Olympus's Latest Buick Lens

[Gary Eickmeier]

Am I blind or is there anything about the price of this new lens in the article? I just want to see how it compares to the Sony/Sigma/Tamron 70-300 lenses. And I think price is a fairly important part of any new product story.

Gary Eickmeier

 

[Glen Barrington]

Gary, this is TOTALLY irrelevant to the topic, but I don't get the reference to Buick. Can you explain that one?
--
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.photo.net/photos/GlenBarrington

 

[dylanbarnhart]

Just my understanding, but Buick, once been America's icon of luxury, is now just an old big fat slow car that drives grandpas around.

F5.6 on four third is nothing to be too exicted about. Quite slow. 300mm on fourthird is pretty exciting, which is quite a bit longer than the cheap Sigma 70-300 APO mounted on an APS sensor. But then I'm pretty sure it will be a whole lot more expensive than the Sigma.

Gary, this is TOTALLY irrelevant to the topic, but I don't get the
reference to Buick. Can you explain that one?
--
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my
photos. . .
http://www.photo.net/photos/GlenBarrington

 

[leorimkus]

I bet it is the same Tamron or Sigma, just with a Zuiko name on it... The price should be corresponding.

--



http://www.z00m.us

 

[Erik Magnuson]

The article lead-in says "the new lens lives up to the Four Thirds promise of lighter, more compact optics measuring 127mm (5") long and weighing a mere 620g."

Well, let's compare:

Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG MACRO: 122mm and 550g
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III, 122mm and 480g
Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6D ED, 125mm and 517g

This is the "Four Thirds promise"? It's longer and heavier than all of the competitors' lenses except for image stabilized lenses.

--
Erik

 

[Jon Ragnarsson]

You would need a 140-600mm to be equal, so the argument holds.
A 300mm is a 300mm.

The article lead-in says "the new lens lives up to the Four Thirds
promise of lighter, more compact optics measuring 127mm (5") long
and weighing a mere 620g."

Well, let's compare:

Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG MACRO: 122mm and 550g
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III, 122mm and 480g
Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6D ED, 125mm and 517g

This is the "Four Thirds promise"? It's longer and heavier than
all of the competitors' lenses except for image stabilized lenses.

--
Erik

--
http://www.4-3system.com
http://jonr.light.is

 

[AndrewG NY]

The article lead-in says "the new lens lives up to the Four Thirds
promise of lighter, more compact optics measuring 127mm (5") long
and weighing a mere 620g."

Well, let's compare:

Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG MACRO: 122mm and 550g
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III, 122mm and 480g
Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6D ED, 125mm and 517g

This is the "Four Thirds promise"? It's longer and heavier than
all of the competitors' lenses except for image stabilized lenses.

I was making a similar check against Pentax historical offerings--it is quite typical for this class of lens--variable zoom 70/80-300/320. I'm sure they justify this by including 2x conversion factor--effective 140-600.

One of the few classes of telephoto zooms I've seen that appears to benefit from the smaller image circle is the 50/55-200 f/4-5.6 class which is generally substantially smaller than the typical 135-compatible 70-200, for example:

Pentax F 70-210 f/4-5.6: 99mm long, 555g
Pentax FA 70-200 f/4-5.6: 117mm long, 465g
Pentax DA 50-200 f/4-5.6: 78.5mm long, 260g
Sigma 55-200mm F4-5.6 DC: 87.1mm long, 310g

 

[ab012_KM7D]

I just want to see how it compares to the
Sony/Sigma/Tamron 70-300 lenses.

Looks just like the Sigma so probably cross-licensing.





--
Bernard

AS/SSS rocks!
lens reviews and more on dyxum.com!

 

[Mark Thornton]

None of those other lenses, when mounted on the cameras which they fit serve the same purpose as the DZ 70-300. I.e. their range of angle of view is different.

I think trying to compare weights across systems with different sensor sizes is a mugs game. It doesn't provide any useful information. More practical is to assess the all up weight of an entire system selected with a purpose in mind. For example, I like focal lengths in the range 20 ~ 300mm in 35 mm terms, and low light is not a concern. So what is a reasonable system from each of the contenders and what is the total weight and volume? Are the lens zoom ranges convenient (and how many lenses). And of course what is the image quality like?

 

[Mark Thornton]

One of the few classes of telephoto zooms I've seen that appears to
benefit from the smaller image circle is the 50/55-200 f/4-5.6
class which is generally substantially smaller than the typical
135-compatible 70-200, for example:

Pentax F 70-210 f/4-5.6: 99mm long, 555g
Pentax FA 70-200 f/4-5.6: 117mm long, 465g
Pentax DA 50-200 f/4-5.6: 78.5mm long, 260g
Sigma 55-200mm F4-5.6 DC: 87.1mm long, 310g

Changes in materials may also account for some weight changes since the older Pentax designs.

 

[Erik Magnuson]

You would need a 140-600mm to be equal, so the argument holds.
A 300mm is a 300mm.

As has been pointed out many, many times before you can crop any larger sensor to 2x crop factor. (The D2X can it it internally). The the remaining factor is pixel pitch. Was the Four Thirds promise that it will always have smaller pixel pitch than the competition?

--
Erik

 

[Erik Magnuson]

None of those other lenses, when mounted on the cameras which they
fit

There is no technical reason the Sigma could not be made in Four Thirds mount. And of course any of the other camera makers could introduce smaller sensors or smaller pixel pitches.

The Sigma SD14 sensor is almost the exact same height as Four Thirds (13.8mm vs. 13.5mm). The only reason it has a larger "crop factor" is that it's wider. If the reviews that suggest it has the same apparent resolution as a conventional 10MP CFA are correct, then it offers the exact same advantage w/o the "magic" of Four Thirds.

--
Erik

 

[BJL]

The comparison of size and weight is against other options for getting equal telephoto reach. Perhaps it is fairest to compare at equal angular resolution of the subject, in which case 4/3's continues to have the advantage of getting more out of a given focal length, due to consistently having higher sensor resolution in l/mm. That is a benefit of the higher pixel density that 4/3 has consistently offered.

I am sure that some will say that sensors in larger formats could equally well have the same pixel size as 4/3 sensors, but the fact is that they do not, never have, and are not closing the gap. (One exception is the case of the far more expensive D2X roughly matching the E-300 and E-500.)

--
I prefer my lenses to be f/4 or brighter.

Higher usable ISO from bigger pixels and sensors is useless if it forces me to use longer, slower telephoto lenses to get the same resolution.

 

[Zoltan2]

Hmm let's see... can you name a 140-600mm lens for full frame, or indeed a 95-400mm lens for Nikon DX, which is either smaller or lighter than this one? Angle of view is what counts in telephoto lenses, and this one has one that is equivalent to those above. This is the FourThirds promise fulfilled!

 

[elboertie2]

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Olympus-Announces-70-300mm-Zoom-Lens-13589.htm

Am I blind or is there anything about the price of this new lens in
the article? I just want to see how it compares to the
Sony/Sigma/Tamron 70-300 lenses. And I think price is a fairly
important part of any new product story.

Gary Eickmeier

--

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'A camera is a device that helps one appreciate the world without it.' - Jacques

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hate to admit it, but your signature looks better in colour.

 

[Mark Thornton]

None of those other lenses, when mounted on the cameras which they
fit

There is no technical reason the Sigma could not be made in Four
Thirds mount. And of course any of the other camera makers could
introduce smaller sensors or smaller pixel pitches.

Canon could also make a 140-600mm F8/F11 lens for full frame which would be about the same weight, but they don't yet make such a lens. Nor does anyone else. The theory is OK, but you can't buy it.

The Sigma SD14 sensor is almost the exact same height as Four
Thirds (13.8mm vs. 13.5mm). The only reason it has a larger "crop
factor" is that it's wider. If the reviews that suggest it has the
same apparent resolution as a conventional 10MP CFA are correct,
then it offers the exact same advantage w/o the "magic" of Four
Thirds.

Yes and good luck to them. If all you are saying is that some of Olympus' marketing is well just marketing, then so what. The same could be said of all the players in this field.

 

[Gary Eickmeier]

Thanks. That answers it. The thing costs twice as much as a comparable Sony or Sigma/Tamron third party lens for most other cameras. I thought the idea of the 4/3 system was slightly smaller sensor, but therefore smaller and less expensive bodies and lenses. I had an Oly E-20, but I was reluctant to get into a system with the smallest sensor of all DSLRs. When I saw the 10mp Sony A100, that was it. And I'm glad. The Olys are probably fine cameras, but the smaller sensor and apparently the higher costs make it less attractive to me, so I just wanted to confirm that.

Happy with my Sony,

Gary Eickmeier

 

[Gary Eickmeier]

Like, wow - is that true? Same exact lens system? What's up with that?

Gary Eickmeier

 

[Gary Eickmeier]

Gary, this is TOTALLY irrelevant to the topic, but I don't get the
reference to Buick. Can you explain that one?

Just my twisted sense of humor. Ever since I first saw that silly word "Zuiko," I have always thought "Buick." Just similar spellings.

Gary Eickmeier

 

[Tim in upstate NY]

Thanks. That answers it. The thing costs twice as much as a
comparable Sony or Sigma/Tamron third party lens for most other
cameras. I thought the idea of the 4/3 system was slightly smaller
sensor, but therefore smaller and less expensive bodies and lenses.
I had an Oly E-20, but I was reluctant to get into a system with
the smallest sensor of all DSLRs. When I saw the 10mp Sony A100,
that was it. And I'm glad. The Olys are probably fine cameras, but
the smaller sensor and apparently the higher costs make it less
attractive to me, so I just wanted to confirm that.

Happy with my Sony,

.....If you know of a lens that gives an equivalent FOV on your Alpha for $400, lets hear about it.

That's the unique capability of the 4/3's system!