We Need Pro Level Telephoto Lenses

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by nueces snapper, Mar 26, 2012.

  1. nueces snapper

    nueces snapper Mu-43 All-Pro

    As well as other types I'm sure. It's about time for Oly and Panny to step up with some big glass. I mostly want to shoot wildlife these days and the two long zooms we have do not cut it.

    The m4/3 genre is mature enough with enough users now that these two companies can afford to make more prime lenses. An f2.8 300mm would go in my bag as soon as it appeared on the market. Yes I know it would be huge. And heavy. And ridiculously expensive. But I need it.

    Yeah a big prime telephoto would be a bit of a loss leader at first. But it would convince a lot of DSLR users sitting on the fence that m4/3 was here to stay and ready to play against the big boys.
    • Like Like x 3
  2. MrKal_El

    MrKal_El Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Mar 24, 2011
  3. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    If you shoot wildlife then yes you're right. To go along with that m43 would also need better AF for moving subjects (wildlife often doesn't like to stay still).
  4. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    Do you really need a 300 2.8 (600mm equivalent) or do you need a 300mm equivalent lens? 600mm full frame lenses sell in very, very small numbers, and I wouldn't hold my breath for a true m43 300. I don't see birders using 600s, if for no other reasons that they're outrageously expensive and too damn big to shoot with quickly.

    But a fast 150 - 200mm tele I think would find a pretty decent audience.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. chromatin64

    chromatin64 Mu-43 Regular

    Jan 10, 2012
    A Leekist in York, UK
    Real Name:
    The better AF should come first - the 75/100-300 are peaches when the shot is nailed. Better lenses would follow.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. D@ne

    D@ne Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 23, 2012
    Hear hear!

    Long, fast telephoto lenses are a requirement for some of us...slow lenses are just not an option in a dark forest with fast-moving critters. At this point m43 is suitable for livestock only it seems.
  7. Hyubie

    Hyubie Unique like everyone else

    Oct 15, 2010
    Real Name:
    I'm just curious (and I pose this question with not a trace of sarcasm and just purely out of curiosity) - indeed why not go DSLR? I would think if you're looking for pro-level gear, having 2 bodies (at least) is a given. So maybe m43 for shots the system is good at, and the DSLR for those other needs. I don't think you're after size - the G3 is only slightly smaller than a Rebel. And as you said, you wouldn't mind a big bulky bad-ass lens. Since that kind of lens for DSLR already exists...
    • Like Like x 2
  8. nueces snapper

    nueces snapper Mu-43 All-Pro

    600 with the crop factor. Every blessed millimeter of it. Yes better autofocus would be nice too but I can forego getting birds in flight (although it can be done sometimes) and other fast moving critters. Mostly I shoot little birds and just finding them in the viewfinder is tough enough. Getting them flying or hopping about is beyond my skills most of the time.:smile:
  9. Mandoo

    Mandoo Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 12, 2012
    Essex, UK
    For me size was a contributing factor in the switch from DLSR to M4/3, but it wasn't the only factor. One of the big things foe me was brand loyalty as well. I've been using my FZ7 for 6 years and I've used Panasonic point and shoots as well, and I just prefer Panasonic M4/3 cameras to any of the current DLSR cameras available.
    I have small hands and none of them felt quite right whereas the Panasonics felt so comfortable straight away.
    I do understand that by changing to M4/3 I have to sacrifice some things with fast AF and long telephoto's being the main ones that I miss.
    The main bulk of my photography is wildlife and nature so I'm noticing the loss more than I expected, but the quality of the G1 is high enough that I can crop my pictures if I need to. The issues may become more evident to me when I go to airshows later in the year, but time will tell on that one.
  10. nueces snapper

    nueces snapper Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nope. Not going back there. My previous camera was a D3. Have you seen the prices of those long L glass pieces? I had a 70/200 2.8L and a teleconverter. Not enough. You really need 500mm or more for birds and wildlife.

    Of course I am assuming m4/3 prime teles of f2.8 could be made and sold for well under the price of Canikon glass. About half I'm thinking. Say $3k for a 300mm f/2.8. Assuming ... I know. :smile:
  11. troll

    troll Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 25, 2012
    +1, I think there won't ever be something like 300mm f/2.8 for m43, it just doesn't make sense. M43 will always have the weakest sensors compared to aps-c and ff, it's all about compromising so that the cameras can be smaller.. but something like 300/2.8 can't be small even for m43. Regarding the image it's like 400mm f/4 on aps-c or 600mm f/5.6 on FF, and the extra "speed" doesn't give you anything either, with aps-c cameras you can easily bump the iso at least one stop above (basically aps-c at iso1600 will look the same if not better than m43 at iso800) and 2 or more stops with FF... imho there are no advantages of having fast telephoto lenses on m43, they completely lose to DSLR systems in every aspect.
  12. songs2001

    songs2001 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jul 8, 2011
    M43 cameras are too slow to focus and most DSLR users would probably buy a Nikon 1 to use long telephoto glass as it autofocuses pretty fast and has a longer reach.
  13. troll

    troll Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 25, 2012
    Never was the case with 43 glass, comparable lenses were probably even more expensive (like f/2 zooms for $2.5k and 300/2.8 is $7k) than Canikon ones. And they weren't particularly lighter as well.
  14. EthanFrank

    EthanFrank Mu-43 Regular

    Oct 30, 2011
    Olympus needs to bring back this guy, with AF and a m4/3 mount...


    The legendary OM 350mm f/2.8.

    Or perhaps...


    The OM 250mm f/2?

    I'm just dreaming, of course. I have no use for something like that, nor do I have the funds. I'd be fun though!

    Images taken from Olympus Shared Resources at mir.com.my
    • Like Like x 1
  15. troll

    troll Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 25, 2012
    Why would anyone use insanely expensive high-quality glass weighing 3-5 kg with inferior m43 sensors? These things belong to 35mm.
  16. EthanFrank

    EthanFrank Mu-43 Regular

    Oct 30, 2011
    Oh I know, I know. My point was that Olympus needs to make a few comparable lenses for their m4/3 system. They were quite popular with OM owners.
  17. troll

    troll Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 25, 2012
    But OM was 35mm, comparable to Canikon, so fast teles made perfect sense back then. These days it's different, an m43 user consciously accepts lower image quality from smaller sensor by getting a (physically) smaller camera+lens combination in return. Yet fast telephoto lenses for m43 will not be much lighter or smaller than those for aps-c/ff, nor will they be significantly cheaper, and I don't think they fit the concept of lightweight and compact package that m43 is about.
  18. SZRimaging

    SZRimaging Mu-43 Regular

    Nov 16, 2011

    What are you talking about? My E-PM1 focuses faster than my D7000 usually does....
  19. troll

    troll Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 25, 2012
    He's probably talking about tracking, which is essential for wildlife shots.
  20. EthanFrank

    EthanFrank Mu-43 Regular

    Oct 30, 2011
    Correct. I'm in that camp and loving it.

    Not true, not at all. Look at the Olympus 12mm f/2. The smaller image circle combined with the shorter flange distance allow the lens to be made several times possible than could be done on a full-frame DSLR. Look at the Nikkor 13mm f/5.6, the widest rectilinear SLR lens that covers a 35mm sensor...and it's slow as molasses:


    Cosina has succeeded in making a small 12mm f/5.6 (widest lens to cover 35mm, period), and that's due to the short flange distance of M-mount cameras. M4/3 cameras share this advantage. Combine that with the smaller sensor, and Olympus was able to produce a rectilinear 12mm lens and an amazing f/2, for less than $1000.

    Obviously, this logic does not translate perfectly to super-telephoto lenses, but it does help. The shorter flange distance is a boon, as is the smaller image circle required to cover the sensor. The lenses will still have to be quite long save for some engineering miracle, but they won't have to use anywhere near as much glass, as the aperture at its widest will be several times narrower than a comparable 35mm-coverage lens at an equivalent aperture.