Rumored OM System lenses: 50-200mm f2.8 and 50-250mm f4 (1 Viewer)

[MelospizaMelodiaFan]

(FT4) OM Digital might announce the 50-200mm f/2.8 and 50-250mm f/4.0 in late 2023! – 43 Rumors

www.43rumors.com

Would any of these interest you?

I am interested in the 50-250mm f/4. If it is less than 1 kg, weather sealed, and around $1K USD, that would be my future birding lens. (In other words, less expensive, smaller, lighter than the 100-400mm f/5-6.3) Not sure if that is realistic. A nice to have would be TC compatibility, but I think I can get by with 500mm equivalent FOV.

 

[njlarsen]

I looked around and found one lens that superficially is similar to the rumored 50-250mm f/4. That is a 60-250 mm F4 from Pentax, which weighs in at 1040 g (36.7 oz.); w/ Hood: +75g; w/ Tripod Foot: +115g

SMC Pentax-DA* 60-250mm F4 ED [IF] SDM Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

For comparison, the Oly 100-400 is listed as 1,120g (without Tripod Adapter) / 1,325g (with Tripod Adapter)

Specifications | M.ZUIKO | M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS | Olympus: cameras, audio and binoculars

A website that introduces the Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS.

asia.olympus-imaging.com

So less than 100 g difference for twice the reach.
Niels

 

[MelospizaMelodiaFan]

So less than 100 g difference for twice the reach.

Thanks for your reply, Neils. Yes, that is about what I suspected. However...
1) might be smaller and lighter when implemented for M43
2) You get 1 stop (or more) of light. This is probably the main selling point for me.
3) If it takes a TC, it can come close to the 100-400

But yes, it will be scrutinized against the 100-400 from PL and Olympus. It has to have something different to offer.

 

[njlarsen]

Thanks for your reply, Neils. Yes, that is about what I suspected. However...
1) might be smaller and lighter when implemented for M43
2) You get 1 stop (or more) of light. This is probably the main selling point for me.
3) If it takes a TC, it can come close to the 100-400

But yes, it will be scrutinized against the 100-400 from PL and Olympus. It has to have something different to offer.

The F-no is determined by the size of the front lens and the focal length, not by the sensor format. Therefore, I expect the weight to be in the same range. I am sure that high levels of water proofing will be important, which likely adds a bit of weight.

For me personally, the stop extra gets less and less important, because sensors continue to improve their low light capabilities. You may very well feel differently about this.
Niels

 

[MelospizaMelodiaFan]

The F-no is determined by the size of the front lens and the focal length, not by the sensor format. Therefore, I expect the weight to be in the same range. I am sure that high levels of water proofing will be important, which likely adds a bit of weight.

Thanks for teaching me about this; it makes sense. Maybe illuminating a smaller sensor will help a little.

For me personally, the stop extra gets less and less important, because sensors continue to improve their low light capabilities. You may very well feel differently about this.
Niels

For someone shooting with a 1/2.3" sensor, I might be extra sensitive about exposure. My images get noisy at ISO400.
I figure with a 2x crop factor, M43 is already handicapped with 75% less sensor area compared to FF. A stop of light seems significant. Otherwise, I think I'd be happy with the 75-300mm f4.8-6.7, which produces sharp enough images, weighs and costs little as well.

 

[njlarsen]

With a M43 sensor using raw images, software has become a lot better at giving acceptable results with high iso. Just one example: this one was iso 6400: Black-hooded Antshrike
I am sure some people will not find this acceptable but I do. I am sure that an OM1 would be at least one stop better than my camera (probably 2 stops given the number of years since my camera came out).

By the way, the panasonic 100-300 f4-5.6 would give you almost a 1 stop relative to the oly 75-300 at the long end. This one is less sharp at 300 but at around 275 mm it is acceptable.

Niels

 

[MelospizaMelodiaFan]

With a M43 sensor using raw images, software has become a lot better at giving acceptable results with high iso. Just one example: this one was iso 6400: Black-hooded Antshrike
I am sure some people will not find this acceptable but I do. I am sure that an OM1 would be at least one stop better than my camera (probably 2 stops given the number of years since my camera came out).

By the way, the panasonic 100-300 f4-5.6 would give you almost a 1 stop relative to the oly 75-300 at the long end. This one is less sharp at 300 but at around 275 mm it is acceptable.

Niels

Acceptable noise and ISO depends on one's needs, I guess. I think your ISO6400 looks fine but does show noise if you zoom way in, which is what I expect for M43.

I think ISO1600 would be the max for most M43 cameras from 5+ years ago. Maybe push to 3200 in a pinch. Robin Wong posted a video a few months ago about how he sees less than 1 stop improvement in low light performance in the OM-1 compared to the EM1iii, EM1ii, EM5iii sensors, so I don't think the stacked sensor is as good as OM says.

The Pana 100-300 is f5.6 and weather sealed, which I would like, however I hear the IQ of the Olympus 75-300 is better, and I have not been impressed with sample images of birds from the Pana 100-300.

Good discussion, Niels, thank you.

 

[njlarsen]

The Pana 100-300 is f5.6 and weather sealed, which I would like, however I hear the IQ of the Olympus 75-300 is better, and I have not been impressed with sample images of birds from the Pana 100-300.

One of our members at this site, Ammadoux (her library: Media added by ammadoux) for years were claiming the exact opposite. I have only used the pana version so do not know. My photos with the pana 100-300 start at page 19 of my images in birdforum: Media added by njlarsen - this was with the GH2, a by now 10 year old version.

I think ISO1600 would be the max for most M43 cameras from 5+ years ago. Maybe push to 3200 in a pinch.

I disagree with this because to me it is not a quest for being noise free (if you want that, a medium size sensor and a 1000-5000 mm lens is probably what you need), for me it is about achieving a noise level that allow you to make photos that are acceptable even when the light is low, at least when the bird is important for you. The location for my antshrike was probably less light than anything you would find in the US 90% of the time.

By the way, here is another iso 6400 which I believe had a better exposure than the one previously linked to: Unknown butterfly

Niels

 

[MelospizaMelodiaFan]

One of our members at this site, Ammadoux (her library: Media added by ammadoux) for years were claiming the exact opposite. I have only used the pana version so do not know. My photos with the pana 100-300 start at page 19 of my images in birdforum: Media added by njlarsen - this was with the GH2, a by now 10 year old version.


I disagree with this because to me it is not a quest for being noise free (if you want that, a medium size sensor and a 1000-5000 mm lens is probably what you need), for me it is about achieving a noise level that allow you to make photos that are acceptable even when the light is low, at least when the bird is important for you. The location for my antshrike was probably less light than anything you would find in the US 90% of the time.

By the way, here is another iso 6400 which I believe had a better exposure than the one previously linked to: Unknown butterfly

Niels

Yes, that butterfly photo looks nice.

Thanks for humoring me, because I am just going by hearsay, and do not even own a M43 camera. I would like to upgrade from my FZ150, but the added expense would have to yield a noticeable increase in performance, with regard to IQ, AF, low light performance, IS, and FPS. Maybe I am over-analyzing.

 

[njlarsen]

Many years ago (15?), I was using a FZ18 (if I recall the number correctly). Most of the time it was ok for my needs, but going to the rainforest of Costa Rica, it was just not good enough. That is when I purchased the GH2 with the pana 100-300. I had a learning curve, but for years I was happy with the improvement. When I purchased the 100-400 and the G85, it was just way better. I hope you will have a similar feeling of "I am improving" when you finally take the next step. For the record: I have reached my limit on weight with the 100-400 lens, I would not want the 150-400 +1.25x from olympus even if it is a better lens because I do not want to carry more than I do.

I am still a birdwatcher first, photos second, kind of person, and I want to be able to carry my equipment all day (and I am not as young as I used to be). Therefore, sensor sizes above M43 has not attracted me (the lenses just go way up in weight).
best
Niels

 

[MelospizaMelodiaFan]

Many years ago (15?), I was using a FZ18 (if I recall the number correctly). Most of the time it was ok for my needs, but going to the rainforest of Costa Rica, it was just not good enough. That is when I purchased the GH2 with the pana 100-300. I had a learning curve, but for years I was happy with the improvement. When I purchased the 100-400 and the G85, it was just way better. I hope you will have a similar feeling of "I am improving" when you finally take the next step. For the record: I have reached my limit on weight with the 100-400 lens, I would not want the 150-400 +1.25x from olympus even if it is a better lens because I do not want to carry more than I do.

I am still a birdwatcher first, photos second, kind of person, and I want to be able to carry my equipment all day (and I am not as young as I used to be). Therefore, sensor sizes above M43 has not attracted me (the lenses just go way up in weight).
best
Niels

I am trying to push the limits of my current camera, so still learning a lot about photography. I get best results in bright sunlight; in shadows, the images are lackluster. And, forget about BIFs in low light. Maybe it's something I need to improve on, but that is where I expect a camera with a larger sensor to pay dividends.

With my FZ150, I can use decent shutter speeds at f5.2 while using ISO400. If I go up to f6.7, I barely gain any advantage by upping ISO to 1600. That is why I would sacrifice focal length for aperture.

My current camera weighs a little over a pound; it is a luxury to carry something that light. When I upgrade to M43, I still hope to keep weight under 3 lbs. For backpacking, 3 lbs is a lot of extra weight, and would detract from the enjoyment of the trip. That is why I am hoping the 50-250 is on the light side.

 

[Jos Stratford]

By the way, here is another iso 6400 which I believe had a better exposure than the one previously linked to: Unknown butterfly

Niels

Your butterfly is one of the owl-butterflies. A quick check of Google suggests Oileus Giant Owl-Butterfly (Caligo oileus) 👍

 

[Searun]

(FT4) OM Digital might announce the 50-200mm f/2.8 and 50-250mm f/4.0 in late 2023! – 43 Rumors

www.43rumors.com

Would any of these interest you?

I am interested in the 50-250mm f/4. If it is less than 1 kg, weather sealed, and around $1K USD, that would be my future birding lens. (In other words, less expensive, smaller, lighter than the 100-400mm f/5-6.3) Not sure if that is realistic. A nice to have would be TC compatibility, but I think I can get by with 500mm equivalent FOV.

I'd be very interested in a 50-200 or 50-250 in f/4 or faster, but as I already have the 40-150/2.8, the 100-400, and both teleconverters, it does not make sense for me. I loved the old 4/3 50-200/2.8-3.5.

 

[Dyrlege]

One of our members at this site, Ammadoux (her library: Media added by ammadoux) for years were claiming the exact opposite. I have only used the pana version so do not know. My photos with the pana 100-300 start at page 19 of my images in birdforum: Media added by njlarsen - this was with the GH2, a by now 10 year old version.


I disagree with this because to me it is not a quest for being noise free (if you want that, a medium size sensor and a 1000-5000 mm lens is probably what you need), for me it is about achieving a noise level that allow you to make photos that are acceptable even when the light is low, at least when the bird is important for you. The location for my antshrike was probably less light than anything you would find in the US 90% of the time.

By the way, here is another iso 6400 which I believe had a better exposure than the one previously linked to: Unknown butterfly

Niels

Butterfly Beautiful!
Cheers
Per