1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

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

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Phlash46, Aug 16, 2014.

  1. Phlash46

    Phlash46 Nikon Refugee

    90
    Jul 1, 2014
    Montrose, NY
    Bruce Gordon
    Anybody agree?
     
  2. gengo

    gengo Mu-43 Regular

    70
    May 12, 2014
    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.
     
  3. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Nov 7, 2010
    I have no interest in such a lens. Unless it would somehow be very small and very cheap. Which it wouldn't be.
     
  4. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    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.
     
  5. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    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
     
  6. CiaranCReilly

    CiaranCReilly Mu-43 Veteran

    481
    Oct 18, 2012
    Dublin
    Ciaran Reilly
    Something longer than 150mm would be nice, 200mm f/2.8 would be great in a sturdy package
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. JudyM

    JudyM Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 5, 2010
    Westminster, MD
    As a long lens shooter, I'd agree that the long end of the lens line up needs attention badly.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    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.
     
  9. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    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.
     
  10. Zee

    Zee Mu-43 Top Veteran

    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...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Geoff3DMN

    Geoff3DMN Mu-43 Veteran

    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:
     
  12. pake

    pake Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 14, 2010
    Finland
    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.
     
  13. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    There's always the 90-250mm f2.8, an outstanding lens the equal of any.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. pake

    pake Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 14, 2010
    Finland
    Teemu
    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.
     
  15. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    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).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Mat - MirrorLessons

    Mat - MirrorLessons Mu-43 Veteran

    274
    Mar 10, 2013
    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.
     
  17. alex66

    alex66 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    715
    Jul 23, 2010
    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 :).
     
  18. Zee

    Zee Mu-43 Top Veteran

    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...
     
  19. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    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.
     
  20. Geoff3DMN

    Geoff3DMN Mu-43 Veteran

    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.