Why lens limit of 300mm for m4/3?

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by SteveNunez, Mar 4, 2013.

  1. SteveNunez

    SteveNunez Mu-43 Veteran

    452
    Oct 11, 2010
    South Florida
    Steve Nunez
    Why can't Sigma, Tamron, Tokina or whichever lens maker design a lens that surpasses the 300mm length for m4/3?
    Panasonic makes the great 100-300 lens which equates to 600mm in ff but why can't we get further reach and maintain AF?

    I've used an adapted Sigma 50-500 on a GH2 with good results, why must we "adapt" lenses for these long reaches?
    I think if Sigma made a mini Bigma (50-500) for m4/3, it would sell well!!!

    (I'm aware of the 400mm mirror lens but since it's a mirror lens the IQ and practicality is limited.)
     
  2. Rudy

    Rudy Mu-43 Veteran

    449
    Jan 24, 2013
    Oakland, CA
    A few reasons I could think of:

    Not too many people want (or can afford) them.

    To be useful, they would have to have big apertures, which would make them heavy and expensive.

    At that point the size, cost and weight of the lens dominates and you would be better off with a Nikon or Canon DSLR setup and its better AF for these kind of lenses.

    m4/3 is all about small and light, so it's just not a good fit with bright super tele lenses.

    Rudy
     
  3. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    There is no "limit". The system is simply young still and under development. The initial slow super-telephoto zooms were developed first in order to get a full range of coverage for the system. Serious photographers are looking for faster, higher grade lenses than that, but we have to be patient and wait for them. Now that the slow lenses with full range coverage are out of the way, all the companies are now concentrating on faster, better glass. Building from the ground up. So far we've reached up to 100mm for zoom and 75mm for prime, but each new announcement produces longer and longer lenses. Next we'll probably start reaching into the 200mm range...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. SteveNunez

    SteveNunez Mu-43 Veteran

    452
    Oct 11, 2010
    South Florida
    Steve Nunez
    Well I hope the manufacturers surpass the 300mm length soon as I tire of having to use adapted glass for longer reach.....I would love a 50-500 Sigma or similar and would pay well to have one in native m4/3 mount!
     
  5. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Agreed. Is the Bigma you used on your GH2 for 4/3 mount?
     
  6. SteveNunez

    SteveNunez Mu-43 Veteran

    452
    Oct 11, 2010
    South Florida
    Steve Nunez
    Yes and 170-500 on GH3.
     
  7. fsuscotphoto

    fsuscotphoto Mu-43 Top Veteran

    819
    Feb 15, 2013
    St. Cloud, FL
    Ron
    I have the Sigma 150-500 in a Canon mount. What do I need to use it on my OMD and will any of the function be usable, like autofocus or aperture mode. If not how do I change the aperture?
     
  8. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    The AF on a canon mount lens will not work on the E-M5. The aperture can be 'preset' by mounting the camera to your Canon, setting the aperture, pressing the Depth of Field preview button and unmounting the lens *while holding the depth of field preview button*. This will leave the aperture diaphragm stopped down. There is no way to adjust the aperture while the lens is mounted on your body if it doesn't have a manual aperture ring (no EF mount lenses in existence do, to the best of my knowledge)
     
  9. Haans

    Haans Mu-43 Regular

    136
    Feb 18, 2012
    Frankly, the $$$ made by corporations on big glass probably doesn't warrant it. Along with the question of why don't they make it, you have to ask "Who will buy it?", or better, how many? Would you invest $2-3,000. for that 500mm f4 lens? Not me.
    I'd rather have my 150 f2 with the 1.4 tele-extender.
    At some point you have to ask, "How much reach do you need, how big to you want it, and how much are you willing to pay?"
     
  10. Liamness

    Liamness Mu-43 Veteran

    375
    Apr 20, 2011
    For daytime shooting with a tripod, a tiny little 'superzoom' compact is probably all you need for 600mm equiv. and above shooting. For more exacting applications such as wildlife photography, where light may be limited and subjects may be fast-moving, you probably don't mind the cost and weight of a full-frame setup. The performance it gives you would be worth it.

    Basically m43 is caught between these two extremes, where there it's a lot less hassle to go for a compact, and not much more hassle to go for a DSLR. The focal length of a lens is ultimately subject to the laws of physics, so long lenses are typically going to be massive unless you fold the light path with a mirror or something. Wide angle lenses for the system are quite compact, but this is because the removal of the mirror allows the back of the lens to be closer to the sensor. Unfortunately this doesn't really help with telephoto lenses.
     
  11. inthecage

    inthecage Mu-43 Regular

    46
    Jun 4, 2010
    North Ohio
    M Ferencz
    A 300mm f4 or f5.6 prime would get some serious range and wouldn't have to be big at all, now price might be an issue though. Beyond 300mm, size could definetly prohibit any discretness that m43 brings and I have doubts that Oly or Pany would ever find a big enough market to produce.
     
  12. AceAceBaby

    AceAceBaby Mu-43 Veteran

    249
    Jan 21, 2013
    The EF-u43 adapter I have has a built in aperture ring, I've used it with my 70-200 f/4 IS L (Not IS anymore of course).

    Amazon.com: EzFoto Pro Canon EOS EF mount lens to MFT M4/3 Micro 4/3 camera adapter, w/Build-in Aperture version, fits Olympus E-P1 E-P2 E-P3 E-PL1 E-PL2; Panasonic G1 G2 G3 G10 GF1 GF2 GF3 GH1 GH2 GH3, w/build-in aperture version (M43): Camera & Pho
     
  13. fsuscotphoto

    fsuscotphoto Mu-43 Top Veteran

    819
    Feb 15, 2013
    St. Cloud, FL
    Ron
  14. AceAceBaby

    AceAceBaby Mu-43 Veteran

    249
    Jan 21, 2013
    Was there an issue at one point with the OM-D not having lensless shooting enabled? I don't see any mechanical reason it wouldn't work, maybe they just omitted it. I use an E-PL5.
     
  15. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    The OM-D just didn't exist when that particular adapter was released.
     
  16. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Hmmm.... I think it is pretty demanding to expect that a "young" system to actually have an optic that goes out to 600mm equiv FOV much less anything that is longer. Whether its Nikon, Canon, or whatever, there aren't many options for a 600mm equiv focal length at the same price point and packaging as the 100-300mm Panasonic. So I think as micro 4/3rds shooters, we are pretty darn lucky. But hey... if there is enough demand and discussion here, Olympus/Panasonic or someone just might build it. << I'll get back to this statement.

    Here's the thing.... You can't just say the 150-500mm Bigma exists on other formats, why not ours? The 100-300mm Panasonic is arguably more usable than the Bigma since its a native micro 4/3 lens. I personally don't want just some pre-existing lens with a shoe-horned micro 4/3rds mount. You end up with a product that doesn't take advantages the micro 4/3rds system has to offer. Heck that won't sell very well.

    So what we need is a 600+mm optic designed specifically (packaging AND optics) for the micro 4/3rds system AND leverage all the advantages that system has to offer.... Oh at a price point that the typical micro 4/3rds shooter is accustomed to... consumer (not professional) level prices.

    ^^^
    Is there a enough demand for that R&D effort? Maybe sometime in the future when the system attracts a higher level customer base of a large enough size willing to invest. Now? Don't think so. Especially since the system doesn't attract sports photographers (not yet at least).


    I personally would like to see two products come out of them...

    300mm f/2.8 prime
    and a 2x or 1.4x teleconverter
    Both native micro 4/3rds.

    IMO, much more usable than any SSSSllllloooowww zoom of a long focal length.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    That adapter places the aperture diaphragm behind the rear optic rather than between the elements inside the lens..... I'm no expert in optics but that doesn't sound ideal.

    My personal LONG lens is a Takumar 500mm f/4.5 which gets me out to an outstanding 1000mm equiv. It was collecting dust in my collection but recently found new use. Well.. not a lot of use.... but its fun. Its a TANK... a big one. That requires a big stable tripod and gimbal head to use. Pretty much need a sharpa (ehem wife :p ) to carry it for me..... that plan hasn't panned out too well unfortunately.
     
  18. shizlefonizle

    shizlefonizle Mu-43 Veteran

    372
    Apr 21, 2012
    Truth. But seeing the Birds thread looks like there are quite a few people who enjoy shooting birds with m43 (including myself) hopefully this will increase with time to the point of convincing Olympus and Panasonic to make lenses. I also agree that a fast prime would be better than a zoom. Hell a 300mm f4 would even be great and would still be usable with a 1.4 TC. Panasonic has the 150mm f2.8 for next year so maybe well see a 300mm soon?
     
  19. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    Actually, none of the big players make anything over 300mm for anything other than FX. Or at least not that I can think of or find. And I can only think of a few lenses over 100 in any crop format that you could call fast. In that respect 4/3 and m4/3 are light years ahead. Though you can buy a new Nikon D7100, the newest Sigma 120-300 f2.8, both 1.4 & 2.0 TCs and still have 400-500 left for a tripod and head for the price of the 90-250 f2.8 Olympus.

    The difference at least for Canon and Nikon is that a DX DSLR is fully compatible with the big glass.
     
  20. Rudy

    Rudy Mu-43 Veteran

    449
    Jan 24, 2013
    Oakland, CA
    The reason no-one makes these is that it is a lot easier to correct long lenses for full frame than short ones. Since the aperture determines the size of the lens there is very little incentive to limit it to a crop sensor. You just don't lose much weight doing it.
    Of course there would be value in getting AF to work on MFT, but it's a relatively smaller market.
    And coming back to my original argument, if the lens can cover full frame without increasing size or weight *and* the lens weighs a lot more than the camera *and* AF will work better for moving subjects, why would you not use a FF body for a super tele?
    Rudy
     
    • Like Like x 1