Previous news story    Next news story

Olympus releases updated M.Zuiko Digital ED 75-300mm lens

By dpreview staff on Jan 30, 2013 at 02:00 GMT

Olympus has announced the M.Zuiko Digital ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II, an updated version of its lightweight 150-600mm equivalent telephoto lens for the Micro Four Thirds system. While most of the changes are cosmetic, the lens elements feature the latest ZERO (Zuiko Extra-low Reflection Optical) coating to resist scratches and reduce ghosting. Like its predecessor, this version also includes Olympus' MSC technology which aims to minimize focusing noise during video capture. The lens will be available only in black from March 2013 at an estimated street price of $549.99.

Jump to

Press Release:

Zoom Power for the People: Redesigned Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 II Lens

Super-Telephoto Shooting Power for Micro Four Thirds Users with Minimal Lens Flare

CENTER VALLEY, Pa., January 29, 2013 – Olympus makes high-performance super-telephoto shooting more accessible than ever before by introducing the affordable M.ZUIKO ED 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 II lens (35mm equivalent 150-600mm). Olympus has redesigned the lens to match the distinctive OM-D E-M5®   and PEN® Micro Four Thirds® series cameras and added a new advanced ZERO (Zuiko Extra-low Reflection Optical) coating to keep scratches off, and eliminate ghosting and lens flare even in bright lights.

The M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II telephoto lens boasts the same high focal length and first-class components as its predecessor, the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7, and is capable of bringing faraway subjects like children’s faces, animals and landscape features vividly to life with superb-quality close-ups. Olympus fitted a circular aperture that ensures a professional-looking bokeh with smooth and even background defocusing.

The compact size and light weight of this tiny telephoto lens make it convenient to carry. Olympus has redesigned the lens to match the distinctive OM-D E-M5 and PEN series cameras. The lens includes Olympus’ near-silent MSC (Movie and Still Compatible) focusing technology to reduce the whir that can otherwise ruin movie playback on a High-Definition TV.

The M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II benefits from the 5-axis image stabilization of the OM-D E-M5 and maximizes the performance of the Olympus PEN compact system cameras for brilliant still images and high-definition (HD) video capture.

U.S. Pricing and Availability

The Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75-300mm f4-6.7 II Lens will be available in March, 2013.
Estimated Street Price: $549.99

Olympus M.ZUIKO ED 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 II lens specifications

Principal specifications
Lens typeZoom lens
Max Format sizeFourThirds
Focal length75–300 mm
Image stabilisationNo
Lens mountMicro Four Thirds
Aperture
Maximum apertureF4.8 - F6.7
Minimum apertureF22.0
Aperture ringNo
Number of diaphragm blades7
Aperture notesCircular aperture
Optics
Elements18
Groups13
Special elements / coatings1 Super ED glass element 1 ED glass element 3 HR glass elements 1 E-HR glass element ZERO coating
Focus
Minimum focus0.90 m (35.43)
Maximum magnification0.18×
AutofocusYes
Motor typeMicromotor
Full time manualYes
Focus methodInternal
Distance scaleNo
DoF scaleNo
Physical
Weight423 g (0.93 lb)
Diameter69 mm (2.72)
Length117 mm (4.59)
SealingNo
ColourBlack
Zoom methodRotary (extending)
Power zoomNo
Zoom lockNo
Filter thread58 mm
Hood suppliedNo
Tripod collarNo

Additional image

157
I own it
32
I want it
3
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 144
sderdiarian
By sderdiarian (Jan 31, 2013)

The primary mission of this lens is to better compete on price with the Pan 100-300mm, currently retailing for $500. It already has it beat on size and weight, the Pan 100-300 being midway on both counts between the 75-300 MkII and the 4/3's 70-300mm.

Those after better performance, Olympus has this in the exceptional 4/3's 50-200mm f2.8-3.5, with the MkI selling used for the same $550. And those actually wondering why Olympus hasn't replicated this optical range/speed in mFT, just look at its size (6.2 x 3.4" vs. 4.6 x 2.7") and weight (38 oz vs. 14.9 oz).

Olympus knows something about making superb lenses. They also know something about the sacrifices in size, weight and price that it takes to accomplish these. For now, they're just trying to recoup lens sales being lost to Panasonic; hopefully with their upcoming pro mFT they'll also start unveiling a line of HG optical quality weathersealed mFT lenses.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
kev777zero
By kev777zero (Jan 31, 2013)

most comments below go on the line of:
A: "what?! such a slow lens for such an expensive price!"
B: "what do you want then? anything faster would've made it HUGE!"
A: "but look at those FF lenses, they are faster! and not much bigger"
B: "no, smaller sensor size does no necessary make the lens smaller"

THEN WHAT THE HELL DO I WANT A SMALL SENSOR CAMERA FOR?!

1 upvote
oldfogey
By oldfogey (Jan 31, 2013)

Sensors have improved in sensitivity and resolution to the point where the (sensitivity/resolution) advantages of a large sensor would be irrelevant for most users if they only knew it. Having a "BIG" camera makes sense if you want to impress your girlfriend - but it offers very little in the way of photographic advantage for anyone not involved at a professional level in sports or wildlife photography. For us others the smaller camera size - and the lower costs of "very good" optics at "normal" focal lengths outweigh the benefits of larger sensors.

3 upvotes
kev777zero
By kev777zero (Jan 31, 2013)

I think Sony NEX, Samsung NX, Canon M, Fuji X did a better job then; they made the camera just as small, yet retained sensor size of most DSLRs. m4/3 leads in lenses now, but 5yrs down the road when all these large sensor mirrorless cameras have a full system of lenses to choose from, m4/3 better pull something new out of their hats!

0 upvotes
sderdiarian
By sderdiarian (Jan 31, 2013)

And all those lenses will still be larger and heavier. If you want a camera where you can actually go out with your camera/mounted lens along with a couple of lenses in your jacket pockets and have a full optical range, I believe mFT will remain the best option. But who knows, 5 years down the road is a very long time these days when it comes to camera/sensor/lens development.

0 upvotes
kev777zero
By kev777zero (Jan 31, 2013)

that goes back to the point of many people's concern then in this thread - if one could make a 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 lens 20 years ago in full frame with the same weight/size, shouldn't they AT LEAST make an m4/3 one f/4.5-5.6? More like they should be able to make it half the weight, or 1 more aperture stop.

0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Jan 31, 2013)

Yes, compared to a FF lens, it should cost half as much, weigh half as much, or be 1 stop brighter. I agree. Not all three, but one of those. Why do people not understand this? Making an equal weight, equal size, equal aperture lens for a significantly smaller footprint and charging the same for it is a ripoff!

0 upvotes
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (Jan 31, 2013)

Show me a lens with an equivalent FoV for APS or FF that is the same size or smaller please.

Telephoto is one area where a small sensor gives more reach for less size/weight.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
kev777zero
By kev777zero (Jan 31, 2013)

Tamron 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 435g for FULL FRAME

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/239/cat/23

0 upvotes
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (Jan 31, 2013)

That doesn't have the same field of view. The 75-300mm will give a field of view equivalent to a 150-600mm lens on full frame. You should be comparing to a 600mm FF lens. AFAIK they are all a little bit bigger?

0 upvotes
kev777zero
By kev777zero (Jan 31, 2013)

comparing equivalence is a whole other story. a 75-300mm lens is still a 75-300mm lens, regardless what sensor it fits in front of.
what I am saying here is that since the optics of Oly 75-300mm can only cover a smaller sensor, the lens should either be made smaller, or equally large with larger apertures.

0 upvotes
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (Jan 31, 2013)

Well, you did ask the question: What do I want a small sensor camera for?

I was pointing out that you can get good telephoto reach with smaller lenses.

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
sean000
By sean000 (Feb 1, 2013)

@kev777zero: I think you're missing the point that don_van_vliet is making. The point of a super-telephoto is to get more pixels on the bird (or whatever you're photographing). So if you're standing on a platform photographing the same bird using a 16 MP m4/3 camera and a 16 MP FF camera, and you want the same number of pixels on the bird, you're going to need 600mm on FF to get the same shot a 300mm lens will get you on the m4/3 camera. Now if you have a 36 MP FF camera you can probably get by with that 300mm lens since you will have a lot of room to crop the image. Now you are correct that a 300mm lens is a 300mm lens no matter the format, and the Oly 75-300mm is significantly smaller and lighter than the Nikon 70-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR because it doesn't need to produce as big an image circle. But again, you will need 450mm for APS-C and 600mm for FF to get the same angle of view you get with 300mm on m4/3.

0 upvotes
kev777zero
By kev777zero (Feb 1, 2013)

I understand where you guys are coming from, and you guys are right. But I think Olympus hasn't completely utilized the advantages of a small sensor ILC yet, that is to make smaller/faster lenses. Obviously they've come a long way since the 4/3 days.

Everyone takes the equivalence thing into account, but keep in mind that making a good 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 lens to cover FF is still more labor than making a good 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 lens for a 4/3 sized sensor, let alone a f/4.8-6.7 one. The 150-600mm equiv just becomes a marketing trick for Olympus to throw the price towards an 150-600mm equiv lens on APS-C or FF, when in fact it requires less work to produce than a 75-300mm equiv lens on FF. That's why they charged so much for the MKI version. But the MKII price is still an unfair pricing IMHO

So given it's large size for covering a small sensor, slow aperture, and high price, that thing better produce leica or zeiss like quality. Otherwise it's just another ripoff for m4/3 users.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
sean000
By sean000 (Feb 1, 2013)

@kev777zero: I guess we have different expectations for how small a lens should be. I know your point is that a 75-300mm m4/3 lens should be much smaller than a FF 70-300mm, but there are challenges to making this smaller as well... especially with modern internal autofocus systems (which have to move a lot of glass in a lens like this). Half the sensor area does not necessarily mean the lens can be made half as big. If you look at lens sizes for the tiny-sensored Nikon 1 series, the lenses aren't as small as you'd expect. I know this lens won't be optically as good as my Nikon 300mm f/4 (which I do sometimes use on my E-M5), but it's much more portable and the shots I've seen from the original version of the Oly are the best I've ever seen out of a consumer super-tele. The promise of a more potable kit for m4/3 is there. I can cover ultrawide to super tele carrying a much smaller bag and much less weight compared to my DSLR gear.

1 upvote
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Jan 31, 2013)

f/6.7 -- shameful, simply shameful.

3 upvotes
vmicho
By vmicho (Feb 5, 2013)

Well, I wanted to buy Zuiko ED 70-300mm 70-300 mm 4-5.6, about 2 months ago - it sells in large quantities on ebay for about 200-250 EUR. I have the MMF adapter so no problem.
And this new one? Less performance and much bigger price. Only a bit more compact.
Well finally I opted for the 50-200 swd - large as hell but cool :)

0 upvotes
al_in_philly
By al_in_philly (Jan 30, 2013)

What I don't understand is why Olympus is releasing new lenses without weather sealing them? What use is producing a weather sealed flagship M4/3, the OM-D E-M5, if they don't also produce lenses which are sealed as well? I could maybe see it if the lenses were just a couple of hundred dollars (maybe), but not on a piece of glass on the other side of $500. Oh, one more thing: what's up with Oly being so niaggardly with lens shades? Don't their Product Development and Marketing departments talk to each other?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
revio
By revio (Jan 31, 2013)

There is no flagship m4/3 Olympus camera, yet. The E-M5 is the current top model, yes, but the flagship is yet to arrive. Olympus has officially said there will be coming both lower and higher models in the "OM-D" series, so to speak. (for my part, all Oly M4/3 cameras is part of one series, their names nonwithstanding)
When the higher speced, than the E-M5, model comes, I´d think at least a couple more weather sealed lenses will also be launched. At the time, or soon after.

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Jan 30, 2013)

For those who don't understand the fuss about the lack of 5.6 or better at the long end, let me explain: diffraction.

At the long end this lens is diffraction limited, at least from a design standpoint. (it's possible that it could get sharper with stopping down, but this is very unlikely and unusual in a modern lens design) So wide open will be as good as it gets.

In fact, some argue that the diffraction limit is more like f4 or even f2.8 for m43 with the 16mp sensor.

So the big deal is that the CW of "all lenses sharpen up a bit if you stop them down" does not apply to this lens.

Whether that's a big deal or not is personal taste. Personally, I think the m43 lineup is incomplete without a pair or normal and long f2 zooms, and I'll probably avoid this lens.

To each their own.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Jan 31, 2013)

Most m43 lenses start to reduce sharpness after f/8, and the effect is noticeable only by f/11. Talk about diffraction at f/4 is useless, no lens is THAT sharp to begin with.

0 upvotes
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (Jan 31, 2013)

I'm pretty sure the tests of the older version of this lens showed optimal sharpness at f8. Try photozone.de

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Feb 9, 2013)

At the center, if the lens doesn't have the sharpness to start with then, yes, you'll see the effects of diffraction come up mighty quick. Starting at least by f4 with a 16mp sensor on m43. I'm not trolling, I like m43 and use it. This is just physics. Go check a diffraction calc if you don't believe me.

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jan 30, 2013)

I have an old, OM mount, manual focus, 75-300 by Vivitar, which I use with an Olympus micro 4/3 body. It is f/4.5-5.6 - and it is huge and heavy. So heavy, in fact, that I can't photograph vertically with it mounted on my tripod because the camera keeps sliding down, no matter how hard I tighten the camera to the tripod socket.
Perhaps the slow aperture is the price to pay to keep the lens compact and lightweight. I can't image how huge a 150-600mm EFL lens would be if they made it a constant aperture lens, say f/2.8.
That said the use of this new lens is limited to bright sunlit days, otherwise a tripod is mandatory. The focal length is quite useful, but it is a budget lens. If Olympus, with all their experience in optics, wanted to make a fast, high quality zoom lens for micro 4/3, they would. Only the price would make it unaffordable.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 30, 2013)

I don't think everyone is expecting a 300mm f2.8, but a more standard f5.6 would have been nice. It's only a half a stop, but f5.6 is already a big speed tradeoff.

3 upvotes
BJL
By BJL (Jan 30, 2013)

With the excellent IBIS of the EM5 and ISO 800, 1600, and even beyond quite usable, such a lens is not at all limited to "bright sunlit days". My 12-50/3.5-6.3 is certainly not.

You need to move beyond thinking in terms of the f-stops that were needed with film cameras and unstabilized lenses back in the '70’s!

1 upvote
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jan 30, 2013)

BJL, I think in terms of maximum image quality achievable, which precludes high ISO values. Whenever light levels drop, a tripod becomes mandatory with my Vivitar 75-300, IS or not. Handholding a beast such as this does require good light; streaking appears at anything under 1/100 exposures. It's just too big and heavy.
...And you are certainly aware that you could fiddle with ISO in the days of "analogue" photography (days which, incidentally, I didn't live in). There were rolls up to ISO 1600 back then.

1 upvote
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Jan 31, 2013)

The lens isn't light. If you take Canon FD 100-300, which is a FF lens and was released about 30 years ago, it weighs 710g vs 423g for Olympus. But Canon is Full Frame and also F5.6 (weight grows faster than quadratically) and there were lot of improvement in materials for the 30 years, so lenses slimmed a lot. Unfortunately, the mirrorless market is in its infancy so there is little information what is and what is not possible, but by all indications this lens is very slow for no good reason. Even if Olympus made it heavier but at least f/5.6 it would have been better.

1 upvote
BJL
By BJL (Jan 31, 2013)

Manuel,
Please do not say "only usable without a tripod in bright sunlight" when all you mean is that "the absolute best image quality possible is only attainable ..." for one thing, once one is insisting on absolute best image quality from a super-telephoto lens, I would think that a tripod is always necessary! Of course a $500, 430g super-telephoto lens involves some compromises in image quality compared to heavier more expensive options.

And of course I know about "high" ISO films; I suffered with ISO 800 film occasionally. My point, if you read what I said carefully, was is that in any situation where those high ISO films were acceptable, about four times that ISO speed is acceptable with a camera like the EM5, making this lens comparable in low-light handling to a 150-600 f/2-3.4 used with 35mm film. So many of us are happy to use that ISO advantage in order to greatly reduce the weight (and cost) of a super-telephoto zoom lens.

1 upvote
Steve_
By Steve_ (Feb 1, 2013)

@forpetessake

Do you have a FD100-300? Obviously not. I have one, and it's freaking huge and heavy enough to beat a family of four to death with. Anyone who has handled these lenses knows how ironic it is that the comparison you put forth to make your point makes quite the opposite.

0 upvotes
oldfogey
By oldfogey (Jan 30, 2013)

Some people forget that the CDAF adapted 4/3 system lenses focus perfectly well on m4/3 cameras - and Panasonic sell a good adapter for a little over $100. OK, the lenses are bigger - but there are some superb optics out there. For Tele lenses the size is primarily determined by image circle and lens speed - so if you want an f2.8 optic at 300 mm it is going to be as big if made for m4/3 as it will be for 4/3. The Oly 50-200 f2.8-3.5 which only costs about 60% of the Nikon cost has a superb reputation. And dont forget that the Oly 70-300 f4-5.6 is much less expensive and is quite good optically - at least to about 250mm. You want image stabilization? The Oly cameras have it - although if you want it on a Panasonic you will need to buy their lenses.

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Bram de Mooij
By Bram de Mooij (Jan 30, 2013)

I like the Olympus system with bright and sharp primes like 12 / 2 , 45 / 1.8 and 60 / 2.8. However in the tele range I think it is all still rather bad.
I have the Pana 100-300, but I am not impressed with it. I have tried the 75-300 mk 1, but was not impressed with that one either. It seems good tele still requires more weight and money :-)
That is where my Nikon D300 with 70-200/ 2.8 (+1.7 x extender) still beats the MFT system with ease. Pity, because I would like to have one system for all.

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jan 30, 2013)

Panasonic will soon be launching a 35-100mm-f/2.8. That's a 70-200 equivalent.

2 upvotes
Bram de Mooij
By Bram de Mooij (Jan 30, 2013)

You are right, thank you. But that is only moderately tele to me.
Remember, my D300 also has a crop factor. Makes my 70-200 something like a 100-300 equivalent and 170-510 equivalent with extender.

1 upvote
dav1dz
By dav1dz (Jan 30, 2013)

Not soon to launch, already launched.

2 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Jan 30, 2013)

Yep, launched already. And even reviewed already: http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2012/11/02/lensrentals-looks-at-panasonics-35-100mm-constant-aperture-zoom

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jan 30, 2013)

Thanks for the info, dav1dz and micahmedia.

0 upvotes
QuarryCat
By QuarryCat (Jan 30, 2013)

this lousy zoom without hood is still to expensive - and the first construction was always full of dust - the Panasonic 100-300 mm is by far better.

1 upvote
TimK5
By TimK5 (Jan 30, 2013)

IMO the old 75-300 is quite ok in terms of picture quality. The only thing I care about is wether the new one is better optically.

And I just wonder how big - or rather small - would be the Nikon 800 f5,6 equivalent in the m43 world (400 f5,6) ...

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Jan 30, 2013)

It is probably just different coating (ZERO) and barrel. Optically, it should reduce flares and maybe improve contrast and transmittance just a bit.

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Jan 30, 2013)

...actually two things: Nikon just released a pro 800/5.6 so your question is answered before it's asked.

And the other thing is that the apertures to compare also change with focal length, and the numbers you're really comparing to get the same image as an 800/5.6 on FF would be 400/2.8 on 4/3rds. At least if you want the same depth of field.

Another way to say this would be to say that if you want to get the same depth of field and magnification as a 300/5.6 on 4/3rds, you could use a 300mm/5.6 lens with a doubler. (600/f11).

Or put one more way, this lens gives the same effect at it's long end as using a lens on full frame at 600mm/f13.

And finally, you could also get a similar (slightly less DOF) effect by using a TC300 on a 100mm/F2 on full frame.

Don't take this as hate on m43 (I own two GX1s and 4 lenses for the format!). But understand that there are some limitations to the format and it's offerings right now.

And most people don't know what they are!

2 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (Jan 30, 2013)

Shallow DOF at that long of a focal length is negligible.

0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Jan 31, 2013)

why do people talk about DOF for aperture equivalents? It's much more a reflection of what quality you'll get a high ISO given the difference in formats.

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Feb 6, 2013)

Equivalences do mean something. But if you don't what they mean, then they're meaningless. (to you)

And format size doesn't determine ISO performance, so...gah, can we address one thing at a time? Lenses. We're talking about lenses and what they're capable/not capable of. Lenses don't have ISO. They have apertures and focal lengths and various qualities of their images that are related, yet semi-independent functions of those first two specs.

DOF varies with the capture medium's size, focal length, subject distance, and aperture. ISO has nothing to do with the inherent performance of a lens. It is not a quality of the lens.

Aperture and focal length are, and this is designed for a particular sensor format. People often use more than one format, or are considering changing formats.

Hence, discussion. If you don't take an interest in that part of the discussion, don't read.

If you do and you disagree, then voice your opinion or don't.

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Feb 6, 2013)

...comments like "why are you talking about this--stop! STOP!"

...are going to accomplish nothing. Except maybe people arguing with you or picking on you.

0 upvotes
kewlguy
By kewlguy (Jan 30, 2013)

I thought one of the benefits of smaller sensor is smaller image circle thus lenses can be made compact while maintaining similar f/stops. If there are so many f/4-5.6 FF lenses with similar focal length, why does Oly have to make it f/4.8-6.7?? It's not cheap, too.

3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 30, 2013)

smaller imaging circle doesn't make a lens shorter, unfortunately.

0 upvotes
Rooru S
By Rooru S (Jan 30, 2013)

yes it does in some way. That's why you can see 30x zoom on bridge cameras. The main point of m4/3 compared to APS-C cameras or even FF is being able to have smaller lenses while retaining a bright aperture. That's the only reason I have been looking at the OM-D for some time.

0 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Jan 31, 2013)

That's a myth spread by true believers that cropping sensor somehow automatically makes equivalent lenses smaller and lighter. Not really, in general case one can probably make m43 lenses shorter but all things being equal they will likely be heavier, the reason FF lenses are usually bigger is not because the sensor is bigger, but because they are a lot faster: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#2

1 upvote
sean000
By sean000 (Jan 31, 2013)

Forpetesake... How come I can't buy a 200-600mm f/5.6 zoom with stabilization that is as small and as cheap as this lens for my Nikon DSLR? I do have a 300mm f/4, but it cost more than twice the price. It also becomes an f/5.6 or so when I use a 1.4x TC. When I use the TC I actually stop down another stop because it mitigates the loss of sharpness the TC causes. So I have to use a tripod or ISO 1600 to 3200 in order to get fast shutter speeds since this lens isn't stabilized. I have a 45-200 f/5.6 for my EM5. I get the tight angle of view in a smaller and cheaper package. I really don't care that the DOF isnt as shallow.... It's still shallow. I also don't give a hoot that less light is being gathered. The em5 can still produce excellent photos at high ISO. I'm afraid your reasoning is outdated compared to the capabilities of modern cameras.

0 upvotes
PaulSnowcat
By PaulSnowcat (Jan 30, 2013)

4.8-6.7??? O M G :(

2 upvotes
Brian Wadie
By Brian Wadie (Jan 30, 2013)

no,
OMD :)

5 upvotes
Brian Wadie
By Brian Wadie (Jan 30, 2013)

I should have said $350 not $500 price drop so I'm glad NZ Scott corrected me :)

Wouldn't it be good if they do bring out a high grade long zoom, something like a 100-400 f4 would be nice :)

1 upvote
NZ Scott
By NZ Scott (Jan 30, 2013)

Personally, I'm holding out for a 300mm f4 prime.

5 upvotes
Brian Wadie
By Brian Wadie (Jan 30, 2013)

that would be good too! :)

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 30, 2013)

100-400 f4!!! Do you have any idea how huge that would be? Just look at Nikon's 200-400 F4 as a starting point. And, no, the smaller sensor wouldn't help at all with lenses that long.

1 upvote
sb123
By sb123 (Jan 30, 2013)

The focusing speed of the 75-300 is considerably faster than that of the 100-300 on either the EM5 or the G5 (and presumably the GH3). With the G5 it has an effective AFC function.

1 upvote
NZ Scott
By NZ Scott (Jan 30, 2013)

True, but the 100-300 is brighter (at f4-f5.6) and includes image stabilisation at the same price as the new version of the Oly.

4 upvotes
Just Having Fun
By Just Having Fun (Jan 30, 2013)

I really liked the 100-300 when I tried it. It was super sharp at 100mm and F/4, something the Oly can never do.

0 upvotes
NZ Scott
By NZ Scott (Jan 30, 2013)

An interesting stragegy by Olympus to re-issue the lens with a US $350 price drop.

Why?

Here are my thoughts:

1) They're worried about the new Tamron 75-300 for m43, which has almost identical specs.

2) People simply weren't buying the old 75-300 because it was too expensive, and everyone knows what happens when supply exceeds demand.

3) Lots of people were buying the old 75-300, so they cranked up their production lines and economies of scale allowed them to drop the price.

4) They are planning to release a high-grade telephoto lens soon, and want to make room for it at a higher price point.

Myself, I'm hoping that number 4 is the main reason.

2 upvotes
Martin.au
By Martin.au (Jan 30, 2013)

What Tamron?

I suspect it's more due to Panasonic taking the majority of the superzoom market with their 100-300.

3 upvotes
NZ Scott
By NZ Scott (Jan 30, 2013)

My mistake. The Tamron is 14-150.

0 upvotes
Brian Wadie
By Brian Wadie (Jan 30, 2013)

I love to see all the negative comments from people who have never used a piece of kit.
The fact is that a lot of us are already using the original version on the EM5 and know that that is lighter than the 100-300, is faster focuing and sharper at 300mm even though it is around 0.5 stop slower at 300mm.
The main complaint about the mk 1 was the high cost, which Olympus have addressed, taking it down by about 500$ (no use to me but this should improve its sales in future)
the improved coating will probaby bring about a small improvement to IQ but its the lower price which is the biggest suprise for me

2 upvotes
Ross the Fidller
By Ross the Fidller (Jan 30, 2013)

This needs correcting, "1 Super ED glass element 1 ED glass element 3 HR glass elements 1 E-HR glass element ZERO coating "

It should read, "1 Super ED glass element 2 ED glass element 3 HR glass elements 1 E-HR glass element ZERO coating"

1 upvote
b534202
By b534202 (Jan 30, 2013)

300mm, f/6.7 and no IS. They just don't want to sell to Panasonic body owners eh?

2 upvotes
S Severs
By S Severs (Jan 30, 2013)

Panasonic makes a perfectly good 300mm m4/3 lens with IS.

1 upvote
b534202
By b534202 (Jan 30, 2013)

Sure, and it is faster than this thing too @ 300. My question is not what Panasonic users can buy. It is why Olympus doesn't try to sell to other people besides people who buy their camera bodies.

1 upvote
agentul
By agentul (Jan 30, 2013)

reading online reviews, the predominant users of panasonic lenses seem to be people with olympus cameras. i'm actually wondering well how many of the lenses i've looked at perform on the GH2, because i am 100% sure they are great on the OM-D. this makes me wonder how good the olympus lenses actually are.
too bad, the panasonic lenses could really use some competition.

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
AndyGM
By AndyGM (Jan 30, 2013)

@agentul There isn't a whole lot of overlap between the Olympus and Panasonic m43 lens lineup. Only really any overlap in the "kit zoom" range, the "short tele" zoom range and the super tele zoom range that this lens handles.

For certain focal lengths, for instance if you want a normal prime, only Panasonic make them. But there are plenty of good Olympus lenses (the 45mm, 60mm, 75mm, 12mm, 9-18mm, 40-150mm) that likewise Panasonic camera owners use.

For me, this lens only makes sense on the OM-D EM-5, because its in body IS works while you are composing as well as at exposure. All the other Oly m43 cameras have IS that only works at exposure, so composing hand held can be a bit "wobbly". So if you have a PEN, the Panasonic 100-300mm has optical IS built in, so that's another advantage for choosing it over this lens.

1 upvote
agentul
By agentul (Jan 30, 2013)

@b534202: Olympus seems to have a strategy of luring people to using their own bodies as well as their lenses. Their marketing works very well in combination with the people praising them in reviews. Maybe they actually make such good cameras, but this whole wave of praise for the OM-D (direct and indirect) makes it look like the only camera worth buying ever.
So they don't have any reason to give Panasonic users any lenses when they can just give them the doubt that maybe they bought the wrong camera.

0 upvotes
S Severs
By S Severs (Jan 30, 2013)

With the success and popularity of 5 axis IBIS, likely this will come to future PEN cameras too. The ability to use legacy 4/3 lenses (such as Zuiko lenses) without IS on the OM-D is a super nice option. There are many examples in these forums of folks with Panny m4/3 bodies using Oly m4/3 lenses. The skill and technique of photographer will come more into play depending on the lens. But over the years IS lenses has never been a priority of Olympus.

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Jan 30, 2013)

"Olympus seems to have a strategy of luring people to using their own bodies as well as their lenses."

Just like any other company, I guess. Just because Olympus and Panasonic have developed a standard together, it doesn't mean they aren't competitors.

2 upvotes
agentul
By agentul (Jan 30, 2013)

@Revenant
Olympus users have IS on all of the Panasonic and Olympus lenses (as has been said, with the right body).
Panasonic users are pretty much restricted in their choice due to the lack of in-body IS.
So there is very little competition for the type of lenses that amateurs and beginners would want. There is competition, of course, but it's not evenly distributed across the product range and target audience.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
BJL
By BJL (Jan 30, 2013)

Olympus has designed this lens primarily for use on Olympus bodies: why does that surprise or bother anyone? By having good in-body IS, lenses can potentially be lighter and less expensive; in-lens IS would simply be dead-weight for PEN or OMD users.

P. S. the main reason to choose a smaller format system like MFT is a smaller, lighter kit, including smaller, lighter lenses. Bear in mind that due to the usable ISO advantage of recent MFT sensors over film, this lens with a recent Olympus body has a high speed/low light advantage over 35mm film used with f/4 super telephoto primes. Larger, heavier digital body+lens combos can perform even better, but it should be easy to understand that for many people, the performance is good enough, and preferable to carrying a heavier kit.

On the other hand, if your goal is even better low light capabilities combined with less of the image being in focus, then a larger format is a better choice: "horses for courses".

1 upvote
Najinsky
By Najinsky (Jan 30, 2013)

Seems odd they didn't mention AF speed improvements.

I currently use the Panasonic 100-300 and it does a great job (with a few caveats) on the OMD. However, I think the 75-300 is potentially a better choice for the OMD (smaller, lighter, CA, and now the extra coating).

But one area where the 100-300 seems to review better versus the 75-300 is in AF speed. I can't comment from experience as I haven't used a 75-300 so if this is no longer the case (e.g., firmware update) I'd appreciate the correction.

Given the OMDs claims to AF speed fame, I felt sure the replacement 75-300 would have improved AF speed. Even though I'd like the benefits of the Oly model, I really wouldn't want to go any further backwards in AF speed as the Panasonic is just 'OK' in this area. The number of keepers isn't great but is sufficient to enjoy and persist in shooting with this lens. But if the AF was any slower I'm pretty sure the keepers would reduce below that threshold.

Can anyone ease my mind on this?

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Jan 30, 2013)

f/6.7?? Bwaaaaahahahahahahahaha!

2 upvotes
ptox
By ptox (Jan 30, 2013)

Bwaaaaahaaahahonehead!

2 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Jan 30, 2013)

So much for... "micro" ;).

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 30, 2013)

It's the smallest 300mm zoom that I know of. So I am not sure what you mean.

6 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 30, 2013)

Why do people want to give up so much lens speed just to save a few millimeters here and there?

Doesn't it make more sense to carry a slightly larger telephoto if you'll get lower ISOs, faster shutter speeds, and more keepers?

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 30, 2013)

I don't disagree with that, I just didn't understand the comment above considering the dimensions of the lens.

3 upvotes
Najinsky
By Najinsky (Jan 30, 2013)

It's all relative.

http://tinyurl.com/naj-lens001

They didn't have the exact lens but it's close enough to make a point.

2 upvotes
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (Jan 30, 2013)

Its FoV is equivalent to 600mm on FF. It's quite small for that FoV...

5 upvotes
BJL
By BJL (Jan 30, 2013)

Compared to the longer focal length lenses needed in larger formats to get equal telephoto reach, this lens clearly wins on size-for-reach trade-offs. Actually, what longer-than-300mm zoom lenses exist to match this lens in any larger format? Off hand, I can only think of the Canon 100-400 and Nikon 80-400, which are both somewhat larger and more expensive! (To be pedantic, if you allow the option of cropping to equal pixel count, it is the smaller photosites and thus higher resolution in "lines per mm" that allows the use of smaller lenses.)

In fact, smaller formats have always given their greatest size advantage in the telephoto regime: consider the great advantage that 35mm film SLR'S had over medium format, which never bothered to go beyond about 300mm ("150mm to 200mm equivalent").

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jan 30, 2013)

Najinsky, this is even closer: http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.35,312.310,ha,t

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 30, 2013)

It's small for a 300mm lens, period. No need to bring equivalency into the mix.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 30, 2013)

I know this is supposed to be compact, but I think a lot of people would trade a little extra weight for a more manageable aperture. F6.7 is one of the darkest lenses on the market.

2 upvotes
Najinsky
By Najinsky (Jan 30, 2013)

I'm not convinced about 'a lot of people', or to put it another way, it won't be a problem for 'a lot of people'.

When I shoot orang-utans, swinging through trees, on my full frame I usually go F/8 to make sure I get enough DOF to account for the movement of the subject.

http://tinyurl.com/naj-orangs

Ideally I'd like to go smaller, but don't have the shutter speed or iso to spare.

If a µ4/3 lens at F/6.7 performs well wide open, I get a double benefit, it's faster than F/8, which brings back some much needed shutter speed or iso, yet it gives a better DOF for capturing the pesky swingers.

And creative DOF is perfectly possible at F/6.7 (F/13) with a 300mm.

The most important factor is if the lens performs well enough optically when wide open. If you have an F/4.5 lens that has to be stopped down to F/5.6 to get a good shot, then you don't really have an F/4.5 lens, you have an 'F/4.5 is better than nothing lens'.

13 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 30, 2013)

That linked orangutan shot is a perfect example. ISO 1600 in mid-day. And 4/3 isn't as forgiving at ISO 1600 as your 5Dmk2.

0 upvotes
Roger Nordin
By Roger Nordin (Jan 30, 2013)

Lots of opinions here, but I wonder how many complainers have actually USED any of the systems they complain about? The post above is a perfect illustration that often you need to stop down on a larger-sensor system to gain acceptable DOF at extreme telephoto focal lengths - yet I see people here are complaining about "everything being in focus"..! So silly.
The 75-300 is plenty sharp wide open at f/6.7@300mm, at least my copy is. My point of reference? My Canon 7D with the 100-400L which is now collecting dust in the drawer.
The 75-300 with the OM-D is a match made in heaven. You can even relax and fall back to the dreaded P mode (but please don't tell anyone here at dpreview!!), it chooses ISO, speed and aperature very wisely.
It travels in my jacket pocket every day. A larger aperture would have given me 15 minutes more usage as sun falls. I'll take the smaller size any time!
4/3 not as forgiving as a FF camera? Sure, but please show me the Canon 150-600 FF lens to go with it! lol

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
17 upvotes
Najinsky
By Najinsky (Jan 30, 2013)

@tkbslc: I think you are missing, or don't see, the relevant points.

This new lens would have let me shoot at a lower ISO because F/6.7 is brighter than F/8. + I get more DOF. Many shots were missed due to the orang-utans swinging out of the focus field.

The lens used had the option to shoot at F/5.6 but I don't often use it because I want more, not less DOF.

It may have been mid-day, but it was under Jungle canopy and the subject itself is relatively dark.

For that shot, I'd have probably got 1/250 which would have helped a little with the slight motion blur. And the faster shutter speed helps reduce noise too.

So what I'm saying, is I am happy getting the compact size and light weight, and now lower price, in exchange for the F/6.7 compromise. In other words, Olympus pitched it right for me to consider buying it.

It beats carrying what those pictures were shot with:

http://tinyurl.com/naj-lens001

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 30, 2013)

You don't need to stop down for DOF on a smaller sensor. F4 on m4/3 gives the DOF you are getting at f8 on your 5Dmk2. I get the point just fine.

In terms of portability, there is a pretty good spectrum of options. It's not big white supertele or tiny dim lens.

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Jan 30, 2013)

Lets compare to a FF lens if we may:

Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 EX DG APO
vs
Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75-300mm (150-600mm eqv)

500mm Reach
vs
600mm Reach

2.8
vs
6.7

15670g
vs
430g (old style)

$25,599.99
vs
$549.99

This is a perfect outdoor lens. Price is right, IQ is good, Focus is great, not too heavy, fits MFT cameras perfect.

4 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 30, 2013)

Do you have any more non-comparable comparisons? f2.8 500mm vs an f6.7?

5 upvotes
qianp2k
By qianp2k (Jan 30, 2013)

I think you have no idea, not even close to Canon 100-400L/4.5-5.6 IS in AF speed. On 1.6x crop such as 7D/60D, its effective reach is 160-640mm. How about Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS II? With 1.4x TC, it's still 160-420mm/4.0 OS (native length before crop magnification). I also doubt IBIS is good enough in long tele-lens. lens based IS is still more effective especially with long tele lenses.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
Dennis Linden
By Dennis Linden (Jan 30, 2013)

So you don't really know its focusing speed or ibis performance. Don't let that stop you!

3 upvotes
Dave Luttmann
By Dave Luttmann (Jan 30, 2013)

Well Qianp2k....to quote you...."you don't own and experience the lens" so your opinion doesn't really matter. And just out of curiosity...why do you feel the need to vote yourself a like or thumbs up after every post you make?

Comment edited 58 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
qianp2k
By qianp2k (Jan 30, 2013)

This zoom will not be much difference from Panny 100-300/4.0-5.6 that is small/light but pretty slow in AF, not even close to Canon 100-400L. Someone voted for me while you're well known to vote to yourself. BTW, Dave, why you keep following me and epecially stalking me that I never understand?

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
1 upvote
ptox
By ptox (Jan 30, 2013)

@qianp: AF speed will be "not much different" from a lens by a different manufacturer with a different range and a different optical formula?

Is this what you call "reasoning"?

1 upvote
qianp2k
By qianp2k (Jan 30, 2013)

ptox: this Olmpus zoom emphasizes on further reduced size/weight that make its even compact than Panny 100-300. It's furhter slower in apeture perspective. I know not directly related to AF speed that partically on a strong and powerful AF motor inside the lens. However do you really expect it will be much AF faster than Panny 100-300 on mFT in such small body of the lens? No mention to 100-400L AF speed that is very reputed in BIF, airshow/motor spots, zoom and safari.

1 upvote
ptox
By ptox (Jan 30, 2013)

Now we're comparing this to a $1700 pro lens and PDAF+C-AF?

If that's what it takes to win your argument... :-)

1 upvote
BJL
By BJL (Jan 30, 2013)

@qianp2k: the Canon 100-400 both weighs and costs about three times as much as the Olympus m.Zuiko 75-300 Mk II, so your example highlights the advantages of this lens rather nicely.

2 upvotes
qianp2k
By qianp2k (Jan 30, 2013)

Ptox: what argument? In my OP I just said this zoom will not be very fast AF and may not faster than Panny 100-300 in addition to slower optical max-aperture performance. It's compact first and speed second on my understanding. But wait and see the reviews and owners’ experiences. BTW, 100-400L is in aggressive instant rebate for a while and even below $1400. One of reasons is that Canonrumors has CR2 rumor that the new version 100-400L/4.0-5.6 IS II is coming (should be by summer). Are you talking about $1700 RSMP years ago?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
qianp2k
By qianp2k (Jan 30, 2013)

BJL: by DSLR standard, it’s not that big :-) It’s pretty compact, and lighter than 70-200L/2.8 IS II actually. I can carry it (comes with a nice lens pouch) to walk-around entire day w/o a problem as I did recently in Vancouver trip (to pull out on 60D to snap some water planes or even landscape as I didn’t carry 70-200L/4.0 IS).
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7843305573/albums/vancouver-bc-canada

At end of days, it does the jobs that satisfied me which is only matters :-)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3352248
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3238329

I love this lens, sharp and AF very fast. mark II version should be even better.

1 upvote
Makinations
By Makinations (Jan 30, 2013)

f.google to f.googleplex.

1 upvote
sean000
By sean000 (Jan 30, 2013)

I'm excited. I hope they didn't cut any corners to get the lower price. I might actually sell my Nikon 300mm f/4. I know my Nikon is superior optically, but I've seen samples from the original version of the Oly that are pretty close for being muche smaller and lighter.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 30, 2013)

Don't do it. There's a huge difference between a proper 300 f/4 and this type of lens. If I were you, I'd find something less awesome than a 300 f4 Nikkor to trade.

3 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Jan 30, 2013)

A 300/4 on APS-C would be 2.5 stops faster than this.

2 upvotes
S Severs
By S Severs (Jan 30, 2013)

Many people in this forum don't understand the m4/3 concept or the physics of optics.

8 upvotes
sean000
By sean000 (Feb 1, 2013)

Believe me...I understand the differences between a 300mm f/4 and this lens. I've been shooting the 300mm f/4 for about six years with and without a TC. It's a superb lens, but these days I almost never use it. It's just more lens than I can carry most of the time. Now that I have small children I rarely get to go out specifically to photograph birds and other wildlife. When I do I usually have the kids with me. Believe me... it's not fun to carry a semi-pro Nikon DSLR, 300mm f/4, etc. while carrying a toddler on your back as well. Of course this lens won't be as good as the 300mm f/4. I know that, but what's the point of have a stellar lens you never use?

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 30, 2013)

Didn't Olympus also release the XZ-10 compact today? A mini XZ-2 with a 1/2.3" sensor for, are you seated, 350 pounds (or $550 US). No word yet on how it's supposed to compete with the MX-1 and X20 at that price.

Sorry, the telephoto zoom, yes, you all were saying?

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Jan 30, 2013)

In the sates it will be $399 MSRP, $349 street price. Don't try to convert UK prices using official currency conversion rates. :)

0 upvotes
S Severs
By S Severs (Jan 30, 2013)

No joke - the first version of this lens performs well in the right hands:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brb_photography/8393454285/in/photostream

Don't forget that m4/3 is an evolution of camera, not meant to duplicate traditional SLRs. There is room for all.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
OniMirage
By OniMirage (Jan 30, 2013)

Dat price ... looks like someone is going to own another zoom...

0 upvotes
SirSeth
By SirSeth (Jan 30, 2013)

Looks good to me. Slow due to small size. Most people are really unrealistic about what it takes to make fast 600mm equiv. zoom lenses small and cheap. Yes, if you live in a technological fairy tale, this lens should be f2.8 and cost $399.

5 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 30, 2013)

fast? I think most would be perfectly happy with the industry standard f4-5.6. F6.7 is a hard pill to swallow.

1 upvote
slimandy
By slimandy (Jan 30, 2013)

Happy with f5.6 but f6.7 is too much? It's half a stop. And that's a tiny lens to give you 600mm equivalent.

4 upvotes
whyamihere
By whyamihere (Jan 30, 2013)

I must admit, that's a lot of zoom to fit into a single lens. Combined with the smaller physical size and weight, it makes the smaller aperture understandable I suppose. The next-closest in Micro 4/3 is the Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6, and that thing is pretty bulky & heavy (though it also features OIS, which is handy). The tradeoff here is more reach and a smaller, lighter package in the Olympus, versus a big, heavy Panasonic lens with a wider aperture and OIS.

As we prattle along in the comments section talking [complaining] about specs, people who want such a lens will make the decision that's right for their needs and likely find themselves happy with their decision.

3 upvotes
Dennis Linden
By Dennis Linden (Jan 30, 2013)

I have compared Lumix lenses OIS on and off to IBIS on and off, and find, in my hands, the IBIS is more effective than OIS. So, I'll take the lighter weight for my EM5. This lens works well enough in good light (based on version I). Go find me a 600mm good lens for the same price anywhere else. Yes, there are many who complain, but I stick by my premise that they don't even have a u43 camera... Cheers.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 30, 2013)

@Dennis Linden 600mm lens? Don't you think calling this lens a 600mm lens because it's made for a crop sensor camera is a bit misleading?

If Olympus released a 300 f4 tomorrow for $600 it wouldn't be the first 600 f4 lens for under $9000. It would be a 300mm lens on a crop sensor camera.

My 70-200 f4 VR mounted on my Nikon V1 is a 190-540 f4 VR lens (in 35mm terms), but few would say it's actually a 540mm lens. There are tons of great 300mm lenses for this price or less. Lenses that have a native focal length of 600mm, not so much.

0 upvotes
slimandy
By slimandy (Jan 30, 2013)

More like a 190~540mm f10 in terms of equivalent focal length and DOF. You're right though. It's actually a 70~200mm f4 regardless of which body you put it on.

0 upvotes
qianp2k
By qianp2k (Jan 30, 2013)

Many don't understand crop magnification which is basically the same as digital zoom but subject to crop penality. 300mm lens is 300mm focus length no matter on which crop format. It becomes 600mm FF eq FoV thru 2X digital zoom that is fundermentally different from a native 600mm lens, that itself can be used on FF, APS-H (1.3x crop on Canon) and APS-C.

0 upvotes
Dave Luttmann
By Dave Luttmann (Jan 30, 2013)

First, there is no such thing as "crop penalty." Nor is this "digital zoom." Just more of your made up terms like "shadow dynamic range."

3 upvotes
qianp2k
By qianp2k (Jan 30, 2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor

Just give you some education. Otherwise why you don't use a 20X crop super-zoom 30mm on P&S to get the same 600mm FoV? Now you understand? FF is crop when compared to MF camera. Everything is relatively. mFT 2.0x crop just have 2.0x time digital zoom when compare to FF, so suffers 2.0x penalties.

Also where "shadow dynamic range" comes from? Are you OK? It's you making up and your mind seems not clear.

Comment edited 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
slimandy
By slimandy (Jan 30, 2013)

If you are going to apply the crop factor to get the focal length equivalent based on the FOV you should apply the same to the aperture to get the equivalent based on DOF. I just put the figures into DOF master and based on that the 600mm equivlent gives the same FOV, perspective, framing, DOF etc at an aperture of f14.3

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Jan 30, 2013)

"My 70-200 f4 VR mounted on my Nikon V1" is still 830 g and 178 mm long, sheesh.

0 upvotes
Red G8R
By Red G8R (Jan 30, 2013)

4.8-6.7, they must be joking.

2 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (Jan 30, 2013)

I think next they should release an f/8-11 lens, this fast glass from Olympus just has too little DoF. I like everything in focus damn it.

1 upvote
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Jan 30, 2013)

It's already there in full-frame equivalent numbers (150-600 f/9.6-13.4 in terms of FOV, DOF, image noise).

3 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Jan 30, 2013)

DOF is the same as it would be in a full frame 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 lens. Image noise? That has nothing to do with the lens. This is a slow super tele zoom lens, what you can expect is light weight and light price. In the world of optics, its all about compromises. Did we lower the IQ requirement to become a member....?

5 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (Jan 30, 2013)

"DOF is the same as it would be in a full frame 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 lens."

Assuming you neglect equivalent framing, sure. Who cares what's in the picture anyway?

3 upvotes
ptox
By ptox (Jan 30, 2013)

What we have here is an optically excellent, inexpensive, lightweight and extremely flexible long zoom for daytime shooting. What's not to like?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Jan 30, 2013)

Mssimo, yes image noise depends on the lens and sensor size primarily, as much as it may be a surprise to you :). Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format#Sensor_size.2C_noise_and_dynamic_range

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Jan 30, 2013)

"4.8-6.7, they must be joking."

It is fine for daylight. And for low light you would need something like f/2.8 anyway, which is going to be too big and heavy anyway in these focal lengths (Pana 35-100/2.8 and 100-300/4-5.6 are already pushing it for the reasonable sizes on m43).
Want these focal lengths (well, not quite) in low light?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/B0013DAPNU/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_3?ie=UTF8&index=3

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Jan 30, 2013)

"It's already there in full-frame equivalent numbers (150-600 f/9.6-13.4 in terms of FOV, DOF, image noise)."

It would be there in terms of image noise if FF sensors were as efficient per area as m43 sensors, but they are not, even the best of them.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Jan 30, 2013)

"DOF is the same as it would be in a full frame 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 lens."

Blur on the sensor is physically the same size, but actually DoF in the final picture is much shallower in practice than that because circle of confusion on the m43 sensors if only about half as big as on FF. If, for example, you want 1000 lines per pixel height of sharpness as definition of DoF, then CoC on FF is 0.024 mm and on m43 0.013 mm.

0 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Jan 30, 2013)

peevee1, not by much, less than 1/3 stop. Compare e.g. Nikon D800 with Olympus E-M5.

In terms of DOF pictures taken with m4/3 + e.g. 75mm f/5 will be indistinguishable from those taken with a FF + 150 f/10. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format#Sensor_size_and_depth_of_field

0 upvotes
jkrumm
By jkrumm (Jan 30, 2013)

Significant price drop, which is good. Makes room for a better, more expensive zoom eventually.

8 upvotes
ginsbu
By ginsbu (Jan 30, 2013)

That's some price drop!

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Jan 30, 2013)

I like the new simple look.

1 upvote
richardalanfox
By richardalanfox (Jan 30, 2013)

Does it blend?

1 upvote
OniMirage
By OniMirage (Jan 30, 2013)

Oh you...

0 upvotes
Dennis Linden
By Dennis Linden (Jan 30, 2013)

What? it doesn't bend?

0 upvotes
BBking83
By BBking83 (Jan 30, 2013)

*waits for the lamers complaining about it's useless focal length and/or apertures and/or format.*

11 upvotes
Total comments: 144