Reading mode: Light Dark

any rumor about tele (zoom) lens faster than f2.8?

Go to last post
J

j9300

Member
Messages
47
Reaction score
2
I know 35-100 is really good, but am wondering if there is future plan from m4/3 manufacture to make tele lens (>100mm) faster than f2.8??

Any rumor?
 
That's quite impractical for Micro Four Thirds. The original Four Thirds DSLR system had an Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0, and it's pretty much the same size as those gigantic 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses for full frame DSLRs. There's no getting around it, such lens has to be huge, even with a smallish sensor and a short flange distance.
 
j9300 said:
I know 35-100 is really good, but am wondering if there is future plan from m4/3 manufacture to make tele lens (>100mm) faster than f2.8??

Any rumor?
Click to expand...
Yes. But it's an old rumor and the two lenses in question has been available for years. You just need a MMF-3 and an E-M1 to use them: Olympus 35-100mm f/2 and Olympus 150mm f/2.
 
The 35-100 f/2 for four-thirds is humongous. This completely defeats the purpose of going for a smaller sensor camera. So no I do not believe anything faster than f/2.0 will be coming as it would not make sense from an economical point of view (i.e. very few people would buy it).

--
Slowly learning to use the Olympus OM-D E-M5.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/.
 
Last edited:
MAubrey said:
j9300 said:
I know 35-100 is really good, but am wondering if there is future plan from m4/3 manufacture to make tele lens (>100mm) faster than f2.8??

Any rumor?
Click to expand...
Yes. But it's an old rumor and the two lenses in question has been available for years. You just need a MMF-3 and an E-M1 to use them: Olympus 35-100mm f/2 and Olympus 150mm f/2.
Click to expand...
 
Why no f/1.8 zooms at all, though? Why no 17-35, a la the Sigma 18-35? Would it be prohibitively large on a u43 body?
 
Yes those 43 f/2 lenses were terrific optically. Unfortunately they were also terrifically big and pricey. Really just physics.
 
Member said:
Why no 17-35, a la the Sigma 18-35? Would it be prohibitively large on a u43 body?
Click to expand...
18 is 28 equivalent on APS-C, where 17 is 35 equivalent on m43. 'Normal' zooms that only go as wide as 35 equivalent stopped being marketable in the late 80s.
 
OTOH, a lens that you'd consider trading your firstborn for. Put another way, uncompromising and gigantic.

Suspect "fast zoom" in m43 will always mean 2.8.

Cheers,

Rick
 
well we can kind of see where it's going Sony has already started fusing lens elements and using a curved sensor and I am hoping Olympus is thinking along these lines too.
 
Ido S said:
That's quite impractical for Micro Four Thirds. The original Four Thirds DSLR system had an Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0, and it's pretty much the same size as those gigantic 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses for full frame DSLRs.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The equivalent to m43 35-100mm f/2 would be FF 70-200mm f/4 lens. The new Fujinon 50-140mm f/2.8 would be a close APS-C equivalent. They aren't small, but neither they are gigantic.
 
forpetessake said:
Ido S said:
That's quite impractical for Micro Four Thirds. The original Four Thirds DSLR system had an Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0, and it's pretty much the same size as those gigantic 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses for full frame DSLRs.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The equivalent to m43 35-100mm f/2 would be FF 70-200mm f/4 lens. The new Fujinon 50-140mm f/2.8 would be a close APS-C equivalent. They aren't small, but neither they are gigantic.
Click to expand...
Please go back and read the original post and then reread the post that you have called "wrong." Ido S was making a SIZE comparison, not an equivalency comparison. The OP was asking about telezoom's faster than 2.8. Ido S responded directly to that. He said the Oly 4/3 fast tele zoom was huge like the fast FF 70-200 2.8's so it was not likely that there would be an m4/3 tele zoom faster than 2.8. Check it out in the database, IF you do so, you will see that, the Oly 4/3 35-100 is actually heavier, wider and longer than the Canon 70-200 2.8. I think you owe Ido S an apology.
 
LarsLeibgott said:
Why no f/1.8 zooms at all, though? Why no 17-35, a la the Sigma 18-35? Would it be prohibitively large on a u43 body?
Click to expand...
Likely VERY limited market: Huge and expensive.
 
RaymondR said:
forpetessake said:
Ido S said:
That's quite impractical for Micro Four Thirds. The original Four Thirds DSLR system had an Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0, and it's pretty much the same size as those gigantic 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses for full frame DSLRs.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The equivalent to m43 35-100mm f/2 would be FF 70-200mm f/4 lens. The new Fujinon 50-140mm f/2.8 would be a close APS-C equivalent. They aren't small, but neither they are gigantic.
Click to expand...
Please go back and read the original post and then reread the post that you have called "wrong." Ido S was making a SIZE comparison, not an equivalency comparison. The OP was asking about telezoom's faster than 2.8. Ido S responded directly to that. He said the Oly 4/3 fast tele zoom was huge like the fast FF 70-200 2.8's so it was not likely that there would be an m4/3 tele zoom faster than 2.8. Check it out in the database, IF you do so, you will see that, the Oly 4/3 35-100 is actually heavier, wider and longer than the Canon 70-200 2.8. I think you owe Ido S an apology.

--
RaymondR
Click to expand...
 
forpetessake said:
Ido S said:
That's quite impractical for Micro Four Thirds. The original Four Thirds DSLR system had an Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0, and it's pretty much the same size as those gigantic 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses for full frame DSLRs.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The equivalent to m43 35-100mm f/2 would be FF 70-200mm f/4 lens. The new Fujinon 50-140mm f/2.8 would be a close APS-C equivalent. They aren't small, but neither they are gigantic.
Click to expand...
Did you even read what you replied to?
 
RaymondR said:
forpetessake said:
Ido S said:
That's quite impractical for Micro Four Thirds. The original Four Thirds DSLR system had an Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0, and it's pretty much the same size as those gigantic 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses for full frame DSLRs.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The equivalent to m43 35-100mm f/2 would be FF 70-200mm f/4 lens. The new Fujinon 50-140mm f/2.8 would be a close APS-C equivalent. They aren't small, but neither they are gigantic.
Click to expand...
Please go back and read the original post and then reread the post that you have called "wrong." Ido S was making a SIZE comparison, not an equivalency comparison.
Click to expand...
I repeat it again, the comparison is wrong and thus the conclusions.

The fact that Olympus made a huge 35-100/2 lens has nothing to do with physical limitations. They just made a huge lens for whatever reason. It doesn't follow that any other lens should be as big and heavy as that. Because that aperture lens is comparable to much smaller and lighter FF and APS-C lenses I mentioned.

As such the conclusion should be that Panalympus could release a relatively compact (~700g) high quality 35-100/2 lens in a typical for those lenses $1000-1500 range if they wanted to.
 
With the form factor, in fact its a no brainer that the M4/3 can easily field something like a 150mm/2.4 or 100mm/2.0. Though I would be more conservative with the really longer long tele. A 200mm for M4/3 that's fast would be desired but perhaps not really much needed, not as much as say a 200mm/4.0 Macro which can double or triple its functional needs.

Really I think a 90/100mm f/2.0 is where the sweet spot can be. Yes I would want the Panasonic 150mm to be f/2.4 or even f/2.0 but hey f/2.8 is still fine
 
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