Weight of Pana 100-400?

[TNcasual]

Miniaturization has costs, too. Just because it is physically smaller, doesn't mean it has less cost in design and build.

 

[tkbslc]

If that price holds true, that should be something for a faster optic, even if variable...perhaps an f/2.8-4 or a constant f/4.
.

400mm f2.8 or f4 zoom?

Here's Canon's 200-400mm F4. It's only $10,999:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[tkbslc]

Seems the new MFT lenses are priced at a premium. From a material and process standpoint they should be less expensive than their DSLR counterparts. i know, I know, equivalence makes them similar to much more expensive lenses in FF, but nevertheless the MFT lenses are smaller with less glass than their physical spec equivalents.
.

Not sure where the notion that lenses are priced by the volume of glass came from, but it's not even close to true. Materials are only a small portion of the cost of production. R+D, marketing, assembly, distribution, testing, repair all cost exactly the same whether the lens has elements covering FF or m4/3 sensors.

And aside from that, even if you want to charge by size of glass, a 400mm f6.3 has 64mm aperture size, which is roughly 20% larger than the 40-150mm Pro.

 

[Hypilein]

Panasonic has a smaller market to recoup research investments and the price of the materials to build a lens are probably the smallest part of it. They are probably not the defining factor of lens pricing.

EDIT: Tbkslc beat me to it.

 

[Deleted member 20897]

400mm f2.8 or f4 zoom?

Here's Canon's 200-400mm F4. It's only $10,999:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Just saying....it wouldn't be THAT big!!

 

[Turbofrog]

Just saying....it wouldn't be THAT big!!

It wouldn't be much smaller...

Here's a 300mm f3.3 designed to cover a 16mm C-mount camera.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Looks really small and light, doesn't it?

 

[Akashi]

That kind of price for a lens this slow is excessive - Tamron has an excellent 150-600 (which on APS-C gives you roughly this FOV) which is much cheaper than these prices, Sigma has a similar lens, with similar speed. This is playing in Canon's mark II lens price range with a slower aperture.

IQ matters more. If the Panasonic is in sigma and Tamron Zoom lens land in the IQ dept, it certainly do not warrant such a price.

 

[pcr1040]

IQ matters more. If the Panasonic is in sigma and Tamron Zoom lens land in the IQ dept, it certainly do not warrant such a price.

I have been using the Panasonic 100-300mm lens for several years. It produces very good to excellent IQ below 250mm extension. However, I shoot wildlife with it and generally use it at 300mm where IQ falls off noticeably. The future 100-400 lens would be a great improvement if its IQ is optimized at the long end (400mm) and if so, I will likely buy one assuming its not priced out of the market. As a price point comparison, consider that the new Nikon 200 - 500 5.6 just announce sells for under $1500, if the Panasonic is prices much above this point, it will likely have a poor reception.

 

[NoSeconds]

I heard it was around 2200g from the Panny rep who as at my local camera store yesterday. He also hinted that the price was going to be in the neighborhood of $2,200.

$1 per gram... Seems fair...

 

[Serhan]

Here is size comparison to Canon 70-200mm 2.8 from 43rumors:
Two new 100-400mm Leica MFT lens pictures from Casey Gutteridge | 43 Rumors

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Turbofrog]

Here is size comparison to Canon 70-200mm 2.8 from 43rumors:
Two new 100-400mm Leica MFT lens pictures from Casey Gutteridge | 43 Rumors

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Yep, not much taller and just a bit thicker than the 760g f4 version. I stand by my 1000-1100g estimate, nothing I've seen or heard gives any reason to doubt it so far.

 

[nstelemark]

I really like the look of this. I suspect it will be pricey but if the quality is there it will make a nice addition to the m43 lens lineup.

I must admit I am still conflicted by the 300f4. It is both bigger, more expensive and less flexible than I would have expected. The 150f2 still wins for me as a telephoto prime.

 

[Phocal]

I really like the look of this. I suspect it will be pricey but if the quality is there it will make a nice addition to the m43 lens lineup.

I must admit I am still conflicted by the 300f4. It is both bigger, more expensive and less flexible than I would have expected. The 150f2 still wins for me as a telephoto prime.

I'm not even considering the Panny because I just feel it's to slow, regardless of the IQ. Reach and speed wise it's basically like using the 50-200 SWD with the EC-20. I went out with this combo to test it out and you just need a lot of light or high ISO to get the shutter to 1/1000 (which is the slowest I like to use to freeze the action of a bird striking for fish). I'm also fortunate to already have the 150/2. Using the 150/2 and 300/4 along with the applicable 1.4x TCs I have the perfect two lens combo to cover all but my really close wildlife photography.

End up with the following effective reach combos:

300mm f/2.0
420mm f/2.8
600mm f/4.0
840mm f/5.6

Seriously looking forward to that damn 300/3 coming out.

 

[Turbofrog]

I'm not even considering the Panny because I just feel it's to slow, regardless of the IQ. Reach and speed wise it's basically like using the 50-200 SWD with the EC-20. I went out with this combo to test it out and you just need a lot of light or high ISO to get the shutter to 1/1000 (which is the slowest I like to use to freeze the action of a bird striking for fish). I'm also fortunate to already have the 150/2. Using the 150/2 and 300/4 along with the applicable 1.4x TCs I have the perfect two lens combo to cover all but my really close wildlife photography.

End up with the following effective reach combos:

300mm f/2.0
420mm f/2.8
600mm f/4.0
840mm f/5.6

Seriously looking forward to that damn 300/3 coming out.

I don't understand. If you actually need 800mm equivalent, then that combination of lenses basically gives you no benefit over the 100-400mm, which is just 1/3 of a stop slower. i.e. ISO 1000 instead of ISO 800.

It's fine if you don't need the reach, but that's the whole point of the new Panasonic. There are plenty of faster lenses that are shorter.

 

[nstelemark]

I'm not even considering the Panny because I just feel it's to slow, regardless of the IQ. Reach and speed wise it's basically like using the 50-200 SWD with the EC-20. I went out with this combo to test it out and you just need a lot of light or high ISO to get the shutter to 1/1000 (which is the slowest I like to use to freeze the action of a bird striking for fish). I'm also fortunate to already have the 150/2. Using the 150/2 and 300/4 along with the applicable 1.4x TCs I have the perfect two lens combo to cover all but my really close wildlife photography.

We don't know the aperture vs focal length curve for the 100-400 but yes it will be slower than the 300f4 at 300, and likely slightly slower at 400 as well.

From my perspective though the 300f4 overlaps too much with the 150f2+EC20 for me to get really excited, and the 150f2 is more versatile. If I am going to spend around $2500 a zoom like the 100-400 makes more sense to me. It gives me an easy to carry single lens with a lot of flexibility.

 

[Phocal]

I don't understand. If you actually need 800mm equivalent, then that combination of lenses basically gives you no benefit over the 100-400mm, which is just 1/3 of a stop slower. i.e. ISO 1000 instead of ISO 800.

It's fine if you don't need the reach, but that's the whole point of the new Panasonic. There are plenty of faster lenses that are shorter.

Not sure how often I will need or use the TC on the 300/4 just because ƒ5.6 is getting into the aperture range that I tend to avoid unless it is bright, definitely not something I would use on a regular basis in early morning or late evening. I am guessing that the Panny will be around ƒ5.6 at 300mm and that is a full stop slower then the Oly. I don't need every focal range from 100-400 and a two lens kit that gives me an effective 300/420/600/840 should cover any situation I find myself in. The only time I would really want a zoom is for sports and with the 40-150 Pro (with/out the TC depending on needs) and 300 should pretty much cover any situation and if I need something in between I can always bring out the 50-200 SWD (which is faster from 100-200 and probably faster in the extended ranges with the EC-14). My other worry about the Panny is weather sealing. I use my 50-200 in light to moderate rain but I just don't trust the sealing on extending lenses in super hard rains. Right now I only use the 150/2 when it is going to be pouring down rain........yes I do a lot of photography in the rain......love the light you get in the rain, especially the wicked evil looking light you can get in the bad thunderstorms here in Texas.

 

[Phocal]

We don't know the aperture vs focal length curve for the 100-400 but yes it will be slower than the 300f4 at 300, and likely slightly slower at 400 as well.

From my perspective though the 300f4 overlaps too much with the 150f2+EC20 for me to get really excited, and the 150f2 is more versatile. If I am going to spend around $2500 a zoom like the 100-400 makes more sense to me. It gives me an easy to carry single lens with a lot of flexibility.

I am not really happy with the IQ of the 150/2 and EC-20. Only use it when there is just no way for me to get closer and the EC-14 is not enough. See post above about not needing every focal length and weather sealing.

 

[Speedliner]

I am guessing that the Panny will be around ƒ5.6 at 300mm and that is a full stop slower then the Oly. I don't need every focal range from 100-400 and a two lens kit that gives me an effective 300/420/600/840 should cover any situation I find myself in.

Just had a visual of you scrambling up a bank, gator closing fast, lenses and TCs scattering as you go.

 

[minh0204]

I can't find this info anywhere but it doesn't look like the lens will have a tripod collar? No tripod collar at this size means the lens will be much less usable, no matter the weight.

 

[Turbofrog]

I can't find this info anywhere but it doesn't look like the lens will have a tripod collar? No tripod collar at this size means the lens will be much less usable, no matter the weight.

It has a tripod collar.

Or rather, it at least has a tripod foot. Not sure if it can be rotated.