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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not soon to launch, already launched.

...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!

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

that would be good too! :)

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.

@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.

"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.

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?

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

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.

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

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").

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

@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

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.

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

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?

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?

@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"?

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.

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

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

@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.

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

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

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."

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

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....?

"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?

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

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