How big would a 100-200 f2.8 m43 OIS be?

If Pana was to complete the x series, with a 6-12mm OIS and a 100-200mm OIS, how big would  they be? The addition of a 1.5 and 2.0 tele adapter would provide a 150-300 f4 constant and a 200-400 f5.6 constant, the 600 f4 equiva and 800 f5.6 equiv being particularly useful?

Long lenses are useless due to shutter shock.  They can not be hand held.

--
Without the darkness the light would be nothing !

Put them on a tripod then+use antischock... Even with a tripod, the gear is way lighter than an APS-c system with e.g. Nikon D700+AFS 4/500. (+ a lightweight tripod will also do the job - while the DSLR gear needs a tripod+head rated to at least 6-10kg)

>If Pana was to complete the x series, with a 6-12mm OIS and a 100-200mm OIS, how big would they be?

I am sure it would be priced nearly "equivalent" to a 200-400/2.8 however.

--
-CW

Shame, that 3rd party manufacturers - like Sigma don't produce telephotos for m43. Sigma has some capable players, e.g. 70-200, which should be easy to adapt, even leaving the weight & size as is.

The 100-200/2.8 would be about the same size and weight as a 70-200/2.8 for FF. Length: about 20 cm. Weight: about 1.5 kg.

Shutter shock on an OIS lens? That aside, you could always use the anti shock option.

Constant aperture ... it would be pretty big actually. Big in the sense that it would be a fat lens as opposed to a long one. I don't think a 2x will be that long.

100-200 f2.8 has a front lens diameter of 72mm (= 200/2.8) , i.e. an overall diameter of at least 80 mm.

I'd prefer a 70-200 f4, with front lens diameter of 50mm and a size, that better fits the mFT size and weight. I guess, it could be the size of the 100-300 or even shorter.

And I'd like to have a high grade lens ... and know, I keep hoping too much.

Peter.

In theory, and from previous experiences, a 70-200/4 should be possible to make to a similar size/weight of a 100-300/5.6.

However, what is the reason for constant max apertures? It's not as if these lenses are controlled by mechanical aperture rings with numerical markings, so ease of operation does not apply. With modern feedback controlled flashguns, the flash control motivation is also removed or significantly weakened. The only possible remaining reason for this would be marketing.

Marketing has got to such a degree that customers, when stating technical desires, are including pure marketing items in their wish lists!

It's not clear what you mean by handheld, but the existing xx-300mm options are very handholdable and useful. Still longer lenses will have a narrower market, but they're still not useless, because there's this thing called a tripod...

Just buy a telescope.

Why would it be a marketing ploy to design a lens that never changes aperture? I am actually not sure I understand how you can't see a constant aperture as desirable.

Nonsense I handhold my 100-300 often.

And a 400 F5.6L on a 7D.

As long as you keep the shutter speed up there is no such problem.

--
Brian Schneider
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6115/6285300710_0fcee72bb1_m.jpg

That will come as quite a surprise to all the folks who have taken excellent photos with the 75-300 and 100-300 lenses.

--
OM-D for sale; see classifieds forum.

If you had the choice between, e.g., a 100–200mm f/4 or a 100–200mm f/2.8–4 of approximately the same size and optical performance, which would you prefer?

It's not quite a free lunch — the faster aperture at the wide end might require additional optical correction — but lens size for telephotos is primarily driven by maximum focal length and aperture at that focal length, so it's pretty close.

For WA zooms, things are more complicated, but I think the case for a 12–60mm f/2.8–4 over f/4-constant is very strong. If you don't like f/2.8 on the wide end, you can always stop down!

I have said it before a 50-500mm for m4/3 would be awesome, much smaller than the current FX model 50-500mm OS version.

--
www.photoexpedition.net
www.fotoclubhonduras.com
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v206/bobhandal/BANNERXPEDITION1.jpg

...to pick up a Tamron 70-300VC with a m43 mount / CDAF focus motor.  My Panny 45-200 is slightly de-centered, performance at 200mm is hit and miss (mostly miss) and even at f8 there is vignetting and visible smearing in the corners.  I like to do compressed landscapes and large stitch panos, so for me the slight difference in size would be worth it for improved edge to edge IQ (and the price of the Tamron is quite reasonable).

--
-CW

Not if 500mm is (still) actually 500mm and not just "500mm" via equivalntese.

--
-CW

That lens is presumably good. I was about to buy one when I thought my next camera would be a Nikon D7000 rather than something MFT.

However, why not a Pany 100-300? Not so different price-wise from the Tamron I would think, and significantly better than the 45-200. I have the 45-200 as well as the 100-300 and have no reason to think that there is anything seriously wrong with my copy in either case. But the 45-200 can't really stand a comparison with the 100-300 for optical performance and the difference in size and weight isn't that large either, in spite of the greater speed and greater reach of the 100-300. About 500 versus 400 g and about 12.5 versus 10 cm.