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

Zee

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Messages
575
Location
Surry Hills, Aus/ Baguio & Manila, Philippines
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.
Thanks - I'll grab myself an MMF3 at first opportunity.

Do you mean the 90-250 F2.8? I may have to have a look for one. My wallet is frightened...

Z...
 

dougjgreen

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Messages
1,864
Location
San Diego
Real Name
Doug Green
Thanks - I'll grab myself an MMF3 at first opportunity.

Do you mean the 90-250 F2.8? I may have to have a look for one. My wallet is frightened...

Z...
The 50-200 f2.8~3.5 SWD is far less frightening. It can be found in nice used condition for under $800 USD, or new for $1200.
 

nstelemark

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
3,309
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
Real Name
Larry
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.
I would agree that the 14-54mk1 and mk2 are both disappointing on the E-M1, regardless of firmware. With the 1.4 firmware update I can't tell the difference between the 12-60 and the native pair (12-40 and 12-35) in good light. In very low light it depends on whether the 12-40 hunts or not. If it does the 12-60 is faster.

It is hard to say what the longer lenses will be like. Longer lenses are generally slower anyway and the focus limiters on the 4/3 lenses really help in this situation. I'd really like to have one on the 50-200.
 

dougjgreen

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Messages
1,864
Location
San Diego
Real Name
Doug Green
I would agree that the 14-54mk1 and mk2 are both disappointing on the E-M1, regardless of firmware. With the 1.4 firmware update I can't tell the difference between the 12-60 and the native pair (12-40 and 12-35) in good light. In very low light it depends on whether the 12-40 hunts or not. If it does the 12-60 is faster.

It is hard to say what the longer lenses will be like. Longer lenses are generally slower anyway and the focus limiters on the 4/3 lenses really help in this situation. I'd really like to have one on the 50-200.
The 14-54 mk I is just as good on the EM-1 as it was on a 4/3 SLR. it does occasionally miss focus, when spanning a long way - just like it does on 4/3 cameras. But it's certainly a very useable lens AF-wise, and it's optically quite excellent, and a screaming bargain when bought for under $125 (I paid $108 for mine).
 

Clint

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
2,378
Location
San Diego area, CA
Real Name
Clint
For many purposes the Olympus 55-200 /2.8-3.5 ED SWD fills my needs. I need and want longer reach. A super telephoto zoom is 1 of 2 things that would help me move solely to µ4/3 gear. It would need to be in the ballpark of an 80-400mm f/4.5-5/6 to 200-400mm f/4. And I would bet the BIF folks would love one as well.

I have used all of these renting the Olympus 90-250 or Nikon 200-400mm when needed.

Olympus 50-200, 3.41 (86mm) x 6.18" (157mm) @ 2.19 lb (1.0 kg)

Nikon 80-400, Approx. 3.6 (91mm) x 6.7" (170mm) @ 2.99 lb (1.36 kg)

Olympus 90-250, 4.9 in. (124mm) x 10.9" (277m) @ 7.21 lb (3.27 kg)

Nikon 200-400 4.9 in. (124 mm) x 14.4 in. (365 mm) @ 7.35 lb (3.36 kg)

The lenses listed are pretty much in order of preference to needed IQ capabilities considering with the Nikon D800 or D7100 I can crop to get the same crop factor as µ4/3 and generally have better IQ with the 50-200 vs 80-400 or 90-250 vs 200-400.

While the Olympus 90-250 is one of the best lenses ever made I have not been able to rent one when needed for quite sometime.
 

nstelemark

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
3,309
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
Real Name
Larry
The 14-54 mk I is just as good on the EM-1 as it was on a 4/3 SLR. it does occasionally miss focus, when spanning a long way - just like it does on 4/3 cameras. But it's certainly a very useable lens AF-wise, and it's optically quite excellent, and a screaming bargain when bought for under $125 (I paid $108 for mine).
Optically and value wise the 14-54 is fantastic. AF performance is underwhelming.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
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.
I'm saying that focusing with the 90-250mm, or any of the 4/3 lenses that I have, is as fast and as accurate on the E-M1 as it was on any of the 4/3 bodies. In fact, focussing is actually better with the E-M1 than my 4/3 bodies, especially in low light. The only m4/3 lenses that I've used are the kit zoom and 17mm f2.8, they don't focus all that fast. I'm not comparing m4/3 lenses with 4/3 lenses.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
Thanks - I'll grab myself an MMF3 at first opportunity.

Do you mean the 90-250 F2.8? I may have to have a look for one. My wallet is frightened...

Z...
That's the one I have. Your wallet shouldn't be frightened, it's actually a little cheaper than the 300mm f2.8. :biggrin:
 

arentol

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
269
Given the current list of quality Oly primes is 12, 17, 25, 45, 75, all f/1.8, I think the next obvious steps would be one of the following:

150 f/2
300 f/4

or

135 f/2
200 f/2.8
300 f/4

Personally I would prefer the second option, but I would be happy with either one.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
Given the current list of quality Oly primes is 12, 17, 25, 45, 75, all f/1.8, I think the next obvious steps would be one of the following:

150 f/2
300 f/4

or

135 f/2
200 f/2.8
300 f/4

Personally I would prefer the second option, but I would be happy with either one.
Olympus already have a 150mm f2; making it in a m4/3 mount probably won't make it much smaller than the current 4/3 lens, or cheaper for that matter (unless they cut corners in the optics). With longer FL lenses, the buyers usually want fast, which means bigger and costlier (there is no free lunch), you'll still end up with something that is the size of say the Nikon 300mm f4 (90mm D x 223mm L and 1440 g). And if you check out the specs for the other lenses that you mentioned, the same applies.
 

Zee

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Messages
575
Location
Surry Hills, Aus/ Baguio & Manila, Philippines
the 300F4 is announced, and will be for sale soon. In terms of size, I think it''ll be fine - the sor tof person who buys that sort of lens, and shells out that sort of money is no tlikely to be stressed byt he size.

To use myself as an example, I wouldn't be taking it everywhere I go, but for certain trips, say Africa, where I'd be trying to shoot wildlife, it would be a guaranteed passenger in my carry-on. In a case like that, size and weight are easily outweighed by the desire for something high quality, and long.

Z...
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
the 300F4 is announced, and will be for sale soon. In terms of size, I think it''ll be fine - the sor tof person who buys that sort of lens, and shells out that sort of money is no tlikely to be stressed byt he size.

To use myself as an example, I wouldn't be taking it everywhere I go, but for certain trips, say Africa, where I'd be trying to shoot wildlife, it would be a guaranteed passenger in my carry-on. In a case like that, size and weight are easily outweighed by the desire for something high quality, and long.

Z...
I would be very surprised if they were stressed out by the size and if they were, should consider another hobby. I'd be taking my Nikon 300mm everywhere also, but being MF, it doesn't get a lot of use.
 

jonlong

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
142
I have the panasonic 100-300 and would definitely he interested in a better zoom. I don't think I need f2.8 or even f4 because when I'm using that lens, I'm usually outdoors and in good light. I'd like a bit more reach, maybe a 150-400 and good sharpness throughout the range.
 

Rasmus

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
780
Location
Stockholm, Sweden.
I have the panasonic 100-300 and would definitely he interested in a better zoom. I don't think I need f2.8 or even f4 because when I'm using that lens, I'm usually outdoors and in good light. I'd like a bit more reach, maybe a 150-400 and good sharpness throughout the range.
The thing is, if you want good sharpness, you likely want speed. As soon as wide open starts to mean F5.6, diffraction starts to limit resolution and sharpness tends to drop instead of increase when you stop down. An f2.8 that is already sharp wide open usually jumps up a notch in sharpness when stopped down to f/4 or f/5.6. The sharpest M43 lenses are the Voigtländers, the Nocticron 42.5/1.2 and the 75/1.8 and that's no coincidence.
 
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