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

[tiago.ereira]

I think most of your speculation is in the wrong topic.

Anyway that lens won't give the reach of nearly 800mm, maybe close if on APS-C camera.

Like PakkyT said we would also need reviews to say much.

I have read that high MP FF in crop mode will give quality like 12MP M43 camera. But as a novice someone else has to explain it or you look for info about it.

Hahaha on your comment about PEN-F (which I bought 8 months ago used and very happy about the whole experience), I guess I can call myself a film shooter now.

Agree. I should have posted this on the other thread, however I wanted to share the price of the Sigma and I lost myself. I just saw more people discussing the same thing and our thoughts match, so I’m not the only one that thinks the same about Olympus strategy.

Regarding the lens, just ignore the reach the lens can give you. In terms of manufacturing process, a 100-400 is a 100-400 regardless of cameras sensor. Same focal length, same apertures as similar (??) IQ should be priced the same. I can easily see Olympus asking more than 1500$ for this lens.
Like I said, a FF in crop mode can give you the same or almost the reach. The amount of Mpx will depend on the model and the full Mpx count. Sensors with big Mpx count will allow for massive crops that will match a 100-400 on a M43 camera.

I know exactly what Olympus can give me that other brands don’t and that’s why my kit is all Olympus with one EM10 and EM1 (both mark2) plus 6 lenses. Don’t get me wrong, the PenF is a lovely camera. The same for the models I own. The EM1 is brilliant.

But we are a very small group of people. The “average joe” will get something else. Because it’s cheaper, because it’s on sale, because it has better marketing, etc

And a company to be profitable depends on the “average joe”, not on a group of forum enthusiasts.

 

[RS86]

Agree. I should have posted this on the other thread, however I wanted to share the price of the Sigma and I lost myself. I just saw more people discussing the same thing and our thoughts match, so I’m not the only one that thinks the same about Olympus strategy.

Regarding the lens, just ignore the reach the lens can give you. In terms of manufacturing process, a 100-400 is a 100-400 regardless of cameras sensor. Same focal length, same apertures as similar (??) IQ should be priced the same. I can easily see Olympus asking more than 1500$ for this lens.
Like I said, a FF in crop mode can give you the same or almost the reach. The amount of Mpx will depend on the model and the full Mpx count. Sensors with big Mpx count will allow for massive crops that will match a 100-400 on a M43 camera.

I know exactly what Olympus can give me that other brands don’t and that’s why my kit is all Olympus with one EM10 and EM1 (both mark2) plus 6 lenses. Don’t get me wrong, the PenF is a lovely camera. The same for the models I own. The EM1 is brilliant.

But we are a very small group of people. The “average joe” will get something else. Because it’s cheaper, because it’s on sale, because it has better marketing, etc

And a company to be profitable depends on the “average joe”, not on a group of forum enthusiasts.

Yeah, some good points. Anyway Sony still needs 20MP more on their 9 months old AR7iv on crop mode to match 20MP M43 camera (like hoodlum confirmed above).

Reach is very important with tele-lenses like for some extreme small DoF with FF. So I would not compare M43 focal length straight against FF focal length. I don't understand where is the sense in that?

 

[Stanga]

Isn't the Sigma 100-400mm nearly equivalent to the PL 50-200 in reach and aperture?

 

[PakkyT]

Even if the 12-200 gives you 400mm in terms of FF, you can’t compare lens like that.

A 100-400mm lens is a 100-400mm lens and not a 12-200.

For the types of shots both these lenses are designed to capture, they are the same. If you are standing side by side with a FF shooter using that Sigma lens and you with the Oly 12-200 and you both frame the FoV the same, then you are going to be shooting with a smaller, lighter, cheaper, and faster aperture lens, all the thing I thought you were touting about the Sigma and how it represented everything Oly isn't. Well which is it? You can not apply an argument to one lens and then completely ignore the same points for the other.

Anyway, that 12-200 didn’t get good reviews...

Right which is why I was very careful to say all we know about the lens is the focal length, aperture, price, and physical dimensions, so right now the 12-200mm on paper is kicking its ass, As I said, Sigma has made a lot of great lenses and I would never hesitate to buy their stuff if they had something I was interested in. But looking at the spec only. I have a strong feeling, like the 12-200, it is going to be a decent (serviceable) lens for those people where that is good enough, but I suspect it will likely be closer in IQ to the 12-200 than the 12-100. Sure, on a FF body the marginal improvement of IQ due to the sensor might help a bit, but when the Oly can shoot faster shutter or lower ISO due to the faster aperture, I bet that advantage goes away.

And as I said about the bigger focal range, with the Oly you can turn around and quickly take a wide angle 12mm shot of all the other photographers standing with you taking those far off shots. Sigma guy can't.

Olympus needs (needed ?) to be more competitive on prices.

Again, the 12-200 is a couple hundred less than the Sigma so also again, you can not apply an argument to one lens and conveniently pretend it doesn't count on the other.

 

[ac12]

Even if the 12-200 gives you 400mm in terms of FF, you can’t compare lens like that.

A 100-400mm lens is a 100-400mm lens and not a 12-200. Then, depending on the sensor of the camera they are mounted on, they can be equivalent to something else.
Experts on lens design can probably explain this better than myself.

There is only one 100-400 lens on m43 and it doesn’t cost less than 1000$. Ok, it might be superior, but double the quality? I don’t think so...
As far as we know the new zuiko 100-400 won’t be a pro or premium grade so I expect it to be comparable with the sigma 100-400 and that includes the price.

Anyway, that 12-200 didn’t get good reviews...

Olympus needs (needed ?) to be more competitive on prices. They cannot ask more than other brands for the same product knowing they always have the “small sensor limitation”

Olympus needs (needed) more 45mm F1.8. Small, fast, top quality for a couple of hundred €. It gives professional results with all the advantages mentioned.

They needed a EM5mk3 that is equivalent to a A7III or Z6. All in one, small pro body.
EM5mk2 when launched was on pair or above with competition in a very small and rugged pack.

This is what made Olympus successful in Mirrorless. More camera, more features for less money, less size.

Now is less camera, less features for more money and the size is not a big advantage anymore after FF went on diet.

Again, just my opinion.

The body, not the lens, especially on the tele end.
How BIG is the Tamron/Sigma 150-600, and compare it to the Olympus 75-300.
Both are 3-12x zooms, both are not pro grade, so I would say pretty comparable.

The Panasonic 100-400 is a 4-16x zoom. How big would a 200-800 FF lens be?

Even on the small end the small Olympus 40-150R that I can stick in my pocket, compared to a FF 80-300.

 

[tiago.ereira]

FF needs 80mp to match the crop capability of 20mp 43 sensor. So a 46mp FF sensor would only give you about 12mp m43 equivalent. Unfortunately most APS-C bodies are not designed for fast action with larger lenses. M43 still has an advantage with wildlife that cannot be directly replaced with either FF or APS-C mirrorless equivalent.

I know and agree that M43 still has an advantage, that’s I got an EMmk2 and a 75-300 and I’m waiting for the 100-400, but what I think is that FF is closing that gap quickly with the new mirrorless mounts, smaller lenses than before and amazing IQ sensors with possibility to raise ISO and crop a lot.

And again, wildlife photographers are a small percentage. When you want to do something else with your camera the new FF sensors will shine against the outdated m43 sensors.
No one can deny that.

Yeah, some good points. Anyway Sony still needs 20MP more on their 9 months old AR7iv on crop mode to match 20MP M43 camera (like hoodlum confirmed above).

Reach is very important with tele-lenses like for some extreme small DoF with FF. So I would not compare M43 focal length straight against FF focal length. I don't understand where is the sense in that?

I was comparing lenses prices. Someone started to compare sensors and crop factor, etc. A 100-400 lens is a 100-400 lens regardless and having similar specs should cost the same regardless if they are going to be mounted on a m43, aps-c or FF.

Than yes, when I mount a 100-400 in a m43 that will give me a 200-800 which is a BIG advantage. Having more reach for the same price. However, Olympus is charging a lot for their equipment and they advantage more for less is not there anymore. That’s what I’m trying to say.

For the types of shots both these lenses are designed to capture, they are the same. If you are standing side by side with a FF shooter using that Sigma lens and you with the Oly 12-200 and you both frame the FoV the same, then you are going to be shooting with a smaller, lighter, cheaper, and faster aperture lens, all the thing I thought you were touting about the Sigma and how it represented everything Oly isn't. Well which is it? You can not apply an argument to one lens and then completely ignore the same points for the other.
Right which is why I was very careful to say all we know about the lens is the focal length, aperture, price, and physical dimensions, so right now the 12-200mm on paper is kicking its ass, As I said, Sigma has made a lot of great lenses and I would never hesitate to buy their stuff if they had something I was interested in. But looking at the spec only. I have a strong feeling, like the 12-200, it is going to be a decent (serviceable) lens for those people where that is good enough, but I suspect it will likely be closer in IQ to the 12-200 than the 12-100. Sure, on a FF body the marginal improvement of IQ due to the sensor might help a bit, but when the Oly can shoot faster shutter or lower ISO due to the faster aperture, I bet that advantage goes away.

And as I said about the bigger focal range, with the Oly you can turn around and quickly take a wide angle 12mm shot of all the other photographers standing with you taking those far off shots. Sigma guy can't.




Again, the 12-200 is a couple hundred less than the Sigma so also again, you can not apply an argument to one lens and conveniently pretend it doesn't count on the other.

Sorry, not going to argue with you on this. I know exactly what are the m43 advantages and that’s why I have m43. I like wildlife photography and m43 has an advantage there (for now). You are right about your points, fact.

Also a fact. A m43 100-400 and a FF 100-400 lens is a 100-400, like it or not.

Remember, you can mount that sigma to a m43 camera via adaptor and it will give you exactly 200-800mm like the m43 lens. It won’t stop at 400. They are exactly the same!

If they have similar specs (which I believe they have according to the rumours of the zuiko 100-400) and available reviews of the sigma, the price should be similar.

If Sigma can do a good (as per reviews) 100-400 lens and sell it for 1000$, there is no reason why Olympus cannot do it.

This is what I’m comparing, prices of lenses or the same focal range and specs.

The body, not the lens, especially on the tele end.
How BIG is the Tamron/Sigma 150-600, and compare it to the Olympus 75-300.
Both are 3-12x zooms, both are not pro grade, so I would say pretty comparable.

The Panasonic 100-400 is a 4-16x zoom. How big would a 200-800 FF lens be?

Even on the small end the small Olympus 40-150R that I can stick in my pocket, compared to a FF 80-300.

See comment above. A 100-400 is a 100-400.

A tamron/sigma 150-600 mounted on a m43 camera is a 300-1200. So yes, you can’t compare it with a 75-300 that only gives you 150-600mm in terms of construction and price which is what I’m talking about.

You can’t compare oranges with apples.

 

[RS86]

I know and agree that M43 still has an advantage, that’s I got an EMmk2 and a 75-300 and I’m waiting for the 100-400, but what I think is that FF is closing that gap quickly with the new mirrorless mounts, smaller lenses than before and amazing IQ sensors with possibility to raise ISO and crop a lot.

And again, wildlife photographers are a small percentage. When you want to do something else with your camera the new FF sensors will shine against the outdated m43 sensors.
No one can deny that.



I was comparing lenses prices. Someone started to compare sensors and crop factor, etc. A 100-400 lens is a 100-400 lens regardless and having similar specs should cost the same regardless if they are going to be mounted on a m43, aps-c or FF.

Than yes, when I mount a 100-400 in a m43 that will give me a 200-800 which is a BIG advantage. Having more reach for the same price. However, Olympus is charging a lot for their equipment and they advantage more for less is not there anymore. That’s what I’m trying to say.



Sorry, not going to argue with you on this. I know exactly what are the m43 advantages and that’s why I have m43. I like wildlife photography and m43 has an advantage there (for now). You are right about your points, fact.

Also a fact. A m43 100-400 and a FF 100-400 lens is a 100-400, like it or not.

Remember, you can mount that sigma to a m43 camera via adaptor and it will give you exactly 200-800mm like the m43 lens. It won’t stop at 400. They are exactly the same!

If they have similar specs (which I believe they have according to the rumours of the zuiko 100-400) and available reviews of the sigma, the price should be similar.

If Sigma can do a good (as per reviews) 100-400 lens and sell it for 1000$, there is no reason why Olympus cannot do it.

This is what I’m comparing, prices of lenses or the same focal range and specs.





See comment above. A 100-400 is a 100-400.

A tamron/sigma 150-600 mounted on a m43 camera is a 300-1200. So yes, you can’t compare it with a 75-300 that only gives you 150-600mm in terms of construction and price which is what I’m talking about.

You can’t compare oranges with apples.

We don't know the performance of either Sigma or Olympus yet. Or the price. Pretty tough to compare.

So you would buy Sigma & adapter to get it work on M43? How much does an adapter cost? You would lose weather-sealing so not equal anymore. Also what about auto-focus or the weight on the adapter in the long run?

APS-C is limited for wildlife according to, was it hoodlum? And even that is not same reach for similar results. So the comparison for similar reach is really the PL 50-200mm which is a Pro level lens unlike the Sigma? It weights almost half.

"the Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 50-200mm f/2.8-4 ASPH. POWER O.I.S. Lens from Panasonic is a 100-400mm equivalent zoom."

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod..._es50200_leica_dg_vario_elmarit_50_200mm.html

But you can't see it this way so no use of arguing more about it. Three people have opposed your own apples & oranges comparison (and no support) so maybe it means something?

 

[Stanga]

A 100-400mm m43 zoom is the same as a 100-400mm FF? Where did you get that idea from? The field of view would be twice the size if the same lens was swapped between m43 and FF, surely. That's what my maths tells me.

 

[PakkyT]

but what I think is that FF is closing that gap quickly with the new mirrorless mounts, smaller lenses than before

Smaller lenses in FF are not possible because of the mirrorless mounts. However you can make them smaller with compromises such as your Sigma example, where they start at a relatively dim f/5 in order to make the lens "compact" and "budget friendly". For the most part, as you point out, looking at just the lenses and ignoring mount/sensor type, lens sizes are fairly well fixed by physics.

Remember, you can mount that sigma to a m43 camera via adaptor

Really? Where can I get this magic adapter? If you are talking about something like a "speed booster" adapter, then that is a whole different discussion since those adapters are lenses behind lenses and change the lens characteristics and can't be considered simple "adapters" per se.

A 100-400mm m43 zoom is the same as a 100-400mm FF? Where did you get that idea from? The field of view would be twice the size if the same lens was swapped between m43 and FF, surely.

I get that part of his reasoning, he is simply saying that 100-400mm lens, regardless of mount, with similar design (aperture, same type of lens elements, etc.) should have an engineering and manufacturing cost that are mostly alike. And this is true as you look at something like the Panasonic 100-400 which is roughly the same price as this announced Sigma but a little faster on the wide end than the Sigma. But like you I also disagree that Olympus has not made a similar lens in functionality at the same price point, but they did with the 12-200, which is pretty remarkable considering the Super Zoom range of that one. What really remains to be seen is if Oly puts out a 100-400, what specs and price will we be getting. I would hope if it is anything like the Panasonic it will be similarly priced. But it if is a Pro level lens, it will be more expensive but I am sure will have features and characteristics that make direct comparison to the Sigma and Panny invalid.

It is easy to point at other system lenses and say "see, see!" and not be accurate if you are not comparing like things. If Oly comes out with the 100-400 and it is just like the Panasonic but priced at a premium, then I will concede @tiago.ereira 's point. But if they come out with, say, a $1500 version, if it is a Pro lens and better in almost every way to the Panny and Sigma, then his argument that Oly is just pushing overpriced lenses won't be valid if they are offering an advantage or premium product.

 

[skellington]

My understanding is that a 400mm F6.3 lens has a minimum sized front element regardless of sensor.

The size difference between one designed to cover a m43 vs full-frame is negligible.

And while the field of view is tighter with m43, you can crop larger sensors to the same FoV.

Shame Sigma won't release their new 100-400 in m43 like some of their other shared Sony lenses.

 

[ac12]

See comment above. A 100-400 is a 100-400.

A tamron/sigma 150-600 mounted on a m43 camera is a 300-1200. So yes, you can’t compare it with a 75-300 that only gives you 150-600mm in terms of construction and price which is what I’m talking about.

You can’t compare oranges with apples.

I don't understand your statement.

A tamron/sigma 150-600 mounted on a m43 camera is a 300-1200. So yes, you can’t compare it with a 75-300 that only gives you 150-600mm in terms of construction and price which is what I’m talking about.​

It is obvious that we are using different rulers.

A lens does not change focal length no matter what sensor you put it on. The lens is designed and built to a specific focal length. That I agree with.

The "equivalent focal length" discussion just muddies the water, and creates confusion.​

But, a lens does change magnification/angle of view (AoV), based on what sensor it is used with.

What I am using as my ruler is, the magnification or angle of view, NOT the focal length.

IOW, what focal length do I need to get a 12x magnification / 4.1 degree angle of view?
Or to be practical what lens do I need to get the same image of a distant subject?

The 75-300 on a m4/3 camera is a 3-12x magnification lens with a 16-4.1 degree AoV.
The Sigma 150-600 on a FF camera, is a 3-12x magnification lens with a 16.4-4.1 degree AoV.
The magnification and AoV numbers for both lenses are the same.

Magnification = focal length / normal lens FL = 300 / 25 (for m4/3) and 600 / 50 (for FF)​

AoV numbers are from the Olympus and Sigma web pages for those lenses.​

The magnification/AoV comparision is an apples to apples comparison.

So back to the question of, "what focal length do I need to get a 12x magnification / 4.1 degree angle of view?"
The answer is, 300mm on a m4/3 and 600mm on a FF.
With FF, I need a bigger/heavier 600mm lens to give me the same magnification/angle of view as a 300mm lens on the m4/3.

 

[PakkyT]

My understanding is that a 400mm F6.3 lens has a minimum sized front element regardless of sensor.

Yes the entrance pupil of the lens would be 63.5mm. For narrow field of views (read: telephoto lenses) the front element and the entrance pupil are usually fairly close, so this lens probably will have a 67mm or 72mm filter size or Sigma will cheat and call the lens "f/6.3" even though it is really something like f/6.6 to be able to go with a 62mm filter size in keeping with the "compact" feature.

And while the field of view is tighter with m43, you can crop larger sensors to the same FoV.

Yes but keep in mind that the advantage of filling the frame is taking advantage of all your pixels. So even if your FF sensor is something like 24mp or 30mp, if you crop down to match the view of 4/3rds then you will only be using about 6-8mp where as your m43 shot will use the full 16mp or 20mp.

 

[ac12]

Yes the entrance pupil of the lens would be 63.5mm. For narrow field of views (read: telephoto lenses) the front element and the entrance pupil are usually fairly close, so this lens probably will have a 67mm or 72mm filter size or Sigma will cheat and call the lens "f/6.3" even though it is really something like f/6.6 to be able to go with a 62mm filter size in keeping with the "compact" feature.

Worse
The ring that hold the front element has a width.
So 63.5mm front element + 3mm on each side for the ring = 69.5mm
Closer to a 72mm filter size.
But as you said, they could cheat on the f-number to use a 67mm filter.

There is an old trick that has been used on some of the Nikon lenses of the past.
I think the inside of the barrel has a retaining ledge, and the element is installed from the back. So there is no front retaining ring.
This allows the filter size to be the same as the front element.
This was back when Nikon standardized on a 52mm filter size. Most of the lenses from 24 to 200mm used a 52mm filter. So Nikon had to use a few tricks to make it work with some lenses, to get the front element as large as they could make it.

 

[tiago.ereira]

I get that part of his reasoning, he is simply saying that 100-400mm lens, regardless of mount, with similar design (aperture, same type of lens elements, etc.) should have an engineering and manufacturing cost that are mostly alike. And this is true as you look at something like the Panasonic 100-400 which is roughly the same price as this announced Sigma but a little faster on the wide end than the Sigma. But like you I also disagree that Olympus has not made a similar lens in functionality at the same price point, but they did with the 12-200, which is pretty remarkable considering the Super Zoom range of that one. What really remains to be seen is if Oly puts out a 100-400, what specs and price will we be getting. I would hope if it is anything like the Panasonic it will be similarly priced. But it if is a Pro level lens, it will be more expensive but I am sure will have features and characteristics that make direct comparison to the Sigma and Panny invalid.

Finally someone can stick to the point. That’s exactly what I said on my first post. A 100-400 is a 100-400 regardless of the mount and, if having similar specs, which seems to be the case, they should cost around the same price.
The 12-200 like you said has a big range and and it’s completely different in terms of engineering and manufacture process so yes, can justify the extra price. But please don’t compare this one with a 100-400 in technical terms. They are different.

A 100-400 similar to the sigma cannot be more expensive. I believe this will be the case as I see it as the sucessor of the 75-300.
If its similar to the PanaLeica then it could justify 1500 or more. That would be great and I would pay the extra for extra quality, but I really don’t believe on that.

It wouldn’t make sense to release 100-400 with very good quality and the 150-400 pro with excellent quality.

If they are still going to release both, I believe more in a “good” 100-400 and an “excellent” 150-400.

Looking at the specs announced I would put my money on something very similar to the sigma but with m43 mount and, of course, slightly smaller. But not half the size!

 

[stevedo]

More and more like DPR in here every day ?

 

[Tywais]

Olympus to ship 150-400mm F4.5 this winter, adds 8-25mm F4 Pro to lens roadmap

https://www.dpreview.com/news/16501...GIZ-mxOrz_66-yCURHGibUDf3wU85x4XexFPt_oTiBWus

 

[tr33man]

8-25 WOHOOO! If it ends up reasonably small and light (and not crazy expensive) I'm a probable customer. It's a dream focal range for me.

edit: anyone dares to speculate 8-25 size based on patent or something?

 

[ac12]

8-25 WOHOOO! If it ends up reasonably small and light (and not crazy expensive) I'm a probable customer. It's a dream focal range for me.

edit: anyone dares to speculate 8-25 size based on patent or something?

Hopefully it will easily take a polarizing filter.

 

[Ross the fiddler]

Olympus to ship 150-400mm F4.5 this winter, adds 8-25mm F4 Pro to lens roadmap

https://www.dpreview.com/news/16501...GIZ-mxOrz_66-yCURHGibUDf3wU85x4XexFPt_oTiBWus

I just got my email too. Great news!!!!!!

 

[Stanga]

The 8-25mm makes perfect sense to me. I frequently use the P12-60mm with a 0.7x wide angle converter to obtain that particular range of coverage. The PL10-25mm is outstanding, but more than a handful in weight and cost. An Oly at half or less of the weight and price would be of interest to me.