Confused about the new Olympus 300 PRO lens

Astrotripper said:

Hen3ry said:

wolfie said:

Sigh...
A Nikon 300 is not equivalent.
It has double the angle of view.
It could "act" as a m43 300mm if you use an adapter, then you lose Af and most camera automation. Also lose WR integrity. So if you want manual focus and reduced features, go for it.
There's a reason why FF 600mm are bigger, it's the bigger sensor. Equivalence does not change reality.

Click to expand...

Sigh! We are talking about a 300mm f4 lens. Sure, the AOV is different but the fact is a 300 f4 lens is a 300mm f4 lens -- regardless of the AOV which is a function of the sensor size.

An FF user wants to get the same AOV asm43 users? S/he doesn't have to go to a 600mm f4 lens -- they can just take their pic with the 300mm f4 and pick out the central (sharpest) part of the frame in PP to get an m43 equivalent AOV.

Click to expand...

Well, that's all fine and dandy, but I think people should finally decide what equivalent means. You present theoretical scenario here that has a few problems in real life:

• there is no 64mp FF camera at the moment
• there is also no 80mp FF camera at the moment
• there's only one FF camera that's close to 64mp, and that's not a Nikon, so the point of comparing Nikon 300/4 becomes moot
• the highest res Nikon FF body is 36mp, which would give you about 9mp after cropping, what's the point?

And so on. You would be better served with comparing that to 24mp APS-C cameras. That will give you about 15mp after cropping (more with Canon), so not bad. But still, MFT is in the middle of transition to 20mp, and you'd need a 30mp APS-C camera to match that with cropping.

And since we're digging into pixels here. If you claim that you can get equivalence by cropping, shouldn't the quality after such cropping also be equivalent? How many FF lenses can actually resolve detail well enough to deliver the same level of quality on smaller, high resolution sensors? I'm sure the only modern 300/4 will be pretty good at it. But many of the old clunkers will not get anywhere close.

And it's not as if you can't crop images from MFT camera. You can pair that 300mm with x1.4 TC to get 420mm and crop from 20mp to 10mp to get something like a 1200mm equivalent? (sorry, can't be bothered to do proper math). Can you do the same on FF and have a comparable image quality?

Can you see a problem here? You really have to draw a line somewhere. In most cases, equivalence simply does not exist in real life. And once you start adding more and more conditions to it, you get a complete mess riddles with "fine print".

What kinda equivalence is that, when it will become invalid once a new MFT camera comes out?

Can't we simply stick to the relatively simple definition of "total light" equivalence that just applies a crop factor to focal length and aperture? And deal with the differences in lenses separately?

Click to expand...

Hen3ry said:

drj3 said:

Hen3ry said:

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.

Click to expand...

In response to your last sentence -- so am I! Smaller and lighter is not the whole story of m43, but it certainly is a significant part of it for me and a host of other users. One of the recurring themes on this forum is the smallness and lightness of the equipment.

I have no idea what the performance comparison between the Nkon VR and the OLy PRO would show, but for my money, the Oly would have to be way, way out in front to justify that extra weight and size.

I have a sense that Olympus with its PRO lenses (and some of its regular ones) has taken a very conservative approach and stuck to conventional lens design but optimized it to a very high degree.

One aspect is minimum focusing distance -- the 12-40, 40-150 and now the 300 all focus very close so that they have a useful semi-macro capability. They are also very sharp.

I have a notion that Panasonic/Leica are a bit more exploratory with their lens designs. The 12-35, which I have, doesn't focus as close as the Oly 12-40 and is not happy with supplementary lenses -- I get quite marked pincushion distortion with a quality supplementary fitted.

BUT if my supposition is correct that Oly is sticking very much to conventional design then it is no wonder that the 300/4 is very much on a par in size an weight with the Nikon AF 300/4 (and the Canon equivalent too). They are essentially the best conventional 300/4 lenses around.

That also makes a nonsense of the notion of the Nikon and Canon lenses being "20 year old clunkers" as one respondent called them. If they are "clunkers" and the same size and weight as the Oly, then the Oly is a 1 day old clunker in many respects.

Click to expand...

The "new" Nikon light weight lens is based on a Phase Fresnel design. Hardly new, first used in a Lighthouse in 1823. It does have a great advantage in being lighter in weight. Those old "clunker" designs are the ones used on the very good Nikon and Canon Professional lenses.

Is the new Nikon 300 f4 PF lens while lighter, also better optically than the old Olympus design? Personally I have obviously used neither, but you can read the Imaging Resource reviews of each for objective evaluations of the lenses to see which design you think was more successful.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/300mm-f4.0-is-pro-ed-m.zuiko-digital/review/

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/300mm-f4e-pf-ed-vr-af-s-nikkor/review/

Click to expand...

THANKS for those two links, drj. Interesting. Yeah, yeah, I know about fresnel designs -- but while lighthouse use in 1823 and on the ground glass viewing screen of 60s and 70s SLR cameras is one thing, use in modern telephone lenses is another.

In the Nikon test, they talk about "excellent sharpness", in the Oly test, "tack sharp".

In the good old days (and oh boy, were they good? Yes they were -- I didn't have to think about things like gout in my feet! LOL) all lenses tests used to come with an objective standard resolution result: "lines/mm".

Then you could just for yourself rather than having to settle for subjective terms like "excellent sharpness" and "tack sharp".

Or am I missing something here?

Note the reference to the higher across the frame sharpness in APS-C cameras. Might be even better in m43 picking an even smaller piece out of the middle of the image circle.

ai would go for the lighter weight (and lower price) of the Nikkor if I wanted anf4 300mm lens for my m43 cameras.

Click to expand...

Astrotripper said:

…How many FF lenses can actually resolve detail well enough to deliver the same level of quality on smaller, high resolution sensors? I'm sure the only modern 300/4 will be pretty good at it. But many of the old clunkers will not get anywhere close.

Click to expand...

Astrotripper said:

And it's not as if you can't crop images from MFT camera. You can pair that 300mm with x1.4 TC to get 420mm and crop from 20mp to 10mp to get something like a 1200mm equivalent? (sorry, can't be bothered to do proper math). Can you do the same on FF and have a comparable image quality?

Click to expand...

drj3 said:

Is the new Nikon 300 f4 PF lens while lighter, also better optically than the old Olympus design? Personally I have obviously used neither, but you can read the Imaging Resource reviews of each for objective evaluations of the lenses to see which design you think was more successful.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/300mm-f4.0-is-pro-ed-m.zuiko-digital/review/

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/300mm-f4e-pf-ed-vr-af-s-nikkor/review/

drj3 said:

Those who want to diss Canon and Nikon long lenses should also look at the work of some

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Mephistopheles* said:

There were many similar complaints on this forum when the specs for the Olympus lens were first announced. I think Olympus blundered in making the lens as heavy as it is. All three of the other micro 4/3 super telephoto lenses, including the forthcoming Panasonic-Leica, are significantly lighter than comparable Canon/Nikon lenses.

And if Nikon came out with a 400 mm PF zoom that was lighter than the Panasonic-Leica, I, and I expect many others here who shoot mostly at such focal lengths, would probably leave micro 4/3 for Nikon. In making their lens so heavy, Olympus has left themselves vulnerable to such a challenge.

Click to expand...

Art_P said:

drj3 said:

Is the new Nikon 300 f4 PF lens while lighter, also better optically than the old Olympus design? Personally I have obviously used neither, but you can read the Imaging Resource reviews of each for objective evaluations of the lenses to see which design you think was more successful.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/300mm-f4.0-is-pro-ed-m.zuiko-digital/review/

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/300mm-f4e-pf-ed-vr-af-s-nikkor/review/

Art_P said:

Those who want to diss Canon and Nikon long lenses should also look at the work of some

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Comparing the two lenses side by side, the Zuiko is noticeably sharper... Is that sharpness worth 25% more $? If you need it, I suspect that sharpness is worth a lot more.

And doesn't the m43 format require a higher resolution to achieve the same level of sharpness? (or rather is it easier to make a FF lens reach a given sharpness?)

--
Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"

Click to expand...

Hen3ry said:

Astrotripper said:

…How many FF lenses can actually resolve detail well enough to deliver the same level of quality on smaller, high resolution sensors? I'm sure the only modern 300/4 will be pretty good at it. But many of the old clunkers will not get anywhere close.

Click to expand...

If we are talking 20 year old Nikkor and Canon f4 300mm lenses -- then yes, they will be pretty close to the Oly f4 300mm.

Click to expand...

Hen3ry said:

The fact is, the Oly is a new 'old clunker" t is a very cosnervative design, obviously, and that is why it is the same sort of weight and other dimensions as the "old clunkers". It has been optimized a bit more, no doubt, and might have some even newer glass types, but it is a very traditional f4 300mm camera lens.

And how well do the Canon and Nikkor "old clunker" long lenses resolve? Ever looked at Danny's nzmacro) bird pix? Old lenses on m43 body?

Click to expand...

Hen3ry said:

Hen3ry said:

And it's not as if you can't crop images from MFT camera. You can pair that 300mm with x1.4 TC to get 420mm and crop from 20mp to 10mp to get something like a 1200mm equivalent? (sorry, can't be bothered to do proper math). Can you do the same on FF and have a comparable image quality?

Click to expand...

Close enough, but so what? it still does not get past the fact that what we are talking about is f4 300mm lenses. They ALL have the same equivalence factor applying if they are used on an m43 body. ALL OF THEM -- because they are ALL f4 300mm lenses. Get it?

Click to expand...

Hen3ry said:

And Nikon has come out with an f4 300mm lens that is half the weight.

Click to expand...

Hen3ry said:

Astrotripper said:

…How many FF lenses can actually resolve detail well enough to deliver the same level of quality on smaller, high resolution sensors? I'm sure the only modern 300/4 will be pretty good at it. But many of the old clunkers will not get anywhere close.

Click to expand...

If we are talking 20 year old Nikkor and Canon f4 300mm lenses -- then yes, they will be pretty close to the Oly f4 300mm.

The fact is, the Oly is a new 'old clunker" t is a very cosnervative design, obviously, and that is why it is the same sort of weight and other dimensions as the "old clunkers". It has been optimized a bit more, no doubt, and might have some even newer glass types, but it is a very traditional f4 300mm camera lens.

And how well do the Canon and Nikkor "old clunker" long lenses resolve? Ever looked at Danny's nzmacro) bird pix? Old lenses on m43 body?

Get with it, bro!

Hen3ry said:

And it's not as if you can't crop images from MFT camera. You can pair that 300mm with x1.4 TC to get 420mm and crop from 20mp to 10mp to get something like a 1200mm equivalent? (sorry, can't be bothered to do proper math). Can you do the same on FF and have a comparable image quality?

Click to expand...

Close enough, but so what? it still does not get past the fact that what we are talking about is f4 300mm lenses. They ALL have the same equivalence factor applying if they are used on an m43 body. ALL OF THEM -- because they are ALL f4 300mm lenses. Get it?

And Nikon has come out with an f4 300mm lens that is half the weight.

Click to expand...

Photo Pete said:

Mephistopheles* said:

There were many similar complaints on this forum when the specs for the Olympus lens were first announced. I think Olympus blundered in making the lens as heavy as it is. All three of the other micro 4/3 super telephoto lenses, including the forthcoming Panasonic-Leica, are significantly lighter than comparable Canon/Nikon lenses.

And if Nikon came out with a 400 mm PF zoom that was lighter than the Panasonic-Leica, I, and I expect many others here who shoot mostly at such focal lengths, would probably leave micro 4/3 for Nikon. In making their lens so heavy, Olympus has left themselves vulnerable to such a challenge.

Click to expand...

At the moment there are a number of choices for FF dSLR users to get a the angle of view that the 300 gives on m4/3:

1 - Use a 300mm lens and crop the image, bringing image noise up past the level you will get on m4/3 and dropping the resolution below m4/3 levels whilst using a lens which isn't optimised for coverage of that area of sensor.

2 - use 300mm lens and a 2x teleconverter which will reduce the max aperture by 2 stops and take a very heavy toll on image quality, both due to the increased ISO required and the optical defects which are magnified by the teleconverter.

3 - Use a something to 600mm zoom lens, with correspondingly poorer image quality at the long end.

4- Re-mortgage your house, join a gym and purchase a 600mm lens.

Personally, none of those options appeal to me as much as using the 300mm Olympus on m4/3. But each to their own I guess.

--
Have Fun
Photo Pete

Click to expand...

Mephistopheles* said:

Photo Pete said:

Mephistopheles* said:

There were many similar complaints on this forum when the specs for the Olympus lens were first announced. I think Olympus blundered in making the lens as heavy as it is. All three of the other micro 4/3 super telephoto lenses, including the forthcoming Panasonic-Leica, are significantly lighter than comparable Canon/Nikon lenses.

And if Nikon came out with a 400 mm PF zoom that was lighter than the Panasonic-Leica, I, and I expect many others here who shoot mostly at such focal lengths, would probably leave micro 4/3 for Nikon. In making their lens so heavy, Olympus has left themselves vulnerable to such a challenge.

Click to expand...

At the moment there are a number of choices for FF dSLR users to get a the angle of view that the 300 gives on m4/3:

1 - Use a 300mm lens and crop the image, bringing image noise up past the level you will get on m4/3 and dropping the resolution below m4/3 levels whilst using a lens which isn't optimised for coverage of that area of sensor.

2 - use 300mm lens and a 2x teleconverter which will reduce the max aperture by 2 stops and take a very heavy toll on image quality, both due to the increased ISO required and the optical defects which are magnified by the teleconverter.

3 - Use a something to 600mm zoom lens, with correspondingly poorer image quality at the long end.

4- Re-mortgage your house, join a gym and purchase a 600mm lens.

Personally, none of those options appeal to me as much as using the 300mm Olympus on m4/3. But each to their own I guess.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Mephistopheles* said:

Photo Pete said:

Mephistopheles* said:

There were many similar complaints on this forum when the specs for the Olympus lens were first announced. I think Olympus blundered in making the lens as heavy as it is. All three of the other micro 4/3 super telephoto lenses, including the forthcoming Panasonic-Leica, are significantly lighter than comparable Canon/Nikon lenses.

And if Nikon came out with a 400 mm PF zoom that was lighter than the Panasonic-Leica, I, and I expect many others here who shoot mostly at such focal lengths, would probably leave micro 4/3 for Nikon. In making their lens so heavy, Olympus has left themselves vulnerable to such a challenge.

Click to expand...

At the moment there are a number of choices for FF dSLR users to get a the angle of view that the 300 gives on m4/3:

1 - Use a 300mm lens and crop the image, bringing image noise up past the level you will get on m4/3 and dropping the resolution below m4/3 levels whilst using a lens which isn't optimised for coverage of that area of sensor.

2 - use 300mm lens and a 2x teleconverter which will reduce the max aperture by 2 stops and take a very heavy toll on image quality, both due to the increased ISO required and the optical defects which are magnified by the teleconverter.

3 - Use a something to 600mm zoom lens, with correspondingly poorer image quality at the long end.

4- Re-mortgage your house, join a gym and purchase a 600mm lens.

Personally, none of those options appeal to me as much as using the 300mm Olympus on m4/3. But each to their own I guess.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Phocal said:

Mephistopheles* said:

Photo Pete said:

Mephistopheles* said:

There were many similar complaints on this forum when the specs for the Olympus lens were first announced. I think Olympus blundered in making the lens as heavy as it is. All three of the other micro 4/3 super telephoto lenses, including the forthcoming Panasonic-Leica, are significantly lighter than comparable Canon/Nikon lenses.

And if Nikon came out with a 400 mm PF zoom that was lighter than the Panasonic-Leica, I, and I expect many others here who shoot mostly at such focal lengths, would probably leave micro 4/3 for Nikon. In making their lens so heavy, Olympus has left themselves vulnerable to such a challenge.

Click to expand...

At the moment there are a number of choices for FF dSLR users to get a the angle of view that the 300 gives on m4/3:

1 - Use a 300mm lens and crop the image, bringing image noise up past the level you will get on m4/3 and dropping the resolution below m4/3 levels whilst using a lens which isn't optimised for coverage of that area of sensor.

2 - use 300mm lens and a 2x teleconverter which will reduce the max aperture by 2 stops and take a very heavy toll on image quality, both due to the increased ISO required and the optical defects which are magnified by the teleconverter.

3 - Use a something to 600mm zoom lens, with correspondingly poorer image quality at the long end.

4- Re-mortgage your house, join a gym and purchase a 600mm lens.

Personally, none of those options appeal to me as much as using the 300mm Olympus on m4/3. But each to their own I guess.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Mephistopheles* said:

Photo Pete said:

Mephistopheles* said:

There were many similar complaints on this forum when the specs for the Olympus lens were first announced. I think Olympus blundered in making the lens as heavy as it is. All three of the other micro 4/3 super telephoto lenses, including the forthcoming Panasonic-Leica, are significantly lighter than comparable Canon/Nikon lenses.

And if Nikon came out with a 400 mm PF zoom that was lighter than the Panasonic-Leica, I, and I expect many others here who shoot mostly at such focal lengths, would probably leave micro 4/3 for Nikon. In making their lens so heavy, Olympus has left themselves vulnerable to such a challenge.

Click to expand...

At the moment there are a number of choices for FF dSLR users to get a the angle of view that the 300 gives on m4/3:

1 - Use a 300mm lens and crop the image, bringing image noise up past the level you will get on m4/3 and dropping the resolution below m4/3 levels whilst using a lens which isn't optimised for coverage of that area of sensor.

2 - use 300mm lens and a 2x teleconverter which will reduce the max aperture by 2 stops and take a very heavy toll on image quality, both due to the increased ISO required and the optical defects which are magnified by the teleconverter.

3 - Use a something to 600mm zoom lens, with correspondingly poorer image quality at the long end.

4- Re-mortgage your house, join a gym and purchase a 600mm lens.

Personally, none of those options appeal to me as much as using the 300mm Olympus on m4/3. But each to their own I guess.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Photo Pete said:

Mephistopheles* said:

Photo Pete said:

Mephistopheles* said:

There were many similar complaints on this forum when the specs for the Olympus lens were first announced. I think Olympus blundered in making the lens as heavy as it is. All three of the other micro 4/3 super telephoto lenses, including the forthcoming Panasonic-Leica, are significantly lighter than comparable Canon/Nikon lenses.

And if Nikon came out with a 400 mm PF zoom that was lighter than the Panasonic-Leica, I, and I expect many others here who shoot mostly at such focal lengths, would probably leave micro 4/3 for Nikon. In making their lens so heavy, Olympus has left themselves vulnerable to such a challenge.

Click to expand...

At the moment there are a number of choices for FF dSLR users to get a the angle of view that the 300 gives on m4/3:

1 - Use a 300mm lens and crop the image, bringing image noise up past the level you will get on m4/3 and dropping the resolution below m4/3 levels whilst using a lens which isn't optimised for coverage of that area of sensor.

2 - use 300mm lens and a 2x teleconverter which will reduce the max aperture by 2 stops and take a very heavy toll on image quality, both due to the increased ISO required and the optical defects which are magnified by the teleconverter.

3 - Use a something to 600mm zoom lens, with correspondingly poorer image quality at the long end.

4- Re-mortgage your house, join a gym and purchase a 600mm lens.

Personally, none of those options appeal to me as much as using the 300mm Olympus on m4/3. But each to their own I guess.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Wu Jiaqiu said:

Astrotripper said:

And since we're digging into pixels here. If you claim that you can get equivalence by cropping, shouldn't the quality after such cropping also be equivalent? How many FF lenses can actually resolve detail well enough to deliver the same level of quality on smaller, high resolution sensors? I'm sure the only modern 300/4 will be pretty good at it. But many of the old clunkers will not get anywhere close.

Click to expand...

the "old clunker" Nikkor 300mm/4 AF-S resolves plenty of detail not only on APS-C but also on a Nikon 1.

Click to expand...

Astrotripper said:

Wu Jiaqiu said:

Astrotripper said:

And since we're digging into pixels here. If you claim that you can get equivalence by cropping, shouldn't the quality after such cropping also be equivalent? How many FF lenses can actually resolve detail well enough to deliver the same level of quality on smaller, high resolution sensors? I'm sure the only modern 300/4 will be pretty good at it. But many of the old clunkers will not get anywhere close.

Click to expand...

the "old clunker" Nikkor 300mm/4 AF-S resolves plenty of detail not only on APS-C but also on a Nikon 1.

Click to expand...

Maybe, I can't really verify that. But I would love to see how it compares to 70-300 that's dedicated for Nikon 1. That would be an interesting comparison I think.

Click to expand...