Olympus Is the Tele King

This might be the real reason for the Olympus M1X: to go with the upcoming supertele, Olympus's answer to the Panaleica 100–400mm*.

I believe Jim Richardson of Kansas is the only National Geographic photographer who is a regular longtime reader of TOP. Jim had this to say the other day during the M1X discussion:

"To me the big news here is this body in combination with the new 150–400mm ƒ/4.5 lens with the built-in 1.25X teleconverter. Taken together this is the reach of a full frame equivalent 300–1000mm that you can handhold at 1/8 second, with world class autofocus, and which will let you take 35 frames (at 20 frames a second) before you press the shutter. It's an amazing tool."

The full-dress name of the upcoming lens is the M.Zuiko Digital ED 150–400mm ƒ/4.5 TC1.25X IS PRO. It has in-lens IS that will work in concert with the allegedly world-beating IS in the E-M1X. And not only is the tele reach the FOV equivalent to a 1000mm 135 lens, but there's a dedicated 2X converter, officially the M.Zuiko Digital 2x Teleconverter MC-20. I assume both converters will be able to be used together, because Olympus's press release for the development announcement said in the sub-headline that the new lens will be "Making Super Telephoto 2000mm (35mm equivalent) Handheld Shooting Possible."

"Kansas Jim" Richardson in Dick Mack’s Pub
in Dingle, Ireland

Funny, this is the reason I thought photo-dawgs would love 4/3 way back when it was first announced. Little did I realize what I now believe, which is that the majority of people in Ye Olde 35mm Days bought superteles for prestige, not for the one thing they were good for, which was long telephoto reach. But yes indeedy, this is one area where Micro 4/3 has it all over full frame. If you don't agree, whynchya go right out and buy yourself a handholdable 300–2000mm lens for your FF camera...and if you can find one, well, you carry it!

Jim added:

"If Canon or Nikon came out with this body and said they had developed a way to turn your 600mm ƒ/4 into a 1200mm ƒ/4 for only $3,000, buyers would line up and down the block and around the corner. In my humble opinion."

Medium format digital cameras might be the kings of bokeh, but, among all cameras with good-quality sensors, I suspect Olympus is about to become the telephoto king.

Mike
(Thanks to Jim R.)

*Is it just me, or is Olympus pursuing a deliberate strategy of waiting till Panasonic comes out with a great lens and then doing them one better? Happened with the 12–40mm, too, which kinda stole the thunder of my 12–35mm. Clearly, the 100-400mm was one of Panasonic's most amazing lenses, and then comes this.

Original contents copyright 2019 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Here’s the situation

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Bob Johnston [no relation to Mike]: "I was fortunate to see Jim Richardson in Orkney when he gave a talk for the local community. He was there to photograph the neolithic monuments as there had been spectacular new discoveries. Wow what a presentation he made. He is a very fine photographer indeed."

Tom Hassler: "I had a chance to see (but not handle) a prototype of this lens last week and it was every bit the high-precision thing of beauty you'd expect. Wow!"

Comments

[Andy Johnson]

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.

[Jordi P.]

+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?
Think.

[Fred Haynes]

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!
Fred
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.

[David Evans]

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.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

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!

[Barry Reid]

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

[Gaspar Heurtley]

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.

[Ed]

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

[Arg]

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

[Rick Popham]

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.

Rick

[Roger Bradbury]

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.

[Adam Maas]

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.

[Adam Maas]

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.

[Michael Perini]

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

[Mahn England]

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.

[Margaret R]

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..

[Adam Maas]

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).