Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 7 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Friday 1st January 2016, 22:23   #51
Adey Baker
Member
 
Adey Baker's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Hinckley, Leics
Posts: 4,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim M. View Post
According to leak reported on m 4/3 rumors, it's 1475g (3.25lbs)......

...... 2600 euro reported price is not appealing either.

If we're patient enough the price will surely drop to more sensible levels but there's not going to be a drop in weight! Hugely disappointing, it must be the heaviest 300mm F4 around at the moment which goes against everything the m4/3 system is all about. There's no use in Olympus comparing it to a 600mm lens as all those other 300mm's can be fitted to the m4/3rds cameras - if adapters are available - and give a 600mm equivalent.
Adey Baker is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 3rd January 2016, 19:26   #52
opticoholic
Registered User
 
opticoholic's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: northern CA
Posts: 291
Hi guys,
Everybody has different preferences and priorities. I'm not as sensitive to weight or price as many people, so it doesn't bother me too much that the Oly 300 may be slightly heavier or more expensive than Canon/Nikon alternatives. Indeed, I take the substantial weight and the price as a sign that the build quality and optical quality might be outstanding or superior to the competition. A 3 lb. lens is still very hand-holdable and easy to carry with something like a Black Rapid strap... I might be different from most folks in that I would sometimes use this with a tripod or even occasionally use a flash, in which case again it would still be far lighter and easier to carry than my current big Nikon rig.

Of course we don't know for sure yet how good the lens is, but isn't it nice that it is finally going to be a reality very soon? My goodness what a long wait from the initial announcement to the "final" announcement... This thread started nearly 2 years ago! Hopefully that is another good sign that they did not rush the design/development...

So I'm still open-minded and hopeful about this Olympus 300mm lens. Don't forget that it will be weather sealed, plus there could be other advantages depending on the exact comparison, for example 10fps speed on static bird targets, "focus stacking" or focus bracketing features that might sometimes help get the whole bird in focus when shooting wide open, an excellent EVF and the advantages that go with that, electronic shutter option, etc. A big question for me (and everybody) is how well will it work with the 1.4X teleconverter? And of course will it work at all for birds in flight (BIF), now with the E-M1 or perhaps better late this year with the E-M1 II...? For BIF I expect micro-4/3 will still lag behind Ca/Nikon, but I still may give it a try...

I'm rooting for Olympus and overall I'm pleased with what they have been doing compared to Nikon... I'm heavily invested in Nikon gear, but I've been disappointed with Nikon over the last several years. Thom Hogan expressed it well when he quoted one of his readers recently:
If someone is starting out in sports or wildlife or even photo journalism and requires a serious, dependable, fast frame rate camera (10 fps+), Nikon’s answer is for them to spend US$6000. Canon’s answer is for them to spend US$1400 and get a free printer.
Maybe someday I'll jump to Canon. I don't know.

Dave
opticoholic is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2012 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 4th January 2016, 14:31   #53
hoodlum
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Markham, ON
Posts: 70
Olympus went all out on this lens.

http://digicame-info.com/2016/01/ed300mm-f4-is-pro.html

- 4 stop OIS and 6 stop when combined with IBIS of E-M1 or E-M5ii
- 17 elements in 10 groups (3x Super ED, 1 E-HR, 3 HR)
- Greater resolving power than SHG lens
- NEW Z Nano Coating for reduced flare
- 92.5mm x 227mm
- 17 locations of weather sealing to -10c
- 1.4M MFD (0.24 Magnification)
- AF/MF switch, Focus limit switch and L-Fn button
- 77mm filter
- 9 aperture blades
- Built-in lens hood
- Release Late Feb
- Price is 290,000 Yen (cannot convert directly to $US for US pricing)
__________________
My Flickr Birds
hoodlum is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 4th January 2016, 14:42   #54
Adey Baker
Member
 
Adey Baker's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Hinckley, Leics
Posts: 4,920
Dave, I'm sure the lens will be excellent quality. I don't know what prices are like in the USA at the moment but certainly here in the UK at 'official' dealers the 40-150mm has already dropped by 200 - 250 (likewise the MkII Canon 100-400mm) so if we hold back we should get the 1.4x converter included at about the same price as the bare lens at launch price.

Actually, I think they did have to 'rush' one part of the design as it suddenly started appearing on the rumor sites with IS included which it hadn't featured all the way through the updates on availability that Olympus had issued from time to time. Having said that, they did remove pictures of the original design from the 'PRO' web page some time beforehand. I know they may want to pick up some Panasonic users as well as Olympus owners, but I reckon the late inclusion of the IS will have increased the cost, complexity and a little bit of weight for something that isn't essential on Olympus bodies. They never seemed to worry about the 300mm end of the 75-300mm zoom and a number of people have successfully used 400mm Canon lenses hand-held via the Metabones adapters with the focal length dialled in to the IBIS. Too slow shutter speeds will only emphasise subject movement so fast shutter speeds should be aimed for anyway.

Since the 1970s I've used an old Soligor pre-set 400mm F6.3 on Practica bodies, a Zuiko 300mm F4.5 and an early Sigma 400mm Apo on Olympus OM film bodies plus a Sigma 400mm Apo/Macro on Canon film and digital bodies without ever having any problems with weather ingress (though a small amount of dust has occasionally crept in without degrading the images).

That later Sigma was bigger and heavier than the similarly-specced Canon lens but at 1440gms it's actually a touch lighter than the new Olympus lens! The two big reasons that I changed to the OMD system were the reductions in both size and weight that I would have to lug around as I get older, so that's why I'm really disappointed with the spec.
Adey Baker is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 4th January 2016, 18:02   #55
njlarsen
Opus Editor
 
njlarsen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portsmouth, Dominica
Posts: 20,198
From the 43 rumors site:
Quote:
It weighs 1270 grams (1475 grams in the tripod sit).
Niels
__________________
Support bird conservation in the Caribbean: BirdCaribbean
njlarsen is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 4th January 2016, 23:19   #56
mdb2
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: hampshire
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by njlarsen View Post
From the 43 rumors site:

Niels
hi all, I still have one foot in the canon camp, and I regularly use my canon 300f4 is lens in combination with my canon 7D mk2. It would seem that my EM1 with the newly arriving Oly 300F4 there is no weight saving! It will take a lot of convincing for me to purchase the only 300.
Kind regards mike
mdb2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th January 2016, 00:44   #57
opticoholic
Registered User
 
opticoholic's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: northern CA
Posts: 291
Yes,
For those whose utmost priority is keeping the size and weight down, I can understand how this would be a disappointment... The official weight is 2.8 lbs., 3.25 lbs. with the tripod foot. I see it differently. If the lens is well-built, i.e., made of metal, and I hope it is, then I'm guessing it probably cannot be a whole lot lighter.

A couple years back I was told that the longer the focal length of a lens, the more you lose the ability to make it smaller/lighter for smaller sensors. We all see how much smaller our short lenses are in the micro-4/3 format, and I naturally figured the same would be true proportionally for longer lenses... But apparently as the focal length gets longer, the size of a lens increasingly is dictated by size of the front element, which is in turn dictated by the maximum aperture of the lens... Consider that this lens has a 77mm filter thread. That makes the front of it equal in size to a full frame 300mm f4 lens. It also has a lot of glass... 17 lenses/10 groups. So I'm thinking the optical designers probably did what they had to do... You can't get something for nothing. The pixel density is very high on our micro-4/3 camera sensors (and soon they will probably pack even more pixels onto the next generation OM-D sensors), so we need extremely high resolution lenses in order to get all the possible resolution out of the sensor. If this truly proves to have "greater resolving power than the old SHG Olympus lenses," I think I'm going to want it.

Also just a small note but I'm very pleased that the lens foot appears to have an Arca Swiss groove.

More photos from 43 rumors attached.

Dave
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	oly_300mmf4is_021.jpg
Views:	343
Size:	28.0 KB
ID:	569246  Click image for larger version

Name:	oly_300mmf4is_020.jpg
Views:	86
Size:	22.3 KB
ID:	569247  

Last edited by opticoholic : Tuesday 5th January 2016 at 01:14.
opticoholic is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2012 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 5th January 2016, 01:24   #58
Jim M.
Choose Civility

 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by opticoholic View Post
Yes,
If weight is THE most important priority, I can see how many would be disappointed with this... The official weight is 2.8 lbs., 3.25 lbs. with the tripod foot. I see it differently. If the lens is well-built, i.e., made of metal, and I hope it is, then I'm guessing it probably cannot be a whole lot lighter.

A couple years back I was told that the longer the focal length of a lens, the more you lose the ability to make it smaller/lighter for smaller sensors. We all see how much smaller our short lenses are in the micro-4/3 format, and I naturally figured the same would be true proportionally for longer lenses... But apparently as the focal length gets longer, the size of a lens increasingly is dictated by size of the front element, which is in turn dictated by the maximum aperture of the lens... Consider that this lens has a 77mm filter thread. That makes the front of it equal in size to a full frame 300mm f4 lens. It also has a lot of glass... 17 lenses/10 groups. So I'm thinking the optical designers probably did what they had to do... You can't get something for nothing. The pixel density is very high on our micro-4/3 camera sensors (and soon they will probably pack even more pixels onto the next generation E-M1 II), so we need extremely high resolution lenses in order to get all the possible resolution out of the sensor. If this truly proves to be equal to or sharper than the old SHG Olympus lenses, I think I'm going to want it. Also just a small note but I'm very pleased that the lens foot appears to have an Arca Swiss groove. More photos from 43 rumors attached.
Dave
If the lens suits your purposes, fine, but I cannot believe a significantly lighter, but still quality lens could not have been made; and the generalizations you reference don't provide any real evidence to the contrary. The weight advantage of less glass surely doesn't simply vanish (or reverse!) at longer focal lengths. The recently announced high end Leica/Panasonic 100-400mm zoom, an even longer lens, is being listed at a weight significantly below similar length Canon/Nikon lenses; the Olympus is essentially the same weight or more as similar lenses designed for larger formats.
Jim M. is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 5th January 2016, 01:58   #59
opticoholic
Registered User
 
opticoholic's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: northern CA
Posts: 291
Oh I'm sure they could have made this Olympus lens a little lighter, but probably only by accepting other compromises. I would guess that the goal of making the resolution equal to or better than the old Olympus SHG lenses is the main thing that forced it to be a bit heavier. The extra aperture of the front element certainly helps improve resolution but it adds weight. The Leica/Panasonic lens is a zoom with a smaller front element (72mm filter threads); its maximum aperture is probably a bit less than f/4 at 300mm (we don't know yet how the maximum aperture varies through the zoom range). Zooms generally are not as sharp as primes, but modern zooms are challenging that old rule... Maybe the Leica/Panasonic will be equal to the Olympus... We'll just have to wait and see. I'm sure the comparisons will soon be flooding the forums. Isn't it great to finally have some long telephoto choices!

Cheers,
Dave

Last edited by opticoholic : Tuesday 5th January 2016 at 05:00. Reason: wordsmithing
opticoholic is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2012 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 5th January 2016, 02:06   #60
njlarsen
Opus Editor
 
njlarsen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portsmouth, Dominica
Posts: 20,198
Quote:
Isn't it great to finally have some long telephoto choices!
Absolutely!

Quote:
the generalizations you reference don't provide any real evidence to the contrary.
I think the generalizations say that for a 300 mm lens to have f4, it needs a front element of a given size. The size of the sensor behind it has nothing to do with that, but with a smaller sensor you get a narrower field of view with the same focal length of the lens.

The Pana-Leica is not likely to be f4 at 300 mm simply because it has a smaller front element than the oly lens. But it might still be an excellent lens that will (knock on wood) allow us to take some really good photos.

Niels
__________________
Support bird conservation in the Caribbean: BirdCaribbean
njlarsen is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 5th January 2016, 06:50   #61
Jim M.
Choose Civility

 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by njlarsen View Post
I think the generalizations say that for a 300 mm lens to have f4, it needs a front element of a given size. The size of the sensor behind it has nothing to do with that, but with a smaller sensor you get a narrower field of view with the same focal length of the lens.

The Pana-Leica is not likely to be f4 at 300 mm simply because it has a smaller front element than the oly lens. But it might still be an excellent lens that will (knock on wood) allow us to take some really good photos.
Niels,

I wasn't comparing the f4.0-f6.3 Leica directly with the f4.0 Oly, I was comparing the Leica with similar Canon/Nikon zoom lenses, and the oly with similar Canon/Nikon prime lenses. Obviously, the f4.0 Oly is going to be heavier than slower lenses, and the Leica is not going to offer f4.0 at 300mm.

As for your suggestion that the reduced size of m4/3s lenses stems only from the increased crop factor (i.e. narrower field of view) from the smaller sensor, that contradicts the 4/3 website. Under the benefits of micro 4/3s, it states:
The benefits of reducing the size of an interchangeable-lens type camera cannot be properly experienced unless the size of the lens itself is reduced as well as that of the body.
Therefore, the Micro Four Thirds System standard has reduced the outer diameter of the lens mount to enable lens size reduction.
The new lens mount diameter is about 6 mm smaller than before because this size allows the mount to transmit the same optical flux to the Four Thirds System while still retaining the required strength.
In addition, the lens mount of the Micro Four Thirds System is equipped with two additional signal contacts for smoother Live View shooting with shorter time lags, faster higher communication speeds between the lens and body, and, of course, reduced lens and camera size.

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/index.html

Last edited by Jim M. : Tuesday 5th January 2016 at 13:54.
Jim M. is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 5th January 2016, 13:18   #62
Jim M.
Choose Civility

 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by opticoholic View Post
Oh I'm sure they could have made this Olympus lens a little lighter, but probably only by accepting other compromises.
I think they just mis-judged the market, as they did with their failed experiment with the 4/3 system and its heavy lenses (as opposed to micro 4/3). And as both Olympus and Panasonic did in waiting so long to bring out long lens alternatives for micro 4/3. Olympus decided to not worry about weight and added bells and whistles, such as dual IS and programmable buttons, perhaps thinking users would just compare this 600mm equivalent lens to the weight of an actual 600mm lens. Some people are clearly ok with this approach, such as yourself. But the reaction to the olympus lens I've seen on forums has been about 8 to 1 negative; reaction to the Leica almost entirely positive. You are the only one on this forum thus far who has indicated they are likely to buy the olympus. I am just grateful Panasonic is announcing an alternative at the same time otherwise the olympus would be an even bigger disappointment to m4/3 photographers like me.

Last edited by Jim M. : Tuesday 5th January 2016 at 13:55.
Jim M. is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 5th January 2016, 17:24   #63
opticoholic
Registered User
 
opticoholic's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: northern CA
Posts: 291
Jim--
8 to 1 negative? Hmmm... Wow. Certainly lots of people are put off by the weight and the price. Misjudged the market? You may be right, but I hope that Olympus is able to be guided more by the pusuit of quality than always targeting the maximum number of sales. One of my disappointments with Nikon is that they mostly sell to the mass consumer market; the quality of their best gear is not what it once was, and huge portion of their lenses & cameras are cheap junk.

The dual IS certainly may have driven up the price, compared to a conventional OIS... But I'm not sure I would classify the dual IS as "whistles and bells." Image stabilization is an important feature for most people on a lens like this (although it is not at the top of my list personally). Olympus made a decision to be a leader/pioneer and implement the dual IS. I give them credit for that. The function switch on the lens probably didn't add that much to the cost; all the Pro series lenses have it so they added it for consistency.

I don't think Olympus is "not worrying" about weight. Olympus is much more in touch with what their customers want than Nikon, and they know how important size/weight are to most micro-4/3 users... I think Olympus is trying to make a viable alternative for "pro" level gear, and in order to do that, I think the decision to make the front element a little larger and go for maximum resolution was the primary driver raising both the price and size of the Olympus lens. That larger front element both allows the larger maximum aperture and helps improve resolution. The build quality, weather sealing, fast AF system, dual IS--these things certainly also added to the cost and/or the weight, but they are part of any truly "pro" lens. And I'm convinced that the limitation that I mentioned above is real: Yes this Olympus lens probably could have a little bit smaller front element and still come in at 300mm f/4, but not that much smaller, and it would have impacted image quality. If the Leica/Panasonic 100-400 lens had a similar maximum aperture to the Olympus at 300mm, for example if the Leica/Panasonic was f/3.2-f/5.6, then I think it would be both heavier and more costly.

The Olympus 300 and Leica/Panasonic 100-400 lenses are really different in many ways. The Olympus will be maybe ~1 lb. heavier and ~$700 more (prices at introduction), and I totally understand anyone who simply sees that and rejects the Olympus. But for those who are willing to pay that premium and carry that extra 1 lb., I think the Olympus might offer more than one tangible benefit. We don't know yet how compelling those benefits are, but choice is good.

Dave

Last edited by opticoholic : Tuesday 5th January 2016 at 17:32.
opticoholic is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2012 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 5th January 2016, 17:40   #64
njlarsen
Opus Editor
 
njlarsen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portsmouth, Dominica
Posts: 20,198
The blurb on the amazon pre-order site for the 100-400 has a couple of interesting tidbits:
this lens features a splash and dustproof design
Dual I.S. (Image Stabilization) compatibility
The image shows a focus delimiter.

So, the feature set seems competitive, the interesting thing will be how good the images look from each of the two lenses.

Niels
__________________
Support bird conservation in the Caribbean: BirdCaribbean
njlarsen is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 5th January 2016, 18:13   #65
Jim M.
Choose Civility

 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by opticoholic View Post
The dual IS certainly may have driven up the price, compared to a conventional OIS... But I'm not sure I would classify the dual IS as "whistles and bells." Image stabilization is an important feature for most people on a lens like this (although it is not at the top of my list personally). Olympus made a decision to be a leader/pioneer and implement the dual IS. I give them credit for that.
Panasonic already has dual IS, so Olympus is following them, not leading. From what I've read, the dual IS doesn't make much practical difference compared to regular IS, so that's why it strikes me as a bell and whistle. Also, I believe it will only be available if you pair it with an olympus body, so it's contrary to the idea of a single lens standard. BTW, personally, I'm not much put off by the price; it's the weight that is the deal breaker for me.
Jim M. is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 5th January 2016, 18:16   #66
Jim M.
Choose Civility

 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by njlarsen View Post
The blurb on the amazon pre-order site for the 100-400 has a couple of interesting tidbits:
this lens features a splash and dustproof design
Dual I.S. (Image Stabilization) compatibility
The image shows a focus delimiter.

So, the feature set seems competitive, the interesting thing will be how good the images look from each of the two lenses.

Niels
It says will be splash proof "when paired" with a splash proof lumix camera. Seems to suggest it may not be splash proof when paired with an olympus camera even if the camera is weather sealed--which, if true, is disappointing and contrary to the single lens standard philosophy.
Jim M. is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 5th January 2016, 18:24   #67
njlarsen
Opus Editor
 
njlarsen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portsmouth, Dominica
Posts: 20,198
We likely will know more when the "hands on" pieces start to appear. But personally I would not expect a blurb originating with Panasonic to even mention Oly. I read this as the Pana PR guys trying to make a little PR for their own splash proof cameras.

Niels
__________________
Support bird conservation in the Caribbean: BirdCaribbean
njlarsen is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 5th January 2016, 21:25   #68
opticoholic
Registered User
 
opticoholic's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: northern CA
Posts: 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim M. View Post
Panasonic already has dual IS, so Olympus is following them, not leading. From what I've read, the dual IS doesn't make much practical difference compared to regular IS, so that's why it strikes me as a bell and whistle. Also, I believe it will only be available if you pair it with an olympus body, so it's contrary to the idea of a single lens standard. BTW, personally, I'm not much put off by the price; it's the weight that is the deal breaker for me.
Jim,
Yes, thank you for pointing out that Panasonic already introduced dual IS. You are right of course, so they deserve the most credit for "leading." Nonetheless I suspect that Olympus must have started researching and developing dual IS quite some time ago if it is being launched now, and since Oly's in-body IS is different, I also think they probably had to do their entire own development and testing. I think Oly is rolling out dual IS with a lens while Panasonic rolled it out with a body... Maybe that doesn't matter, but my point is Olympus couldn't simply copy Panasonic's algorithm... So I still give Olympus some credit (25%?) for being "one of the first" to bring us dual IS... How much credit they get really depends on how well it works. Myself I'm a little dubious about IS in general... I would always rather be able to put the camera on a tripod or shoot fast enough that I can just turn IS off. By the way, if you want an example of "not leading," look at Nikon who still as we begin 2016 does not have a single serious mirrorless camera with an EVF (Nikon 1 fans may not like that but I'm not alone in this position).

With regard to a "common standard" where all micro-4/3 cameras/lenses are 100% compatible and interchangeable, that is nice in theory but in practice the details have always been less than perfect, and understandably so.

I am weary of arguing so I'm just going to concede that this Olympus lens is significantly heavier and far more expensive than other options, and for that reason many people will be disappointed and will not to buy it.

Dave

Last edited by opticoholic : Tuesday 5th January 2016 at 23:27.
opticoholic is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2012 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 5th January 2016, 21:43   #69
Jim M.
Choose Civility

 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by opticoholic View Post
I am weary of arguing so I'm just going to concede that this Olympus lens is significantly heavier and far more expensive than other options, and for that reason many people will be disappointed and will not to buy it.

Dave
No problem Dave. Didn't think we were arguing so much as just stating our differing views. I think you are right that the weight of the Olympus lens was a result of Olympus putting highest priority on optical quality--at least that's what the marketing materials suggest. Maybe after I read the reviews I'll decide I need to have the lens after all.

Best,
Jim
Jim M. is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 5th January 2016, 23:20   #70
opticoholic
Registered User
 
opticoholic's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: northern CA
Posts: 291
Thanks Jim. No worries. I'm not sure whether I will get this Olympus lens. But for me it's a decision between primes. I resisted the new super light Nikon 300mm f/4E PF lens for the last year partly because I knew this lens was coming. Now that the Oly is finally almost here, I will probably make a decision this year between Nikon and this... I wish it was easier for me to abandon Nikon entirely; then I could also consider Canon options. If Nikon would ever announce a pro DX body to compete with the 7D MkII, that would probably push me to stay with Nikon for my smaller hand-held rig (see my reference at the end of post #52 above). Right now I still have the rather heavy old AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D (~3.2 lbs., no IS). It's a very capable lens, so I should take my time.

Dave

Last edited by opticoholic : Tuesday 5th January 2016 at 23:25.
opticoholic is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2012 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 5th January 2016, 23:27   #71
hoodlum
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Markham, ON
Posts: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by opticoholic View Post
If Nikon would ever announce a pro DX body to compete with the 7D MkII, that would probably push me to stay with Nikon for my smaller hand-held rig (see my reference at the end of post #52 above).
It just happened. Although Nikon decide to go with a 21MP sensor in the D500.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/8529664...announces-d500
__________________
My Flickr Birds
hoodlum is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th January 2016, 23:43   #72
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 1,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoodlum View Post
It just happened. Although Nikon decide to go with a 21MP sensor in the D500.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/8529664...announces-d500
it sure did, quite a surprise,
seems like a great cam with pro-specs,
but quite expensive for a APS-C.

the latest Nikon 300mm PF is only 755 grams
the Zuiko 300/4 PRO lens seems more like the old nikon 300/4 AF-S in weight,

the 100-400mm Leica seem quite interesting though,
less than 1000 grams,

Last edited by Vespobuteo : Tuesday 5th January 2016 at 23:47.
Vespobuteo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th January 2016, 23:44   #73
opticoholic
Registered User
 
opticoholic's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: northern CA
Posts: 291
OH MY! HELL FREEZES OVER.

Thanks for the heads up. Now this will really make my decisions interesting this year.

Dave
opticoholic is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2012 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 5th January 2016, 23:54   #74
squidge
Wha Whassssat
 
squidge's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,446
Having toyed with the idea of switching to m43 from Nikon i put a deposit on the Nikon 300 pf lens today. Really dissapointed with the weight of the 300 Olympus lens as IMO it defeats the purpose of a smaller lightweight system. With today's announcement of the D500 it only confirmed to me that I have made the right choice.

Regards Gerard.
__________________
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/squidgepics/
squidge is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 6th January 2016, 00:20   #75
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 1,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidge View Post
Having toyed with the idea of switching to m43 from Nikon i put a deposit on the Nikon 300 pf lens today. Really dissapointed with the weight of the 300 Olympus lens as IMO it defeats the purpose of a smaller lightweight system. With today's announcement of the D500 it only confirmed to me that I have made the right choice.

Regards Gerard.
did you check out the leica zoom?

http://naturalexposures.com/leica-lumix-100-400mm/

just wonder how the AF will work with flying birds, in low light etc.

Last edited by Vespobuteo : Wednesday 6th January 2016 at 00:26.
Vespobuteo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
the new Olympus 750-300mm for MFT ammadoux Micro Four Thirds 4/3 Photography 9 Friday 12th April 2013 17:14
Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS on Olympus PEN body? Hor Kee Olympus 2 Tuesday 9th August 2011 01:44
Olympus 70-300mm Lens susanrowe Olympus 7 Tuesday 19th April 2011 19:31
Zuiko Digital ED 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 with Olympus PEN E-PL1 relictus Olympus 15 Sunday 3rd October 2010 19:48

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.25217509 seconds with 35 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:06.