New image of the 100-400mm

[Christian Grevstad]

Loading…

www.43rumors.com

Looks about twice the size if the 45-200..? Perhaps someone can do more precise measuring?

 

[LMNCT]

I want this lens and hope that it either comes with a collar or that an accessory collar is available. Do not hold your breath waiting for the arrival. If it is announced in the spring, Panasonics slow-to-market history makes me think that we will still be waiting for delivery in the fall.

 

[Frasier Krane]

http://www.43rumors.com/new-real-wo...sonic-leica-100-400mm-mft-lens/#disqus_thread

Looks about twice the size if the 45-200..? Perhaps someone can do more precise measuring?

My guess is somewhere along the lines of 170mmx80mm, give or take. The 40-150 Pro is 160mmx80mm.

Amazing for a 400mm lens.

I could be wrong, of course.

 

[Skeeterbytes]

It will surely have one, as it's Panasonic's largest lens by far and will make any system camera very front-heavy.

Cheers,

Rick

 

[Lassoni]

I'm happy with my 75-300 ii, as it's not nearly as big as the 100-400 will be (which looks like to be entering the 70-200 f2.8 territory bulkyness wise).

Much rather see a 50-200 f4 that's both sharp and maybe little bit smaller.

 

[ThePalindrome]

http://www.43rumors.com/new-real-wo...sonic-leica-100-400mm-mft-lens/#disqus_thread

Looks about twice the size if the 45-200..? Perhaps someone can do more precise measuring?

My guess is somewhere along the lines of 170mmx80mm, give or take. The 40-150 Pro is 160mmx80mm.

Amazing for a 400mm lens.

I could be wrong, of course.

It's difficult to do precise measuring in that image because everything is distorted by the perspective. But some quick and dirty comparisons with the 25 mm f1.7 next to it back-up Frasier's guesses. If I had to bet I would say 180 mm length, 85 mm diameter.

 

[Frasier Krane]

http://www.43rumors.com/new-real-wo...sonic-leica-100-400mm-mft-lens/#disqus_thread

Looks about twice the size if the 45-200..? Perhaps someone can do more precise measuring?

My guess is somewhere along the lines of 170mmx80mm, give or take. The 40-150 Pro is 160mmx80mm.

Amazing for a 400mm lens.

I could be wrong, of course.

It's difficult to do precise measuring in that image because everything is distorted by the perspective. But some quick and dirty comparisons with the 25 mm f1.7 next to it back-up Frasier's guesses. If I had to bet I would say 180 mm length, 85 mm diameter.

That's probably about right. An 80mm diameter is probably too small, given the 63mm entrance pupil. And the lens probably extends as well when it zooms, meaning the diameter would have to be even wider to accommodate this. An 85mm diameter is probably as small as it could be made, and, even then, I'm not sure how easy that would be to pull off.

Maybe with an internal zoom it would be easier, but an extending zoom requires a barrel within a barrel. And because this is a larger, more pro grade zoom, presumably the material is thicker.

 

[drj3]

http://www.43rumors.com/new-real-wo...sonic-leica-100-400mm-mft-lens/#disqus_thread

Looks about twice the size if the 45-200..? Perhaps someone can do more precise measuring?

My guess is somewhere along the lines of 170mmx80mm, give or take. The 40-150 Pro is 160mmx80mm.

Amazing for a 400mm lens.

I could be wrong, of course.

It's difficult to do precise measuring in that image because everything is distorted by the perspective. But some quick and dirty comparisons with the 25 mm f1.7 next to it back-up Frasier's guesses. If I had to bet I would say 180 mm length, 85 mm diameter.

That's probably about right. An 80mm diameter is probably too small, given the 63mm entrance pupil. And the lens probably extends as well when it zooms, meaning the diameter would have to be even wider to accommodate this. An 85mm diameter is probably as small as it could be made, and, even then, I'm not sure how easy that would be to pull off.

Maybe with an internal zoom it would be easier, but an extending zoom requires a barrel within a barrel. And because this is a larger, more pro grade zoom, presumably the material is thicker.

The 50-150 f2.8 is 79.4mm and the front element on the Panasonic must be 9.9 mm larger, so my guess as to diameter is 89-90mm given pro grade and splash/dust construction and the Olympus 300 f4 will probably be 95-100 mm in diameter. I don't have any guess as to length.

 

[C Sean]

This is pure speculation and basically adds nothing to the discussion. It's my impression the 100-400 and the GX8 were designed together. So both lens and body benefit from each other. The first reason why I suspect this is because of it size of the GX8 and let face it the camera is almost the size of the GH3/4. The reason why GH3/4 cameras were so big because video recording require a lot of battery power and therefor the cameras need to be extra big to fit in a large battery. So why is the GX8 so big when it designed more video and the GX7 is the perfect size. The obivious answer so it can handle bigger lenses and we may get a mkII of the 100-300.

The second reason is the dual stablization and at 400mm(800mm) we need all the stabilization we can get. It almost a good reason for me to get a GX8 but then again I got a free GH battery grip and I'm sure this would become handy.

The third reason is the previous lens and cam collaboration.

GF1 + 20mm 1.7

GF2 + 14mm 2.5

GH3 + 12-35mm 2.8

GM1 + 12-32mm + later the 15mm 1.7 and the 35-100

 

[drj3]

This is pure speculation and basically adds nothing to the discussion. It's my impression the 100-400 and the GX8 were designed together. So both lens and body benefit from each other. The first reason why I suspect this is because of it size of the GX8 and let face it the camera is almost the size of the GH3/4. The reason why GH3/4 cameras were so big because video recording require a lot of battery power and therefor the cameras need to be extra big to fit in a large battery. So why is the GX8 so big when it designed more video and the GX7 is the perfect size. The obivious answer so it can handle bigger lenses and we may get a mkII of the 100-300.

The second reason is the dual stablization and at 400mm(800mm) we need all the stabilization we can get. It almost a good reason for me to get a GX8 but then again I got a free GH battery grip and I'm sure this would become handy.

The third reason is the previous lens and cam collaboration.

GF1 + 20mm 1.7

GF2 + 14mm 2.5

GH3 + 12-35mm 2.8

GM1 + 12-32mm + later the 15mm 1.7 and the 35-100

Pure speculation - yes that is what a "guess" is. Adds nothing to the discussion - the original post was about size of the lens, why is a guess as to size not relevant. I am not as sure about the relevance of the GX8 and I doubt that Panasonic designs lenses for specific cameras. Cameras change quickly, lenses are more likely to be long term investments.

 

[abe4652]

http://www.43rumors.com/new-real-wo...sonic-leica-100-400mm-mft-lens/#disqus_thread

Looks about twice the size if the 45-200..? Perhaps someone can do more precise measuring?

My guess is somewhere along the lines of 170mmx80mm, give or take. The 40-150 Pro is 160mmx80mm.

Amazing for a 400mm lens.

I could be wrong, of course.

I like the long end of this, but the short end at effective 200mm is really just a bit too long for most general usage.

OTOH, the Olympus 40-150 starts off at 80mm, which can be almost ok for more general usage, though I am starting to wish it had a focus limiter like a number of older moderate telephotos did.

 

[abe4652]

I'm happy with my 75-300 ii, as it's not nearly as big as the 100-400 will be (which looks like to be entering the 70-200 f2.8 territory bulkyness wise).

Much rather see a 50-200 f4 that's both sharp and maybe little bit smaller.

Yes, I agree. And with slightly bigger f stop.

 

[C Sean]

This is pure speculation and basically adds nothing to the discussion. It's my impression the 100-400 and the GX8 were designed together. So both lens and body benefit from each other. The first reason why I suspect this is because of it size of the GX8 and let face it the camera is almost the size of the GH3/4. The reason why GH3/4 cameras were so big because video recording require a lot of battery power and therefor the cameras need to be extra big to fit in a large battery. So why is the GX8 so big when it designed more video and the GX7 is the perfect size. The obivious answer so it can handle bigger lenses and we may get a mkII of the 100-300.

The second reason is the dual stablization and at 400mm(800mm) we need all the stabilization we can get. It almost a good reason for me to get a GX8 but then again I got a free GH battery grip and I'm sure this would become handy.

The third reason is the previous lens and cam collaboration.

GF1 + 20mm 1.7

GF2 + 14mm 2.5

GH3 + 12-35mm 2.8

GM1 + 12-32mm + later the 15mm 1.7 and the 35-100

Pure speculation - yes that is what a "guess" is. Adds nothing to the discussion - the original post was about size of the lens, why is a guess as to size not relevant. I am not as sure about the relevance of the GX8 and I doubt that Panasonic designs lenses for specific cameras. Cameras change quickly, lenses are more likely to be long term investments.

 

[drj3]

This is pure speculation and basically adds nothing to the discussion. It's my impression the 100-400 and the GX8 were designed together. So both lens and body benefit from each other. The first reason why I suspect this is because of it size of the GX8 and let face it the camera is almost the size of the GH3/4. The reason why GH3/4 cameras were so big because video recording require a lot of battery power and therefor the cameras need to be extra big to fit in a large battery. So why is the GX8 so big when it designed more video and the GX7 is the perfect size. The obivious answer so it can handle bigger lenses and we may get a mkII of the 100-300.

The second reason is the dual stablization and at 400mm(800mm) we need all the stabilization we can get. It almost a good reason for me to get a GX8 but then again I got a free GH battery grip and I'm sure this would become handy.

The third reason is the previous lens and cam collaboration.

GF1 + 20mm 1.7

GF2 + 14mm 2.5

GH3 + 12-35mm 2.8

GM1 + 12-32mm + later the 15mm 1.7 and the 35-100

Pure speculation - yes that is what a "guess" is. Adds nothing to the discussion - the original post was about size of the lens, why is a guess as to size not relevant. I am not as sure about the relevance of the GX8 and I doubt that Panasonic designs lenses for specific cameras. Cameras change quickly, lenses are more likely to be long term investments.

 

[Eric Nepean]

http://www.43rumors.com/new-real-wo...sonic-leica-100-400mm-mft-lens/#disqus_thread

Looks about twice the size if the 45-200..? Perhaps someone can do more precise measuring?

This front element of this lens cannot be less than 63.5mm. This is bigger than the front element diameter of any other M43 lens. This lens has a longer focal length than any other M43 lens.

So yes, of course it will be bigger and heavier than any other M43 lens.

 

[Skeeterbytes]

This front element of this lens cannot be less than 63.5mm. This is bigger than the front element diameter of any other M43 lens. This lens has a longer focal length than any other M43 lens.

So yes, of course it will be bigger and heavier than any other M43 lens.

 

[OzRay]

What I absolutely love about photos such as these is that the person who took it made no endeavour to provide any further information about the product. How difficult would it have been, for example, to provide some estimation of the physical size of the lens when you're staring at it first hand? There would clearly have been clues about that would have provided some evidence regarding size in the overall display.

 

[Jorginho]

http://www.43rumors.com/new-real-wo...sonic-leica-100-400mm-mft-lens/#disqus_thread

Looks about twice the size if the 45-200..? Perhaps someone can do more precise measuring?

My guess is somewhere along the lines of 170mmx80mm, give or take. The 40-150 Pro is 160mmx80mm.

Amazing for a 400mm lens.

I could be wrong, of course.

I like the long end of this, but the short end at effective 200mm is really just a bit too long for most general usage.

OTOH, the Olympus 40-150 starts off at 80mm, which can be almost ok for more general usage, though I am starting to wish it had a focus limiter like a number of older moderate telephotos did.

It is not meant as a general use lens. it is clearly meant for telezoom work. Like BIF, wildlife of all sorts and sports. You need to use it in conjunction with the 35-100 Panny and may be 40-150 Oly. if you want to cover a wider range.

I wonder: if this lens warrents your comment, what do we have to think of the 300 mm prime or comparable lenses from Canon and Nikon (150-400 or200-400..).

 

[Eric Nepean]

This front element of this lens cannot be less than 63.5mm. This is bigger than the front element diameter of any other M43 lens. This lens has a longer focal length than any other M43 lens.

So yes, of course it will be bigger and heavier than any other M43 lens.

--
Eric
When the light is gone, the picture is gone ....

No getting around that. It will have competition from the 300/4, which will have a 75mm or larger front element, but hard to predict which will win the greatest heft prize. I'm guessing both will be under the weight of the ZD35-100/2.0, my heaviest lens.

Cheers,

Rick

--
Equivalence and diffraction-free since 2009.
You can be too; ask about our 12-step program.

Kind of like placing an order for a 1/2 ton truck with a fuel efficient engine, and then saying "well damn, that's much bigger than my Smart Car"

--
Eric
When the light is gone, the picture is gone ....

 

[Lassoni]

I missed the 1/2 ton reference. Don't trucks weight 1 3/4 tons or 1 1/2 tons?