Previous news story    Next news story

Olympus developing 7-14mm F2.8 and 300mm F4 'Pro' lenses

By dpreview staff on Feb 12, 2014 at 09:54 GMT

When Olympus announced the high-end OM-D E-M1, it promised that it would be making a wideangle zoom and super-telephoto prime in its matching 'PRO' line of lenses. Now it's given a few more details for those products. The M.Zuiko Digital ED 7-14mm 1:2.8 PRO shares many design features with the current 12-40mm 1:2.8 PRO, while the M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm 1:4 PRO offers a 600mm equivalent angle of view. Both lenses are dust- and splash-proof, and will be available next year.

Press release:

Development of the Olympus Micro Four Thirds lens system 

 M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 300mm 1:4 PRO

Two additional M.ZUIKO PRO lenses to launch from 2015 onwards 

London, February 12 2014 – Olympus is pleased to announce the development of two new lenses in the M.ZUIKO PRO series: the wide-angle zoom lens M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 7-14mm 1:2.8 PRO and the super telephoto lens M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 300mm 1:4 PRO. Both lenses conform to the Micro Four Thirds system standard. Mock-ups* of the lenses will be shown at the Camera & Photo Imaging Show CP+ starting Thursday, February 13, 2014 in Japan. With the addition of these two lenses the M.ZUIKO PRO series will cover the entire range from super wide angle to super telephoto. 

M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 7-14mm 1:2.8 PRO lens 

 M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 7-14mm 1:2.8 PRO

The new splash and dust-proof M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 7-14mm F2.8 PRO is the first wide-angle zoom lens in the M.ZUIKO PRO series to cover 14-28mm**. The compact and lightweight design of this new Micro Four Thirds lens portrays its well-known ZUIKO quality alongside excellent depictive power and superb edge-to-edge clarity. 

M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 300mm 1:4 PRO lens 

The M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 300mm 1:4 PRO is the first fixed focus super telephoto lens in the M.ZUIKO PRO series with a 600mm** focal range. This portable lens offers top-level image quality in a dust and splash-proof housing making it perfect even for professional users. 

Availability of all four M.ZUIKO PRO lenses 

The first interchangeable lens of this series, the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-40mm 1:2.8 PRO is already available while its successor, the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 40-150mm 1:2.8 PRO, is scheduled to go on sale in the second half of 2014. The final two Olympus system lenses in the M.ZUIKO PRO quartet, covering everything from super wide angle to super telephoto, are currently under development. Both new lenses are scheduled to be released from 2015 onwards. More details will be announced prior to the launch. 

* The mock-ups will not necessarily show the final design.    ** 35mm equivalent. 

Key Product Features: 

M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 7-14mm 1:2.8 PRO lens 

  • Wide-angle zoom lens 
  • 14-28mm (35mm equivalent) 
  • Dust and splash-proof 
  • Compact and lightweight form

M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 300mm 1:4 PRO lens 

  • Super telephoto lens 
  • 600mm (35mm equivalent) 
  • Dust and splash-proof 

Comments

Total comments: 143
ambercool
By ambercool (1 month ago)

I can't wait!!!

0 upvotes
rialcnis
By rialcnis (2 months ago)

All the new lens choices are making my head spin.

1 upvote
photohounds
By photohounds (1 month ago)

Yeh, WANT x2 After the 40-150/2.8!

hey could use a 1.4 converter too.
With these 2 lenses it would give:
* 420 at f/5.6 for an
AOV equivalent 840mm!
* 56 to 210 at F4.0 for an
AOV equivalent of 112 ro 420mm

That combination would cover 99% of long lens needs (except maybe for bragging that your FMF lenses are massively LARGER and HEAVIER)

** FMF = Full Marketing Frame

0 upvotes
DeFinitive
By DeFinitive (2 months ago)

I might consider the 7-14 and absolutely loving my 12-40 f2.8, so much so that I'm selling all my Canon gear.

3 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (2 months ago)

Yep, I unloaded all the big stuff ...
This gear is excellent, and prints to poster size still looking good.

When I think of what poster prints looked like in the '80s ...

0 upvotes
RedWingNut
By RedWingNut (2 months ago)

"Both new lenses are scheduled to be released from 2015 onwards." What? Minimum 10 months from now? Seems interest in M4/3 will be dead by then unless they pop out something mid-2014... Lots of others making waves, Oly.

0 upvotes
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (2 months ago)

Like a 25mm f1.8 and a 40-150 f2.8?

2 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (1 month ago)

Interest in four thirds dead?
Time to try a new career - as a comedian.

BRICKS and BAZOOKAS is certainly losing sales.

Could it be that once people see MFT RESULTS, that the big sensor lie is exposed?

BTW I edit images for other 'togs some days. I see nothing that makes me yearn for huge heavy gear.

I liked my RB67
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/6x7-early-80s . . .
However, excessively large gear is no longer needed to make quality images.

Results have MORE credibility than FMF marketing and its brainwashed and NOT so merry adherents do.

Coming soon ... FMF marketed as a cure for cancer. Some twits will swallow it.

0 upvotes
Daniel Bliss
By Daniel Bliss (2 months ago)

I want to see the 150/2 in MFT, no adapter needed. That truly would make the system unique.

I will at least say that if Olympus's MFT pricing follows the 150/2 FT, I think it's reasonable to expect this 300 to come in at or under $2000, rather than in the ballpark of a 35mm format 600.

2 upvotes
Liberator
By Liberator (2 months ago)

I just got 12-40 weeks ago and that was amazing lens to say but 7-14 F2.8 sounds better too. Can't wait for the release.

1 upvote
Nathan Cowlishaw
By Nathan Cowlishaw (2 months ago)

I'm really excited for the 7-14mm F2.8 lens. I just hope it doesn't cost an arm and a leg. lol I will buy it if it is under a grand. :)

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

should worth 1/4 of Nikon 14-24/2.8 plus extended range, etc.

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Silent K
By Silent K (2 months ago)

It shouldn't worth 1/4 of Nikon 14-24/2.8. The 35-mm equivalences in the DOF (and/or AOV) is not in congruent with the price. Having an equivalent means you have to purchase the full frame camera body too, not just the "equivalent" lens. At least talk about a mirrorless full-frame like Sony. Comparing a mirrorless technology to a mirror technology is already comparing apples and oranges.

It will cost more than a grand, in my view, because the Panasonic 2.8's are already costing more than a grand. The Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 is already just $1 shy from a grand. So, I presume the ultra wide angle at the same aperture size will be even more than $999.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

DoF translates directly (they mean each other, different aspects of a same thing) into 1/4 of light gathering capacity with translates into price.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 43 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Silent K
By Silent K (2 months ago)

I don't think so. If it is the same sensor with lenses of differing f-stops (hence, DOFs), then you are correct. DOF-->price. But you are comparing a lens of FF sensor to a lens of m43 sensor. The pixel density for m43 sensor is approximately 16.3 MP/2.2 cm² ~ 7.2 MP/cm², whereas the density that of Nikon D800 (OR Sony A7R) is only 36 MP/8.6 cm² ~ 4.2 MP/cm². The m43 sensor is a 7.2/4.2 ~ 1.7x more dense that of an FF sensor. So, to recapitulate, you're comparing apples to oranges.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
1 upvote
photohounds
By photohounds (2 months ago)

I see the troll who thinks metal and glass cost is the main reason lenses are expensive, still lurks away from his SONY site.

Consider this: The C.O.C. required for sharpness is not 1/30mm, it is 1/60mm ...

MFT glass has to be higher quality and is.

Most of the lenses produced in the last 2.5 years are superb. The 45 is an out and out bargain!
116g, sharp, unobtrusive, pocket a couple of the smaller primes easily. Samples: (more soon)

http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Gear-tests/Zuiko-45mm-f18/

Try that with FMF (oh while you're at it .. compare FMF (full Marketing Frame) sharpness vs. Zuikos over at slrgear . com

I spend ZERO time on other makers sites and forums (well maybe GoPRo ..) That's because I'm too busy USING my gear to make a nuisance of my self over at their fora, making pseudo-relevant technical quips.

Sorry had to correct a few typos.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Zoron
By Zoron (2 months ago)

no built-in extender 1.4X....in 2014 y ppl still do this?....no innovation

0 upvotes
Zoron
By Zoron (2 months ago)

better yet 2 built-in extender 1.4X and 2X

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

should ask for 4 times more pixels and crop for best image quality, like Nokia 808.

0 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (2 months ago)

300mm f/4.0 needs a front lens diameter of at least 75mm, almost 3" across. There is no way around it. Doesn't matter if the camera is FF or m4/3. Until they figure out how to do aspherics better and allow for elimination of more of the spherical elements, the multiple elements needed by these lenses will mean heavy weight.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

two+ to three pounds.

0 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (1 month ago)

Maybe they'll use 72mm , a little vignetting is an acceptable part of almost EVERY lens design.

Zuikos regularly are top class in vignetting and wide open sharpness, AND corner to corner sharpness.

Nothing to worry about here.

FMF (Full Marketing Frame) has to make heavy bazookas to compete.

0 upvotes
Zoron
By Zoron (2 months ago)

by 2015 there will be a Omd-em2

1 upvote
photohounds
By photohounds (1 month ago)

By 2018 there will be an OMD Em-4 so what?

Crikey my 2020, thay may have used all EM numbers 1-9 up...oh dear.

Other makers of course will not release any new cameras,. And especially they won't try to catch up. Right?

Planning to wait forever, using something you are not happy with until then are you?

0 upvotes
deep7
By deep7 (2 months ago)

That 300/4 is bang on and will make a lot of people smile. We don't even know the specs beyond focal length and aperture or how good it will be except Olympus has such a good pedigree with its top level optics that I'm quite confident it will be worth saving for. I'm sure the 7-14/2.8 will bring similar smiles to others.

This new "Pro" line (I have the 12-40, which is just wonderful), along with the weather-resistant macro and other nice primes, together with some nicely sorted bodies mean the whole system makes so, so, so much sense!

4 upvotes
Zoron
By Zoron (2 months ago)

what no zoom....shld be a 100-300 f4

0 upvotes
cainn24
By cainn24 (2 months ago)

To be honest I'd prefer a smaller lighter f5.6 as I don't think I'd ever shoot birds at f4.

2 upvotes
al_in_philly
By al_in_philly (2 months ago)

The original 4/3 Olympus Zuiko 7-14mm f/4 was a spectacular lens offering near rectilinear image quality. My guess is that this version might be using similar optics. If so, this will be a very welcome addition to the m4/3 lineup--especially for those photographers who do a lot of architectural work and want the widest field of view without the obvious distortion.

0 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (1 month ago)

And unequalled IQ in the 100 plus degree zoom range - in ANY format.
I saw enough tests proving the 7-14's lack of astigmatism compared to the others.

I want them both.

0 upvotes
Zulfur
By Zulfur (2 months ago)

common Oly give us a filter mount on that 7-14 Pro where is the Pro without a Filter?

2 upvotes
rrockley
By rrockley (2 months ago)

Agreed. I got the Oly 9-18 instead of the Pana 7-14 because the Oly takes filters. If this new one doesn't take filters (and it doesn't look like it does) then I won't be upgrading.

0 upvotes
philosomatographer
By philosomatographer (2 months ago)

Show me any reasonably-sized 114-degree ultra-wide angle lens that takes filters? Olympus would have to put a 100mm+ filter ring on the front to accomplish that - which would look absolutely retarded on such a small lens for a small system. Really, who uses filters in the digital age anymore? Can't use a polariser on such a wide FOV without very odd effects, and nobody needs colour or ND grad filters anymore - the dynamic range is more than sufficient.

3 upvotes
Holgs
By Holgs (2 months ago)

Anybody using the lens for video absolutely needs ND filters.

The Canon UWA & fisheye zoom lenses have space for gel filters at the back. Surely Olympus can manage this.

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (2 months ago)

The 12-40 was shown to be all plastic inside with a thin metal casing... pretty sneaky if you ask me. The best built m43 lens so far is the Sigma made 75/1.8.. amazing internals.

0 upvotes
StephanSchmidt
By StephanSchmidt (2 months ago)

My 12-40 makes nices photos, I'm sad yours is not to your satisfaction.

3 upvotes
ashyu
By ashyu (2 months ago)

For what it's worth, it has been shown that many professional lenses have plastic interiors and mounts, even though the bayonets and external housing are metal. This even includes some Canon L lenses.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/12/assumptions-expectations-and-plastic-mounts

5 upvotes
T3
By T3 (2 months ago)

Canon L lenses all mostly use composite bodies. It's lighter, more temperature stable, more impact resistant, etc. Metal is just...well, heavier. It's not necessarily better.

2 upvotes
gerry g
By gerry g (2 months ago)

If aircraft (Airbus, Boeing...) find composites stronger and lighter than metal I don't see why the strong lighter composites are not a very good idea . Quality composites are less likely to permanently bend than sheet metal as well, they are very stable. Too many uninformed confuse cheap plastics with high grade composites.

1 upvote
Gregm61
By Gregm61 (2 months ago)

Jogger, once a Micro forum troll, always a troll....

1 upvote
photohounds
By photohounds (1 month ago)

Even some Canon L lenses and Nikkors do this. Nylon for instance slides more smoothly.

The 12-40 is very well made and operates well.

Is the n12-40s superior optical quality compared to CaNikSon zooms bothering you?

I spend ZERO time on CaNikSon forums to rubbish their products. I'm too busy using my gear, wet or dry.

I also share pics - I thought that is what a camera is SUPPOSED to be for. I'm even collecting lens-specific samples of images I've shot.

Adding more this weekend ....

http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Gear-tests

P.S.
I probably won't bother posting the 300/4.5 nikkor (on adapter) images. It wasn't worth the purchase and I'm selling the lens.

The 30/f4 Zuiko will be a LOT sharper.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
BJN
By BJN (2 months ago)

I expect Olympus to put a 600mm 4.0 price on this 300mm lens. Or at least a ridiculously high price for a 300mm f/4 lens with a small image circle.

1 upvote
TomFid
By TomFid (2 months ago)

Don't forget to add an extra $500 for the hood (not included, of course).

1 upvote
Fleabag
By Fleabag (2 months ago)

Nope, included with their pro lenses. Only $500 when you loose it.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (2 months ago)

I just love these Micro 4/3rd form factor lenses with their amazing 2x and 3x zoom ranges. So handy in the field. [Sarcasm intended]

0 upvotes
RPJG
By RPJG (2 months ago)

Yet another oh-so-valuable comment from you, Francis.

Keep 'em coming!

3 upvotes
caver3d
By caver3d (2 months ago)

Francis, you are so insightful. (Sarcasm intended.)

3 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (1 month ago)

Hmm 40-150 at f2.8 - that's 3.75 times zoom ratio. Sure you can get used to that?

They do make a 10x zoom if you're prepared to sacrifice quality.

Fact is ... most of the lenses are small for their AOV, the primes are tiny and light and SHARP compared to ANY CaNikSon lenses

http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Gear-tests

0 upvotes
brycesteiner
By brycesteiner (2 months ago)

Okay, nice lenses. They are a really nice addition to m4/3.

Where is the 50-200 2.8? I really think the market would be much larger for this lens than either of those. The 50-200 is so versatile compared to either of these.
I have the Zuiko 50-200 and it's great. My only option is still the E-M1 to focus this large lens. I'd rather have another nice glass that is fully compatible with other OMD's and I can use with other m4/3 bodies than just buying an E-M1 so my older lenses work.

0 upvotes
Skeeterbytes
By Skeeterbytes (2 months ago)

I too love the 50-200 but suspect the forthcoming 40-150/2.8 ends any possibility of a µ4/3 version. There's still a fast zoom void between 140 and 300, so maybe we'll eventually see...what...a 140-270/3.5?

0 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (1 month ago)

200 2.8 would make it large. 82mm filters, anyone?
That's a narrow market, meaning it WOULD be expensive.
A 90-250/F4.0, sharp WIDE OPEN in the Zuiko tradition, might sell though.

The CanNikSOn users would not be able to contain their intelligent carping comments.
This, despite the fact that a 400 2.8 on FMF (Full Marketing Frame) would be 3x the weight size and price.

To justify their pseudo-technical vitriol they will gabble on about image circles, photons, the "benefits" of that silly 3:2 format and suggest that more materials = better "value".

Just enjoy the great pictures you can make with this system :).

A 1.4x converter with the 40-150 and 300/4 will cover pretty well anything with high IQ

- in both senses of the expression "IQ".

0 upvotes
Fleabag
By Fleabag (2 months ago)

Be nice if the lens mount on that 300 is removable. Wonder if it will need a focus limiter? Drop in filters? Maybe not necessary with the smaller front optic.

0 upvotes
Arpad Lukacs
By Arpad Lukacs (2 months ago)

I like that 7-14mm lens quite a lot. With the 12-40mm f/2.8 and this, you can have the 14-24mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8 full frame lens equivalents so Olympus is really a viable option to go for instead of a giant full frame monster.

2 upvotes
jannefoo
By jannefoo (2 months ago)

f5.6 equivalents.

0 upvotes
disraeli demon
By disraeli demon (2 months ago)

jannefoo - and for me that's a plus. For street shooting, f5.6 equivalent DoF with f2.8 light-gathering (for faster shutter speeds) is an absolute dream. Not everyone wants subject separation.

1 upvote
rguil15
By rguil15 (2 months ago)

Why aren't there more f/4 constant zoom and telephoto lenses in the m 4/3 line up?

0 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (2 months ago)

Because there are already f2.8 zooms with not much demand for the f4 varieties.

The other trend in m43 is the super small stuff.

3 upvotes
rguil15
By rguil15 (2 months ago)

How could you possibly know what the demand is for a product?
Saying there are already f/2.8 does nothing to address the lack of f/4 lenses. Canon and Nikon have f/2.8 zooms and they also have f/4 zooms, the two are not mutually exclusive.

0 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (2 months ago)

Why would someone want a compact body and hulking lenses? Once you hit 100mm or more, you need larger and larger lenses to gain speed. An f/5.6 would be fine, 1/2 the weight and likely, better optically than a stopped-down f/4.0.

0 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (2 months ago)

How do I know? Because I visit m43 forums and i don't see much of anyone asking for f4 zooms. Even if Oly and Panny aren't making them, there's no third party rushing to fill the "void" either.

The equivalency police would have a field day if those lenses became reality "A F8 equivalent zoom? lol, who would want that?".

2 upvotes
rguil15
By rguil15 (2 months ago)

RichRMA
You're asking why someone would want a small body and a large lens underneath an announcement for a 300mm f/4 lens? Think about that for a minute.

Bluevellet:
You seem to be confusing what you "know" with what you "believe". I'd also point out that the plural of anecdote is not data.
We have f/5.6 zooms, so your equivalency police point doesn't make much sense to me. "Who would want a 11.2 zoom"?

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
1 upvote
bluevellet
By bluevellet (2 months ago)

You're free to point me to those 5.6 zooms... Where are they? You mean the kit lenses which go to f5.6 at the long end (but start at f3.5)? Well, they're kit lenses, disposable, forgettable. No one makes a case for them unless they're super small or better than rubbish quality.

0 upvotes
rguil15
By rguil15 (2 months ago)

Bluevellet:
You're just moving from one non-point to another now. Just give it a rest, next time if you don't have an intelligent answer to a question just don't answer.

0 upvotes
TomFid
By TomFid (2 months ago)

The 7-14 seems kind of redundant, and the 2.8 aperture seems useful primarily for bragging rights. But the 300mm will be in my bag at any reasonable price.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

the three small aperture zooms (including the coming mZD40-150/2.8) looks quite good but for longer reach, APS-C DSLRs with 35mm full frame telephoto lenses (300mm, 400mm, and longer) are stilll the best.

1 upvote
TomFid
By TomFid (2 months ago)

Still the best? Maybe if you don't mind carrying around a lot of huge/expensive glass with 50% of its image circle unused. Anyway, the 300/4 seems likely to decisively shift the balance.

4 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

> the 300/4 seems likely to decisively shift the balance

yes, I may consider mZD300/4 at 1,400 US,
though AF-S300/4D on D7100 should still be better.
- similar angular resolution but larger frame,
- mounted on a 35mm full-frame it becomes mZD150/2,
- way much better AF and tracking.

Comment edited 6 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (1 month ago)

True,
but indoor architecture nuts
LOVED the old 7-14

Ditto the 300/4. But first the 40-150 2.8

I'd 'go' a Zuiko quality 1.4 converter.
The ZD one was very good :)

0 upvotes
Willy Chu
By Willy Chu (2 months ago)

I'm afraid this new 7-14 is going to be a quite a large lens, which is not surprising due to its f/2.8 aperture.

Place a photo of the 12-40 f/2.8 zoom next to this new lens. If we can assume the "shoulder" next to the mount (where the red dot is) is the same diameter on both lenses, you can see that the new lens will be much larger than the 12-40. I'm sure the size of the "L-Fn" button is the same on both lenses, so this is another way of sizing up the new lens.

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (2 months ago)

The 7-14 f2.8 is about the same size as the 12-40 f2.8. Slightly smaller if you add the flower thing on the 12-40 (I assume it's built-in in the 7-14).

http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS560x560~forums/53100646/2937e591c2b24643a1e1b309fd02ffc3

It's smaller than original 4/3 7-14mm F4 lens but slightly bigger than the Panny 7-14 F4.

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
1 upvote
TheSquid
By TheSquid (2 months ago)

a ps superimpose of similar angled shots reveals it should be slightly shorter than the 12-40 and overall slightly larger around. So it will probably be similar in size and weight when all things considered. If you enjoy how the 12-40 balances on your camera of choice, I see no reason why the 7-14 would be any different.

1 upvote
Willy Chu
By Willy Chu (2 months ago)

@bluevellet
Nice mock up. Thanks.

0 upvotes
Kevin Sutton
By Kevin Sutton (2 months ago)

Looks like the 300 is ~2.5x (?) the length of the 12-40, which means that it is VERY compact for a 300mm (even compared to the 4/3 model)

0 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (1 month ago)

If you have a use for such a lens and it equals or surpasses the ZD 7-14, you'll be a very happy (if poorer) chappy :)

0 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (2 months ago)

I wonder if it's possible for those mirrorless cameras to go even wider than 7mm (14mm equivalent) 6-12 maybe?

The old, Zuiko, 4/3 7-14mm F4 was special at its release (2004) because there was nothing else like it on rival, crop-sensored DSLRs.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (2 months ago)

When mechanical shutters and color filter arrays will finally go where they belong - to the dustbin of history - we will see a lot of 10-12mm-equivalent lenses for mirrorless cameras, and accessibly priced.

0 upvotes
philosomatographer
By philosomatographer (2 months ago)

What does the shutter have to do with how wide the lens can go? I do agree that the sensor cover glass / CFA, and the "deep" light wells on the sensor itself, limit what can be done. However, Olympus would have had no problems making the telecentric ZD 7-14mm f/4.0 a 6mm at the wide end, other than that costs and size would have had to go up slightly. But honestly, who need or wants a wider rectilinear image? Difficult enough to use as it, the cost / size penalty is just not worth it. I use my 7-14mm more in the 10-14mm range than at the 7mm range.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (2 months ago)

300/4 looks huge. Probably unnecessary sharp corners already at f/4.

7-14/2.8 though does not look bigger than Pana 7-14/4, maybe just a little wider. Nice compact shape.

0 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (2 months ago)

The 7-14mm 2.8 begins to awaken some interest in me, depends on the price that will be.

0 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (1 month ago)

Yeah, agree.

bigger than my Samyang 7.5 mm fisheye, though :)

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (2 months ago)

7-14. Wow. I expected 8-16. It's going to be expensive. :( But I already want it anyway.

1 upvote
RGiskard
By RGiskard (2 months ago)

Though neither of these lenses will ever end up in my bag, I am glad that they (will) exist. It's great for the m4/3 system.

I agree that a consumer-priced 8 or 9mm prime would be a great addition. I don't care if it was f/4. Just price it like the $250 7.5mm Rokinon!

5 upvotes
Chaitanya S
By Chaitanya S (2 months ago)

Todays announcements from Olympus and Sony shows difference between a camera manufacturer and a consumer electronics manufacturer. I am really tempted to get a mirrorless camera from either Fuji or one of m43 camera makers as a carry around camera for macro work.

9 upvotes
kimchiflower
By kimchiflower (2 months ago)

Aside from weather sealing, can someone tell me the benefit of this lens' specs over the Panny 7-14?

The Olly is a stop faster, but why not just bump up the ISO a stop or utilise the extra stops available with IBIS? You can forget about bokeh at this FOV, and shake is less pronounced at wide-angle too.

This is going to be larger, heavier, and pricier. I'd prefer a small, cheap, weather sealed ultra-WA prime (8 or 9mm f3.5?) to take out along with the 12-40 to keep the weight down

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (2 months ago)

You can bump up ISO anyway, and still be a stop faster. Or not bump it up, and have cleaner picture. And AF in low light is going to faster - it's not like the noisy high-ISO signal is of any use either for OSPDAF or CDAF. And your EVF/display picture is going to be cleaner.
Even with Oly's 5-axis IBIS, there are lower limits to shutter speed even with landscapes. Any wind, and even leaves in your landscapes become blurry.

1 upvote
bluevellet
By bluevellet (2 months ago)

One stop faster.

No purple blobs

Possibly better IQ (no guarantees at this point)

Clip-on focus ring (if like the 12-40 lens)

Extra function button

Better matching color to Olympus bodies. :)

5 upvotes
Dccps
By Dccps (2 months ago)

If you want lower specs, just get the 9-18mm collapsible lens Oly already offers. I shot with their 7-14 four thirds lens and while it was big, it was also excellent. Weather sealing is a very good thing by the way if you happen to be shooting somewhere where its really wet yet still great for images - like Milford Sound, New Zealand. This lens is something I have been hoping for for a very long time in the M.4-3rds system. I will be buying it!

1 upvote
TomFid
By TomFid (2 months ago)

I agree - small & sealed would be a more sensible niche. AF speed is a weak argument for 2.8 - DOF is pretty huge no matter what, and it's not like this is for sports. Making this fast adds weight, flare and cost.

0 upvotes
Chez Wimpy
By Chez Wimpy (2 months ago)

"No purple blobs"

What, are they building the wratten 2a right into the lens this time?

0 upvotes
stevez
By stevez (2 months ago)

Very excited about the 300mm. I've been using my 300F4 Nikon on my OMD bodies and loving everything about it except the MF. This lens will complete my MFT system and I can finally dump my Nikon bodies and Nikkor 600mm. A 1.4x tele converter would be really nice. I'll have to think about the 7-14 though as I love the performance and size of the 9-18.

7 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (2 months ago)

About that 1.4x tele... it is not a DSLR with OVF which has to have optical teleconverters for preview and AF. Here is the trick with OM-D: chose 3:4 (not 4:3) aspect ratio, turn camera 90 degrees... and voila, you have 1.33x teleconverter with full screen preview. Sharpness will be slightly lower, 9mpix instead of 16, but the extra 7 thrown out will be from the least sharp periphery, and optical teleconverters reduce sharpness anyway. And as a bonus, RAWs will still contain full 16 mpix for more precise cropping later.
I am sure even higher-res m43 bodies will come as soon as next year. Maybe even by Photokina.

3 upvotes
ginsbu
By ginsbu (2 months ago)

Given that Panasonic already has the 7-14mm range covered with a fine lens (albeit at f/4), I was hoping Olympus would choose a different range for their ultrawide. 8-17mm is a very versatile range that could accommodate filter threads. I would have been particularly interested in a 9-20mm f/2.8 myself.

Hopefully at least a 1.4x TC will be coming to pair with the 300mm f/4 and 40-150mm f/2.8 zoom.

2 upvotes
Jarkko Lehtinen
By Jarkko Lehtinen (2 months ago)

The micro FT range is very large and now also includes splash-proof lenses as announced today.

The only one really missing is a 1.4x TC as said. When this will come?

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (2 months ago)

The Macro is also splash proof.
8-14 would have been fine...
Still it's 2.8!

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (2 months ago)

I agree, 9-20mm f/2.8 could have been my kit lens (if weather-sealed). ;)
But, 7mm had to be properly covered before strange ranges are introduced. Besides, Oly already has 9-18, just slow (but very small).

1 upvote
kimchiflower
By kimchiflower (2 months ago)

The 300mm lens won't have OIS, so it will be of less use for Panny owners although this lens will likely spend more time on a tripod than handheld as I assume it will be heavy.

The 4/3 300mm 2.8 is $6000 and 3.3kg, but this has to be significantly lighter and cheaper.

I wonder what the price/cost/size advantage is to building a lens without OIS is?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Jarkko Lehtinen
By Jarkko Lehtinen (2 months ago)

As you said, it would add extra weight and costs. No Olympus owner would like to pay extra for more weight as Olympus have superb '5-axis' image stabilization (or normal 3-axis in the cheapest models) built in the body.

3 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (2 months ago)

OIS will most likely go the way of the dodo.

Shaking bits of glass around inside lenses EGADS!
It adds fragility, cost, size and a bit of weight :(

Doesn't panny now have one body with IS?

One by one they are moving to IBIS because it is very effective. I'll leave the measurebators to make their "case" that OIS is better.

I've seen nothing conclusive that can't be explained by the fact that heavier bodies/lenses have more inertia.

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
Skeeterbytes
By Skeeterbytes (2 months ago)

Yes, the GX7 is their first IBIS body. Presumably there will be more to come.

0 upvotes
SHood
By SHood (2 months ago)

"Both new lenses are scheduled to be released from 2015 onwards."

I am a little concerned that we may not see one or both of these lenses until 2016.

0 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (2 months ago)

You'd be right if this were Sony.

But there's a strong incentive for the company to deliver those types of lenses as quickly as possible. The OM-D line is a cash cow for Olympus, not just in terms of profit made with each camera body sold, but OM-D users are also much more likely to buy extra lenses.

It's the kind of thing that feeds on itself. Develop the system (quality lenses) and it attracts new users which in turn demand more lenses.

4 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (2 months ago)

There's no shortage of fine glass for the OMD bodies and they are wise to have a rapidly expanding lens range.

The FF purveyors will feel the pinch in a year or two as the roll-film camera makers did in the 1950s.

Sure FMF produces slightly better results, but the weight/size is a problem outside the studio.

I'm keenly awaiting the 40-150/2.8!

1 upvote
Oli4D
By Oli4D (2 months ago)

Yeah I agree, we probably won't have them in our hands before 2016. Probably they will be released in late 2015 and then will ship rather slowly the first few months.
We will see.
More time to save some money ^^

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (2 months ago)

Oly lenses ship quickly.

1 upvote
TomFid
By TomFid (2 months ago)

If they delay, they'll be competing with Fuji's announced supertele, so it seems like incentives are good for releasing the 300mm on time.

1 upvote
Fleabag
By Fleabag (2 months ago)

The Olympus America press release is a little different

"Both Olympus lenses deliver first-of-its kind performance to the M.ZUIKO PRO series and are scheduled to launch in 2015."

http://www.olympusamerica.com/corporate/corp_presscenter_headline.asp?pressNo=990

1 upvote
SteB
By SteB (2 months ago)

Wonderful. I waited a long time for such a lens to show up for 4/3. I think it could make m4/3 the go to system for a lot of nature photographers. A 300mm f4 on a crop sensor is probably the most versatile lens for a nature photographer. It is the sweet spot between portability, performance and reach. However, Olympus do really need to produce matching 1.4x and 2.0x converters to go with this, especially the 1.4x converter.

6 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (2 months ago)

Yeah, they don't really need 2x converter if both 40-150/2.8 and 300/4 are offered. It will make 300/5.6 out of 150/2.8 - why, just buy 300/4 or Panasonic 100-300/4-5.6.
Even 1.4... it is not a DSLR with OVF which has to have optical teleconverters for preview and AF. Here is the trick with OM-D: chose 3:4 (not 4:3) aspect ratio, turn camera 90 degrees... and voila, you have 1.33x teleconverter with full screen preview. Sharpness will be lightly lower, 9mpix instead of 16, but the extra 7 thrown out will be from the least sharp periphery, and optical teleconverters reduce sharpness anyway. And as a bonus, RAWs will still contain full 16 mpix for more precise cropping later.

0 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (1 month ago)

Four thirds was designed with this size, and does not adapt old glass and crop the image - unless you use a LEGACY lens from any 35mm maker.

So ... four thirds is not a 'crop sensor', nor are the lenses cropped by the sensor - ever.

This system DESIGN is one reason for the HIGHER four thirds edge to edge sharpness, and LOWER vignetting compared to FMF (full Marketing Frame) equipment (and their crop) systems.

Compare any "similar' AOV lenses from the systems at slrgear . com ...
The results appear to support my conclusion.

Also - for some examples ...
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Gear-tests/

0 upvotes
NZ Scott
By NZ Scott (2 months ago)

NO!

No filter thread on the new 7-14 ...

That means I can't buy it. I'll have to get a 9-18 instead, which doesn't go wide enough for me.

Sony's NEX system has an ultrawide starting at 15mm (ff equivalent) that takes filters and only weighs a couple of hundred grams.

Why can't Oly/Panny do the same?

1 upvote
photohounds
By photohounds (2 months ago)

They've made a design decision without asking EVERY photographer out there?

Oh no!

For the record, they didn't ask ME either (I actually agree with your preference FWIW)

A 8-14/2.8 would be good enough for me. I have the 12-40, and it's very nice.

1 upvote
Jon Ragnarsson
By Jon Ragnarsson (2 months ago)

Is there any ultrawide lens that takes filters? The Nikon 14-24mm or the canon 14mm don't. Maybe some 10mm lens for Nikon? It seems like 16mm (for FF) is the lower limit for filters.

1 upvote
Skeeterbytes
By Skeeterbytes (2 months ago)

There's a way to kludge a Cokin holder onto the ZD 7-14 (posted to the Oly DSLR forum a couple years back) so yes, it can be done. It's just not simple with the big, protruding front element, built-in shade and vast field of view.

UWA lenses, especially zooms, are tricky specialty lenses. The 4/3 7-14 is wonderful so hopefully, the new one will give similar results.

0 upvotes
cmorse
By cmorse (2 months ago)

Apparently the panasonic 7-14mm is relatively easy to add the rear filter holder from panasonic's fisheye.

0 upvotes
deep7
By deep7 (2 months ago)

NZ Scott, shame on you! NZ in your name means you absolutely must be able to adapt something to work. There's national pride at stake.

0 upvotes
Paul Amyes
By Paul Amyes (2 months ago)

NZ Scott you Kiwis are like us Aussies - a bit of wire, some corrugated tin and a tube of liquid nails and you should be able to fix anything.

1 upvote
jtan163
By jtan163 (2 months ago)

Hey **DPR STAFF** - The link at the bottom of the entry for this article on the DPR home page goes to the Oly 12-40 article.

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (2 months ago)

Fixed, thanks.

0 upvotes
webber15
By webber15 (2 months ago)

300 mm f4 for me!! Idiots,shut up bout it being slow,,,2.8 would be too big ffs...300mm 2.8 all ready exists..wakey,,wakey thickos...

11 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (2 months ago)

I reckon they'll sell a few of them.

Not to me, probably ... I have little work for such a lens right now.

0 upvotes
TomFid
By TomFid (2 months ago)

If the recent polls in the u4/3 forum are any indication, they'll sell more than a few of them. A long prime was the #1 request.

4 upvotes
jonny1976
By jonny1976 (2 months ago)

the 7-14 2,8 for video is a beast also. coupled with a pocket magic...wow

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (2 months ago)

Oly .. will you ever stop :))

6 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (2 months ago)

since its a m43 lens, even without looking at any sample pictures, i know i will be blown away by the price.

6 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (2 months ago)

well since its pro grade build and iQ so without looking any sample pics I think it deserves a high price tag. Cheapsters will hate!!

5 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (2 months ago)

If it's cheaper than the old Zuiko 7-14 f4 zoom. I'll be happy.

Hopefully IQ will be there with none of the flaws that plagued the Panny 7-14 F4 zoom, particularly on Olympus bodies.

0 upvotes
arbuz
By arbuz (2 months ago)

@bluevelvet - Panny 7-14 is fine. Olympus should work on it's processing. Purple stains in random places on certain bodies is not an issue with lenses. However Olympus prefers to keep the problem so that users buy his brand and not pana. Very very very cheap behavior.

2 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (2 months ago)

Olympus will price the 300 f/4 like a FF 600 f/4 and many here will believe it is a 600 f/4. If I stick with Olympus, I'd love the 300 however, but I know it'll be well over $2K.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

a 300/4 worths about 1,350 US (avg Canon-Nikon), then
+20% for a new lens and
+100% for 4/3" premium
we get 3,000 US.

a Nikon 300/4 on D7100 sounds a good solution. there may be a up to 5% difference in angular resolution (assuming same low pass filter) against 300/4 on E-M1 (E-M1 slightly higher frequency) which is considered "same within error" for photography.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
1 upvote
SHood
By SHood (2 months ago)

"+20% for new lens"

LOL. Have you seen new Canon-Nikon telephoto releases recently. New lenses have added 50-100% to the price.

2 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (2 months ago)

@ arbuz

Interesting theory, but Pana bodies are not immune to the purple blobs. There're still there, just not as pronounced.

Ánd some Pana lenses are already corrected on the latest Oly bodies. Why correct the Lumix 12-35 when the Zuiko 12-40 is sold by Olympus? Yet it is, because the big picture is to get the users first, not frustatingly limit them to the point of them staying away. A partial sale is better than no sale at all.

0 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (2 months ago)

Jabberwockie who posts no pics is here again ...

I reckon 2.3k or so, The PRICE will be commensurate with the sharpness and associated image QUALITY.

Compare the 85 CaNikon lenses to the Z 75/1.8. Z's quality blows theirs out of the water.
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1521/cat/14

Even the 135/2.0s lose, ESPECIALLY wide open.
To match sharpness, you're forced to f4 or 5.6. Not really a fast lens any more!
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/354/cat/10

Just waiting for some WAG to say how MUCH material you use determines the value of a product.
By such kindergarten reckoning, an F-150 MUST be "better" than a Porsche.

IF the performance is the same, the miniature version of ANYTHING almost always costs more, simple as that.
These lenses surpass the ZD lenses at every turn.
EG: The "expensive" Z 300/2.8 .. unmatched razor sharpness edge to edge.
Barrel machined to ten microns (etc). $$ = quality manufacture.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
TomFid
By TomFid (2 months ago)

There's no real reason for the 300 to cost dramatically more to make than the CaNikon equivalents, which are in the $1300 ballpark. Sealing and precision costs are offset by lack of IS. So the question is what the market will bear. They could go for value pricing vs. 600mm options, but that seems shortsighted. Better to price aggressively, under 2k, and reap the benefits as people switch platforms.

0 upvotes
eaa
By eaa (2 months ago)

@ arbuz:
Regarding the Panny 7-14, you say:
"Purple stains in random places on certain bodies is not an issue with lenses. "

Well, it actually seems it has a problem with that. It shows it even on the Panny GX7 body, although not as pronounced as on the Oly bodies. Scroll down to the samples from Cameralabs here (near bottom page):
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_G_7-14mm_f4_H_F007014E/index.shtml

1 upvote
paulo79
By paulo79 (2 months ago)

Well, I guess I had better start saving so!

2 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (2 months ago)

The 300mm is bulky and kinda slow for a prime.

But that 7-14 f2.8 zoom is sweet. Finally an alternative to the slower panny 7-14.

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (2 months ago)

for an ultrawide .. landscapes f4 constant pany was always fast enough for me!!

I got even a slower Oly 9-18 and am even happier!!

300 seems bulkier and f4 is not the fastest but for the image circle that gives you equivalent of 600mm and an Pro level IQ and build am sure it will be a dream lens for many Oly users planning to go for a safari :)

7 upvotes
D200_4me
By D200_4me (2 months ago)

Look at the equiv full frame lens, the Canon 600mm f/4 and think again about that "kinda bulky" statement ;-)

7 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (2 months ago)

I shoot indoors a lot. F2.8 will make a difference for me.

Of course, F2 would have been even better. :)

4 upvotes
Jarkko Lehtinen
By Jarkko Lehtinen (2 months ago)

HI, buy E-M1 and a Olympus 300mm f2.8 if you need f2.8. But it will heavy and - as olways from Oly- excellent in quality!
This f4 in a nice compromize on weight and size - and superb Oly quality!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (2 months ago)

D200_4me, Have you seen the new Sony DSC-H400? 1550mm in the palm of your hand! What are all these interchangeable lens makers thinking?

2 upvotes
Higuel
By Higuel (2 months ago)

tHERE IS ALSO A F2.0 LENS!!!

0 upvotes
Art_P
By Art_P (2 months ago)

Well, we'd all like an F2 lens the size and price of an F7.1, but, you know, physics gets in the way. Just pick up the 4/3 300mm if you want faster, the 75-300 if you want smaller.

0 upvotes
TomFid
By TomFid (2 months ago)

For the 300mm, bulk ~= 1/aperture#, so which is it you want, smaller or faster? You can't have both!

1 upvote
Total comments: 143