A compact 200-400mm m43 lens?

Started Jun 15, 2012 | Discussions thread
fras23 Regular Member • Posts: 147
Re: A compact 200-400mm m43 lens?

tt321 wrote:

peevee1 wrote:

tt321 wrote:

Adventsam wrote:

At f5.6 max at the long end and maybe f4 @200mm ie a 400mm f4 equiv tele?

Possible, if I'm going to invest in an OMD could Oly make a lightweight version with no ois?

I think this would really stand out for wildlife and far off sport too, especially if they could push the specs to 3.5-4.5.

The reason they have not tried to market one of these is that they are unable to design one noticeably smaller than one fitting an FF size sensor. If you only reduce the weight/size by 20% it would still be over 1kg and reflect badly on the entire M43 enterprise.

200-400 for mft will still be many times smaller than a 400-800 for FF with equivalent FOV. Not to mention that if you design with the possibility of vignetting, distortion and CA correction in body in mind (which is totally possible now), the result will be much simpler and smaller versus designing for the film.

Not many times smaller if the speed is equivalent. In fact about the same size. In FF systems, assuming the same manufacturer, a 200/2.8 is seldom (actually never) many times smaller than a 400/5.6. Distortion is seldom a problem for super telephoto lenses anyway - you almost get this for free. Where you do get savings from allowing a lot of optical distortion is in wide angle or wide angle to tele zoom lenses. The long and slow MF zooms I tried all have pretty bad vignetting and CA anyway meaning that they already sacrificed these for size. I doubt you can scrape off more savings by designing these parameters to be worse still. It's true that superzoom P&S cameras have impressive long ends, but none of them can give you 800mm equivalent FoV with an IQ that most M43 users can tolerate.

I'm not sure you are correct there, the size of an equivalent m43 lens would be smaller even if the speed was equivalent.

You can see this in the new Pana 35-100 F2.8 zoom, compare it to full frame equivalents that offer the same fov (70-200) and it really is many times smaller.

Of course the pana is not really f2.8 or 70-200 in FF terms, we're just talking equivalents, but when you have a good sensor to work with it's why we are all here.

Pana in particular are really pushing the size envelope with their X lenses, I bet they could make a perfectly portable 200-400 F4-5.6

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow