Previous news story    Next news story

CP+ 2013 - Micro Four Thirds lenses from Tamron and Olympus

By dpreview staff on Jan 31, 2013 at 04:33 GMT

CP+ 2013: Tamron is showing off its newly-announced 14-150mm F3.5-5.8 Di III VC stabilized superzoom lens for Micro Four Thirds, while Olympus has a revised version of its 75-300mm F4.8-6.7. Though Tamron hasn't yet announced the price or availability of the 14-150mm, the prototype it has on display is working and the company gave us a hint about how much it will charge.

Tamron 14-150mm F3.5-5.8 Di III VC

The Tamron 14-150mm prototype for Micro Four Thirds

In addition to having a prototype of the lens in a cabinet, Tamron also has a working prototype that they demonstrated for us. Even in pre-production form the stepper motor provides impressively fast and quiet focusing - supporting the company's suggestion that it'll work well for video shooting. Meanwhile, our first impression is that the Vibration Correction offers the same disconcertingly steady stabilization the company's other VC-equipped telephoto lenses offer.

The lens' metal housing gives a nice feel to the lens and helps result in a package that strikes a good balance between having some substance to it, without it then being too heavy. Although pricing hasn't yet been decided, Tamron told us that it would be 'competitive,' saying 'we can't charge too much when there are also lenses from Olympus and Panasonic.'

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II

Meanwhile, Olympus was also showing the latest version of its tele-zoom lens for Micro Four Thirds. The Mark II retains the same optical design as the original but adds the company's 'ZERO' (Zuiko Extra-low Reflection Optical) coatings to reduce internal reflections and fight ghosting and flare. The lens body has been redesigned to match the recent Micro Four Thirds zooms, such as the 14-42mm II R. In addition the list price has been substantially reduced - with Olympus now asking for around €549, rather than the €899 MSRP of the original version.

Comments

Total comments: 113
CarlPH
By CarlPH (9 months ago)

Nice zoom lenses there, was hoping there was 3rd party ultrawide lenses by now. Is it really that hard to create one for MFT?

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
speculatrix
By speculatrix (11 months ago)

no news at all about this new lens then?

Tamron have given Panasonic and Olympus a great head start to get ahead of this in the race for sales and mind share.

0 upvotes
DavidF
By DavidF (Apr 1, 2013)

We are all generating dozens, if not hundreds, of emails about a lens we've never seen or used. I think it will all come down to price and performance: does it work well and is it offered at a reasonable price?

I have the Oly 14-150mm, using it with my Lumix G3. I'm generally pleased with this setup, but want to check out the Tamron version since it includes vibration control. I'll have to wait and see however if it ends up being something I want and can use.

0 upvotes
Leify
By Leify (Mar 26, 2013)

With Tamron as the late comer in the MFT lens lineup, they are "one-upping" Panasonic and Olympus by releasing a slightly brighter super-telezoom for the everyday photographer who wants an all-in-one zoom lens. This is a slightly brighter lens on the short end than the current outdated offerings from Panasonic and Olympus which makes me salivate because I am curious to see how this compares performance-wise against the outdated super-zooms for mFT. I am hoping the IQ and sharpness is significantly greater on the Tamron.

I am less than impressed by the Oly 75-300 due to the slow/dark aperture at that length. I might just wait for the prime offerings from Panasonic or experiment with the Kenko or Tokina prime mirror lenses.

0 upvotes
acidic
By acidic (Feb 4, 2013)

Is this Tamron specifically designed for m4/3? Or is it an APS lens adapted for m4/3?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Feb 6, 2013)

14-150mm is a focal length range specifically for m4/3 (to give 28-300mm equivalent coverage).

3 upvotes
Zoomer123
By Zoomer123 (Feb 2, 2013)

I recently sold off my A65 with Tamron zoom lens and primes. It was a great setup just too bulky for my needs. The MFT allowed for more discrete shooting in my arena. Now that I concerted to a OM-D body I need to build up lens inventory. My question is wait for the new Tamron 14-150 or buy the Oly 14-150 now that the price dropped.

0 upvotes
jcuknz
By jcuknz (Feb 1, 2013)

What aperture is the 14-150 listed above. The 75-300 is not impressive IMO

0 upvotes
MikeSE25
By MikeSE25 (Feb 1, 2013)

The 75-300 is a small upgrade & cheaper

0 upvotes
armanius
By armanius (Feb 1, 2013)

Is the Tamrom an internal zoom? That'd make it a more attractive proposition over the Oly and Pany counterparts.

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (Feb 1, 2013)

No, it is not.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Feb 1, 2013)

I would buy this Tamron if it would start from 12 mm and be weather-sealed. I would pay $50-$100 more if it would start from 11 mm. Starting from 28 mm equivalent is so 2005...

1 upvote
bewing77
By bewing77 (Feb 1, 2013)

How many slow superzooms does the market require? Really?

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Jan 31, 2013)

I wonder who wrote the report. The show is in Japan. Does DPR have Japanese stuff?

0 upvotes
Ridethelight
By Ridethelight (Jan 31, 2013)

There are stacks of duplicated slow lenses for canon/Nikon camera's going back years, mirrorless is just a repeat of the last 10yr cyle.
If you want to be really serious about DOf ,you will need fixed fast primes or FF .
Between panasonic duplicating slow kit lenses and Olympus making overpriced silver lenses without hoods included i have finally lost interest in this m4/3 segment.

2 upvotes
lighthunter80
By lighthunter80 (Jan 31, 2013)

I think DOF is not so much of a concern with all these lenses above 100mm. I am saying that as owner of a FF SLR with fast primes. I see these lenses more for the hobby photographer as a travel kit.

If you want DOF and telephoto the 75 1.8 should be enough for 95% of applications.

4 upvotes
acidic
By acidic (Feb 4, 2013)

I think you mean if you *don't* want DOF.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 46 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
AV Janus
By AV Janus (Jan 31, 2013)

Why doesn't the 75-300mm have a cosmetic ring to hide that ugly hood thread.
Does it come with a hood!

THAT would be the biggest surprise from CP and Olympus!

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 31, 2013)

A cosmetic ring? That's a new one. I never thought of such a common thing as a bayonet lenshood terms of aesthetics. Why would you cover it when hopefully you'll be using the hood each time you use the lens. You want to have to screw on and off some fashion ring in the field just to mount the hood?

2 upvotes
AV Janus
By AV Janus (Jan 31, 2013)

14-42 has one and no you dont need a honking hood on the lens.
When the issue arises just shield it with a hand, :-P

But I understand their thinking of not prettying up this lens with a cosmetic ring. It is more of a specialty tool than a kit lens. If you are using it it is more likely that you are planing the shot not worrying about the looks.

I just hope there is a hood included and not "available only" at $50 extra. If that is the case I will take the pretty ring and use my hand in those 1 out og 100 shots that need it.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 31, 2013)

Using the hood in 1 out of 100 shots? Yikes.
You should be using the lenshood 100% of the time, when outdoors at least. When light hits the front element it destroys contrast. If you're not using a lenshood, you are not getting the most out of your lens.

I have never, ever heard of someone worrying the looks of a bayonet thread. Are you entering the lens in a fashion show or using it for photography?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
Pythagoras
By Pythagoras (Jan 31, 2013)

with a lens that size, what's the point of using mft?

1 upvote
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (Jan 31, 2013)

it's a 150mm-600mm FOV, it's a hell of a lot smaller and lighter than it's DX/FX equivalents.

11 upvotes
Ed Gill
By Ed Gill (Jan 31, 2013)

Here's the point:

Oly 50-200 f2.8-3.5 + OM-5D + Grip = 1645 grams
nikon 100-400 f4 + D600 + Grip = 4384 grams

Same FOV, advantage to Nikon in IQ but for 2.7x the weight not counting batteries!

8 upvotes
Ridethelight
By Ridethelight (Jan 31, 2013)

There is no point

0 upvotes
Ridethelight
By Ridethelight (Jan 31, 2013)

But the 50-200 lens is not native hence slooow AF,so whats the point in the comparision,why does the D600 need a grip ? and lastly a 300m reach Nikon lens cropped with the higher pixel far superior FF sensor will give the same reach in any case.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 1, 2013)

@mister_roboto The Nikon 70-300 f/4-5.6 is only 1" (25.4mm longer but it's has a faster max aperture at both ends. The Oly is smaller, not a "heck of a lot" smaller. Make any lens dark enough and it can be smaller.

@Ed Gill

There is no Nikon 100-400 f4, so I'm not sure where you got 4384 grams from. If you're talking about the 200-400 VR Nikkor, that's a $6,700 high grade professional lens that weighs over 3 kg by itself.

The Oly 50-200 is not a native m43 lens.

1 upvote
Ed Gill
By Ed Gill (Feb 1, 2013)

Marike6 - you are correct, my typo, meant to say 200-400 f4, not 100-400. My comment was directed at Pythagoras who appeared to question the point of long lenses or long zooms for MFT cameras. The point is weight and transporting the equipment. The comparison I offered was a close to even as possible for folks photographing birds or small animals who would typically use grips (I do for battery capacity and steadiness with long lenses and more secure vertical orientation). Yes I am well aware of the weight and price of the nikon 200-400 f4 which is "the point". You need that weight and expense to get 400 f4 coverage in a zoom on full frame whereas a 200 mm f4 gives the same FOV and speed with a lot less weight and cost. I'm also aware the 50-200 is not a native MFT lenses - my point is .. why not? The OM-5D is now a serious pro level camera with IQ, weather sealing, frame rate, AF, and a grip for extended shooting. We already have enough amature slow plastic zooms for MFT!

0 upvotes
MtOlympus
By MtOlympus (Jan 31, 2013)

I recently sold my 50-200 mm f/2.8 SWD lens because it was just too big and heavy. I iked everything else about that lens. A micro 4/3 50-200 mm f/3.5 could be perfect,and under a grand.

2 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (Jan 31, 2013)

f/6.7 seems really on the slow side - one needs to realize that with 16Mpix on m4/3 (pixel pitch 3.7 um) the systems becomes diffraction limited around f/8.

I agree that what Olympus should bring would be a constant aperture (maybe f/4 ?) 50-200 (give or take) weather sealed lens to go along with the Panasonic 12-35/2.8.

Maybe something like 'slimmed down' version of the Olympus 50-200/2.8-3.5 SWD which the 4/3 users praise so highly. But I am actually quite sure that Olympus will do that at some point - only unless they want to keep the 'pro' market to mirrored 4/3 (which I have no idea about)

1 upvote
valkyrite
By valkyrite (Jan 31, 2013)

I am just waiting (and saving) for Panasonic 150mm f2.8.

It would be a damn good lens for using at dimly lit concerts and events.

I just want it to be sharp and under $1K.

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
1 upvote
oklaphotog
By oklaphotog (Jan 31, 2013)

I'm excited about that lens too.... But it's a bit short for me. I'd be happy with that if they made a really good matching 2x TC for it, but the combination would have to be a bit better than the 100-300 panny zoom for it to be worth while.

0 upvotes
LarryK
By LarryK (Feb 1, 2013)

Under $1K? Don't hold your breath.

0 upvotes
MadsR
By MadsR (Feb 2, 2013)

I think it will be more than 1K, but still, the 24-70 and 70-200 equiv lenses have been substantially cheaper than the competition, 2.5x and 4x cheaper respectively...

Anyway, with lenses like these coming out, a good x1.4 and x2 converters with full electronic connections would start to make sense... Unlike with the 75-300 where it would just be silly :)

0 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (Jan 31, 2013)

Longing for really fast lenses with weather sealing matching the OMD.

5 upvotes
Rachotilko
By Rachotilko (Jan 31, 2013)

I have yet to see a good review of a Tamron superzoom. In case that happens, I am ready to buy.

1 upvote
oklaphotog
By oklaphotog (Jan 31, 2013)

Sure wish someone would make a faster long tele for m4/3. A 300/4 would be great.

5 upvotes
Ed Gill
By Ed Gill (Jan 31, 2013)

Amen and I second that! I hope Sigma re-releases the 100-300 f4 zoom in MFT. They had it in 4/3 for a short while, no redesign needed except re-mount to MFT registration - killer lens. Told this to the Sigma reps at Bosque del Apache last Nov, hope they listen. A 10mm f2.8 from Panasonic would also be nice along with a macro zoom.

2 upvotes
cashewNut
By cashewNut (Jan 31, 2013)

I am now ready to join the OM-D brigade. I got the money but I couldn't decide on what lens to use. This Tamron 14-150mm lens is very promising. If the price is right and the lens is not made in China, then I am in.

0 upvotes
martyvis
By martyvis (Jan 31, 2013)

Why the diss on China? The OM-D itself is made there - as is my Panasonic G3. I'm sure like most of the Japanese they have pretty much full control of the design and manufacuring process, no matter where it is.

0 upvotes
cashewNut
By cashewNut (Jan 31, 2013)

OM-D is made in China? Thanks for telling me. I changed my mind then. I bought a Minolta camera before and I did not realize it was made in China. We spent a week in Cancun, Mexico and ended up using a disposal camera. My brother bought a Canon dslr in HongKong but did not suspect it was made in China and less than 6 months it wouldn't focus right. The repair center in Chicago said it could not be fixed because the parts are different in Asia. Enough aggravation for me.

1 upvote
EvokeEmotion
By EvokeEmotion (Jan 31, 2013)

My Canadian-made Honda Odyssey's electric door broke. I think I will stop buying Canadian-made cars.

My Canadian-made hardwood floor dents way too easily. I think I will stop buying Canadian hardwood floor.

No, I will not stop buying Canadian products just because I really did have some bad experience with products made there.

1 upvote
agentul
By agentul (Feb 1, 2013)

the safest way is to mine your own minerals, gather all of the required chemicals, go buy a bankrupt eastern european manufacturing facility and build your own camera. it's the only way to be sure.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 31, 2013)

the 4/3" is a gold mine that you can make cheap lenses and sell at unreasonably high prices.

4 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Jan 31, 2013)

What is a "reasonable price." Are any lens manufacturers showing hyper returns on equity these days? Check the investor relations section of Tamron's website. Management estimates Y4B in 2012 profits, which would be an 11% return on Y36B in equity. That's decent, but not unreasonable. Meanwhile, Panasonic and Olympus are losing money.

4 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (Jan 31, 2013)

Technology is moving forward in an accelerating pace. Profits are needed to invest for securing the future. Gold mines are rare and hard to sustain. Tamron's profit is reasonable and they produce excellent value for their customers.

0 upvotes
kev777zero
By kev777zero (Jan 31, 2013)

The new 14-150mm Tamron looks nice, hopefully it won't be too much heavier than the Oly 14-150mm given the fact that is has in-lens stabilization.

as for the new 75-300mm...at least the MSRP is more reasonable than the previous version

2 upvotes
Ben Herrmann
By Ben Herrmann (Jan 31, 2013)

To begin with, I find it amusing how different folks can look at a product and provide immensely passionate opposing viewpoints - so yes Vern, there are "different strokes for different folks." But remember, they're just personal opinions based on first "gut reactions" to what they see.

I personally am glad to see this new Tamron zoom lens for a number of reasons, mainly:

1. Other traditional, well-known 3rd party lens makers are now making micro 43 lenses.

2. My experience with the Tamron 18-270 VC (both versions) on the likes of Nikon DSLR's led me to completely admire Tamron's VC system. So seeing this new 28-300 MM equivalent for the micro 4/3 cameras is really encouraging.

So for those who malign this lens, there will be many who will welcome its release on the micro 4/3 side of the house - a format that is growing by leaps and bounds. And yes, I shoot with a variety of brands of cameras (love'em all) but the advances made within the m4/3 field have been fantastic.

4 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Jan 31, 2013)

Yes; but the advances have not been in better value, nor better overall quality in combination. Since the whole point is pictures, we all need to step back, and think. Plus, saying that quality will naturally cost more (agreed) does not validate 1000% more, for overall less. We need primes, especially for more cropped sensors, and at a better quality/value, than even Nikkor ones.

APS-C is needed. MFT, should be the best ultra-zoomer sensor.

Still, I hope something mirror-less will progress in leaps, not tiny increments; such as hybrid phase/contrast focus, and with hybrid optical/EVF combination. Perhaps the next renditions of the M5; but the makers do not always progress.

This is all up to what you buy. There's a lot of talk about sales being half what they were, and every reason for that, except that photographers are waiting for makers to produce something truly better, in total balance, and at non-ludicrous prices. After all, its just a camera, and we *can* drop it.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Jan 31, 2013)

Camera fans do have a very narrow DOF on just about everthing. Their DR is zero: all black or blow-ouot. It's lover or hate, with nothing in between. Horrible company for dinner. Don't chat about cameras, or you can expect to start a food fight. Stick to tame stuff like religion or politics.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
Ed Gill
By Ed Gill (Jan 31, 2013)

How depressing. I have been waiting four years for the MFT market to catch on with lenses but it seems like these cameras and lenses are designed by the junior engineers with no imagination. Three major area of still photography that are perfect for MFT. 1. Long lens telephoto - is a 250/300/350mm REALLLY that hard - with a tripod ring mount please. 2. Macro - 75mm f2 and 100 f2.8 marco with tripod ring please or a 50-100 f2.8 macro/micro zoom. 3. TRAVEL, how about some alternate power sources like AA battery packs/grips. Yes you can take spare expensive batteries but spare chargers(?) if the fry? I really don't need to comment on the lens prices either do I - 20mm f1.7 at $350 - really?? Great potential poorly executed, the blunders in this industry are breath taking.

3 upvotes
Artpt
By Artpt (Jan 31, 2013)

Any thoughts on joining the industry? There is always a need for creativity with gumption. There's nothing more effective than performing on commentary, and nothing more reassuring...it is not easy in any domain of product or service, for that matter, but best of wishes...

1 upvote
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Jan 31, 2013)

A 350mm lens on a m4/3 body would be nose-heavy and be incompatible with the light or EZ-carry virtue that the cameras are supposed to fulfill. It would also result in very shaky video, even with OIS, without a tripod. The market for people who use a tripod would be small, so the price would have to be very high.

Furthermore, once Metabones starts selling speed-booster adapters for m4/3, people like you will use it with legacy FF lenses, for a lower all-in price and faster effective aperture.

How depressing, indeed, it would be for anyone to make huge m4/3 lenses that would gather dust on counters as their four-digit price tags turn yellow!

0 upvotes
Ed Gill
By Ed Gill (Jan 31, 2013)

Artpt. My choice was engineering and construction management although optical engineering was my first love, just chose another path out of necessity (eating). I would be happy to provide comments on camera designs, as a user for over 40 years experience. Some companies (like Fuji) seem to take the comments to heartand incorporate them for better more usable designs. I am well aware of compromizes needed in design and the issues with first costs and time to market, etc., etc. but there seems to be a lack of imagination in the current crop of lens for MFT. Olympus seems to "get it" mostl,y and the feedback I see has been positive (fast quality primes but a bit over priced). My point is that there so little development in the macro, telephoto area after so many years is amazing Sorry still depressed and looking elsewhere. No comment on the second reply needed.

1 upvote
Dave Oddie
By Dave Oddie (Jan 31, 2013)

The idea no should make a 350mm lens for m4/3 because it would be "incompatible with the light or EZ-carry virtue that the cameras are supposed to fulfill." has got to be a joke.

People are attracted to the OM-D because it can prove a much more compact SLR type system in the way the original 4/3 system was envisaged to do. Given a 350mm lens has a f.o.v of a 700mm lens on full frame you ought to end up with one of the most "EZ-carry" birding rigs on the market!

Such lenses would not gather dust as people ditched more bulky alternative systems. m4/3 is in fact finally on the verge of realising olys first vision for 4/3 - if they make the lenses and charge a reasonable price for them.

1 upvote
Ed Gill
By Ed Gill (Jan 31, 2013)

Dave, Couldn't agree more. I didn't think Cy's comment deserved a response but you said it well. Olympus jumped into the 4/3 market with some spectacular lenses but the mirror boxes on the 4/3 bodies caused the size-weight bonus to be minimal to no gain for the trade off in sensor area. Now MFT offers the real benefits promised but - where are those beautiful 4/3 lenses remounted to native MFT? And TAMRON, I love TAMRON, I have three of their lenses and bought another for my son. TAMRON has two wonderfull Macro's 60 f2 and 90 f2.8 perfect to release in native MFT with competition from what? Panasonic 45 f2.8 (too short and overpriced) and Oly 60 f2.8 (good but not as fast as the Tammy). Instant market advantage again little competition and virtually no R and D to develop. So what do they do - R&D yet a THIRD 14-150 mega zoom - priceless! Just what we needed. To make matters worst they are going to have to also R&D the in-camera lens corrections protocals for both Oly and Panasonic!!

1 upvote
W Sanders
By W Sanders (Jan 31, 2013)

If I'm going to need a three pound lens I might as well use a DSLR. The 14-140mm 10x zooms are clunky enough that I'm not interested.

I'm in the "wanting fast m4/3 tele primes" clique, a 100 / 2.8 would be perfect.

The Olympus 75/1.8 is close - but not sure if it autofocuses with Panasonics.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Jan 31, 2013)

A Vibration Correction that offers "disconcertingly steady stabilization"?

How so?

Isn't that like a noisy silence, hot ice, a savant idiot, or reddish green?

Vibration and shake are the disconcerting bane of all zoom lenses, especially when used for hand-held video.

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Scott Birch
By Scott Birch (Jan 31, 2013)

Another awkward moment when an excitable writer lays on the adverbs ...

3 upvotes
legokangpalla
By legokangpalla (Jan 31, 2013)

Moar MFTs! MOAR!

4 upvotes
monkeyking
By monkeyking (Jan 31, 2013)

Does the Tamron lens get physically longer when zooming out like the Panasonic 14-140?

2 upvotes
Boris F
By Boris F (Jan 31, 2013)

Yes, but it is look nice. http://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=it&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20130131_585931.html

0 upvotes
BingoCharlie
By BingoCharlie (Jan 31, 2013)

It looks just like the Oly and Pany do when extended. http://1.static.img-dpreview.com/files/news/3491563974/250/Oly2.jpg?v=1930

0 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (Jan 31, 2013)

The Tamron with its metal outfit looks great. I have been using Tamrons on APS-C for many years and I am very happy with the price/performance ratio.

Will buy this new Tamron MFT for my Panasonic camera – it is just the right proposition. It is good for our wallet when there are more players in the field than the common big brand names. One must support initiatives like this one from Tamron.

7 upvotes
iae aa eia
By iae aa eia (Jan 31, 2013)

i have the feeling companies are just making some extra money since they started to build aps-c and mft lenses, because these continue to have the same aperture lenses used to have in the film era (or same as ff lenses), but now being smaller, lighter, produced in a larger scale, and sold more.

ok, one might say they have to be sharper, and being it and cheap come with a price: the price itself or a small aperture. maybe the companies are increasing the mp count on purpose, so they can continue to use this 'quality' argument. or yet, they are taking advantage of this 'the more compact the better' trend to continue making great dark lenses.

0 upvotes
iudex
By iudex (Jan 31, 2013)

I don´t want to be too critical, but f6,7 at 600 mm eq. does not look good. I have a 55-300mm telezoom (83-450mm eq.) with f5,8 at the tele end and I constantly feel the need to have faster lens, because holding a safe time (cca. 1/400s) requires higher ISO even at f5,8. 1/2 EV slower and 150mm longer lens is not something I would long for.

3 upvotes
Alphoid
By Alphoid (Jan 31, 2013)

Key question is whether they're any good. My existing Tamron lenses have been disappointing for both IQ and especially build quality. One developed horrible zoom cheap after a few years. The second developed a rattling sound. Warranty appears useless since I did not keep receipt, although the lens was introduced recently enough that they know it is under warranty... They were well treated and lightly used.

2 upvotes
ripleysbaby
By ripleysbaby (Jan 31, 2013)

Show report ! Is that it ? One zoom .
Not a very exciting show then.

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Jan 31, 2013)

This must be the most boring CP+ ever

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 31, 2013)

Oddly enough this isn't the sum total of our coverage, it's just the bit we've had time to write.

More to come.

1 upvote
D1N0
By D1N0 (Jan 31, 2013)

You could have written something by now. But apparently there is nothing to write about.

0 upvotes
evoprox
By evoprox (Jan 31, 2013)

Would be nice to see a remake of their great 17-50mm/f2.8 for m43.

1 upvote
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Jan 31, 2013)

olympus please make a fast 25mm lens please

6 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jan 31, 2013)

Yes, please. I've been daydreaming about a 24mm-f/1.8 for so long. 24mm would be even better than 25mm, for which there's already the Panaleica. If Olympus did it, it could be something special.

1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Jan 31, 2013)

What's the point of an Olympus fast 25mm when that focal length is already covered by Panasonic? Surely it would be better to cover different focal lengths?

5 upvotes
Demon Cleaner
By Demon Cleaner (Jan 31, 2013)

@ Andy Crowe
Welcome to the world of rabid fanboyism, where brand indoctrination is adopted with religious fervor, common sense and reasoned thinking are flung straight out the window, and actual photography is but a distant afterthought.

4 upvotes
agentul
By agentul (Jan 31, 2013)

@ Andy Crowe: competition.

4 upvotes
dbateman
By dbateman (Jan 31, 2013)

Yes there is only the Panasonic 25mm f1.4, the Voil 25mm f0.95, the SLR gear 25mm f0.95, the old Olympus 25mm f2.8 pancake (adapted). Then there are the adapted lenses with Tamron adaptall 24mm f2.5, and hundred other 24mm lenses with adapters.

Yes we really need a 25mm lens. I may have missed some.

4 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jan 31, 2013)

@dbateman, I'll tell you why I think a fast standard lens from Olympus is needed:
1. There is none. The 25mm-f/2.8 Pancake is a 4/3 lens that needs an adapter and autofocus can be erratic when such lenses are mounted on micro 4/3 bodies;
2. Olympus micro 4/3 lenses have consistently offered better image quality than Panasonic's;
3. The Voigtländer is too expensive and, like the SLR Gear, is manual focus only;
4. Despite being able to provide good results, adapted lenses aren't ideal. AF can be problematic, and old MF lenses can have appalling levels of chromatic aberration and distortion. (They're wide-angle lenses that will work as standard ones.)
So yes, there's room for another standard lens in micro 4/3 line-up. Your reasoning could legitimate the idea that no car constructor should make 2000 cm3-engined, mid-sized cars anymore just because there are way too many already.
Demon Cleaner was just trying to say something smart, but he obviously failed. No time to waste on him.

3 upvotes
Valentinian
By Valentinian (Jan 31, 2013)

Why ? Why?
I have the PL 25/1.4 , am happy with it, and hope that Olympus engineers use their time for other type of lenses. 25mm is already covered.

1 upvote
Mario G
By Mario G (Jan 31, 2013)

I'm also happy with my PL 25mm F1.4 for that focal length range, which I think is now decently covered (we could also count in, slightly wider, the Sigma 19mm F2.8 which is not too fast but at least quite cheap). What I would really like to see instead is a fast (ultra)wide lens, ideally a 12mm F1.4 (or at least F2.0). I'm not an expert in optics, but would that be much harder to make? (the prices of the Canon/Nikon FF 24mm F1.4 vs. their 50mm would suggest that it's gonna be quite more expensive at least...).
The best fast (ultra)wide that I can find now is the Pana 14mm F2.5, which is not wider than the kit zoom, and only a bit fast...

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Feb 1, 2013)

@Mario G: http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/olympus_m_zuiko_digital_ed_12mm_f_2_review/
Ring a bell...?

0 upvotes
Mario G
By Mario G (Feb 1, 2013)

I was actually missing the Olympus 12mm F2.0 which seems quite good - but also a Pana (and maybe Tamron and others too too) lenses of that kind would be quite good to have.

0 upvotes
Mario G
By Mario G (Feb 1, 2013)

@ManuelVilardeMacedo: thanks I was just noticing it indeed, I must have skipped it thinking that it wouldn't match well with a Pana body... though I'm just reading reviews that seem to say that it's not the case.

1 upvote
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Feb 1, 2013)

there is exactly one fully compatible standard lens for m43. for nikon F there is 5 i can think of off the top of my head. I think the market can bear 2 here

1 upvote
mcam
By mcam (Feb 3, 2013)

I too am waiting for a quality fast 25mm from Oly. It doesn't need to be f1.4. f1.8 or f2.0 would be good enough. But the size has to be smaller than Pana's 25mm f1.4. Somewhere between Pana 20mm and Oly's new 17mm would be nice...

0 upvotes
WirenL
By WirenL (Jan 31, 2013)

I am glad to see Tamron jumping in and producing m4/3 lenses, great news. I would rather see some fast tele's with great PDAF for C-AF... I shoot sports and like to do wildlife.... early am and near dusk means the faster the better so I can shoot earlier and longer... some of you may be happy with the higher apertures... but some of us really would like to see some faster tele's being made!

4 upvotes
Hubertus Bigend
By Hubertus Bigend (Jan 31, 2013)

If the Tamron is good, that would be one obstacle less for me if I should want to buy into Micro FT some day.

On the other hand, what I'm using now is the Panasonic "Leica" 14-150 FT lens, and neither of the two existing MFT superzooms seems to be a match for it. So the Tamron would have to be better than both...

0 upvotes
bimmerman
By bimmerman (Jan 31, 2013)

Does the Pana Leica 14-150 focus fast on a m43 body? More like a Panasonic 20mm f1.7 or faster?

1 upvote
Iskender
By Iskender (Jan 31, 2013)

From what I hear, finding an equal for the Leicasonic 14-150 is a futile task. It's sharp across the range and still relatively small right?

I have yet to hear about an equally good superzoom in any system.

1 upvote
Hubertus Bigend
By Hubertus Bigend (Jan 31, 2013)

@bimmerman: I haven't really tested that, but I'd think it would be still somewhat slower than the 20/1.7, even though it was officially cd-af compatible right from the start.

@Iskender: Right, the lens is about the same size and weight as the Olympus 12-60. The only other really good superzoom I know of is the big Canon 28-300 L for full frame.

1 upvote
wootpile
By wootpile (Jan 31, 2013)

Thank you Tamron for upping the competition. The current lowering of Oly lens prices surely is a combination of growing m43 market and more competition.

I would really like to see tamron also step in with something like a 14-50 2.8 - 4

2 upvotes
Anfernee Cheang
By Anfernee Cheang (Jan 31, 2013)

14-150 for M43 is constructed with 1 LD, 2 ASP, 1 hybrid ASP. 18-200 for E-mount is constructed with 2 LD, 3 ASP, 1 hybrid ASP, and 1 XR. E-mount version did a great job in regard to PQ. So don't know what the difference will be , but should be rather interesting when comparing these 2 :)

1 upvote
agentul
By agentul (Jan 31, 2013)

finally, serious competition for the Panasonic 14-140mm. if they match the image quality and get it to work with continuous AF it will be awesome. I just hope their target price is 500-600 USD (the Panasonic sells for around $600 on amazon.com) and not the $800 that Panasonic asks for it on its website. a $600 lens is a $600 lens.

also, with f3.5 at 14mm it can truly be a replacement for the 14-42 and 14-45 mm lenses for traveling.

not to mention the 52mm filter thread.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Desert Cruiser
By Desert Cruiser (Jan 31, 2013)

Sorry but I guess I missed this in another review of one of Tamron's lenses. Would/could you explain what this means "Vibration Correction offers the same disconcertingly steady stabilization the company's other VC-equipped telephoto lenses offer"
What is disconcerting about their stabilizer? Please explain.

Thanks
Don...

3 upvotes
agentul
By agentul (Jan 31, 2013)

it probably means that if you suddenly drop your camera the image still stays in front of you. that's just how good it is.

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 31, 2013)

agentul is exactly right - if you are zoomed in a long way and you accidentally move the camera, the VC's ability to continue to show the same image, despite your movement, is always strange to see.

4 upvotes
bloodycape
By bloodycape (Jan 31, 2013)

I want to see how the Tamron looks on a smaller m4/3 camera like the GF3 or E-PM line.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 31, 2013)

I'll add an image of it on the E-P3 - that's the smallest I was able to shoot it on.

3 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Jan 31, 2013)

Richard, are you in Japan now?

0 upvotes
arqomx
By arqomx (Jan 31, 2013)

does all camera bodies will recognize the 'strange' f-number (5.8? 6.7?). I thought the widely-accepted standard for f-stop are 3.5, 4, 5.6, 6.3, 7.1, 8, etc...

2 upvotes
kewlguy
By kewlguy (Jan 31, 2013)

I'm amazed at these slow f/5.8 or even f/6.7 lenses. What's the point using small sensor then? These things are mediocre at best, too.

7 upvotes
BJN
By BJN (Jan 31, 2013)

The slow aperture means smaller and cheaper lenses. Smaller lenses are in keeping with what a lot of people want for a smaller sensor camera, so I don't understand your point.

12 upvotes
agentul
By agentul (Jan 31, 2013)

@kewlguy: apparently after making a 24x zoom lens with constant f2.8 for the FZ-200 (a camera that sells for 600 USD) the engineers realized that they work at the same company that sells 12-35 mm f2.8 and 35-100 mm f2.8 for 1200-1400 USD. they have now resigned and work as rice farmers, such was their embarrassment.

5 upvotes
Hubertus Bigend
By Hubertus Bigend (Jan 31, 2013)

f/6.7 for a 300mm telezoom is ridiculous indeed.

f/5.6 or f/5.8 for a compact 14-150 superzoom is okay, though. Even though I do have some fast HG lenses for my FT DSLR, I love my Panasonic "Leica" 14-150/3.5-5.6. At 150mm it has a nice bokeh, too, even though it's "only" f/5.6. If the Tamron was any good, it would probably be the first lens I'd buy if I ever was going to buy a Micro FT camera.

1 upvote
nb44
By nb44 (Jan 31, 2013)

I agree that while the 75-300 is "slow", f6.7 on the long end isn't that bad. Most of the competing "big" sensor consumer zooms come with f/5.6 at the long end. However, maximum sharpness on these lenses is achieved at f/8. In comparison, the "slow" m4/3 lenses are sharp (in relation with the lens performance) wide open and only increase slightly on stopping down before hitting the diffraction limit.Plus they also have the added advantage of being smaller which is in keeping with the camera sizes.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
mgblack74
By mgblack74 (Jan 31, 2013)

150mm @ f/5.8? Goodbye creative DOF!

3 upvotes
linux99
By linux99 (Jan 31, 2013)

Baaa Baaa Baaa go the sheep without thinking.

150mm on m4/3 is a 300mm equivalent. At 30 feet (would give you a half torso portrait) the DOF is 2 feet.

What on earth are you talking about??

20 upvotes
acidic
By acidic (Jan 31, 2013)

You should shoot full frame. Goodbye!

4 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (Jan 31, 2013)

300mm FOV and you worry about "creative DOF?"

3 upvotes
Ross the Fidller
By Ross the Fidller (Jan 31, 2013)

It's easy to make critical comments from your computer without having tried it & especially on an OM-D. It sounds like you have the unbending FF bias.

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Ganondorf
By Ganondorf (Jan 31, 2013)

That Tamron actually look sweet. Kind of hate the look of my silver 14-150 Olympus

0 upvotes
Aleo Veuliah
By Aleo Veuliah (Jan 31, 2013)

They look good.

3 upvotes
Total comments: 113