Lens logic

I've got it, but that only gets me to 420mm equivalent.

I'd like 600mm Equivalent or more. I like the look of the Nikon D7200 + 200-500mm F5.6, but the weight is marginally too much. But maybe the lens I want would be equally as heavy 

Grrr. So it's wait. And save my pennies. Drat!

iceypix wrote:

I've got it, but that only gets me to 420mm equivalent.

I'd like 600mm Equivalent or more. I like the look of the Nikon D7200 + 200-500mm F5.6, but the weight is marginally too much. But maybe the lens I want would be equally as heavy

What we need is a 2x TC for the 40-150. It would be a bit slow, but it would give the same reach and speed as the xx-300 zooms, with better build and a tiny additional bit of kit.

iceypix wrote:

I have the OMD-EM1 and the 12-40 f2.8 and the 40-150 f2.8, so far so good (awesome even!)

But, after these it gets a bit murky. We have a fixed F4 300mm on the way and the Panasonic 100-400mm on the way, but they're not exactly what I want (yeah I know, this is where you'll all lay into me ;)). The 300mm is, well, too fixed, and the 100-400mm is a bit slow. Would anyone else out there much rather have a 150-300mm F2.8-4 or fixed F4?

The 100-400 is also going to be a bit big for my taste:

http://www.43rumors.com/two-new-100-400mm-leica-mft-lens-pictures-from-casey-gutteridge/

It's sitting by a 70-200 2.8, which is almost exactly the same size as the Canon 100-400 L II. By eyeball, I'd say the Panny is smaller by about an inch or 1/8, about the same as the difference in front element size, so you might hope for it to be 1 to 1.2 kg.

There's no precedent for an xx-300 f4 zoom that I know of, but I think it would suit me better. The front element would actually be bigger, but it could probably be quite a bit shorter. I'd be happy with a 4.5, or even just a better-built version of the current 100-300.

iceypix wrote:

I have the OMD-EM1 and the 12-40 f2.8 and the 40-150 f2.8, so far so good (awesome even!)

But, after these it gets a bit murky. We have a fixed F4 300mm on the way and the Panasonic 100-400mm on the way, but they're not exactly what I want (yeah I know, this is where you'll all lay into me ;)). The 300mm is, well, too fixed, and the 100-400mm is a bit slow. Would anyone else out there much rather have a 150-300mm F2.8-4 or fixed F4?

Cheers, Levon

www.flickr.com/photos/noveli77

I would need a 150-400mm or 150-450mm f/4 PRO. It would be the compliment to the 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO and I would be ready to pay <12 900€ for that if delivers quality like 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO and it is compatible with even 1.4x teleconverter (210-560mm or 210-630mm f/5.6)

And I know almost two dozens from first hand who would buy it as well and many who would be ready to sell their every Canon/Nikon gear for just because that one being available.

300mm prime with f/4 is just not good. Even if it would be f/2.8 or f/2 it would not be usable. With longer focal lengths the primes comes far more limiting tools than with shorter focal lengths where just very small camera distance movements are required to change magnification.

So if I would need to choose between 300mm f/4 and 150-300mm f/4, I would take the zoom. Even if with double the price and with same aperture ratio.

For my purposes (mostly sports) the 40-150 and 300 will pair perfectly.

If you don't mind a focus speed hit, the 50-200+EC14 will get you to 283mm and can be used wide open. A bargain alternative.

Cheers,

Rick

TomFid wrote:

iceypix wrote:

I've got it, but that only gets me to 420mm equivalent.

I'd like 600mm Equivalent or more. I like the look of the Nikon D7200 + 200-500mm F5.6, but the weight is marginally too much. But maybe the lens I want would be equally as heavy

What we need is a 2x TC for the 40-150. It would be a bit slow, but it would give the same reach and speed as the xx-300 zooms, with better build and a tiny additional bit of kit.

Well, it could work as well, being a stop slower but with much lower contrast. And it would eventually require to stop down to f/6.7-8 range to get the highest contrast.

But it would give exactly the required 80-300mm focal length range that many would like.

Astrotripper wrote:

And I think those upcoming lenses have a chance of doing that. The 100-400 and 300/4 are both targeted at somewhat different audience. And hopefully, they will be reasonably priced. With some luck, their arrival will grow the MFT user base that wants/needs super telephoto lenses. Once there are more people using and needing toys like that, you can think of making more advanced lenses, aimed at really advanced and demanding users.

Something like that.

Waiting customers to come to you when you are selling nothing to them, doesn't bring you anyway closer to get their money to get product out to sell it to them.

You need to get investors and just make a first small batch of the products that you want to be selling and then sell those and start making more batches to be sold.

That is how the business works, you need the money first to start it.

iceypix wrote:

I have the OMD-EM1 and the 12-40 f2.8 and the 40-150 f2.8, so far so good (awesome even!)

But, after these it gets a bit murky. We have a fixed F4 300mm on the way and the Panasonic 100-400mm on the way, but they're not exactly what I want (yeah I know, this is where you'll all lay into me ;)). The 300mm is, well, too fixed, and the 100-400mm is a bit slow. Would anyone else out there much rather have a 150-300mm F2.8-4 or fixed F4?

Cheers, Levon

www.flickr.com/photos/noveli77

If you want it NOW with M4/3, you do actually have some choices with compromises.

Canon EF mount lenses and Metabones AF adapters (and there is the Kipon AF adapter too).

It is just a matter of time and money - Canon and Nikon have had decades to slowly build up lens portfolios and a solid foundation of high end users, which is something that mft is only slowly building up. In time there will be enough demand for the more esoteric high end lenses to make them worthwhile developing, but for the moment it just isn't really feasible to produce every high end combination of focal lengths, aperture and zooms to suit everyone.

I think the current plans for the 300mm f4 and 100-400mm make for a pretty well rounded system, but obviously they won't be to the exact preferences of every photographer out there (as neither will the Canon or Nikon lens lineups).

I agree.

iceypix wrote:

I have the OMD-EM1 and the 12-40 f2.8 and the 40-150 f2.8, so far so good (awesome even!)

But, after these it gets a bit murky. We have a fixed F4 300mm on the way and the Panasonic 100-400mm on the way, but they're not exactly what I want (yeah I know, this is where you'll all lay into me ;)). The 300mm is, well, too fixed, and the 100-400mm is a bit slow. Would anyone else out there much rather have a 150-300mm F2.8-4 or fixed F4?

Cheers, Levon

www.flickr.com/photos/noveli77

there is the available Olympus 90-250 2.8 ED. money is no object?

It's a bit heavy and not quite long enough; plus it needs an adapter which is not ideal.

I'd rather have 300mm or more at long end and F4-ish to save weight.

It's crazy big, heavy and expensive but if I ever encountered one at a low-low-low price I'd have to snag it. See "Calnature" Jeff's work with the 90-250, alone and with converters for some dazzling examples.

"Portable" isn't a word I'd describe it with. My biggest lens is the 35-100/2.0 and that's as much as I want to lug. Knowing what Oly can do with superteles should have everyone's appetites whetted for the new 300. Guarantee it will be spectacular.

Cheers,

Rick