First images from upcoming Samsung S 300mm f/2.8 ED OIS

RF:

Are there many Canikon f/2.8 300mm telephoto lenses? Any?

Mar 17, 2015permalink

Never mind found them. Not cheap.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

Yxa

http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/telephotos/300mmedif20/index.htm
Nikon 300 f2
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2171/AF-S-NIKKOR-400mm-f%252F2.8G-ED-VR.html
Nikon 400 f2.8

Mar 19, 2015*permalink

Yxa,

Didn't read the next comment did you?

Mar 19, 2015permalink

Yxa

Not only are there 400 f2.8 (142mm lens element) there are 300 f2 (150mm diam of the biggest lens element)
Just to clarify the puny size of the 300 f2.8 and how little you know about lenses

Mar 22, 2015permalink

Yxa,

Oh, you're being real informative, not.

Methinks girth concerns abound.

Mar 22, 2015permalink

Fri13

That bazooka is serious....

Mar 17, 2015permalink

mpgxsvcd

The samples are very good. I especially appreciate the fact that they included samples all the way from F2.8 through F6.3. This looks like an outstanding lens.

I am very anxious for them to finally make a good telephoto prime for m4/3s. I believe that lens will only be F4.0 though. That is fine with me. I would rather have the smaller lighter lens. I can always just bump the ISO up to compensate for it being F4.0.

At this focal length I think that F4.0 is plenty shallow even on m4/3s. It better be tack sharp at F4.0 though like this lens is. I also like that the m4/3s lens won’t need image stabilization because my E-M5 MK II already does a great job of that with its IBIS.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

there are amazing 4/3s Olympus telephotos that will work with an adapter. and with a camera like the EM1 AF will be very good, since the Oly EM1 has on sensor phase detect AF.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

I don't think I've seen more resolution at 450mm than that except from those really huge >$10,000 EF L lenses. Very impressive. I know pentax makes a couple long telephoto APS-C lenses but this puts them to shame. Combined with 28mp, this is FF telephoto reach, resolution, and clarity.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

Petroglyph

Which Pentax long lens is put to shame? 560 f/5.6, 150-450 f/5.6, 300 f/4, 60-250 f/4, 70-200 f/2.8, 200 f/2.8 or 50-135 f/2.8. And in what way are they 'put to shame' by this lens?

Mar 17, 2015permalink

The 300 F4 is a good comparison I guess.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

Petroglyph

I'll wait until I see a production copy of the new Samsung in action. But based on price and just guessing I'd say the Samsung 300 will be 3-4:1 priced compared to the Penatx 300 and 2-3:1 heavier. Pentax 300 f/4 weighs only 1 kg and is about 1000$. For comparison the Sigma 300 f/2.8 is 3400$.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

The sigma 300 f2.8 is FF, this samsung is an APS-C lens.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

Petroglyph

It's okay. I hope for NX users sake my predictions are wrong about the weight and price of an OEM 300 f/2.8. Heck of a deal if I'm wrong by the way.

Mar 18, 2015permalink

RaghavBaijal

Is that an APSC lens?? It looks Huge! I though it would be much smaller (Diameter) considering Full Frame lenses are about that big...

Mar 17, 2015permalink

if you look at the oly 4/3rd 300mm f/2.8 it will also be about the same size as a FF 300mm/2.8. So yeah that's an APS-C lens which will be the size of an FF lenses.
One of the reasons I feel DSLR manufactures just make FF lenses in telephoto ranges is because making APS-C versions will not save much weight/size.

Mar 17, 2015*permalink

Ken Phillips

Yep, all 300 mm f/2.8 lenses must have a front element of at least 107.14 mm, so there's only a little to be gained (or lost, as weight) by making everything else smaller.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

It's a 450 f4 equiv. Which means it's equiv to a FF lens that's 450mm f4. Which means it's just as big as a FF lens that's 450 F4. Which also means that it's SMALLER than a ff 300mm f2.8

Mar 17, 2015*permalink

you can put a FF 300mm f/2.8 on an APS-C sensor too!! The focal length and aperture are function of a lens, equivalence has nothing to do with it. A FF 450mm f/4 on an APS-C will give you equivalent of 675mm f/5.6! basically the point being there isn't much to be gained in making APS-C version of such lenses as there is no weight/size gain. canikon and even Sony have FF versions of such lenses because they can be used equally well on both FF and APS-C.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

nandbytes, that's mostly false.

There is a distinct size and weight advantage. APS-C is slightly under half the area of FF. That means every single element of the lens can be slightly under half the size of the FF number. There's no size/weight advantage if your choice was 450mm/f4 FF vs 300/f2.8 APS-C that's true, and those lenses would look much the same. But that's no reason why Canon and Nikon haven't released decent long APS-C glass before. It's because they don't want people to invest in APS-C glass which would need to be replaced if they upgraded to FF later.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

no its because you can just use the FF version of 300mm f/2.8 on an current APS-C sensor and it will work very well. And since FF 300mm f/2.8 and APS-C 300mm f/2.8 has no size reasonable size difference if any there is no point in making a APS-C version. Even if there was an APS-C version of 300mm f/2.8 people would probably buy the FF version of it anyway as it will work on APS-C plus you have the option of using it in on your future FF body if you choose to buy one.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

There is a size difference. This is a misconception propegated by canon and nikon. It's not true. FF has 2.25x the area of APS-C. APS-C lenses don't have to cover as wide an area. They have a much smaller image projection.

Example:
FF 300 f2.8 the front element can be no smaller than 107mm in diameter
APS-C 300 f2.8: the front element can be no smaller than 71.4mm in diameter.
That's a huge difference. Area is pi*r^2 which means 9cm^2 vs 4cm^2. The weight of glass is proportional to it's surface area.

Not that all the weight is in glass, but a lot of it is and the APS-C version will have less than half the glass of the FF version (1.5x crop squared is >2)

Mar 17, 2015*permalink

TBLF

Once again, I think you are missing his point. You are talking only about purpose built APSC lenses. He's saying that most manufactures that make both FF and APSC bodies have not typically been known to make 300mm f2.8 APCS specific lenses, they make them for FF so they can be used on both bodies, so, in effect, no one until now, has ever really got the benefit of a smaller purpose built APSC 300mm f2.8 lens on an APSC body, and this will probably continue to be a very rare situation since other manufacturers will split their efforts and make their better stuff to be compatible with FF.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

Pritzl

I'm a big fan of equivalence usually. However, when it comes to lens size, the sensor size does not affect the physical properties of the lens. i.e., this is one of the cases when a 300mm f/2.8 is a 300mm f/2.8.

The only difference between one designed for FF versus APSC would be the geometry of the light projection at the focal plane. A lens made for APSC will have a smaller projection circle than one designed for FF but if both are 300mm (real not equivalent) f/2.8 then they should have roughly the same amount of glass.

Even mirrorless vs DSLR matters little for telephotos. To get the same performance of course as a FF 300mm f/2.8 lens on APSC you would need a 200mm f/1.9 lens which, again, would roughly be the same size and weight.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

Pritzl, think of it this way. If you built yourself a 450mm f4.2 FF lens it might look a lot like this. If you then put on an adapter that focused down the light from the FF sensor area plane to one further back (shorter flange distance) but didn't lose any light, it would still cover the same field of view (now 300mm with a 450mm FF equiv) and be brighter (f2.8 vs f4.2) over the smaller APS-C image circle. That's what this lens is.

A 450mm f4.2 FF lens is not the same as a 300mm f2.8 FF lens except in the diameter of their front aperture.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

mosc - you need some basic math training.

f-stsop is a focal ratio between the focal length and the entrance pupil.

a 300/2.8 is going to have a 105mm or so front element and going to be around 300mm in length regardless of what you dream up.

where APS-C etc does make a difference is the inner elements, however the front elements are still going to be large.
however on larger super tele's the bulk of the weight is supporting the larger elements.

unless you can explain to me how come a 300/2.8 ED made for 4/3's is the same size as a 300mm 2.8 made for canon EF mount.

Mar 17, 2015*permalink

Pritzl

That diameter of the front element (f ratio) is the main thing that governs the size/weight of the lens. 450 f/4.2 or 300 f/2.8 doesn't matter much. Both will have a ~110mm front element. Full frame or APS-C is not as relevant when it comes to the size of a similar spec lens.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

if he hasn't understood it after all this explanation then we are just wasting our breath.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

HFLM

Agree with rrcca, Pritzl and nandbytes.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

Dianoda

The test lens is apparently pretty sharp, although there are not really any great examples to examine bokeh character with.

Is the NX500 really that noisy at at ISO200? There is more noise visible in the 100% crops than I would have expected at such a low ISO.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

The NX1 is noisy at 400 and 800 ISO, more so than other APSC bodies. It then controls noise quite well through ISO 6400.

ISO 200 is about where the NX1 really improves.

So you could be seeing something similar with the NX500, BUT remember these are jpegs, so automatically have noise.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

Kurt_K

Quality looks very good to my eyes. There might be a few shots where the point of focus is slightly off where it should be, but if you look at the areas that *are* in focus, the detail is excellent.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

John C Tharp

Yeah, it looks like the haters are gonna hate. I think the lens is sharp, for those areas that are actually in focus (a technique issue), while it is extremely well corrected. Overall an excellent optical result for the lens' purpose.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

Nerval

It's hard to judge from so few images...
The bird on the black rock I suspect for instance is not as sharp as it could be because 1/200 is to slow for 300 mm on a 28 MP sensor...

More coming soon I guess!

Mar 17, 2015*permalink

John C Tharp

A few stop of OIS *should* cure that, but there's really no telling without further investigation.

Still, great showing for an engineering sample.

Mar 18, 2015permalink

maxnimo

Impressive edge to edge sharpness. Most impressive. And I don't get easily impressed.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

ProfHankD

Agreed. Either CA is being corrected in post or this is an impressively well-corrected lens. The tonality seems a little funny, but that's probably a dynamic range issue with the Samsung sensor, and it isn't all that bad and has nothing to do with the lens.

Not many long lenses designed for mirrorless bodies... we'll see who's next. Pricing can make a huge difference on this too.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55459810

Even for DPR's haters, I am pretty shocked a few people think this lens is soft when it is insanely sharp where in focus and all the way out to the extreme corners.

THIS IS 28MP ON A CROP SENSOR!

The images have also likely not been sharpened much if at all in RAW conversion.

If you put a Canon 300 f2.8 II on this camera, I doubt it would look better.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

Donald Chin

You can compare a full size shot I posted 3 days ago using an out date D7100 + AF-S 300/4D handheld and judge for yourself.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

ProfHankD

That is very nice too, but it's more impressive to see this sort of thing at f/2.8, and your shot is only in focus for a tiny central area, so it's not clear if it is at all comparable to the edges (e.g., how bad is CA?). My cheap Minolta AF 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 D looks pretty good in the middle at f/5.6 (which is wide open for it at 300mm), and my old 300mm f/4 SMC Takumar looks nice at f/4 once you've corrected the (massive) CA....

Mar 17, 2015permalink

TheDevil

Can't wait to see what this lens can do when paired up with the NX1.

Mar 17, 2015*permalink

Hugo808

I think we just have seen that.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

TheDevil

I was a ding dong, I didn't even realize the 500 and the NX1 had the same performance and electronics except for the electronic view finder.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

Hugo808

Be a lot easier to use with an NX1 though.

Nice camera that, if I wasn't already married I'd be having a good think about it.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

Aur

I don't think this looks good at all, the pictures aren't sharp

Mar 17, 2015*permalink

http://oi61.tinypic.com/16k6sfo.jpg

You're looking at 28MP crop sensor images. They are plenty sharp considering the magnification being pulled from the lens. You are also looking at some very shallow DOF so many areas of most the images are out of focus.

I am super impressed with this lens TBH. :)

Mar 17, 2015*permalink

Aur

I'll show you the difference between the DPReview picture, and the picture after I edited it, next to it:

are you still saying the pictures are sharp? Because they're not. That's also a problem with RAW and why I think it's pretty bad at showing how good a lens is. Because no one knows why the images are so soft and lack contrast.

-the photographers didn't focus correctly
-the camera didn't focuse correctly
-none of the pictures were properly processed in raw
-the lens is terrible

it could be any of those

the pictures are bad for a 300mm 2.8, really bad

Mar 17, 2015*permalink

dyoon153

First. It's Pre-Production model - you know what this means - it may not have been fully optimized yet. - even so, it's pretty darn good already.
Second. Yes, it's not 'as sharp', but looks to me its reasonably sharp all across the frame, which is more desirable for me than softer edges with sharp center
Third. Sharpness is not only quality of lens that's important. CA control looks admirable. We don't know about AF speed, or other performance yet in detail (again, it's preproduction).

No need to be all sour yet, really...

Mar 17, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

considering that 300mm 2.8's are generally all sharp across the field (and that's for full frame not just crop) and usually the 300,400,500 telephotos are the best of the bunch from most brands that carry them - this I have to agree with Aur, doesn't exactly look that great. also on that cactus shot, the background just looks .. weird.

the ones people are remarking as good - the lens looks like it's stopped down at least a full stop or more.

the ones that are at 2.8, 3.2 and 3.5 all look rather poor for what is probably not going to be a cheap lens.

Mar 17, 2015*permalink

Beat Traveller

Wow, sharp! Samsung are churning out some quality optics.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

Aur

how is this sharp, look at the picture of the cactus, you call that sharp? it's horrendously soft

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/3162856/samsung300mmpreprod_f3-5_16?inalbum=samsung-s-300mm-f-2-8-ed-ois-beta-samples

= TERRIBLE

if you think that looks sharp, you need to go see an optician

either that picture was completely out of focus, or this is one of the worst lenses I have ever seen

Mar 17, 2015*permalink

"if you think that looks sharp, you need to go see an optician"

It's front focused. Look at the grass in the bottom of the frame. That's really damn sharp for a 28MP crop image at 100%.

Got anything else to complain about? :)

Mar 17, 2015permalink

Beat Traveller

Did someone deflate your tires this morning, or are you always this rude and abrasive when you deal with people?

Mar 17, 2015permalink

"Did someone deflate your tires this morning, or are you always this rude and abrasive when you deal with people?"

I think someone pooped in his Cheerios this morning. Happens to the best of us. :)

Mar 17, 2015permalink

intruder61

Come on DPR, get serious, buildings, bushes and flowers with a 300/2.8...at least take an image of a BIF or go to a kids sporting event.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

maxnimo

Bushes and trees happen to be an excellent way to test overall lens sharpness.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

5inchfloppy

Obviously did not read the paragraph:

"We were fortunate enough to be allowed access to a pre-production engineering sample of this new lens for a few hours. -- We apologize for the relative lack of variety in this gallery - it was almost all shot in an extremely compressed timeframe, early in the morning on the grounds of a hotel."

Mar 17, 2015permalink

tecnoworld

Is this proto as big as the one shown at photokina? Or is it smaller? Thanks.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

Rooru S

quick question no.1
is it an APS-C only lens or has the ability to cover a fullframe circle?
quick question no.2
how was the AF speed?

Mar 17, 2015permalink

trekkeruss

Well, Samsung doesn't make a full frame camera, so it's unlikely.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

There's no real size difference between full frame and crop lenses when it comes to lenses of this focal length. For example, take a look at the Olympus 300mm f/2.8 lens Olympus made for their 4/3 DSLR system. It's the same size as a Canon 300mm f/2.8 full frame lens. So my (completely baseless) guess is that Samsung designed it to cover FF (just in case they ever decided to make FF bodies).

Mar 17, 2015*permalink

Jon555

You need to add in the crop factor and compare it with a 450mm f2.8 to see the size advantage over a FF lens with the same FoV. A 300 f2.8 still needs an entrance pupil of over 100mm and to be almost 300mm long. (For example the reason my m43 24-70 equivalent f2.8 lens is smaller than a C/N 24-70 is the m43 lens is actually 12-35mm.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

Rooru S

@trekkeruss

the same could be said about Pentax, but they already have Fullframe lenses available and I'm not talking about their film era lenses.

Mar 17, 2015permalink

Peiasdf

I don't think Samsung will ever manage to fit a FF sensor on a NX camera. NX has by far the smallest mount diameter of any EVIL/mirrorless camera. When you think how difficult it was for SONY to fit a FF in the E-mount, I don't think Samsung can do it.

Canon EF-M-mount - 46.5mm
Sony E-mount - 46.1mm
Fujifilm X-mount - 44mm
Olympus μ4/3 - 44mm
Samsung NX-mount - 42mm

Mar 17, 2015permalink

Rooru S

good answer @Peiasdf. Thanks

Mar 17, 2015permalink

Androole

Quality looks nice.

Samsung is producing some very serious lenses, indeed. I tend to subscribe to the smaller/lighter mirrorless camp, but having options is never a bad thing.

Mar 16, 2015permalink

renault5

Sharpness looks reasonable, contrast looks lacking to my eyes - though this could be a product of the sensor / post processing.

Mar 16, 2015permalink

Wait for raws and more examples.

Mar 16, 2015permalink

lacix

....respectable performer! Nice!

Mar 16, 2015permalink

dpmaxwell

Looks like the Big Island. Mauna Lani/Fairmont Orchid area. Nice.

Mar 16, 2015*permalink

CanonKen

Any idea if this is made by Samsung itself, or do they source their lenses? Images show it as being 'Made in Korea'.

Mar 16, 2015permalink

OrdinarilyInordinate

Samsung makes it. They have a team dedicated to designing their high end lenses.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7808127857/ces-2015-samsung-interview-mirrorless-to-outsell-dslrs-in-three-years

Mar 16, 2015*permalink

otto k

IIRC, Previous Lenses were made by Optron, a Korean precision optics manufacturer to samsung design. It's quite possible the same deal for this lens as well. Then again, I could be wrong :)

Mar 16, 2015*permalink

CanonKen

Design in house, yes, but the factory itself? Like how the 'cheap' Zeiss lenses are made in Japan by Cosina.

Mar 17, 2015permalink