When is the new olympus 70-300 2.8 going to be released.

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by chrisO, Jan 26, 2014.

  1. chrisO

    chrisO New to Mu-43

    4
    Jan 26, 2014
    Does anyone know when the new pro 70-300 is coming out? I am off to Africa in April and was hoping to get it and play with it before then.
    thanks Chris
     
  2. rklepper

    rklepper Mu-43 Top Veteran

    733
    Dec 19, 2012
    Iowa, USA
    Robert
    Has it been announced already?
     
  3. klee

    klee Mu-43 Veteran

    367
    Mar 20, 2013
    Houston, TX
    Kevin
    are you talking about the 35-150 f2.8?
     
  4. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    Or maybe the expected 40-150/2.8?

    The rumors say before the end of the year.

    Fred
     
  5. BobbyTan

    BobbyTan Mu-43 Top Veteran

    560
    Dec 26, 2013
    Long Beach, CA
    It's not on the Olympus 2013-2014 lens road map.
     
  6. klee

    klee Mu-43 Veteran

    367
    Mar 20, 2013
    Houston, TX
    Kevin
    what he said. its on the roadmap just posted
     
  7. wildwildwes

    wildwildwes Mu-43 Veteran

    456
    Jun 9, 2012
    Brooklyn, NY
    Wow. While I'd certainly LOVE such a lens, given the technical complexity & cost of producing such a lens, I highly doubt Olympus (or any M/43 manufacturer for that matter) will EVER offer such a BEAST of a lens. Put it this way, at the moment there is NO such focal length manufactured by ANYONE that I'm familiar with. Even a single focal length 300 f/2.8 lens currently costs approx. $5k! (and is a HUGE piece of kit). But then again, maybe when pigs fly?!?
     
  8. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    Olympus made a 4/3 90-250/2.8 close, but still not 70-300. Very big, very expensive and very high quality.

    Fred
     
  9. sammykhalifa

    sammykhalifa Mu-43 Top Veteran

    762
    Jun 22, 2012
    Pittsburgh PA
    Neil
    I'd have to buy a bigger car to carry it around . . .
     
  10. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    I am waiting patiently for them to announce the specs on the super-telephoto. I know it will not be ƒ2.8, but I am so hoping it is xx-300 ƒ4.0 constant aperture. If they really want to compete with the SLR's they are going to need something close to that, the EM1 shows that they are wanting to. I would also love to see a 200 and 300 prime at ƒ4.0, while ƒ2.8 is nice if I want to carry that kind of lens around I would just go back to Canon.
     
  11. gcogger

    gcogger Mu-43 Veteran

    342
    May 25, 2010
    UK
    Graeme
    Do you realise how big that would be? There's little size benefit to the smaller sensor when going to the longer focal lengths.
     
  12. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    There's not much difference on a millimeter to millimeter basis. But, the 90-250/2.8 is about 11"long and 7 lb. I'd guess that's a lot smaller than something around 200-500/2.8 for a "full frame" sensor.

    Fred
     
  13. Rasmus

    Rasmus Mu-43 Top Veteran

    661
    Nov 16, 2013
    Stockholm, Sweden.
    Well, Sigma makes such a lens. Quite a neat little walkaround lens, I'd say.
     
  14. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    Hmm... 28.6", almost 35 lb. I guess there IS some size advantage to the smaller format. Olympus even made a 4/3 2x converter, but it's not built in :(

    Fred
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. gcogger

    gcogger Mu-43 Veteran

    342
    May 25, 2010
    UK
    Graeme
    Well yes, there's obviously a difference if you compare different focal lengths. The post I was referring to was talking about a xx-300mm constant f/4 lens, and I was simply trying to point out that it would be much the same size as on any other system - bigger and heavier by far than any micro 4/3 lens I'm aware of at present. It would probably be around the size/weight of the Sigma 100-300mm f/4, or maybe a bit bigger than one of the 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses. Not crazy big but, as I said, by far the largest micro 4/3 lens to date and most likely 2 or 3 times heavier than the heaviest lens so far.
     
  16. BobbyTan

    BobbyTan Mu-43 Top Veteran

    560
    Dec 26, 2013
    Long Beach, CA
    Canon's 300/2.8L II weighs 5.17 lbs and cost $6,800. The faster 4/3 Zuiko 150/2.0 (300/2.0 in FF terms) weighs 3.55 lbs and cost $2,500. And they are equally good/sharp. Sure you want to go back to Canon?
     
  17. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    They have already came out with one new pro lens, 12-40mm ƒ2.8 and announced the specs of another. The other pro lens being the 40-150mm ƒ2.8. They have also stated they are coming out with a super-telephoto and everyone speculates it will be xx-300. They already have the 75-300 with the variable aperture. I can not see coming out with a "Pro" lens that is not better spec wise to a lens they already make that is not a "Pro" lens. Given they have the 12-40 and 40-150 I would assume the next one would be 150-300, or maybe only to 250. What the specs will end up being who knows, but it will better than their current 75-300. I honestly don't think a constant ƒ4 for would be to big for the E-M1, yes it will be bigger than any current lens but would not be so big that those wanting that kind of reach/ƒ-stop would not carry it around. I don't think they will continue with the next lens in the line up also being ƒ2.8, because as some have stated the advantage of m43 is the weight savings. I do believe it will be constant aperture tho, hopefully we will know the specs by the end of the year. Until then I will pick up the 40-150 and hope the 1.4 TC is not far behind, given they have these sweet ƒ2.8 zooms I would love to see a 2x TC also. That would give you 80-300 ƒ4.0, which I would actually be very happy with.

    My comment about going back to Canon was in reference to the thread title about a 300 ƒ2.8. I don't want or need ƒ2.8 and if I did I would just go back to Canon. Your comparison of the Canon 300 to the 4/3 150 is ridiculous. The Canon would be 450mm on a crop sensor (I would not go full frame) and the Oly would only be 300mm. Compare the Canon 300 to the Oly 4/3 300 and the Canon is cheaper and lighter. So yes, if I wanted 300 ƒ2.8 I would go back to Canon.
     
  18. tosvus

    tosvus Mu-43 Top Veteran

    632
    Jan 4, 2014
    I'm pretty sure he stated in FF terms, and probably did not figure anyone would bother leaving m43 for a crop sensor Canon or Nikon (they are so close in performance at this point anyway). That said, even for FF, if you take a camera like D800 with 36MP, you can do a fair bit of cropping and still get more reach on that even with equivalent lenses.
     
  19. Joelmusicman

    Joelmusicman Mu-43 Regular

    90
    Nov 1, 2013
    Anyone else notice that the OP is MIA?