Out of curiosity: MFT - Oly 300mm F4

[DickyOZ]

How many MFT owners on this forum and how many of you are likely to buy the Oly 300mm F4?

[Shadowman]

I own one and I already the 70-300mm so chances are slim.

[Manfred M]

Zero interest; but that is because I already own the Lumix f/4 - f/5.6 100-300mm lens. The Olympus f/4 300mm is a pretty darned pricey lens for an f/4 fixed focus mFT lens.

I have no issues throwing that kind of money at a FF lens, but it really seems out of line for mFT.

[DickyOZ]

I own one and I already the 70-300mm so chances are slim.

I find the 70-300mm exceptional value for what I paid for it, but it does struggle in low light and for birding around here is is annoyingly 'short'. Add the MC-14 to the 300mm F4 gives 420mm @ F5.6 and the much vaunted increased IS make it a dream lens.

Alas way out of my price range, I can get a Kipon AF adapter and the Canon 100-400mm USM II for less!

[Greg Lehey]

How many MFT owners on this forum and how many of you are likely to buy the Oly 300mm F4?

I have an E-M1 and and E-PM2. I also have the 70/300 Zuiko, and I've just bought a 35-100 f/2 Zuiko, so the chances of buying the 300 f/4 are very slim.

Greg

[Adzman808]

I have no issues throwing that kind of money at a FF lens, but it really seems out of line for mFT.

I guess times are a changing...

(For example)

The Oly OMD-M1, Fuji X-T1 and Sony A7 are all about the same physical size, and price (at launch) and each has some expensive native glass options

Yet they are M43, APS-C and FF respectively

It's ALMOST like the sensor cost is interchangeable and they just expect us to pay for the features now...

The only M43 camera I have is fixed lens, so I wont be looking at the Oly lens!!

[Shadowman]

I find the 70-300mm exceptional value for what I paid for it, but it does struggle in low light and for birding around here is is annoyingly 'short'. Add the MC-14 to the 300mm F4 gives 420mm @ F5.6 and the much vaunted increased IS make it a dream lens.

Alas way out of my price range, I can get a Kipon AF adapter and the Canon 100-400mm USM II for less!

When I ventured into the MFT (Olympus EPL-1) arena I was lucky to get two kit lenses (14-42mm, 40-150mm) at the time of purchase. I already knew I wanted a longer focal length so purchased the 70-300mm shortly after and after receiving recommendation from Inkista; I purchased the 20mm f/1.7 Panasonic lens. Haven't felt the need to go beyond those lenses, haven't really researched any other options and I believe the reason why is that I sort of worked out my lens needs with my DSLR. Will I ever add to my MFT lens collection? I don't know but gifts are always welcome.

[Manfred M]

I guess times are a changing...

I've always questioned the people who suggested that mFT cameras and lenses should be less expensive to make and therefore be less expensive to buy. A mirrorless camera should have fewer parts, as the whole mirror mechanism is avoided as well as the phase detect autofocus system. Given the smaller sensor (a costly camera component), these cameras should be a bit less expensive than their DSLR counterparts.

I don't feel things have actually worked out that way as the bodies are selling in the same price bracket as similarly performing DSLRs. I suspect this is partially marketing, as the selling price should represent the value to the buyer so the cameras will be priced in accordance to features; a top of the line mirrorless will be close in price to a DSLR with a similar feature set. So any cost savings are effectively being pocketed by the manufacturers through higher profit margins and are not being passed on to the consumer.

When it comes to lenses, the equation is a bit different. A lens for a full frame DSLR and one for a crop frame (including mFT) is going to contain the same number of parts, with perhaps some minor savings related to having to illuminate a smaller image circle. The main difference might be the image stabilization system, where the ones using in-camera versus in-lens might be a touch cheaper to produce. That being said, at a high level, there should not be a lot of difference in cost to manufacture a f/4 300mm full frame lens versus a f/4 300mm mFT lens, and that seems to be reflected in the price of the new Olly lens.

[Dave Humphries]

I think there are two aspects with regard to reduced costs of m4/3 of mFT lenses that haven't been mentioned;
a) Surely the weight/volume of glass required for a given aperture lens, say f/2.8, at a certain focal length will be less - perhaps this is included in your acknowledgement of the smaller image circle illumination. This must have a significant impact on costs.
b) These lenses are sometimes built to less exacting mechanical/optical standards and rely on (for example) electronic geometric corrections to achieve the required overall system performance. I accept that b) may not be true of all lenses, although I believe it is more than an urban myth.

However, as you say, what it costs, and what consumers are willing to pay, for a given object are two different things!

[davidedric]

No, for many of the reason given above.

I also have the Panasonic 100-300mm, which does need babying along, but I would find the fixed 300mm to limiting for what I do, and it would be restricted to my gx7, which is the body I have with IBIS.

On the other hand, I am looking forward to reading real world reviews of the Panasonic 100-400

Dave

[Adzman808]

I really like my X-T1 and I simply adore my X-Pro1, but they each cost waaay more than the D5100 that I had before, and I'm not convinced they perform that much differently in terms of IQ, ISO perhaps, but I suspect whatever the later version is of the D5100 would close that gap...

(I'm not much of a gear head, so whereas I know about current cameras when I'm in the market for one, I don't tend to keep up with all the little improvements In each new model when I'm happy with what I've got! The consumer industry must hate me )


I think that mirrorless users are paying quite a hefty premium for metal bodies and smaller size

I'm not complaining though, going mirrorless made me use my cameras so much more, but I do feel they're priced above what they should cost

I think Re the cost of glass... It's not so clear cut... If my (frankly woolly) understanding of sensor sizes is correct (...) there's probably a bit more manufacturing tolerance required on the FF stuff when compared to more forgiving crop sizes, but I'm clearly not an expert!

[inkista]

I'm not tempted yet, but making mental note it's out there, and waiting to see how far the price comes down (if at all). The main issue is that my mft body is the GX7. So, it's not an AF speed demon by any means, and tracking AF is sort of non-existent and it's not like I've got 5-axis IBIS . So the main use I'd put a 300/4 lens to (birding) still wouldn't be served by buying this lens. I'd need a different camera body, too. Not to say that used EM-1 prices might not be where I'd like them in a few years. But the 300/4 is also quite a bit more expensive than I anticipated, based on the EF 300mm f/4L IS USM pricetag of around $1350 and that it's projecting a far smaller image circle (which typically requires less glass and fewer corrections to achieve similar performance).

For now, I get 600mm equivalency with my 400/5.6 on my 50D, with decent tracking AF, and currently I'm far more likely to upgrade/sidegrade my 50D for a used 70D than I am my consumer-grade Panny 55-200 for the 400/4.

[DickyOZ]

Many thanks to all who replied. On this forum at least the Oly 300mm F4 will clearly be very thin on the ground. Had it been released at its original predicted price I would have been in the market for it. The price does suggest it won't be manufactured in huge numbers so recovery of costs weighs heavily in the price. Birding, especially for the smaller birds that I chase in generally heavy undergrowth demands a bright lens, the 40-150mm pro is far too short so I will have to look elsewhere. I went to MFT to lighten my load, I'm not getting any younger, even so my current sack of glass already weighs 5kg so adding another 1.5kg doesn't appeal either. An adapter from EF to MFT with AF looks like a good option; There are some Canon lenses I would love that work well with the latest adapter firmware. They would also give a less painful path to 'jump ship' if MFT can't deliver in future.

[Manfred M]

An adapter from EF to MFT with AF looks like a good option; There are some Canon lenses I would love that work well with the latest adapter firmware. They would also give a less painful path to 'jump ship' if MFT can't deliver in future.

Before you get too excited by that solution you might want to read Roger Cicala's excellent articles as to why that will result in suboptimal image quality.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014...ii-the-summary

I was trying to figure out why my high end Nikon lenses on a mFT adapter were giving me unexpectedly poor quality on my mFT body. Canon lenses have the same issue and in fact, if you do a bit of checking, this seems to be a well known issue but before reading these articles, I did not understand why this was happening. I've also run into articles of Leica lenses performing poorly on Sony bodies and expect that the issue has the same roots.

[Adzman808]

Before you get too excited by that solution you might want to read Roger Cicala's excellent articles as to why that will result in suboptimal image quality.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014...ii-the-summary


I was trying to figure out why my high end Nikon lenses on a mFT adapter were giving me unexpectedly poor quality on my mFT body. Canon lenses have the same issue and in fact, if you do a bit of checking, this seems to be a well known issue but before reading these articles, I did not understand why this was happening. I've also run into articles of Leica lenses performing poorly on Sony bodies and expect that the issue has the same roots.

From what I've read, the Leica lens issue is soft edges, on wide angles caused by increasing the distance from the rear element to the sensor, by use of an adaptor, but also Leica cameras have "micro lenses" on the sensor to direct the light correctly, which the Sony et el don't have... To be fair it apparently took Leica a while to figure that out, ergo the m8 wasn't FF, because at the time Leica said digital FF couldn't be done on their cameras. Luckily for Sony FF MILC users Zeiss exist

[Greg Lehey]

From what I've read, the Leica lens issue is soft edges, on wide angles caused by increasing the distance from the rear element to the sensor...

That means focusing closer. The adapters are there precisely to maintain the same distance from the rear element to the sensor (and not from the glass in front of it).

but also Leica cameras have "micro lenses" on the sensor to direct the light correctly, which the Sony et el don't have

That sounds like a more plausible explanation.

Greg

[Adzman808]

The adapters are there precisely to maintain the same distance from the rear element to the sensor (and not from the glass in front of it).



Greg

That's not physically possible.

Leica have some of the closest element/sensor distances in the market.

So a) sticking one of their lenses on camera with a greater distance and b) adding the height of the adaptor that you're using will never equate to the same element/sensor distance as the original Leica/lens combination

The adapted lens/adaptor route works ok when you stick a (say) Pentax lens on your Sony A7 because the adaptor can replicate the space that the mirror sits in on the original SLR that's not present in the Sony

But RF cameras are always mirrorless, so using their lenses with an adaptor will always push them out further away from the sensor than they're designed to operate

[DickyOZ]

That means focusing closer. The adapters are there precisely to maintain the same distance from the rear element to the sensor (and not from the glass in front of it).




That sounds like a more plausible explanation.

Greg

Adapters are never going to match native results, I guess there is a fly in every ointment. I have been looking at a good few images in other forums where the E-M1 and Canon 100-400 USM II have worked well with either the Kipon or Metabones adapters (at the latest firmware level). It is good to have some understanding though of what technical problems lurk in the adapters. So many thanks for that link.

The Oly 300mm F4 is most certainly an awesome lens and it is no doubt intended for those well beyond my modest talents. In short it would probably be wasted on me.

For the wildlife I chase I really do need a longer lens, 70-300mm is just that little bit short. I am quite satisfied with the IQ of the E-M1 and not keen to go the the added weight of a DSLR. But before I get too old to get out and about I really would like to get a few more of the shots that I currently miss because the subject is either too far away or too dark.

Dicky.

[casper]

How many MFT owners on this forum and how many of you are likely to buy the Oly 300mm F4?

hi Dicky, I have an OM-D EM-10, and received an email announcement from Olympus regarding release in February a few days ago (you too???). I mentioned the other day that I had my eye on a 70-300, but I will consider the 300mm F4 as I already have a 40-150mm. The 300mm appears a good lens, but I will wait for some independent reviews before deciding.

[Adzman808]

There's no perfect rig really!

The m43 stuff is great for weight/size and the crop size of m43 quite possibly helps with the wildlife as it's more forgiving on DOF

But the downside to that DOF is that as the aperture goes up, things get darker quicker and ISO needs to go up to match

Then there's APSC which will (in practical terms) give back about a stop of light, but the lenses will get bigger, and DOF will get shallower, plus unless you go DSLR, imHo the APSC mirrorless rigs can't yet match the m43 ones on AF or lens choice for that matter

The perfect solution, is probably FF, great ISO performance, capable of very, very sharp details... But it's not that perfect, because you'll need to cart around a lot of weight, weight that's only offset by the hole in your wallet from paying for it!!! Not to mention that FF can be a merciless bugger for showing up any issues in acquiring focus etc

(Not suggesting you'd struggle with FF Dicky, pls don't think that's what I mean, we all know you're a superb tog, but my point stands as FF can be a cruel b**tard when viewed at 100% if things weren't 100% right at the point if image capture)