Reading mode: Light Dark

Confused about the new Olympus 300 PRO lens

Go to last post
JurassicPizza

JurassicPizza

Leading Member
Messages
813
Reaction score
10
Location
PA, US
Hey all -- longtime Nikon user here (D800E), recently decided to downsize to an E-M5II and a small set of Olympus lenses (including the 12-40 and 40-150). I'm very happy so far with that decision - smaller camera bags, smaller lighter lenses that are still excellent, high res mode when needed, etc.

One thing that has me really confused is the new 300/4 lens. Yes, it's getting great reviews, but I thought the whole point of m43 was smaller and lighter? Here are a few numbers for comparison:

Olympus 300/4 PRO: 52 ounces, 93mm wide, 227mm long

Nikon 300/4 AF-S: 51 ounces, 89mm wide, 224mm long

Nikon 300/4 PF VR: 27 ounces, 89mm wide, 148mm long

I have the Nikon 300/4 AF-S, and while not an exotic and lacking stabilization, it's still an excellent lens. The newer Nikon 300 Phase Fresnel design (which does have image stabilization) is actually smaller and lighter than the Olympus 40-150/2.8!

I am NOT trolling or trying to dis Olympus - I'm just trying to understand why this lens is so big.

(Yes I initially posted this in the Olympus SLR forum, probably not the right place.)
 
Why confused?

Its a typical 300mm f4 lens and your comparison to the older Nikon lens shows this exactly.

Why aren't you confused about the new Nikon lens instead?

Christof
 
My sense is that size and weight have not been significant considerations Oly's design of their "professional" lenses. The 12-40 is considerably larger and heavier than the Panny 12-35. The 7-14 is a bit larger. The 40-150 pro is really not small or light for an f/2.8 40-150 lens. Yes, they are small compared to FF lenses with the equivalent focal length, but they really aren't small and light designs. My sense is the 300 was probably designed to be the best 300mm f/4 lens available and size and weight were not really considered. They also probably didn't know anything about the design of the new Nikon until they were well along with development of the 300. It also seems very high priced to me. Some folks want to compare it to a 600mm lens but design wise it's a 300mm f/4 lens and there are several 300mm f/4 lenses around for considerably less money. It might be good enough that it's worth it. But I certainly think they've put the lens in a niche market.
 
JurassicPizza said:
Hey all -- longtime Nikon user here (D800E), recently decided to downsize to an E-M5II and a small set of Olympus lenses (including the 12-40 and 40-150). I'm very happy so far with that decision - smaller camera bags, smaller lighter lenses that are still excellent, high res mode when needed, etc.

One thing that has me really confused is the new 300/4 lens. Yes, it's getting great reviews, but I thought the whole point of m43 was smaller and lighter? Here are a few numbers for comparison:

Olympus 300/4 PRO: 52 ounces, 93mm wide, 227mm long

Nikon 300/4 AF-S: 51 ounces, 89mm wide, 224mm long

Nikon 300/4 PF VR: 27 ounces, 89mm wide, 148mm long

I have the Nikon 300/4 AF-S, and while not an exotic and lacking stabilization, it's still an excellent lens. The newer Nikon 300 Phase Fresnel design (which does have image stabilization) is actually smaller and lighter than the Olympus 40-150/2.8!

I am NOT trolling or trying to dis Olympus - I'm just trying to understand why this lens is so big.

(Yes I initially posted this in the Olympus SLR forum, probably not the right place.)
Click to expand...
 
SkiHound said:
My sense is that size and weight have not been significant considerations Oly's design of their "professional" lenses. The 12-40 is considerably larger and heavier than the Panny 12-35. The 7-14 is a bit larger. The 40-150 pro is really not small or light for an f/2.8 40-150 lens. Yes, they are small compared to FF lenses with the equivalent focal length, but they really aren't small and light designs. My sense is the 300 was probably designed to be the best 300mm f/4 lens available and size and weight were not really considered. They also probably didn't know anything about the design of the new Nikon until they were well along with development of the 300. It also seems very high priced to me. Some folks want to compare it to a 600mm lens but design wise it's a 300mm f/4 lens and there are several 300mm f/4 lenses around for considerably less money. It might be good enough that it's worth it. But I certainly think they've put the lens in a niche market.
Click to expand...
The text I highlighted in bold above is the crux of the matter. It is probably the best 300 / 4 lens available, and that comes at a premium with regards to size, weight, and price.
 
Colin's quite right. A 4/3d's 300mm is the equivalent of a Full Frame 600mm

A Nikon 600mm :
Size
6.5" diameter by 17.5" long (166 x 445 mm), specified.

Weight
11.2 pounds (5.06 kg), specified.

The x2 factor will un-confuse you.
 
MBradfield said:
Colin's quite right. A 4/3d's 300mm is the equivalent of a Full Frame 600mm
Click to expand...
And also equivalent to f/8 (same [diagonal] angle of view, same DOF, same total amount of light on the sensor for the same exposure time).
Member said:
A Nikon 600mm :
Size
6.5" diameter by 17.5" long (166 x 445 mm), specified.

Weight
11.2 pounds (5.06 kg), specified.

The x2 factor will un-confuse you.
Click to expand...
Of course, there is no 600 / 8 for FF (just a 600 / 4), and many would much rather give up the two stops of light gathering ability (and option for a more shallow DOF),as well as the greater resolution, for a smaller, lighter, and less expensive lens that has a closed MFD and better IS. I know I would for such a lens.
 
Last edited:
MBradfield said:
Colin's quite right. A 4/3d's 300mm is the equivalent of a Full Frame 600mm

A Nikon 600mm :
Size
6.5" diameter by 17.5" long (166 x 445 mm), specified.

Weight
11.2 pounds (5.06 kg), specified.

The x2 factor will un-confuse you.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ. The OP's point is about lens design, not about equivalent focal length or reach. As such, he compares different 300mm lenses for their size/weight which should be about the same with a small advantage to µ4/3 because the lens doesn't need to illuminate as large an area as a Full-Frame one. Obviously, if you compare in terms of 35mm equivalent FL and not true FL, the Oly has a tremendous advantage over any Full-Frame design.
 
Yep, and that 600mm lens would have a field of view equivalent to a 1200mm lens on 135 format. An 300mm f/4 lens is a 300mm f/4 lens. Using a Nikon or Canon version via an adaptor gives the same field of view as the Olympus version. The whole equivalence thing is just a quagmire. It's about lens design and not field of view equivalence.
 
SkiHound said:
My sense is that size and weight have not been significant considerations Oly's design of their "professional" lenses. The 12-40 is considerably larger and heavier than the Panny 12-35. The 7-14 is a bit larger. The 40-150 pro is really not small or light for an f/2.8 40-150 lens. Yes, they are small compared to FF lenses with the equivalent focal length, but they really aren't small and light designs. My sense is the 300 was probably designed to be the best 300mm f/4 lens available and size and weight were not really considered. They also probably didn't know anything about the design of the new Nikon until they were well along with development of the 300. It also seems very high priced to me. Some folks want to compare it to a 600mm lens but design wise it's a 300mm f/4 lens and there are several 300mm f/4 lenses around for considerably less money. It might be good enough that it's worth it. But I certainly think they've put the lens in a niche market.
Click to expand...
 
SkiHound said:
Yep, and that 600mm lens would have a field of view equivalent to a 1200mm lens on 135 format. An 300mm f/4 lens is a 300mm f/4 lens. Using a Nikon or Canon version via an adaptor gives the same field of view as the Olympus version. The whole equivalence thing is just a quagmire. It's about lens design and not field of view equivalence.
Click to expand...
 
Not so much the size and weight that is confusing me more the price?
 
JurassicPizza said:
One thing that has me really confused is the new 300/4 lens. Yes, it's getting great reviews, but I thought the whole point of m43 was smaller and lighter? Here are a few numbers for comparison:
Click to expand...
It is lighter and smaller for field of view, shutter speed and aperture ratio you get with it.
JurassicPizza said:
I am NOT trolling or trying to dis Olympus - I'm just trying to understand why this lens is so big.
Click to expand...
Because it is sharper than Canon and Nikon has? Because it has far better Optical Image Stabilization than Canon and Nikon has? It supports Sync-IS that offers far better handholdable stability that Canon or Nikon has?

If people want just a small and light, get a smartphone. :)

 
Just to add to the confusion (maybe just mine). But I'm suspicious........

The Olympus 300/4 is almost the exact same dimensions as the Canon 300/4. So if that size lens can produce an image circle large enough for a FF Canon, could the advent of this size 300 lens foretell the coming of a Full Frame Olympus. There are rumors of FF lens patents being filed by Olympus.

Maybe the upcoming E-M1 II could be the first FF in the line, hence the recent generous firmware update for the current E-M1.

Just saying.......
 
Same reply as in the four-thirds post:

If Olympus was going to make a 300m F2.8 I would expect this lens (300mm F4) to be smaller and lighter and less expensive then it is. If there was a faster lens in the roadmap, the F4 lens would be marketed at people who couldn't afford the flagship lens, or were looking specifically for a smaller and lighter lens.

Being the top of the Olympus mFT line, design decision were probably biased toward performance, and giving up a little on weight. It may not be anything that would ever show up in a lens test - better sealing, temperature stabilization, higher quality components.

When a lens uses Fresnel elements the design goal was reduced size/weight. If you were going for the highest optical performance, I don't think anyone would Fresnel elements. I think the same could also be said about SW distortion correction used in most mFT lenses.

I will probably get the 300mm, and am not bothered by it not being the smallest/ 300mm out there. I have other lenses if I want to go small.
 
gary0319 said:
Just to add to the confusion (maybe just mine). But I'm suspicious........

The Olympus 300/4 is almost the exact same dimensions as the Canon 300/4. So if that size lens can produce an image circle large enough for a FF Canon, could the advent of this size 300 lens foretell the coming of a Full Frame Olympus. There are rumors of FF lens patents being filed by Olympus.

Maybe the upcoming E-M1 II could be the first FF in the line, hence the recent generous firmware update for the current E-M1.

Just saying.......
Click to expand...
The front lens diameter has nothing to do with the size of the image circle. All 300mm f4 lenses must have a front lens diameter of at least 75mm. A 300mm f4 with an image circle for a FF does not need a greater diameter or need to be longer or need to have more internal lenses.
 
Great Bustard said:
SkiHound said:
My sense is that size and weight have not been significant considerations Oly's design of their "professional" lenses. The 12-40 is considerably larger and heavier than the Panny 12-35. The 7-14 is a bit larger. The 40-150 pro is really not small or light for an f/2.8 40-150 lens. Yes, they are small compared to FF lenses with the equivalent focal length, but they really aren't small and light designs. My sense is the 300 was probably designed to be the best 300mm f/4 lens available and size and weight were not really considered. They also probably didn't know anything about the design of the new Nikon until they were well along with development of the 300. It also seems very high priced to me. Some folks want to compare it to a 600mm lens but design wise it's a 300mm f/4 lens and there are several 300mm f/4 lenses around for considerably less money. It might be good enough that it's worth it. But I certainly think they've put the lens in a niche market.
Click to expand...
The text I highlighted in bold above is the crux of the matter. It is probably the best 300 / 4 lens available, and that comes at a premium with regards to size, weight, and price.
Click to expand...
And, because it's a high quality 300mm f4 lens that gives the same field of view as a 600mm lens on FF, it does indeed live up to the original design philosophy of using the 4/3 sensor to produce superior performance for a given size/weight/field of view.

Yes, it is a niche product compared to a 300mm for APSC or FF because those lenses have FOV that is still in the range of "normal" photography. The FOV of the Oly 300 is more applicable for certain sports, wildlife and surveillance phototgraphy, especially where top performance is critical. From a genre and marketing standpoint, it is the same as a 600mm lens for FF.
--
Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks photographed.

Garry Winogrand

eyeguessphotography.com

Zenfolio | Charles Black Photography

Greetings to all, and thank you for visiting my gallery site. You'll notice there are a lot of photos of concerts and other performances. For over a decade I have been the house photographer CSPS Hall. The main purpose of this site is to present photos from my years at CSPS Hall, as well as...
eyeguessphotography.com

 
drj3 said:
gary0319 said:
Just to add to the confusion (maybe just mine). But I'm suspicious........

The Olympus 300/4 is almost the exact same dimensions as the Canon 300/4. So if that size lens can produce an image circle large enough for a FF Canon, could the advent of this size 300 lens foretell the coming of a Full Frame Olympus. There are rumors of FF lens patents being filed by Olympus.

Maybe the upcoming E-M1 II could be the first FF in the line, hence the recent generous firmware update for the current E-M1.

Just saying.......
Click to expand...
The front lens diameter has nothing to do with the size of the image circle. All 300mm f4 lenses must have a front lens diameter of at least 75mm. A 300mm f4 with an image circle for a FF does not need a greater diameter or need to be longer or need to have more internal lenses.
Click to expand...
 
gary0319 said:
drj3 said:
gary0319 said:
Just to add to the confusion (maybe just mine). But I'm suspicious........

The Olympus 300/4 is almost the exact same dimensions as the Canon 300/4. So if that size lens can produce an image circle large enough for a FF Canon, could the advent of this size 300 lens foretell the coming of a Full Frame Olympus. There are rumors of FF lens patents being filed by Olympus.

Maybe the upcoming E-M1 II could be the first FF in the line, hence the recent generous firmware update for the current E-M1.

Just saying.......
Click to expand...
The front lens diameter has nothing to do with the size of the image circle. All 300mm f4 lenses must have a front lens diameter of at least 75mm. A 300mm f4 with an image circle for a FF does not need a greater diameter or need to be longer or need to have more internal lenses.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
JurassicPizza said:
Hey all -- longtime Nikon user here (D800E), recently decided to downsize to an E-M5II and a small set of Olympus lenses (including the 12-40 and 40-150). I'm very happy so far with that decision - smaller camera bags, smaller lighter lenses that are still excellent, high res mode when needed, etc.

One thing that has me really confused is the new 300/4 lens. Yes, it's getting great reviews, but I thought the whole point of m43 was smaller and lighter?
Click to expand...
That's the general perception, yes. But even in the world of Micro 4/3, there are trade-offs between size/weight and lens parameters/performance. You cannot really have both the best quality and small, cheap and lightweight lens. Case in point, standard primes . The best nifty fifty in existence is almost 3 times heavier than your usual f/1.4 primes. And much larger and more expensive as well. There are plenty of examples like that, in pretty much every system. There's a price to pay for highest quality. Always.
JurassicPizza said:
I am NOT trolling or trying to dis Olympus - I'm just trying to understand why this lens is so big.
Click to expand...
Because Olympus tried to make it the best 300/4 in existence. First tests suggest that they might have succeeded (but I'm still waiting for the guys at Lenstip to weight in on it).

If you look at the new Nikkor, it was built with different goal in mind, I think. I think it's the smallest and lightest 300/4 on the market. And I think that was the goal. They don't even bundle a tripod adapter with it. And there's a price to pay for that, as the lens is not without faults (not that it's bad or anything, but you can see where the compromises were made).

Now, add a 2x TC to that Nikkor and mount it on an FF body. You get exact equivalent of that Olympus. And it will be the same price and similar weight. Only image quality will be nowhere near the Olympus kit. That's not exactly fair to the Nikkor, but that's the only way to get an equivalent to the Oly (which normally does not exist).

Leaving image quality aside, can you think of any 600mm on FF body that would get you sharp shots hand-held at 1/10s? Or maybe a 400mm on APS-C?

The problem here is that you don't really have anything to compare that Olympus to. That new Nikkor is the only other truly modern 300/4 design. And it was made to be small. As much as people love to pit the Oly against 20 year old clunkers, that kind of comparison is ridiculous. If you'd mount any of those old 300mm lenses on an MFT body, you would see a true extent of image quality difference.

On a more general note. Take a look at the lenses in Olympus' PRO line. Pretty much all of them are large and heavy for an MFT lens. It seems to me that for those lenses Olympus goes all out and those are uncompromising designs whose goal is the best possible quality. Take their 8mm fish-eye. It is the most complex optical design for any fish-eye lens on the market. And some of those PRO lenses reach peak sharpness wide open (including the 300mm, according to first tests). How many other lenses can claim that?

And I'm not really saying any of this is good. I went for MFT because it's small and handy and I'm not really interested in any of the PRO lenses (well, beside the 8mm fishy). But it's pretty clear for me that PRO line of Oly lenses is all about IQ, not size or weight. That's just something we need to accept and move on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top