Its big, impressive, but must be expensive

Reading this thread, I'm told that I'd be a fool to buy this lens. That it is only for the Oly faithful who don't know better. That I'm sure to be taken to the cleaners on the pricing. yada.

Screw 'em. The haters hate. That's what they do. Talk about a few features in isolation. Spec sheet warriors.

What I see is a relatively compact, weather-sealed, stabilized lens lens that I can plausibly use from the back of my boat to shoot water fowl and other critters. And it's at half the price of the lenses that other folks were carrying around on my latest outing to a birding site.

This looks really sweet, if you ask me.

Wu Jiaqiu said:

i'll be messing with one for a few hours end of March, interested to see how it works whilst doing some proper shooting

Click to expand...

Nice G. Let me know or send me me link mate, always interested this end.

All the best your way G.

Danny.

nzmacro said:

Wu Jiaqiu said:

i'll be messing with one for a few hours end of March, interested to see how it works whilst doing some proper shooting

Click to expand...

Nice G. Let me know or send me me link mate, always interested this end.

All the best your way G.

Danny.

Click to expand...

no problem, will be just aircraft unless a heron casually passes by

Jeff said:

Reading this thread, I'm told that I'd be a fool to buy this lens. That it is only for the Oly faithful who don't know better. That I'm sure to be taken to the cleaners on the pricing. yada.

Screw 'em. The haters hate. That's what they do. Talk about a few features in isolation. Spec sheet warriors.

What I see is a relatively compact, weather-sealed, stabilized lens lens that I can plausibly use from the back of my boat to shoot water fowl and other critters. And it's at half the price of the lenses that other folks were carrying around on my latest outing to a birding site.

This looks really sweet, if you ask me.

Click to expand...

I'm on your team. Maybe we can get a discount if we buy two at a time Jeff

Jeff said:

Reading this thread, I'm told that I'd be a fool to buy this lens. That it is only for the Oly faithful who don't know better. That I'm sure to be taken to the cleaners on the pricing. yada.

Screw 'em. The haters hate. That's what they do. Talk about a few features in isolation. Spec sheet warriors.

What I see is a relatively compact, weather-sealed, stabilized lens lens that I can plausibly use from the back of my boat to shoot water fowl and other critters. And it's at half the price of the lenses that other folks were carrying around on my latest outing to a birding site.

This looks really sweet, if you ask me.

Click to expand...

It looks awesome. And yes haters gonna hate. And we have plenty of them in this MFT forum. The desperately try to push any positive MFT news back into the closet. Luckely the ignor function works pritty well.

cpt kent said:

I spent some time looking for info on how an internal TC works (mechanically) but couldn’t find anything. Would be interesting to learn some specifics.

Click to expand...

See here:
The system is rather simple ... the precision needed probably not.

Jeff said:

Reading this thread, I'm told that I'd be a fool to buy this lens. That it is only for the Oly faithful who don't know better. That I'm sure to be taken to the cleaners on the pricing. yada.

Screw 'em. The haters hate. That's what they do. Talk about a few features in isolation. Spec sheet warriors.

What I see is a relatively compact, weather-sealed, stabilized lens lens that I can plausibly use from the back of my boat to shoot water fowl and other critters. And it's at half the price of the lenses that other folks were carrying around on my latest outing to a birding site.

This looks really sweet, if you ask me.

Click to expand...

Just one question: how do you know it's "half the price"? Nobody knows the price yet.

It's good to realize that many of the comments here are based on assumptions that may or may not come to pass. Including yours.

Jeff said:

Reading this thread, I'm told that I'd be a fool to buy this lens.

Click to expand...

No-one said that.

Jeff said:

That it is only for the Oly faithful who don't know better.

Click to expand...

Let's take off the pejorative 'who don't know any better' and just concentrate on what is the VFM proposition for anyone other than the Oly faithful. The Panasonic faithful already have a 100-400mm lens, it doesn't cost much more than $1k. It is weather sealed, small, sharp and has good IS. So, what is it that this Olympus lens offers that the Panasonic doesn't, which would justify 4x the price?

Jeff said:

That I'm sure to be taken to the cleaners on the pricing. yada.

Click to expand...

If you buy a product, you think that the product is worth the price you paid, then you haven't been taken to the cleaners.

Jeff said:

Screw 'em. The haters hate. That's what they do. Talk about a few features in isolation. Spec sheet warriors.

Click to expand...

Nothing to do with 'hate' or 'hating'. The question is, what is the market for this lens? Is it really something that will draw people into the system or is it something that will be appreciated only by people who're already in - and only some of those.

Jeff said:

What I see is a relatively compact, weather-sealed, stabilized lens lens that I can plausibly use from the back of my boat to shoot water fowl and other critters. And it's at half the price of the lenses that other folks were carrying around on my latest outing to a birding site.

Click to expand...

That depends on the folks, doesn't it? What you seem to be saying is that these folks have been had for paying twice what you think you'll pay. Works both ways, doesn't it? The point in the end was that those folks paid more, but they got more. Other folks paid less. How much less did they get, really?

Jeff said:

This looks really sweet, if you ask me.

Click to expand...

So, you have every right to spend your money on anything that pleases you. It doesn't have to satisfy anyone else.

Mark Ransom said:

Jeff said:

Reading this thread, I'm told that I'd be a fool to buy this lens. That it is only for the Oly faithful who don't know better. That I'm sure to be taken to the cleaners on the pricing. yada.

Screw 'em. The haters hate. That's what they do. Talk about a few features in isolation. Spec sheet warriors.

What I see is a relatively compact, weather-sealed, stabilized lens lens that I can plausibly use from the back of my boat to shoot water fowl and other critters. And it's at half the price of the lenses that other folks were carrying around on my latest outing to a birding site.

This looks really sweet, if you ask me.

Click to expand...

Just one question: how do you know it's "half the price"? Nobody knows the price yet.

It's good to realize that many of the comments here are based on assumptions that may or may not come to pass. Including yours.

Click to expand...

That's the case. If this lens comes in at around $2-3k most of what I said falls. Twice the price of the Panny 100-400 would make it an attractive proposition, for what it seems likely to offer.

kohinoor said:

cpt kent said:

I spent some time looking for info on how an internal TC works (mechanically) but couldn’t find anything. Would be interesting to learn some specifics.

Click to expand...

See here:

The system is rather simple ... the precision needed probably not.

Click to expand...

Makes sense and on the Oly, here it is or where it will end up ....



Courtesy: http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/21005/150-400mm-f4-olympus-premium-zoom-coming/p1

Danny.

--
------------
I can always justify a need, but I can never justify a want.
-
https://www.birdsinaction.com/

kohinoor said:

cpt kent said:

I spent some time looking for info on how an internal TC works (mechanically) but couldn’t find anything. Would be interesting to learn some specifics.

Click to expand...

See here:

The system is rather simple ... the precision needed probably not.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that was exactly what I was looking for, but couldn't find. A simple swing in/out mechanisim. I thought it was some kind of witchcraft...

The Canon has a 'bump' to accommodate, something that's not apparent on the 150-400. But I guess it's still a large diameter, and the lens(s) themselves would be smaller than those of the Canon.

bobn2 said:

Phocal said:

Sure the Olympus is slightly slower at f4.5 but also has a bit wider end than the other two.

Click to expand...

The purpose of having a wide aperture for lenses like these is to get more light on the sensor. In that respect the Olympus isn't 'slightly slower'. It's over two stops slower.

Click to expand...

Yes it is over two stops slower ... but at double the focal length! -If you decide to compare equivalent lenses then you have to do so for both aperture and FL. I do question the usefullness of a comparison with a (non exist?) 300-800mm f9 lens tho.

It is self explanatory that mounting a lens on a crop body instead of FF means trading light gathering ability for focal length.

At least when it comes to pricing I would think it reasonable to compare apples with apples regardless of the camera body the lens gets mounted on. -Ore else the manufacturers would have to price one and the same lens differently according to the customers preference of sensor size.

bobn2 said:

Maybe it would be good it the FF manufacturers also made lenses with that AOV two stops slower, but they don't. That gap provides an opportunity for mFT, which they'll miss if they price the lens out of reach of the people who might take that opportunity.

Click to expand...

bobn2 said:

Mark Ransom said:

Jeff said:

Reading this thread, I'm told that I'd be a fool to buy this lens. That it is only for the Oly faithful who don't know better. That I'm sure to be taken to the cleaners on the pricing. yada.

Screw 'em. The haters hate. That's what they do. Talk about a few features in isolation. Spec sheet warriors.

What I see is a relatively compact, weather-sealed, stabilized lens lens that I can plausibly use from the back of my boat to shoot water fowl and other critters. And it's at half the price of the lenses that other folks were carrying around on my latest outing to a birding site.

This looks really sweet, if you ask me.

Click to expand...

Just one question: how do you know it's "half the price"? Nobody knows the price yet.

It's good to realize that many of the comments here are based on assumptions that may or may not come to pass. Including yours.

Click to expand...

That's the case. If this lens comes in at around $2-3k most of what I said falls. Twice the price of the Panny 100-400 would make it an attractive proposition, for what it seems likely to offer.

Click to expand...

If it really is $2k it will probably be a runaway best seller. I'm still predicting north of $8k. The problem is we don't even have enough information to know the odds of either of us being correct.

cpt kent said:

kohinoor said:

cpt kent said:

I spent some time looking for info on how an internal TC works (mechanically) but couldn’t find anything. Would be interesting to learn some specifics.

Click to expand...

See here:

The system is rather simple ... the precision needed probably not.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that was exactly what I was looking for, but couldn't find. A simple swing in/out mechanisim. I thought it was some kind of witchcraft...

The Canon has a 'bump' to accommodate, something that's not apparent on the 150-400. But I guess it's still a large diameter, and the lens(s) themselves would be smaller than those of the Canon.

Click to expand...

I think when we get to see more pics of the lens at different angles we will also get to see the bump.

nzmacro said:

It's nothing like a Nikon 200-500.

Click to expand...

It's quite like a Nikon 200-500, in that you put the 200-500 on a DX camera, it does just about the same job, less the TC.

nzmacro said:

You keep going on about it and yet you dodge this lens for some reason .....

https://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/lenses/canon_200-400_4

Click to expand...

That's an interesting one. looks like another ludicrously overpriced lens. It does have a flourite element, which I suppose might justify the price a bit, but I think using that lens as a benchmark for value for money is somewhat wide of the mark.

nzmacro said:

The Oly is a 150-400 F/4.5 with a built in 1.25x TC, not a 200-500 F/5.6.

Click to expand...

Sure, but in terms of the scale, size and complexity of the lens the two are likely to be very, very similar. Same kind of aperture, same zoom ratio, similar angles of view (the Nikon a bit wider, which makes things a bit more difficult)

nzmacro said:

BTW, I have friend I shoot with here (Steve Was) using a D500 and the Nikon 200-500 and the lens has been in twice in 12 months with a stuck zoom ring. Nice lens, but not quite up there IMO.

Click to expand...

We don't know yet whether you might or might not have a friend in a year or two who has had to send the new Olympus back. You also don't know how he's treated the lens. That kind of anecdote tells us just about nothing. The Nikon just gives you a benchmark for what a lens of this scale might be expected to cost. Add a bit if you want a more robust zoom mech if you like.

nzmacro said:

Me, I might go for the Oly, or add a Sony A9 and 200-600

Click to expand...

3:1 zoom rather than 2.5:1 comparable aperture, again, about the same scale of lens.

nzmacro said:

(no it's not comparable to the Oly either) and then I could also add a Sony A6500. Then it can be used on FF and APS-C. My NEX-7 and A7 are getting a bit old, so replacements might be in order.

However, m4/3 is here to stay and I might bypass the Sony's, keep what I have and add the Oly 150-400 with the built in 1.25x TC which if everything goes right, WOULD BE VERY CLOSE TO THE CANON 200-400 F/4 in specs hopefully ;-)

All the best and don't compare apples to potatoes.

Click to expand...

You're missing the point of the comparison. That's not to say that these lenses are doing exactly the same job, it's to say take this amount of glass, this zoom mech, an IS function and an AF function, put it in a metal tube with a few O-rings for sealing, how much would we expect it to cost? To ague that the Olympus costs more than three times you'd have to say there was something fundamentally different about it. You might build it a bit better than the Nikon. What is that? The TC? A TC can be had for a few hundred dollars. It needs a hinge to swap it in and out. How much would that hinge cost?

kohinoor said:

At least when it comes to pricing I would think it reasonable to compare apples with apples regardless of the camera body the lens gets mounted on. -Ore else the manufacturers would have to price one and the same lens differently according to the customers preference of sensor size.

Click to expand...

That might be a problem for someone like Sigma who sells the same lens with different mounts. All Olympus needs to consider is what someone might buy instead to get the same capability. If someone else makes a 150-400 lens at half the price it doesn't matter if you can't mount it on an Olympus camera. If another system requires a 300-800 lens to get the same capability, that's what you compare it to. And that's what Olympus will be comparing it to when setting the price.

nzmacro said:

A 150-400 F/4.5 that has internal zoom is nothing like a 200-500 F/5.6 that grows in length and sticks out the front element ;-) That's the point. Not even comparable IMO.

All the best.

Danny.

Click to expand...

yes and as you wrote people should compare it with the Canikons 180/200-400 F4 options that cost 10000$ or more.

It is funny to see how much attention such a specialized lens gets on the forum. And when will be released will be a lot of peoples complaining about the prize.

Stefano

Mark Ransom said:

bobn2 said:

Mark Ransom said:

Jeff said:

Reading this thread, I'm told that I'd be a fool to buy this lens. That it is only for the Oly faithful who don't know better. That I'm sure to be taken to the cleaners on the pricing. yada.

Screw 'em. The haters hate. That's what they do. Talk about a few features in isolation. Spec sheet warriors.

What I see is a relatively compact, weather-sealed, stabilized lens lens that I can plausibly use from the back of my boat to shoot water fowl and other critters. And it's at half the price of the lenses that other folks were carrying around on my latest outing to a birding site.

This looks really sweet, if you ask me.

Click to expand...

Just one question: how do you know it's "half the price"? Nobody knows the price yet.

It's good to realize that many of the comments here are based on assumptions that may or may not come to pass. Including yours.

Click to expand...

That's the case. If this lens comes in at around $2-3k most of what I said falls. Twice the price of the Panny 100-400 would make it an attractive proposition, for what it seems likely to offer.

Click to expand...

If it really is $2k it will probably be a runaway best seller. I'm still predicting north of $8k.

Click to expand...

Some will buy it at that price, and Olympus will make a tidy profit on it, which could be useful at this time. Their marketing people might have better info and think that the market isn' big enough to give the volume they'd want for a 2k price.

Mark Ransom said:

The problem is we don't even have enough information to know the odds of either of us being correct.

Click to expand...

Sure, but these threads would be no fun at all if we didn't treat gross speculation as established fact.

kohinoor said:

bobn2 said:

Phocal said:

Sure the Olympus is slightly slower at f4.5 but also has a bit wider end than the other two.

Click to expand...

The purpose of having a wide aperture for lenses like these is to get more light on the sensor. In that respect the Olympus isn't 'slightly slower'. It's over two stops slower.

Click to expand...

Yes it is over two stops slower ... but at double the focal length! -If you decide to compare equivalent lenses then you have to do so for both aperture and FL. I do question the usefullness of a comparison with a (non exist?) 300-800mm f9 lens tho.

Click to expand...

That depends on what is the purpose of the comparison.

kohinoor said:

It is self explanatory that mounting a lens on a crop body instead of FF means trading light gathering ability for focal length.

Click to expand...

Hardly 'self-explanatory'. here are plenty on this forum who would deny it.

kohinoor said:

At least when it comes to pricing I would think it reasonable to compare apples with apples regardless of the camera body the lens gets mounted on. -Ore else the manufacturers would have to price one and the same lens differently according to the customers preference of sensor size.

Click to expand...

As you point out, there are no precise 'apples' to compare it with, in the sense of lenses offering the same AoV and aperture range. So, the point of comparisons is to see what we might expect a lens of this (optical) size and complexity to cost, which is where the similarly sized lenses come in. We don't know the complexity yet, except that the built-in TC must add a bit. If it has a lot more elements to achieve something extra, then you get the question, what is the extra worth?

Stizzu68 said:

nzmacro said:

A 150-400 F/4.5 that has internal zoom is nothing like a 200-500 F/5.6 that grows in length and sticks out the front element ;-) That's the point. Not even comparable IMO.

All the best.

Danny.

Click to expand...

yes and as you wrote people should compare it with the Canikons 180/200-400 F4 options that cost 10000$ or more.

Click to expand...

Why should people compare it with those? Do you think they are good value for money?

Stizzu68 said:

It is funny to see how much attention such a specialized lens gets on the forum. And when will be released will be a lot of peoples complaining about the prize.

Click to expand...

Not a matter of 'complaining' just commenting on whether it would be a 'bargain' as claimed in the OP.