or slightly higher. The same price if it doesn't have stabilization and slightly higher - say $1000 U.S. - if it does. So that might be AU$1400-1500. I expect the 150-400mm f/4.5 PRO to list well over $2,000 U.S. - perhaps even three grand.

........$2,000, maybe $3,000 for the 150-400mm Pro? It's a nice dream, I like dreams like that. And I really would like that dream to become a reality.


I really hope it doesn't push the prices like the Nikon and Canon versions. But when you consider the Fuji and Sony variable aperture + external TCs regular retails of $2,348 and $3,046 respectively. I think $4,000-$5,000 might even be wishful thinking.

I'd LOVE to be proven wrong but.....

Actually you said $2,000 - $3,000

Honestly @TNcasual was being very optimistic, based on the price of the Canon and Nikon similar lenses I am expecting $8,000 and even that is a conservative guess.

No I was quoting @Biro and saying $2,000 - $3,000 would be a dream.

But it's fun to guess, gives us something to do while we're locked up.

 

[Phocal]

No I was quoting @Biro and saying $2,000 - $3,000 would be a dream.

But it's fun to guess, gives us something to do while we're locked up.

sorry about that