Oly 300 f4 pricing

[halfwaythere]

That lens is a bit tricky to judge. It is a 300/4, but it's use case is not the same as a 300/4 on FF camera. It's a poor man's 600mm. As far as I know, the only "budget" option to get that reach at good quality is a Canon crop DSLR + 400/5.6L. It's not exactly equivalent, but pretty close. So it doesn't look like there's much competition at that price point. I guess cropping is another option, but only until most MFT cameras are 20 megapixels and more.

How about a Nikon D7200 with a 200-500/5.6? How can Olympus compete with that?

No idea. It's a different kind of lens. Don't think there's anything close to it in MFT world. How does it perform?

If anything, it's probably more a competition for the upcoming PanaLeica 100-400, which we also know nothing about.

A f5.6 is not bright enough, maybe the new sigma sports 120-300 f2.8 and a 1.4 tc, would give a nice 420mm f4. Just nice. I have heard nice things about the new sports version. Anyone have any idea about it.

 

[R V C]

That lens is a bit tricky to judge. It is a 300/4, but it's use case is not the same as a 300/4 on FF camera. It's a poor man's 600mm. As far as I know, the only "budget" option to get that reach at good quality is a Canon crop DSLR + 400/5.6L. It's not exactly equivalent, but pretty close. So it doesn't look like there's much competition at that price point. I guess cropping is another option, but only until most MFT cameras are 20 megapixels and more.

How about a Nikon D7200 with a 200-500/5.6? How can Olympus compete with that?

No idea. It's a different kind of lens. Don't think there's anything close to it in MFT world. How does it perform?

If anything, it's probably more a competition for the upcoming PanaLeica 100-400, which we also know nothing about.

A f5.6 is not bright enough, maybe the new sigma sports 120-300 f2.8 and a 1.4 tc, would give a nice 420mm f4. Just nice. I have heard nice things about the new sports version. Anyone have any idea about it.

 

[Peter Del]

Oh man, if it is June next year, I am going to migrate to a different system for my birding.

this just sucks, the Nikon 7200 and the 300 f4 pz is beginning to look more and more attractive.

dont care about the cost, love my em1, but missing tomany shots with old, mf lenses. The only 75-300 don't really satisfy me.

i hope it still comes in November.

 

[R V C]

Oh man, if it is June next year, I am going to migrate to a different system for my birding.

this just sucks, the Nikon 7200 and the 300 f4 pz is beginning to look more and more attractive.

dont care about the cost, love my em1, but missing tomany shots with old, mf lenses. The only 75-300 don't really satisfy me.

i hope it still comes in November.

 

[Day Hiker]

The Olympus 300mm f/4 is/will be a PRO line lens. Image quality will be superb. AF will be excellent. Build will be outstanding. Weather sealed is a given. It's designed for m4/3 from the ground up for performance. What do we have here? I see a group of people bitching about a potential price of $1800 to $2000 (or Euro).

Go ahead and compare it to Canon, Nikon, or any other adapted lens. You complain about the price and then compare to inferior adapted solutions. The Canon 300mm f/4 design is HOW OLD? It's precision is not optimized for the smaller sensor and pixel pitch of m4/3. The new Nikkor is small, but suffers from flare due to its quirky optical design. Neither is the Nikkor optimized for a m4/3 sensor. And YES, the smaller the sensor, and/or pixel pitch, the higher precision the grinding and polishing of lenses needs to be in order to maintain image excellence. FF lenses, especially somewhat older designs, are not manufactured to modern m4/3 requirements because FF sensors don't require that precision (yet). The Olympus will be a premium optimized superb lens.

Stop complaining about a potential $1800 to $2000 (or Euro) price for a top quality 300mm f/4 lens. You show your ignorance about all things photographic by doing so. Sure, you can say it's not a lens for you at that price, but to take personal offense with the price, which some are doing, is laughable.

There is a reason that Olympus is sometimes called the Japanese Leica. Get over it and enjoy the exceptional Olympus/Leica/Lumix lenses that you can afford. Put the 300mm f/4, 42.5mm Nocticron, or 12-35mm f/2.8 on your wish list and save your coin for that future purchase.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Life is good in the woods

right, but.... take it easy!

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Life is good in the woods

 

[Astrotripper]

That lens is a bit tricky to judge. It is a 300/4, but it's use case is not the same as a 300/4 on FF camera. It's a poor man's 600mm. As far as I know, the only "budget" option to get that reach at good quality is a Canon crop DSLR + 400/5.6L. It's not exactly equivalent, but pretty close. So it doesn't look like there's much competition at that price point. I guess cropping is another option, but only until most MFT cameras are 20 megapixels and more.

I guess if you think of it as a 600 f4, its a bargain.

But it's not a 600/4. And in many situations can't replace one. It does however give you that field of view. Something that costs a pretty penny if you want/need high quality. If you're into equivalence, think of it as a 600/8 that's 1/5th of the price of a 600/4. Not a bad deal if you can live with f/8. Not that FF shooters have this option (again, unless you can live with lower quality).

But I prefer to pay for actual materials and labour

It doesn't work that way. No company will sell you their stuff for the cost of materials and labour. At least no company that wants to turn a profit. And do you think the R&D and prototyping stage is free? I bet by the time everything is ready for production, the project already cost Olympus couple of million bucks.

and see no reason it should more expensive than equivalent lenses from other manufacturers.

By equivalent, do you mean with similar optical properties, like the 300/4 from other makers? Or completely different lenses that would offer similar things in their respective formats (so 600mm for FF, ~400mm for APS-C, or other combinations to get the similar end result)?

The new 300/4 from Nikon is 2000 EUR, so why is Olympus introducing their 300/4 for the same or lower price such a huge deal? Why do you think that such a lens introduced in 2015 should cost the same as a lens that was introduced almost 20 years ago? And we don't even know how it performs. For all we know, it might wipe the floor with both the more expensive Nikkor and the ancient Canon alike. If it turns out like that, why do you think that extra image quality is not worth any money?

Here were Olympus has to put up or shut up. If they want to attract the professional market, they have to take on the competition on their own ground.

You mean they should have announced 300mm f/2 for $10,000?

I understand Canon looses money on the big whites (well some of them)

Really? I would be quite surprised if that were the case. Apart maybe one of those monsters that they made just a few of or something.

and possibly some other specialist lenses as well

That might be the case with some very niche specialty lenses. The most famous story is about their tilt-shift lenses. But I would not be surprised if Canon recouped their costs after all those years.

but that's accepted as the price of capturing the pro market. I assume its the same for Nikon.

I don't think this is the same level we're dealing with here. This Oly is rumored to be sub 2000 lens. It's not a $15k monster that only big organizations can afford.

Most pros have to work to tight margins - cost is an important factor, probably more so than many enthusiasts - (except for the elite few who can charge what they want).

Again, we're talking sub 2000 here. Less than any pro-grade FF body. Less than a lot of pro-grade FF lenses.

While an adapted lens may not be as good, when the money for glass gets serious, another very real option is to buy a different body. So the Canon (or Nikon) lens option could lead to people going back to DSLRs to do the job.

That's kinda backwards. If you're shooting tele for your job, you're not using MFT anyways, as there are no pro-grade options in the system. And if you're shooting MFT professionally and need a tele for a one-off assignment, than you just rent a gear needed to do it. And if you're shooting MFT and you need to start using telephoto lenses more often, you simply have to switch to a DSLR, as there are no pro-grade telephoto glass for MFT (notice I'm ignoring 4/3 lenses here).

But where your argument fails is the economic calculation. Why do you think spending $2000 for a Nikon body and a 300/4 lens is more cost effective than spending $2000 on a lens for your existing system? What kinda argument is that? And let's just ignore the hassle of cropping your shots, as that's something you'll probably do anyways. Or the fact that the cheaper Nikkor 300mm is not exactly a stellar performer from what I heard.

 

[neil holmes]

It's really not surprising that a specialty lens for a niche system is expensive. It's totally expected. With a pricing like that, I actually think it's pretty good. Provided it's optically superb, like their 150/2 for 4/3 system was. And Oly has a pretty good track record with their PRO line, so I'm pretty sure this one will be a masterpiece.

Yet (and this is what confuses me) all this applies to any of the PRO lenses (just how many of the 8mm fisheye will they sell?) and to date all have been very competitively priced.

Indeed (and the fish-eye is not really an exception IMHO). But then again, why wouldn't it be competitive at that price (assuming it can actually be 1800)?

That lens is a bit tricky to judge. It is a 300/4, but it's use case is not the same as a 300/4 on FF camera. It's a poor man's 600mm. As far as I know, the only "budget" option to get that reach at good quality is a Canon crop DSLR + 400/5.6L. It's not exactly equivalent, but pretty close. So it doesn't look like there's much competition at that price point. I guess cropping is another option, but only until most MFT cameras are 20 megapixels and more.

I guess if you think of it as a 600 f4, its a bargain. But I prefer to pay for actual materials and labour and see no reason it should more expensive than equivalent lenses from other manufacturers.

Here were Olympus has to put up or shut up. If they want to attract the professional market, they have to take on the competition on their own ground. I understand Canon looses money on the big whites (well some of them) and possibly some other specialist lenses as well, but that's accepted as the price of capturing the pro market. I assume its the same for Nikon.

Most pros have to work to tight margins - cost is an important factor, probably more so than many enthusiasts - (except for the elite few who can charge what they want).

While an adapted lens may not be as good, when the money for glass gets serious, another very real option is to buy a different body. So the Canon (or Nikon) lens option could lead to people going back to DSLRs to do the job.

And for MFT users that don't own another system, it's still going to be the cheapest option (unless you can get satisfied by inferior solution, like adapted glass). So there's that as well.

Is it going to be a reason to switch to MFT? Probably not.

 

[neil holmes]

The Olympus 300mm f/4 is/will be a PRO line lens. Image quality will be superb. AF will be excellent. Build will be outstanding. Weather sealed is a given. It's designed for m4/3 from the ground up for performance. What do we have here? I see a group of people bitching about a potential price of $1800 to $2000 (or Euro).

Go ahead and compare it to Canon, Nikon, or any other adapted lens. You complain about the price and then compare to inferior adapted solutions. The Canon 300mm f/4 design is HOW OLD? It's precision is not optimized for the smaller sensor and pixel pitch of m4/3. The new Nikkor is small, but suffers from flare due to its quirky optical design. Neither is the Nikkor optimized for a m4/3 sensor. And YES, the smaller the sensor, and/or pixel pitch, the higher precision the grinding and polishing of lenses needs to be in order to maintain image excellence. FF lenses, especially somewhat older designs, are not manufactured to modern m4/3 requirements because FF sensors don't require that precision (yet). The Olympus will be a premium optimized superb lens.

Stop complaining about a potential $1800 to $2000 (or Euro) price for a top quality 300mm f/4 lens. You show your ignorance about all things photographic by doing so. Sure, you can say it's not a lens for you at that price, but to take personal offense with the price, which some are doing, is laughable.

There is a reason that Olympus is sometimes called the Japanese Leica. Get over it and enjoy the exceptional Olympus/Leica/Lumix lenses that you can afford. Put the 300mm f/4, 42.5mm Nocticron, or 12-35mm f/2.8 on your wish list and save your coin for that future purchase.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Life is good in the woods

What you say MAY be true but until we see the lens it is all just rumours.

Until then people can use a Canon 300 f4 TODAY if they choose adapted and with fast AF.

Sure there are limitations but you can always sell the lens for little loss when the new lens DOES (eventually) appear.

Who knows, some may be happy enough not to bother with the new lens.

 

[Colin K. Work]

That lens is a bit tricky to judge. It is a 300/4, but it's use case is not the same as a 300/4 on FF camera. It's a poor man's 600mm. As far as I know, the only "budget" option to get that reach at good quality is a Canon crop DSLR + 400/5.6L. It's not exactly equivalent, but pretty close. So it doesn't look like there's much competition at that price point. I guess cropping is another option, but only until most MFT cameras are 20 megapixels and more.

How about a Nikon D7200 with a 200-500/5.6? How can Olympus compete with that?

No idea. It's a different kind of lens. Don't think there's anything close to it in MFT world. How does it perform?

If anything, it's probably more a competition for the upcoming PanaLeica 100-400, which we also know nothing about.

A f5.6 is not bright enough, maybe the new sigma sports 120-300 f2.8 and a 1.4 tc, would give a nice 420mm f4. Just nice. I have heard nice things about the new sports version. Anyone have any idea about it.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

M43 Rumours are saying a "spring" (June ) release for the 300 at between 1799 - 1999 euros.

If true, I think Olympus have got the pricing wrong. That's about 50% more than a Canon 300 f4 LIS ... that would pay for an adaptor; and of course there are plenty of good used Canon 300s to be had.

Can't see the justification - both (presumably) use exotic glass as required and the Canon has the added cost of incorporating IS.

Of course this delay could mean Panasonic will beat Olympus to launch, which will put further pressure on Oly.

 

[Colin K. Work]

That lens is a bit tricky to judge. It is a 300/4, but it's use case is not the same as a 300/4 on FF camera. It's a poor man's 600mm. As far as I know, the only "budget" option to get that reach at good quality is a Canon crop DSLR + 400/5.6L. It's not exactly equivalent, but pretty close. So it doesn't look like there's much competition at that price point. I guess cropping is another option, but only until most MFT cameras are 20 megapixels and more.

I guess if you think of it as a 600 f4, its a bargain.

But it's not a 600/4. And in many situations can't replace one. It does however give you that field of view. Something that costs a pretty penny if you want/need high quality. If you're into equivalence, think of it as a 600/8 that's 1/5th of the price of a 600/4. Not a bad deal if you can live with f/8. Not that FF shooters have this option (again, unless you can live with lower quality).

No I realise that - my remark was tongue in cheek.

But I prefer to pay for actual materials and labour

It doesn't work that way. No company will sell you their stuff for the cost of materials and labour. At least no company that wants to turn a profit. And do you think the R&D and prototyping stage is free? I bet by the time everything is ready for production, the project already cost Olympus couple of million bucks.

Of course, but that cost applies to everything - where did the R&D cost go for the other PRO lenses which came in at lower than generally expected prices?

and see no reason it should more expensive than equivalent lenses from other manufacturers.

By equivalent, do you mean with similar optical properties, like the 300/4 from other makers? Or completely different lenses that would offer similar things in their respective formats (so 600mm for FF, ~400mm for APS-C, or other combinations to get the similar end result)?

I mean similar production costs (ie. materials and engineering)

The new 300/4 from Nikon is 2000 EUR, so why is Olympus introducing their 300/4 for the same or lower price such a huge deal? Why do you think that such a lens introduced in 2015 should cost the same as a lens that was introduced almost 20 years ago? And we don't even know how it performs. For all we know, it might wipe the floor with both the more expensive Nikkor and the ancient Canon alike. If it turns out like that, why do you think that extra image quality is not worth any money?

The Nikon is introducing new technology. Yes, it may be a superior lens worth the extra price. I agree we need to wait and see.

Here were Olympus has to put up or shut up. If they want to attract the professional market, they have to take on the competition on their own ground.

You mean they should have announced 300mm f/2 for $10,000?

Well they already have the 300 2.8. This fills a major gap. But yes, in due course, if Oly has the pro aspirations they claim, some pretty extreme lenses will be required.

I understand Canon looses money on the big whites (well some of them)

Really? I would be quite surprised if that were the case. Apart maybe one of those monsters that they made just a few of or something.

and possibly some other specialist lenses as well

That might be the case with some very niche specialty lenses. The most famous story is about their tilt-shift lenses. But I would not be surprised if Canon recouped their costs after all those years.

but that's accepted as the price of capturing the pro market. I assume its the same for Nikon.

I don't think this is the same level we're dealing with here. This Oly is rumored to be sub 2000 lens. It's not a $15k monster that only big organizations can afford.

Most pros have to work to tight margins - cost is an important factor, probably more so than many enthusiasts - (except for the elite few who can charge what they want).

Again, we're talking sub 2000 here. Less than any pro-grade FF body. Less than a lot of pro-grade FF lenses.

I'm not bothered by the actual price. If its better than the Panny and meaningfully better than an adapted lens, I'll buy it. But I think Oly is making a mistake. If the price is maybe 30% less, it would fly off the shelves - at this price point I think they'll struggle

While an adapted lens may not be as good, when the money for glass gets serious, another very real option is to buy a different body. So the Canon (or Nikon) lens option could lead to people going back to DSLRs to do the job.

That's kinda backwards. If you're shooting tele for your job, you're not using MFT anyways, as there are no pro-grade options in the system. And if you're shooting MFT professionally and need a tele for a one-off assignment, than you just rent a gear needed to do it. And if you're shooting MFT and you need to start using telephoto lenses more often, you simply have to switch to a DSLR, as there are no pro-grade telephoto glass for MFT (notice I'm ignoring 4/3 lenses here).

But where your argument fails is the economic calculation. Why do you think spending $2000 for a Nikon body and a 300/4 lens is more cost effective than spending $2000 on a lens for your existing system? What kinda argument is that? And let's just ignore the hassle of cropping your shots, as that's something you'll probably do anyways. Or the fact that the cheaper Nikkor 300mm is not exactly a stellar performer from what I heard.

Except with DSLR I don't have to buy new. Now it might not be fair to compare a new Oly lens with a used Canon L, but the reality is that's a viable option which Oly should take into account.

 

[Segway]

remember: one of the reasons the Oly 300/4 is delayed is that they decided to add OIS to the lens.

That was nothing more than a rumor.

 

[Day Hiker]

What you say MAY be true but until we see the lens it is all just rumours.

Until then people can use a Canon 300 f4 TODAY if they choose adapted and with fast AF.

Sure there are limitations but you can always sell the lens for little loss when the new lens DOES (eventually) appear.

Who knows, some may be happy enough not to bother with the new lens.

You make four very valid points. It's all about speculation at this point, and what is "good enough" for the individual photographer.


Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Life is good in the woods

 

[Tom Caldwell]

It's really not surprising that a specialty lens for a niche system is expensive. It's totally expected. With a pricing like that, I actually think it's pretty good. Provided it's optically superb, like their 150/2 for 4/3 system was. And Oly has a pretty good track record with their PRO line, so I'm pretty sure this one will be a masterpiece.

Yet (and this is what confuses me) all this applies to any of the PRO lenses (just how many of the 8mm fisheye will they sell?) and to date all have been very competitively priced.

Indeed (and the fish-eye is not really an exception IMHO). But then again, why wouldn't it be competitive at that price (assuming it can actually be 1800)?

That lens is a bit tricky to judge. It is a 300/4, but it's use case is not the same as a 300/4 on FF camera. It's a poor man's 600mm. As far as I know, the only "budget" option to get that reach at good quality is a Canon crop DSLR + 400/5.6L. It's not exactly equivalent, but pretty close. So it doesn't look like there's much competition at that price point. I guess cropping is another option, but only until most MFT cameras are 20 megapixels and more.

I guess if you think of it as a 600 f4, its a bargain. But I prefer to pay for actual materials and labour and see no reason it should more expensive than equivalent lenses from other manufacturers.

Here were Olympus has to put up or shut up. If they want to attract the professional market, they have to take on the competition on their own ground. I understand Canon looses money on the big whites (well some of them) and possibly some other specialist lenses as well, but that's accepted as the price of capturing the pro market. I assume its the same for Nikon.

Most pros have to work to tight margins - cost is an important factor, probably more so than many enthusiasts - (except for the elite few who can charge what they want).

While an adapted lens may not be as good, when the money for glass gets serious, another very real option is to buy a different body. So the Canon (or Nikon) lens option could lead to people going back to DSLRs to do the job.

And for MFT users that don't own another system, it's still going to be the cheapest option (unless you can get satisfied by inferior solution, like adapted glass). So there's that as well.

Is it going to be a reason to switch to MFT? Probably not.

 

[neil holmes]

It's really not surprising that a specialty lens for a niche system is expensive. It's totally expected. With a pricing like that, I actually think it's pretty good. Provided it's optically superb, like their 150/2 for 4/3 system was. And Oly has a pretty good track record with their PRO line, so I'm pretty sure this one will be a masterpiece.

Yet (and this is what confuses me) all this applies to any of the PRO lenses (just how many of the 8mm fisheye will they sell?) and to date all have been very competitively priced.

Indeed (and the fish-eye is not really an exception IMHO). But then again, why wouldn't it be competitive at that price (assuming it can actually be 1800)?

That lens is a bit tricky to judge. It is a 300/4, but it's use case is not the same as a 300/4 on FF camera. It's a poor man's 600mm. As far as I know, the only "budget" option to get that reach at good quality is a Canon crop DSLR + 400/5.6L. It's not exactly equivalent, but pretty close. So it doesn't look like there's much competition at that price point. I guess cropping is another option, but only until most MFT cameras are 20 megapixels and more.

I guess if you think of it as a 600 f4, its a bargain. But I prefer to pay for actual materials and labour and see no reason it should more expensive than equivalent lenses from other manufacturers.

Here were Olympus has to put up or shut up. If they want to attract the professional market, they have to take on the competition on their own ground. I understand Canon looses money on the big whites (well some of them) and possibly some other specialist lenses as well, but that's accepted as the price of capturing the pro market. I assume its the same for Nikon.

Most pros have to work to tight margins - cost is an important factor, probably more so than many enthusiasts - (except for the elite few who can charge what they want).

While an adapted lens may not be as good, when the money for glass gets serious, another very real option is to buy a different body. So the Canon (or Nikon) lens option could lead to people going back to DSLRs to do the job.

And for MFT users that don't own another system, it's still going to be the cheapest option (unless you can get satisfied by inferior solution, like adapted glass). So there's that as well.

Is it going to be a reason to switch to MFT? Probably not.

--
Colin K. Work
www.ckwphoto.com
www.pixstel.com

Knowing how well most of my Canon lenses work for AF on my GX7 with Kipon adapter, I would rather the Canon 300 f4 at the price difference than this lens.

I doubt there would be a huge difference in image quality between the Canon adapted and the new lens .....the new lens will be better I would think but by how much? Of course if you want AFC the native lens is your choice (GX7 is not the greatest camera for AFC anyway).

Even my ancient EF 100-300 5.6 L has somewhat usable AF so I am sure the Canon 300 f4 would be good.

The 40 2.8 STM and 135 f2 L are great on the Gx7.

Neil,

I think the angst is a bit of champagne taste and beer budget. And of course there is a notion on the thread that "an adapted" lens cannot be as good as whatever Olympus is going to make. No matter what the pedigree of the actual manufacturer. This seems like a contradiction of terms. The crazy good Olympus lens is going to be "too expensive" and the Canon adapted lens considered "not up to the job". The Panasonic offering is going to be cheaper and quite good enough, but of course it is "not an Olympus". This means that nothing meets a buy-criterion. Back to square one.

My thoughts are if the Olympus is going to be so golly gosh good then it must perform right up to its RRP otherwise there is going to be lots of disappointed guys around.

On the other hand I expect that despite the required bargain price not eventuating that there will be a long waiting list for the lens when it finally arrives and the forum will be full of breathless comparisons of just what the lens can do when used by early adopters.

It is a natural GAS human emotion to want the very best for the cheapest price possible. But I fully expect that when the time comes GGL$ (great gear loosens dollars) will prevail and there will be a queue.

--
Tom Caldwell

What many people don't realise is that there is a HUGE difference between sticking a forty or fifty year old legacy prime for 35mm film cameras with a dumb adapter made for a few cents in China and sold for a few bucks on Ebay to some of the current adapters that pretty much turn other modern lenses for other systems into almost native lenses.

I would still think the 300 f4 Oly lens WOULD be better but it would want to be if the price is correct.......just like with any lens, you can buy better or you can buy cheaper.....rarely both (though by geez I think the little 40 2.8 STM Canon comes close at being a wonderful lens on M4/3. Canon APSC and FF and Sony E mount APSC and FF.....at a bargain price point.

 

[John King]

That lens is a bit tricky to judge. It is a 300/4, but it's use case is not the same as a 300/4 on FF camera. It's a poor man's 600mm. As far as I know, the only "budget" option to get that reach at good quality is a Canon crop DSLR + 400/5.6L. It's not exactly equivalent, but pretty close. So it doesn't look like there's much competition at that price point. I guess cropping is another option, but only until most MFT cameras are 20 megapixels and more.

How about a Nikon D7200 with a 200-500/5.6? How can Olympus compete with that?

No idea. It's a different kind of lens. Don't think there's anything close to it in MFT world. How does it perform?

If anything, it's probably more a competition for the upcoming PanaLeica 100-400, which we also know nothing about.

A f5.6 is not bright enough, maybe the new sigma sports 120-300 f2.8 and a 1.4 tc, would give a nice 420mm f4. Just nice. I have heard nice things about the new sports version. Anyone have any idea about it.

--
"Anything worth doing is worth doing poorly until you learn to do it well."
-- Zig Ziglar
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126558841@N07/

Not bright enough at F/5.6 on APS but F/4 on mft is? Given that mft will always be at least 1 stop behind APS in every measurable metric how is F/5.6 on APS worse than F/4 on mft?

EXCEPT true optical speed, AF on a mFTs body, etc ... ;-)

And BTW, even the equiv police wont agree with you about that one stop difference between mFTs and APS-C in the aesthetic parameters they are so fond of quoting (interminably ... ).

Further, where did you imagine the "at least" from? IBIS, optical IQ in front of a mFTs sensor, spring readily to mind ... so does my dear old FTs f/2.8-3.5 50-200 MkI ... ;-)

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
.
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
.
The Camera doth not make the Man (nor Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
.
Galleries: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/

Bird Control Officers on active service.

 

[drj3]

That lens is a bit tricky to judge. It is a 300/4, but it's use case is not the same as a 300/4 on FF camera. It's a poor man's 600mm. As far as I know, the only "budget" option to get that reach at good quality is a Canon crop DSLR + 400/5.6L. It's not exactly equivalent, but pretty close. So it doesn't look like there's much competition at that price point. I guess cropping is another option, but only until most MFT cameras are 20 megapixels and more.

How about a Nikon D7200 with a 200-500/5.6? How can Olympus compete with that?

No idea. It's a different kind of lens. Don't think there's anything close to it in MFT world. How does it perform?

If anything, it's probably more a competition for the upcoming PanaLeica 100-400, which we also know nothing about.

A f5.6 is not bright enough, maybe the new sigma sports 120-300 f2.8 and a 1.4 tc, would give a nice 420mm f4. Just nice. I have heard nice things about the new sports version. Anyone have any idea about it.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

It's really not surprising that a specialty lens for a niche system is expensive. It's totally expected. With a pricing like that, I actually think it's pretty good. Provided it's optically superb, like their 150/2 for 4/3 system was. And Oly has a pretty good track record with their PRO line, so I'm pretty sure this one will be a masterpiece.

Yet (and this is what confuses me) all this applies to any of the PRO lenses (just how many of the 8mm fisheye will they sell?) and to date all have been very competitively priced.

Indeed (and the fish-eye is not really an exception IMHO). But then again, why wouldn't it be competitive at that price (assuming it can actually be 1800)?

That lens is a bit tricky to judge. It is a 300/4, but it's use case is not the same as a 300/4 on FF camera. It's a poor man's 600mm. As far as I know, the only "budget" option to get that reach at good quality is a Canon crop DSLR + 400/5.6L. It's not exactly equivalent, but pretty close. So it doesn't look like there's much competition at that price point. I guess cropping is another option, but only until most MFT cameras are 20 megapixels and more.

I guess if you think of it as a 600 f4, its a bargain. But I prefer to pay for actual materials and labour and see no reason it should more expensive than equivalent lenses from other manufacturers.

Here were Olympus has to put up or shut up. If they want to attract the professional market, they have to take on the competition on their own ground. I understand Canon looses money on the big whites (well some of them) and possibly some other specialist lenses as well, but that's accepted as the price of capturing the pro market. I assume its the same for Nikon.

Most pros have to work to tight margins - cost is an important factor, probably more so than many enthusiasts - (except for the elite few who can charge what they want).

While an adapted lens may not be as good, when the money for glass gets serious, another very real option is to buy a different body. So the Canon (or Nikon) lens option could lead to people going back to DSLRs to do the job.

And for MFT users that don't own another system, it's still going to be the cheapest option (unless you can get satisfied by inferior solution, like adapted glass). So there's that as well.

Is it going to be a reason to switch to MFT? Probably not.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Then the price will be no object. Consider the people that have paid $1600usd for the 42.5 Nocticron. I don't think there was as much fuss about that price... maybe because the focal length is more 'usable'? Or is it really just worth the price? ;-)

Yes, I paid the price ... maybe the wounds still show, but I have no regrets ... it was worth the loss of blood (money).

A supplier told me that the Nocticron was "hand built" (whatever that meant) but I am sure that the 300/4 will be "even more hand built" if that is possible. Hand built of course is code for "expensive" and usually means a team of Santa's little gnomes working on benches with their tiny screwdrivers and polishing cloths dressed in gaily coloured outfits singing Disney songs in harmony as they work. Hardly surprising that they are expensive as the QC reject rate must be high ....

No robot assembly gear in sight.

 

[GBC]

It was refurbished, but I got an extra 4 year warranty on top of the 3 month warranty it came with!

The IQ is quite nice. With the 1.4x and the 2x TC are great, and the rear polarizer is great too.