« 'The Taproot of Modern Journalism' | Main | Open Mike: Hottest Day, Oldest Male, Juggling 11, and Sometimes Things Don't Go Right (OT) »

Monday, 04 February 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I don't think this one competes with the Panasonic 100-400mm. It'll weigh at least twice as much, and it'll cost at least 4 times as much.

+1 on that, m43 is a fantastic telephoto format.

I bought a Lumix G X 35-100 f2.8 from a Surf photog that went fully film, for the bargain price of $240. He was given the lens after a gig and didn't care for it. I could not ever be happier. It has been living on my now old EPL2 since, as I don't really have a very good wide-normal for it. Somewhere down the road I must upgrade that body.
I recall reading on ToP that the head bartender wanted one, I do recommend it. Thanks to the IS and compact size I even have some interestingly spontaneous landscape photos taken from the shotgun seat of a car.

A f2.8 70-200 lens that fits in your coat pocket?

Maybe the folks at Olympus are smarter then we think. When I first starting getting promotional emails, I really didn’t care about the camera being subtly bandied about by a pair of hands so that you really couldn’t tell what you were seeing. All I saw was the larger size of a micro four thirds camera. Only when I saw it on their website, did I realize, it’s the lens stupid!
PS, I really care nothing about such a long and heavy lens, I’m way to old for it and I don’t work for a spy agency! So good luck Olympus.

With both teleconverters that will be the equivalent of a 2000mm f/11. I'm not sure how useful that would be. Since I can't afford this lens anyway I shall just use my Nikon P900 when I want a 2000mm equivalent (it's f/6.5). Yes, a larger sensor would be nice, but I find that very often when I'm shooting 2000mm the quality is limited by the atmosphere, not the sensor.

It occurs to me that Olympus was already kind of the telephoto king, with lenses like the 35-100 f/2 and 90-250 f/2.8 (Four Thirds, not micro). Now, if they'd only make useful things like that that could keep up with the modern bodies!

Meh. Still no shift lenses in MFT. Pity as the OM 24 & 35 were really nice lenses.

Although I love and regularly enjoy my beloved Pentax 135 3.5, I’m not really into long focal lengths.

What strikes me more about this post is image stabilization, it’s amazing how things have changed in such little time.

We are talking about shooting at 1000mm at 1/8 second like it’s nothing! The press release from Olympus even says 2000mm!

I remember a post where you talked about a one second handheld exposure, that would have seem like witchcraft just a few years back.

That would sure beat the "girl-watcher" Spiratone 400mm f/6.3 preset lens I took to the beach back in the day.

I'm a bit terrified by the likely price of this beastie.

Yes, certainly one of the reasons I like the Micro 4/3 system is the extra "reach". It's great for bird photography, but would be better if the auto focus was up to snuff.

My camera -- an E-M5.2 -- will not reliably focus on a blackbird. Nor will the E-M1.2 that I rented to see if it was better. In mist, overcast or full light of day the focus fails to find the bird, perched 7 yards away, every time. My 7 year old D800 with a lens of equivalent field of view will snap that bird into focus instantly. So I'm hoping for AF improvements in whatever new cameras Olympus releases this year (I doubt I'll spring for the "X" -- might rent it, though).

The 2X teleconverter will presumably also work with the m.Zuiko 300mm f/4, which is a terrific lens. I rented one last fall for a trip to Cape Cod and was blown away at the images it produced.
(I'd post one, but don't have an image host and can't figure it out...). I wanted to keep the rental, but was too broke at the time. I'd like to get one this spring, though.

I rented the Pana/Leica 100-400 a year or so ago. People gush over this lens, but my impression was "meh". It could be the sample I got, or it could be that it didn't like my Olympus camera, but everything seemed a touch soft, especially at the long end. I should probably try it again but my first experience with this lens was disappointing.

The Olympus 150-400 looks like an entirely different beast than the Pana/Leica 100-400. The build quality looks like it will be much more robust, and I'm hoping for image quality comparable to the 300 f/4. I think the price will be in a different league as well. I wouldn't be surprised if it was 2 or 3 times the price of the Panasonic lens -- or maybe more.


I can see these being used with the big new Olympus camera as the "Long Tom Kit", being kept in the cupboard until needed or perhaps only being hired occasionally.

I believe that newspapers would often have a long tom kit that got hauled out for balcony shots at Buckingham Palace and the like, back when large format was used for press work.

The question I ask is this:

what does that give me today that I can't achieve with a D500, 200-500E and TC14EIII? or a D500 and Sigma 150-600 Sport?

Now an E-M1.2 with the 150-400 will likely be smaller & lighter (Depending on lens spec). The E-M1X won't be.

This gets even worse once you start looking at Nikon's PF lenses, which are tiny and superb. A D7500 + 300PF+TC14EIII is a smaller and more flexible long lens kit that no m43 option can match.

PS, Nikon did provide a way to turn your 600/4 into a 1200/4 on the D7100 and D7200

Both feature a 1.3x crop mode at ~16MP mode (2x crop once you factor in the DX crop factor as well) which essentially turns them into a 4/3rds equivalent, albeit in 3:2 aspect ratio.

Few used it, despite it also gaining fps and buffer on these bodies.

.....or ‘Big Bertha’ in all her various incarnations...

A minor niggle about crop sensors and “reach”. The intertubes are crowded with the virtues of crop sensors for wildlife photography. On the face of it a crop sensor will get you “closer” to your subject but and here is the rub: it depends on both your sensor size and pixel density.

By way of demonstration a 50 MP full frame sensor (35mm) with when cropped down to APS-C (1.6) size contains 31 MP of “information” and down to Micro 4/3: 25 MP. The corollary is that a Micro 4/3 camera would require a sensor of 25 MP and Canon’s APS-C 31 MP to match the detail contained in an image taken with the 50 MP sensor of Canon’s 5Ds. I’m not aware of any crop sensor cameras that meet that.

Of course, there a many reasons why a crop sensor camera might be a better choice over a 50 MP full frame camera: body weight, lens size, frame rate etc but “reach” isn’t necessarily one of them.

But why in the name of all that's holy is it WHITE? Canon envy? That's all I can think of. 'Cause if you're a wildlife shooter (one of the target markets), of course what you REALLY want is a white lens visible amongst all that greenery you're hiding in..

Mahn England:

You are correct that it is pixels on the subject that largely matter for reach, given reasonably equivalent pixel pitch.

However no FF body has the pixel density of the typical 24MP APS-C sensor used in most 1.5x crop APS-C cameras.

Nikon's D850 and Z7 crop down to 19MP at 1.5x crop. The 50MP 5Ds is actually 19.6MP at 1.6x crop, not 31MP (that's APS-H 1.3x crop mode). 2x crop would be 12.6MP (m43 equivalent, but 3:2)

If scaled up to FF, the common 24MP Sony 1.5x sensor would be 54MP and the 20MP m43 sensor would scale to 80mp (4:3 ratio FF-equivalent).

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007