Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Phlash46, Aug 16, 2014.
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.
I have no interest in such a lens. Unless it would somehow be very small and very cheap. Which it wouldn't be.
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.
I agree. Not so much as fast zooms but fast prime lenses. 150 f2 in mft mount would be great.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Mu-43 mobile app
Something longer than 150mm would be nice, 200mm f/2.8 would be great in a sturdy package
As a long lens shooter, I'd agree that the long end of the lens line up needs attention badly.
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.
It would assist greatly if the OP actually stated why we 'need' a fast 200mm+ lens and exactly what focal length and aperture.
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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 .
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...
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.
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.
Separate names with a comma.