treakj: I think you misunderstood me. Like I said, I'm not trying to say that MFT is going to replace FF like digital replaced film. I just find a lot of the people who constantly bring up equivalency on any MFT related article seem to share a similar attitude to the ones who swore off digital. They use equivalency as a way to dismiss MFT which IS close minded IMO.
Of course it's a relevant discussion, but it's like beating a dead horse. There is no point for a debate. In terms of DoF, f4 on MFT is equivalent to f8. In terms of light intensity, f4 is f4, the sensor will not change the lens. With all settings the same, a picture taken at f4 on MFT will look as bright as on FF. It's only when you crank up the ISO that noise becomes an issue on MFT due to the smaller sensor and less light being gathered. But we all know that higher ISO is an issue for MFT. What's the point in repeating this *every single time*?

mosc: Was what I said really so controversial? Or did I just touch a nerve?

@User5273771010 PhotoDog/Kent

So enjoyed reading your post! Bought my first EM1 a while back, along with the 12mm, 17mm, and 45mm primes. Did months of research before pulling the trigger and am quite happy with my decision to scale Mt Olympus.

Please let me know if you get an adapter & can try both lens on the same body that would be the "Proof". PS: from 1974 till 1990 I had the OM-1 system & loved it.

When you shoot m43, who cares what Nikon has? And when Nikon actually makes a complete DX lens line up, give us a call.

@Arkienkeli - The Nikon 300mm F4 you mention is the phase fresnel design. This is designed specifically to keep the size and weight down, theoretically at the risk of unusual flare (See the description of PF on this page).

The other uses conventional design. Oddly enough, it's bigger and heavier.

I know, I already had the Canon 400mm f/4 of similar design eons ago, and have the Nikkor 300mm in question.

I was just pointing out that calling this new Olympus small and light is somewhat misleading, as modern technology can do much better. and Olympus is designed for m43 which could make it even slightly smaller still as the image circle needs to be only half in size. giving some leeway in the design.

And PLEASE, do not start to compare it to 600 f/8 FF telephotos! 300mm lens is a 300mm lens for God's sake...

@Arkienkeli

Just by looking the comparisons, Olympus already beats many Canon and Nikon 300mm in sharpness and AF performance and close-up distance. And with it m4/3 users gets a narrower field of view (4.1 degree) that combined even with the 1.4x teleconverter goes at f/5.6 to around 3.0 degree in full frame.

And to get the same full frame narrow field of view for 35mm sensor they need the 600mm or 800mm focal lengths to be used.

And just by comparing the sharpness between D7000 and E-M1, both being 16Mpix and having Nikon 300mm f/4 PF, Olympus wins clearly. You need D800 to get to close to Olympus sharpness just by using 36Mpix and yet the sharpness is worse with Nikon D800 when even downscaled to 16Mpix.
And it is known thing that 16Mpix image from m4/3 can be upscaled to 64Mpix without suffering in big prints quality when compared to D800e.

It probably goes little around when using 36Mpix on 600mm f/4, but looking just the Canon 1DXs + 600mm f/4 IS II USM and Oly wins, again

"@Fri13: all fine and dandy, but Nikon seems to able to make a 300mm F/4 lens which is 35% shorter and 40% lighter than Olympus, with twice as large image circle also"

And Sony makes a 42MP FF body thats very much smaller and lighter that any comparable Nikon body. So what?

Now there is a surprise

That makes no sense. One can't compare a 300mm m4/3 lens with a 300mm FF lens. They are different systems. Dx is a cropped version of FF but m4/3 is not a cropped version of anything. M4/3 is a fully telecentric system unto itself.

The argument makes no sense -- we're spoiled for choice. Both 300 f/4's are great lenses; I've shot the Nikon one, and I have no doubt the Olympus one is fantastic, since most Olympus lenses are fantastic.

Both systems should be able to do well.

@BobT3218: of course we can compare two 300mm f/4 lenses. They both have the same focal length and maximum aperture, so basically they fulfill the same function and start from the same design brief. In this case the much bigger and heavier one actually has only HALF the image circle the lighter and smaller has. Should be the other way around. Lens is an independent optical unit which does not know or care on what kind of camera body it is attached to.

They aren't marketed to fulfil the same "function". If you see m4/3, neither Olympus nor Panasonic release lenses based on the FF focal lengths. I.e. instead of a 70-200mm f/2.8 Panasonic has a 35-100mm to give the users the same field of view or instead of having a 50mm, m4/3 has 25mm lenses. Same way that even Nikon has the 17-55mm f/2.8 for a DX "24-70mm f/2.8" functionality lens or the 18-80mm.
Similarly, this is a 300mm m4/3 lens designed and sold to cover the needs that a 600mm lens would in FF.

If you want to compare an Olympus lens against a 300mm FF lens, you need to compare the Olympus 4/3 150mm f/2.0.

@Athonline: " neither Olympus nor Panasonic release lenses based on the FF focal lengths"

All lens makers release lenses with the focal length marked on them. Both lenses in equation are 300mm focal length. There is no such thing as "FF focal length" or "m43 focal length", there is just one focal length which the lens has. What the picture angle is depends on the size of the sensor. I recommend taking Optics 101 once again.

Nikkor 300mm is state of the art what comes to size and weight, but is is quite amazing that some people think m43 lens should be bigger than a 135 format ("FF") lens, when actually is is less demanding to design a lens with m43 image circle and thus it could be made smaller.

Read again what I wrote. I don't argue about the actual focal length, I am arguing about the market segment it is trying to cover.
Like the 12-40mm tries to cover the 24-70mm range, this 300mm tries to cover the 600mm.
None argues about the Nikkor 300mm image quality, but it isn't the lens you should compare it against this lens. If you are going to compare lenses, do so based on the needs and market they are trying to cover. Otherwise, can you provide me a Canonikon 7-14mm zoom against the Olympus? Oh wait...

"But a good point is, when it comes to lenses, there's not much weight/size advantage in m43 over DSLR"

Say what? Nikon 14-24 vs Oly 7-14 is just one example

Go carry a your Nikon kit around all day then go carry a m43 kit around all day; I'll be at the bar, you can meet me there after your chiropractor visit

Forget about "equality", go and take some photos...

treakj, as you say, 300mm f4 or 600mm f8 has enough bokeh for 99,99%. Actually, at 300mm at f2.8, DOF is too thin in many conditions. DOF does not mean a lot to me after 200mm because object separation is good even at 200mm f4.

Actually the lens is compairable to 600mm f4 as that is its light transmission factor. The same amount of light will hit the sensor with this on a m43 camera as any f4 lens will on fullframe. The only difference between the Oly 300/4 on and EM1 and a 600/4 on ff body is the DOF. Side by side they will have the same magnification and exposure.

"
Actually the lens is compairable to 600mm f4 as that is its light transmission factor. The same amount of light will hit the sensor with this on a m43 camera as any f4 lens will on fullframe. The only difference between the Oly 300/4 on and EM1 and a 600/4 on ff body is the DOF. Side by side they will have the same magnification and exposure."

God how do people THINK like this? You're correct only in terms of photons/unit area. Since nobody actually CARES about photons/unit area, it's useful to multiply by... the area. That way you're just talking about PHOTONS. As such, the area on the FF is 4x as large and the equivalence is f8.

FF 600/8 = 75mm
m43 300/4 = 75mm
the lens's physical aperture is 75mm
-The field of view on the two above choices is the same
-The number of photons/unit area is NOT EQUIVALENT as you have said, but nobody cares as I have explained. The cameras have variable ISO to compensate for brightness difference at given shutter
-The number of photons IS EQUIVALENT.

The laws of physics do not change just because you put a larger/smaller sensor behind the lens. A 300mm/4 lens will always have the same proprieties, it's just the field of view that changes, and the perceived DOF.

Hmmm...I think you're overlooking the fact that the Olympus' MTF is simply outstanding at 300mm. You really don't want to see the MTF of Canon's 300mm f/4 with 2x extender, it's downright horrendous....

The point is that the new Oly 300mm/f4 is a likely a great 600mm/f8 lens in FF terms that are used as reference points what comes to focal lengths. I'm quite certain it is better than Canon 300mm/f4 L IS + 2x extender. But the optical characteristics are the same (FoV, DoF).

The size and weight advantage is there clearly for what it offers, you get field of view 4.2° with f/4 and everything is in weather sealed, 6 EV "Sync-IS" that allows you to get 30% keeper rate with 1-1.5 second shutter speeds. The objective can move focus from 5m to infinity in 400ms time, what is faster than any other objective in its class.

And the contrast with this is far higher than anything Canon or Nikon has from 300-600mm range.

You pay for the 300mm f/4 but you get far better quality and results than using APS-C/35mm cameras for smaller size and weight.

Size and weight advantage?

Olympus 300m f/4 for m43: 227mm and 1.27 kg
Nikkor 300mm f/4 for 135: 147mm and 0.755 kg

@ Arkienkel - As someone who came from Nikon (D300/700 holy trinity) yes, as a system, m43 is far far lighter, smaller and doesnt scream "look at me". IMO, its about the ultimate in a carry anywhere system.

I'd also suggest that, knowing Olympus, the quality of the 300 will be far superior to the Nikor. Time will tell though...

@ String:

There are already fairly good tests with it. Here is comparison to Nikon 300mm f/4 PF and Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS II USM.

All three shot wide open so f/4 and f/2.8. Canon on 7D, Nikon on D7000 and Olympus on E-M1.

http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/57045704/1d7bbd5633234e38982606fb9c281035

So which one is Olympus?

How many would call they are very close to each other?

Well, from here you can see them:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zsamples/nikon300f4e/znikon300f4sl300f40_d7000.jpg
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zsamples/canon300f28lis2usm/zcanon300f28sl300f28_7d.jpg
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zsamples/olympus300f4m/SL/zolympus300f40sl0300f40_em1.jpg

@eyeswideshut I believe the "something wrong" that spawned the "90% of the comments below...concerned with equivalence..." is the what the author Richard Butler wrote on page 2: "...its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field and light gathering (in total image terms)..." At best, this is confusing writing which has led to the back and forth reader comments about equivalence. I expect better writing from a journalist.

I second that Gary. It was like ringing the dinner bell. It's funny because to many the extra depth of field will be viewed as a real boon on a lens like this. However in the reviews it is almost universally viewed as a con. Sorry but that's just snobbery as far as I'm concerned.

Now that is totally misleading: light gathering is relevant, because that's the main reason that larger sensors have less noise in general (at same ISO setting), allowing to use a higher ISO setting and thus compensating for the higher f-number.

@Arkienkeli, do you understand that ISO values are not comparable across different systems / sensor sizes? It is not as ISO 400 is the same sensitivity in m43 and FF, but that IS400 has similar post-sensor amplification (i.e. image-level noise) as ISO 1600 in FF. Therefore this "F8 equivalence" is perfectly valid. Pls re-read the great DPR Equivalence article and just accept it as a fact.

ISO 400 has the same sensitivity on every camera and sensor, that is the point of having ISO values. 1/250 f/4 is the same exposure on every camera with the same amount of light falling on the film/sensor.

What the sensor does and how the internal amplification works in each case has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LENS!

How come NOBODY EVER pondered about these matters during the film era? Same exposure meter was used for both 135, 6x6, 4x5" and 8x10" film and the exposures were always the same.

People seem to have no idea about what relative aperture f/X actually means and get mixed up with all the equivalency BS. If these matters are so important or exist at all, I repeat, why was this not an issue with film?

I guess no one ever dared to call a 300 f/4 on 135 format equivalent to a 600 f/4 on 120 format?

@Jylppy

Did you know that changing the print size you change the noise, dynamic range, depth of field, color depth etc etc?

4/3 sensor ISO 400 is same as ISO 400 on 35mm sensor. But when you go and you blow other 2 times larger, you increase the noise 2 times and making totally wrong claims that optics or sensor has something to do it.

Same thing was on film, same thing is with digital and same thing is still with both of those that the ruling factor is the print size, viewing distance and the eye sight of the viewer that rules the technical meris, finally everything coming to perceived opinion of each viewer what "goes over" their accepted amount.

Go on, make a ISO 3200 print with 4/3 to size of 40" and with same values with 35mm for same size. Place the prints to 1m distance and start pixel peep them. You will have lots of difficulties to see which one was which. Then go on and make a 4x6" prints and hold them in your hand and really stare them. You have difficulties again.

It is misleading to use f-stop value for this comparison, as the exposure (lie 1/250 and f/4) is always the same regardless of the sensor/film size.

Like I said, there never were this kind of "equivalent" talk during the film era, even though film noise is also bigger with smaller film sizes. That was self evident then and not worth babbling about.

It is possible to use the same lens with adapters on different cameras. Taking a 100mm f/2.8 lens built for 6x7 film, and putting it on a 135 camera, it still is a 100mm f/2.8 lens optically. Placing it on a m43 body with adapters still keeps it a 100mm f/2.8 lens. Optical laws have total disregard what comes to the body attached to it, it does not even have to have a camera attached to it to be a 100mm f/2.8 lens.

If it cost $1,000 instead of $2,500, it would make a lot of telephoto FF glass look overpriced. I agree. That said, the system's existence relies on the size advantage that 600mm equiv field of view will never facilitate. As such, the m43 system itself is a poor choice for this type of work. The price for this niche then gets SO high as to pass both a lens AND body of an equivalently "larger" system without significantly adding to the physical dimension.

Olympus can get away with selling a 12-40 f2.8 for $800 despite larger systems offering much cheaper equivalences because the overall package is smaller. At this level of telephoto though, that goes out the window. Nothing is small.

@mosc, maybe you missed the point. This lens is objectively superb. It will cost a lot because nobody ships thousands of units of a specialty lens like this.
The price makes no sense to you because you don't understand the appeal the system has for many thousands of users.

Olympus gets away with nothing. They earn every sale.

Brycesteiner - The intention isn't to cite myself as such, just to point people to a longer explanation that works through the process, step-by-step, rather than having to write the whole thing again.

I'm afraid you're mistaken when you talk about sensors being mounted closer. There's a more extensive version of that diagram in this article.

Have a look at state 3. This represents an APS-C specific lens but the principle applies just as well to Micro Four Thirds lenses.

Using a smaller sensor has a cropping effect, regardless of how large the image circle projected is. It's sampling the smaller, inner cone that prompts people to say a 300mm lens is equivalent to a 600mm in the first place.

And that's the point: as soon as you start making claims about a 300mm being like a 600, you can't avoid other effects of equivalence.

But what we shouldn't forget is that this is a really sharp lens with insanely good stabilization.

Richard,
I read your article.
I obviously agree with your statement as a smaller sensor gets less light, but the argument in fig 2 "effect of sensor size" is definitely wrong.
It is always the same confusion between FOV and aperture:
For a given f number, the nb of photons per unit area in the image plane does not depend on the focal length, but the area seen by a pixel varies as 1/(focal length)².
Therefore, when comparing m4/3 and FF:
- either you favor S/N with the same lens. The FOV is 4x smaller. Stitching 4 views restores the FOV (4x light !) .
- either you want the same FOV, and then you need a 2x shorter focal length. Each pixel sees 4x less area (1/2 resolution, no surprise since the sensor area is 1/2²). I you ask for the same resolution as the FF, then you need 4x smaller pixels, which receive 4x less photons (2x lower S/N).
If you want with m4/3 the same resolution, FOV and S/N as with a FF, then you actually need 2 f stops more to get 4x more light (F/4 instead of F/8).

This is actually very simple. I don't know why this is made so difficult.
45 is 45
f4 is f4
iso should be the same too (some makers have cheated a little).
Even DOF is the same at the same Aperture/focal length
The ONLY difference is the crop.

The exposure has been true on all equipment I have used from 35mm, APSC to m4/3. That's why I can go from one equipment to the other and the light meter is still valid, and my knowledge still works.

This is why the studio tests are wrong on this site. Instead of trying to use equivalence in FOV and DOF, the same focal length, aperture, and ISO should be used. It would truly show the differences instead of trying to make them equivalent and be much less confusing for everyone.

Questions DP would receive: Why is a large section around the outside missing? Because it's using a cropped sensor. Fuji, Oly, Pany and others may hate it but too bad.

@brycesteiner

Exactly!

Every person who wants to talk about "crop format" aka "equivalent" are making big mistakes by enlarging the other compared image X times more, changing noise, depth of field, bit depth, contrast etc in same ratio, rendering the comparison wrong.

And why? Because there isn't the real adjustments done as post process would do, meaning every image is then like SOOC JPEG as is.

If Dpreview would have wanted to do the comparison correctly, it would have been required to be done with printing.
So every file is printed in different sizes, and then every print size is shot with same identical camera (top of the market) and then every print would have been set comparison with the correct sensor size ratio for 100% screen magnification.

And then Dpreview should inform everyone that on what distance each image needs to be viewed at 100% screen magnification depending a screen definition.

And eventually we would fine, 4/3 ISO 400 is like ISO 320 on many 35mm.

@Richard Butler

I also need to bring up the f-number. To say that f4 on MFT is not f4 but f8 is just downright false.

Wikipedia tells us that f-number (sometimes called focal ratio, f-ratio, f-stop, or relative aperture[1]) of an optical system is the ratio of the lens's focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil.[2] It is a dimensionless number that is a quantitative measure of lens speed. Dimensonless number being a quantity to which no physical dimension is applicable.

This tells me that f4 is f4 no matter what system you are using. The illumination of the sensor is identical pr cm2 giving the same exposure. A f4 MFT lens is just as fast as a f4 full frame. It has NOTHING to do with image quality and/or noise.

To say that a MFT lens with f4 is only f8 is just false and misinformes those new to photography.

Uh, DPR published several articles about this:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8189925268/what-s-that-noise-shedding-some-light-on-the-sources-of-noise

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0388507676/sources-of-noise-part-two-electronic-noise

Not all of those articles are strictly about sensor size, but, cumulatively, they do explain why "its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field and light gathering (in total image terms)" is a perfectly legitimate statement.

Yes, 'whyamihere'. He's banging on the same tune the whole time. Yes, I know smaller sensors with smaller pixel sizes produce more noise (but also lets stick to similar generation sensors too).
But, why was it necessary to even mention that now? To help the FF fanbois to cope with the possibility that this M4/3's lens might be better than their FF similar or equivalent lens?

I have already read them before, but to mention it here, I still think that comment was unnecessary & still think that it is typically of what a FF fanboi would say. In other words, I guess he could have said it for the the benefit of any of those that might be reading this article.

It wasn't needed in his statement.

I would express it differently...
"The lens is relatively compact, given its long reach. Not only is still impressively small and light for600mm equivalent lens - its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field, and the lens is impressively sharp full open, making it very usable with low light. The lens itself is 227mm (8.9'') long, and comparatively easy to add to a mid-sized camera bag."

I'm referring to the comments not the article. Also depth of field is subjective as to whether more is better or worse.

Any OIS lens can not be moved to any other direction than Up/Down and Left/Right. It can't be rolled because it is circular and it doesn't offer any benefits. It can't be tilted as it would cause optical pathway change too much and work like a Tilt-lens.

The one of the most common cause for blur is the shutter release press, that rolls the camera. OIS can't fix that by any means, only the Sensor stabilization can rotate the sensor and keep the "horizon in level".

And then there is always the Sync-IS (and Panasonic Dual-IS) benefit that all 5 axis are covered just like with original Olympus 5-axis IBIS since E-M5 at 2012.

Olympus even beats Sony A7rII IBIS in telephotos or wides, and Sony is as well using both ones if there is such objective used. But now Olympus has own OIS to be used, that gives it 2 EV more capabilities to stabilize the handhold, getting even higher capability.

yeah .. I wish if I can get a camera with a build in tripod .. that I can erect by the push of my mobile phone : )

Why do people perpetuate this?

f4 is f4

@LarryK

Because it's a useful way of understanding the situation and it's demonstrably true.

FF fanboys want to discuss equivalences and differences according to the Nikonese rag sheet. Be better informed:
(1) Focal length equivalence uses crop factor, 2x for FourThirds.

(2) DOF, half the aperture story, is always relative to actual focal length and aperture. There is no equivalence. 25mm μ43 lenses do not create as much bokeh as 50mm FF lenses, but 45mm μ43 is very close at similar wide apertures. In other words, you change your game when bokeh priorities are highest. The bokeh you can get, while less, is often enough. (All long lenses produces tons so it is kind of redundant to harp on the subject here.)

(3) The equivalent half regards EV. Since f-stops are PURE ratios, multiplying them by any factor with units is mathematical fudge.

If you take four cameras, all with different sensor sizes, set them for the same ISO, shutter priority, and same shutter value, and the automatic metering will select the SAME f-stop to correctly render the EV. f4 is f4!

@Richard
"Because it's a useful way of understanding the situation and it's demonstrably true."

It (light gathering) was unnecessary to have mentioned it with regards to this lens because it is just an inflammatory point to raise. It keeps the FF fanbois gloating & offends the others, because it is a pointless point to bring to the discussion on the values of what should be a really nice prime lens for the Olympus M4/3's system & has diverted true discussion into an argument.

Everybody already knows small sensors with small pixels produce more noise than larger sensors with large pixels. Whoop-de-doo! It's the whole system that matters & not everyone wants to lug a great heavy system around & with a heavy tripod to go with it.

@Richard
"Because it's a useful way of understanding the situation and it's demonstrably true."

I don't see much in this thread to corroborate that.

"Shoot F4 and 1/500th on an Olympus and F8 and 1/500th on a Full Frame and you'll capture the same amount of total light. Broadly speaking, the images are likely to look fairly similar."

No, you'll see a shot underexposed by two stops on the full frame, but the next time I underexpose a shot, I'll tell the client that I captured the same amount of "total light" as another format and see if that makes them any happier.

Not necessarily the Nikon APS models have a 24mp sensor the D7200 has a 1.3 crop mode that gives you the same 2x crop factor as the 300mm F/4 with a 16mp file

When you throw around the word "equivalent" you have to be very careful in what you mean. Because there are many types of equivalence.

Joseph James, the legendary prophet of the equivalence theory tells us that there are six things to consider:

1. Equivalent Perspective
2. Equivalent Framing (focal length)
3. Equivalent DOF and Diffraction
4. Equivalent Shutter Speed
5. Equivalent Brightness (exposure)
6. Equivalent Display Dimensions (aspect ratio)

But, why stop there? You could also add a few more.... because these things really matter too when it comes time to choose a system:

7. Equivalent Size
8. Equivalent Weight
9. Equivalent Price
10. Equivalent Ergonomics or Utility

You really can't have real equivalence by simply picking out one or two of these things and ignoring all the others. And once you add in the others, especially the last four, then you sometimes lose your point entirely.

Marty, equivalence is not a theory it is a simple fact and JJ explains all the requirements very clearly. For this type of long telephoto shooting I believe the bird guys { of whom I am definitely not one } work under the simple pixels on bird mantra.

The Nikon PF F4 is only 60% the weight of the Olympus and £700 cheaper here in the UK, The Canon 300mm F4 L USM while being a little lighter than the Olympus 300mm F4 also comes in at less than half the £2199 price of the Olympus { £899 } . I am curious to see how these lenses would perform on a mFT camera . There are several bird shooters in the mFt forum using adapted FF lenses

My objection is to say it is 600 mm f 8 equivalent lens actually it gathers light from area what 600 f4 of FF system lens would gather and while doing so it can set widest opening aperture to f4

Yes, but the total light gathering won't.

You can look at this lens as a 300 f4 (which it is) or a 600 f8 equivalent. Either is fine. What is definitely is not is a 600 f4 equivalent.

@Olympus:
> As Olympus points out, this is around one third of the weight of equivalent full-frame 600mm lenses.

An equivalent full frame option would be:
- A: Nikon 300PF/4 + 1.4xTC on APS, or
- B: Nikon 300PF/4 + 2xTC on FF
where A=0.95kg and B=1.09kg.
Both are LESS heavy.
Olympus, you are clearly lying here. That's p*ssing me off.

When comparing IQ, keep in mind that the 4/3 systems still do not have to resolve that many pixels.
E.g., a D7200 with a 300PF would already yield about 14MP when cropped to 4/3 size without *any* TC, vs. 16MP for the E-M5II.

And a 300PF isn't known as Mr.Shaky. It is known to have an issue with VR around 1/125s shutter speeds, but very sharp otherwise or w/o VR.

Nevertheless, I think the 6 stop IS for the Oly 300/4 is an amazing technical achievement making it a very interesting proposition for landscape.

@Pitchertaker,
thanks for the question but I lack experience with both the new 300/4 (obviously ;) ) and your 85-250/5.

Therefore, I cannot give you a qualified response, only an educated guess. A full frame manual focus 85-250/5 zoom from the film age may be a bit challenging, particularly at the long end, when it comes to sharpness. I wouldn't guess it comes anywhere close to this new 300/4 lens. You may shoot the 85-250 with a roll of B&W document film. Such film typically resolves at least as good as 16MP on 4/3 and a microscope evaluation should tell you.

Without such prior trials, I wouldn't spend the $160. Or otherwise speaking, I fear you get what you pay for.

Esp. as birding may require a decent AF anyway.

@ Astrotripper the 24mp D7200 has a built0in 1.3x crop mode which results in an effective 2x crop with a roughly 15.4mp file resulting. In this mode the D7200 has enhanced AF , higher FPS and still uses RAW

What is with this total light gathering remark ? Won't a 300mm f4 lens on an olympus and a 600mm f4 lens on a Canon FF camera have the same (more or less) shutter speed and aperture requirements consider the FOV is about the same ?

I have tried to match FOV with my crop and FF cameras and the exposure values are the same so where does this total light gathering stuff come in ?

300mm f/4 PRO will deliver same shutter speed, same aperture ratio and even better ISO performance than 35mm cameras with 600mm f/4 when compared correctly, by keeping same image size ratio as is the sensor size ratio. The SNR on Panasonic made E-M1 sensor is 11% better than even Sony A7r has. But most reviewers and "equivalent" trolls cheat by enlarging image from 4/3 sensors two times larger, rendering all the technical comparisons moot, that trolls will try to claim to be about sensor size when it is actually final image size that matters.

And from film era it has been known very well that if you want larger print, you need to use larger camera with larger film. Because the reproduction ratio is smaller for bigger print than it is with smaller film.

The same thing goes for macro photography, for portraiture, landscape etc. Following the print size, viewing distance, and eye sight level. Finally ending to everyone personal opinion what is "acceptable". And that it is all about.

@Fri13: nonsense

@brendon1000: You are correct provided you assume that the exposure triangle (shutter, fstop, iso) is the best point to start reasoning from. Unfortunately, the pair (fstop,iso) can be scaled arbitrarily by a factor A (A*fstop, A^2*iso) without changing the light value. You need a fourth element to determine A and only then you can do meaningful deductions. One way to determine A is to fix the sensor size. There are others, like image quality etc.

While I accept the principle, the answer is that one may have an M43 system already and not want two systems, and that it is a really sharp lens.

Whenever a new lens is released in 43 format ..
you find all the racist blokes from bigger formats .. get an oppertunity of having a format conversion debate here : ))
over and over .. again and again : ))

why don't you get a medium format and demand even a bigger size sensor from the industy .. even better create a kickstarter campaign

Has "racist" become a generic term that means "anyone I disagree with?"

However, your point about medium format is still valid. It just baffles me why you had to drag racism into it.

Well, when Olympus shouts this on their website:
SMALLER PACKAGE
LARGER WORLD
M.Zuiko PRO lenses are significantly smaller than professional DSLR lenses of equivalent specifications. Using a much more compact system expands your shooting field and increases photographic possibilities.
(http://cameras.olympus.com/mzuikopro/en-gb/)

It really sets some expectations, doesn't it?

When the price of a m43 telephoto lens exceeds the price of an equivalent APS-C lens PLUS camera, I fail to see the point of the m43 lens. Buy a bigger camera, which will hold a bigger lens easier, and costs less money COMBINED!

@Naveed Akhtar

I presume that English is not your first language but "racist" is an extremely strong and loaded word. I don't want to sound like the though police, but in English speaking culture it is a word that should never be used lightly.

People do make jokes about racism, but it is such a delicate subject that I probably wouldn't even attempt to make one if I was not a native English speaker. The vast majority of the time you will just make your audience feel awkward or they may presume that you are racist. Most native English speakers avoid jokes about race because of their delicate nature.

This is just advice. I know several of my foreign friends who have struggled with finding out which line not to cross with jokes so I thought I would say something. (I don't think anyone here would think you are racist, so don't worry about that).

Anyway, have a good day!

@Naveed Akhtar:
> Whenever a new lens is released in 43 format .. you find all the xxxxx blokes from bigger formats

You may be right in general, but I think you aren't here in this particular case.

Olympus obviously said the lens to be 1/3 of an equivalent FF lens.

And this is an obvious lie.

I therefore, in this case, welcome the debate this false claim has triggered.

Their 56mm maximum aperture "pro" 40-150 f2.8 costs $1,300 on amazon and debut'd at $1,499.99 implying we'll see this lens still around $2,200 in the summer of 2017. 2 years from now at $1,200 has no justification in reality. There's plenty of examples to choose from. Rarely does a lens cut it's price more than in half over 24 months.

@Naveed Akhtar:

I would agree if the term "equivalent lens" could be debated or be interpreted the way Olympus does. However, i cannot, the term is well defined in engineering terms.

What Olympus could have said without lying is "a lens with equivalent focal length". But they didn't, they obviously said, "equivalent lens".

And that's something the audience on internet forums cannot be expected to tolerate.

@mosc

That price argument, are you sure? Can we run through some options?

Nikon D7200 + Nikkor 300/4 PF + 1.4 TC = $3,600
Canon 7D Mk II + Canon 300/4 + 1.4 TC = $3,200
Nikon D7200 + Nikkor 300/4 IF-ED + 1.4 TC = $2,900
Canon 7D Mk II + Canon 400/5.6 = $2,800
Pentax K3 II + Pentax 300/4 + 1.4 TC = $2,100

All prices from B&H.

And the big question is, which of those would offer the same level of performance and image quality?

Some of those options don't even offer image stabilization, much less 6 stops of it.

I'm not quite defending that high price point, I also think it's a bit steep. But that's quite a hyperbole you went for right there. Unless of course you meant cameras like 1100D or D3000 or something like that, which is silly on another level.

"Well, when Olympus shouts this on their website:
SMALLER PACKAGE
LARGER WORLD
M.Zuiko PRO lenses are significantly smaller than professional DSLR lenses of equivalent specifications. Using a much more compact system expands your shooting field and increases photographic possibilities."

I'd say that was fair enough, except perhaps for the 'photographic possibilities' bit - that much is down to the skill and imagination of the photographer. It certainly extends your ability to get to places without requiring a chiropractor to tag along…

4/3 ISO 1000 is APSC ISO 1700, not 3200.

Tedolf - a 400mm F5.3 lens on APS-C would be able to produce the same field of view and depth of field as the 300mm F4 on a Four Thirds sensor.

If you shoot at the same shutter speed then the images on both systems will be made up from the same amount of light. At which point, whatever ISO you need to use on either system will look the same.

No, this doesn't mean EM-1 ISO 1000 = APS-C ISO 3200, because the required ISO on APS-C would be ~1700 (there's a ~2/3EV difference between the formats).

@ Richard Butler:

If you will remove my ban from the m4/3 forum I will agree with you!

Tedolph

Jay, that's the real beauty of the "equivalence theory."

They can switch it on, when they want to. They can switch it off, when they want to. They will insist on calling this an f/8 lens, but never call it a 600mm lens.

Some things will never change.

Nope, not mentioning equivalence regarding aperture or field of view. I'll leave that to other people like you. I don't mind if you call it a 300 f/4 or a 600 f/8.
I'm just surprised that a lens that has to project a much smaller image circle can't be made smaller.

it could be made smaller I guess but they could also be using larger, heavier, more expensive lens elements and creating a slightly larger image circle than needed so that the part you use has the best optical quality.

Everything with lens design is a compromise and they might have comprimised side for better IQ.

There may be more than one, Jay Jenner. The comparison was between a Canon 300 f4 and the new Olympus 300 f4. The effective focal length has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

If anything, I'd expect the Canon to be heavier as it has to cover FF, and therefore the glass elements need to be bigger and therefore, heavier.

This may well cover a FF image circle. Image circle is almost never a limiting design factor in supertelephotos, merely the required size of the objective lens.

A 300mm designed as a normal lens to cover 8x10" large format will only have a 77mm filter thread. That's an image circle 60x larger than "full frame."

IQ apart, Olympus, Nikon and Canon's 300mm f/4 also differ on IS: 6, 4.5 and 2 stops.

Which Canon 300 f/4 lens are you talking about?

The one that's almost 20 years old and can't even match the plastic fantastic 50/1.8 prime in terms of sharpness?

The one that's marginally smaller (~10mm in length) and lighter by just 80g?

Seriously? Could you not have picked a better lens to make you point?

Blackcoffee17, this is the "good enough" argument. If you consider that the Image Quality of Full Frame today is "good enough", then yes, when future technology moves that same good enough IQ to smaller sensor systems, the Full Frame systems using the same tech will still be out in front with an IQ advantage. But if the small sensor system is now "good enough" it weakens the argument for putting up with the extra size and weight to get the same reach on Full Frame (which birders hiking across a nature reserve to the hides *really* could do without!).

Personally, I think the IQ of Full Frame was "good enough" for the vast majority of people years ago, and what we are getting now is "more is better" for the sake of selling cameras. The advances in number of AF points, AF speed and FPS rates in newer Full Frame cameras is far more important than the IQ upgrades.

LOL! Who told you this nonsense?!

Human retina is laughably bad comparing to contemporary sensors. QE is worse, resolution is about 100KPix (?), color sensors are missing in the most important parts of the field of view etc.

Not sure if it will sell in really high numbers Tom but from what I have seen here it should do quite well.....not sure if it intended to be a "normal" consumer sale item but more a flagship thing.
I still want to see how an EF mount 300 f4 goes adapted against this...you up to getting both?

I can't see this lens being a big seller. It looks like an excellent lens, but the trouble is the price. For this price you could get a Pentax 300mm f4, a K-3 II body and a 100mm macro lens.

This is the essential problem with pricing this lens so high. Never before have there been so many affordable lenses for long lens photography. The Tamron 150-600mm and the Sigma lenses of this focal length changed everything. Now it was possible to get excellent image quality at an affordable price. Nikon responded by producing the very aggressively priced 200-500mm f5.6, which is nearly half the price of this 300mm f4.

Yes the m4/3 system has advantages when it comes to reach. But it is not really an alternative to 600mm FF lenses. A 400mm lens on Canon APS-C has more reach, and a 600mm f4 lens on a Canon 7D mkII has an eqv focal length of 960mm i.e. it would take a near 500mm f4 lens on m4/3 to replicate that reach and aperture. Even on m4/3 that would be a big expensive lens.

One thing for certain, at less than half the price and less than half the weight of the four thirds 300mm f/2.8 lens, it will sell considerably more copies than that lens ever did.

Yes, it is slower, but the four third sensor has improved a lot since 2003.