We need an M4/3 fast 200mm or longer lens

gengo

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
75
How fast?

What are the technical limitations stopping Olympus from developing a Pro 150-300 F/2.8 - or Panasonic a 100-200 F/2.8?

I really don't know what this would entail from a technical / cost / size perspective.
 

nstelemark

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
3,301
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
Real Name
Larry
Buy the 150f2, and the two TCs and you get 150f2, 210f2.8 and 300f4. It works very well. I know it technically isn't m43, and you really need the E-M1 but the output is superb and it is here today. It is large for m43 but not large for what it is.
 

dougjgreen

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Messages
1,864
Location
San Diego
Real Name
Doug Green
How fast?

What are the technical limitations stopping Olympus from developing a Pro 150-300 F/2.8 - or Panasonic a 100-200 F/2.8?

I really don't know what this would entail from a technical / cost / size perspective.
The limits are not technical, they are size and cost, and because of those two issues, market demand. Best guess, given what's out there in DSLR land, is that the first of these would weigh ~7 pounds and cost $8-10K, and the 2nd one would weigh 3-4 pounds and cost $2-3K.

My best recommendation if you want something like this, is buy the 4/3 mount 50-200mm f2.8~3.5 SWD lens. It's very highly regarded, and they sell in pristine used condition for under $800, and new for $1200. It weighs a little over 2 pounds, 2 pounds 4 ounces counting the 4/3 to Micro 4/3 adapter.. Someone is currently selling one on the Buy/Sell forum. Making the lens slightly faster - to f2.8 at the top end, would add another 1~1.5 pounds to it, and probably at least double the cost. If you need more length, also get the 4/3 mount 1.4x teleconverter for about $200-300.

The other choice is to wait for the announced, but not available until next year, Olympus 300mm f4 lens. I would guess that is a ~ $1500-2000 lens that will weigh about 2.5-3 pounds.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
It would assist greatly if the OP actually stated why we 'need' a fast 200mm+ lens and exactly what focal length and aperture.
 

Zee

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Messages
575
Location
Surry Hills, Aus/ Baguio & Manila, Philippines
I'd like a 200 F2.8, will appreciate the 300 F4, and would have varying intensities of multiple orgasms for a 150-300 F2.8, F2.8-4, or even F4..

Realistically, I'd be very happy with the latter, and most likely to be able to afford it in a reasonable time frame.
Z...
 

Geoff3DMN

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
388
Location
Castlemaine, Victoria, Australia
Real Name
Geoff
The 40-150mm f2.8 will no doubt be a nice sharp and fast lens once it's available but I'd prefer a 75-300 F4 instead of the 40-150 F2.8 and the 300mm F4 prime as I shoot very little between 40mm and 75mm and 150mm often isn't long enough.

Now If Olympus made 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters specifically designed for the 40-150 F2.8 then I might be convinced otherwise but I'd want to see some real world results before jumping that way.

As it stands now I've got to choose between the slow 75-300 or carrying a 300mm f4 prime plus a 40-150 f2.8 zoom :frown:
 

pake

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
1,939
Location
Finland
Real Name
Teemu
I can't wait to get my hands on the Oly 40-150mm but I do admit that 150mm is way too short for my needs. Heck, even the 100-300mm can be too short sometimes! 100-300mm f/4 would be nice but I'd "settle" for a 200mm f/2.8. :biggrin:

And who cares if the lenses are/would be big. It also means that in order to get a fast, long tele I wouldn't have to buy into another system! Not every lens need to be small.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
I can't wait to get my hands on the Oly 40-150mm but I do admit that 150mm is way too short for my needs. Heck, even the 100-300mm can be too short sometimes! 100-300mm f/4 would be nice but I'd "settle" for a 200mm f/2.8. :biggrin:

And who cares if the lenses are/would be big. It also means that in order to get a fast, long tele I wouldn't have to buy into another system! Not every lens need to be small.
There's always the 90-250mm f2.8, an outstanding lens the equal of any.
 

pake

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
1,939
Location
Finland
Real Name
Teemu
There's always the 90-250mm f2.8, an outstanding lens the equal of any.
I forgot to mention that I'd prefer a native m4/3 since I don't like to add adapters and the focusing is more... optimized. Photos of BIF would be too tricky with E-M5 and a 4/3 lens. But who knows if the E-M5mk2 would fix that problem in the future.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
I forgot to mention that I'd prefer a native m4/3 since I don't like to add adapters and the focusing is more... optimized. Photos of BIF would be too tricky with E-M5 and a 4/3 lens. But who knows if the E-M5mk2 would fix that problem in the future.
I consider the 4/3 lenses as being native, as there are no issues that you might generally get with legacy lenses and with the E-M1, they work better than with the previous 4/3 bodies. I'm not a birder, but I'd say that the E-M1 would be no worse at the task than any 4/3 body (none were great at AF tracking).
 

Mat - MirrorLessons

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
274
Location
Turin
Well if panasonic releases the rumoured 150mm f/2.8 and with the upcoming M.Zuiko 40-150mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4, the situation will look better for the fast telephoto category. We might see something faster in the future but it would probably be expensive so there will have to be a high demand also coming from professionals.
 

alex66

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
1,483
I don't need a 200mm or longer lens, I have the 45-200mm and as I use it for fun days at the zoo and not much else I have what I need. But I could see those that do wildlife or motor sports wanting a fast longer zoom or prime, though I shot rallying with a 135mm perfectly well, MF as well :).
 

Zee

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Messages
575
Location
Surry Hills, Aus/ Baguio & Manila, Philippines
I consider the 4/3 lenses as being native, as there are no issues that you might generally get with legacy lenses and with the E-M1, they work better than with the previous 4/3 bodies. I'm not a birder, but I'd say that the E-M1 would be no worse at the task than any 4/3 body (none were great at AF tracking).
Except... He has an E-M5, and I'm pretty sure it's not up to the same level as the E-M1 in terms of 43 lenses.

Speaking of which, do you need an adapter to use them? I need to play with some 43 lenses on my E-M1 to see how it goes...

Z...
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
Except... He has an E-M5, and I'm pretty sure it's not up to the same level as the E-M1 in terms of 43 lenses.

Speaking of which, do you need an adapter to use them? I need to play with some 43 lenses on my E-M1 to see how it goes...

Z...
But if you want one of the best lenses ever made, buying an E-M1 shouldn't be a major issue and you'd be getting a better camera.

Yes, you need the MMF-2 or MMF-3 (weatherproof) adapter, but apart from that, the lens is as good as native. If you intend to look at 4/3 lenses, only consider the HG or SHG lenses, as the normal ones won't provide any real benefit. If you can get your hands on the SHG lenses, you won't be disappointed. I would hazard a guess that the SHG lens will start to appreciate in value as people begin to realise how well they work on the E-M1. And if the E-M1 replacement or the next update improves performance even further, I think that will be guaranteed.
 

Geoff3DMN

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
388
Location
Castlemaine, Victoria, Australia
Real Name
Geoff
Yes, you need the MMF-2 or MMF-3 (weatherproof) adapter, but apart from that, the lens is as good as native. If you intend to look at 4/3 lenses, only consider the HG or SHG lenses, as the normal ones won't provide any real benefit
I've tried the 14-54 and the 12-60 on my EM-1 and the focussing is significantly slower (and somewhat less acurate) than my 12-40 F2.8 is.

In saying 'as good as native' you're in effect claiming that the 90-250 F2.8 focussing really is every bit as fast and accurate as modern micro 4/3rds lenses like the 12-40 F2.8 and that's a big claim to make when the 300mm F4 and the 40-150 F2.8 aren't available yet.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love if you were correct but I just don't see that evidence is available one way or the other yet.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom