alundeb wrote:
This lens size class (~90 mm entrance pupil) is really missing for all sensor sizes from u43 to 135. A 500 5.6 for example has also been asked for since long ago.
It turns out that if we combine focal lengths in steps of 100 mm from 200 to 600, and apertures in full stops from 2.0 to 5.6, there is good coverage for pupil dimensions from 70 mm to 150 mm except for that gap between 75 and 100 mm. In lens weight it corresponds roughly to 1.2 and 2.4 kg (not counting Diffractive Optics). Quite a difference. I too hope that the market for this gap will be recognized, and not only for u43 sensor coverage. ...Show more →
Don't Olympus make a 4/3 lens that is 90-250 f/2.8?
Yes, they do. It's pretty darn big too. Much closer in size to a 300/2.8 than a 200/2.8. It's 7.2 lbs and costs $5,200. It's supposed to be a darn good piece of glass, though.
pingflood wrote:
Yeah, I would say they are, considering I have used a bunch that are 30-40 years old and every one has had smooth, precise focusing, and the optics on many are still excellent today (e.g. the 24/2.8, 28/3.5). If a lens still performs well optically after over three decades, with the coating still excellent, and the focusing is nice and smooth then yes, I dare say they are "well built". Just like most other lenses from that era. My PC-Nikkor from the 70s looks and feels new still.
OK, I don't equate optical performance with build quality. BQ to me is all about the materials used, their thicknesses, how it's assembled, and what kind of mechanisms they came up with for the moving parts. Optically most OM lenses are pretty good I agree. But their BQ is fairly poor actually. Also OM lenses are probably the most frequently to be found dry - where the grease has dried up leaving the focusing overly tight, bumpy, and rough. Their aperture adjustment rings on all models are plasticy feeling and very rough [klackety-klack] - far from smooth! Open a few you'll see why! Also by opening a few you'll find that they took many shortcuts - sacrificing BQ for cheaper and easier production processes. For BQ every other major maker kinda snuffs them! Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, of the same ilk and all of the european makers.
Build quality of all lenses in the 60's ~ 80's and especially the earlier, were generally high across the board compared to what's been manufactured in the past 20 or 30 years. So it's not at all surprising that there are still many OM lenses in operation today. I'd venture to guess that there is a higher percentage of Nikons, Rokkors, Takumars, Canons, CZ/CZJ, and Pentaxes however.
In the end I think no one who has worked on more than 20 or 30 different lenses is going to agree that OM Zuiko lenses are of a relatively high build quality.
carstenw wrote:
This makes me very excited. I am an old OM fan, and have been very close to buying an E-P3 for quite a while now, but have hesitated because of the older sensor. If this new OM-D looks like an OM-1, has a newer sensor, and IBIS, I am buying.
As a former OM-1 and OM-2 owner, I'm sorry to say this does not do it for me. A warmed over Pen doesn't speak "OM" to me and really doesn't interest me. I understand the excitement, the OM was justifiably well-loved and a true digital version is well-wished for. But this really does not seem to be the camera people would expect a digital OM to be.
Oly should have stepped out of the shadow of the 4/3rds sensor, and developed a full frame (24x36mm) OM. A 4/3rds camera will always be at a deficit to larger sensors. It won't take Oly beyond the current Pen audience (It's just more of the same). A full frame OM would be a real flagship that could take on flagship products from other makers, and attract a new level of customers, customers that essentially ignore Oly now.
If what has been rumored is true, the ultimate response over time will be little more than "meh". They could have stepped out and done something spectacular. Instead they are just doing a little brand engineering on an existing product, and in doing so devaluing a valuable, classic brand name. Olympus is under-delivering on a legend.
This is, of course, my opinion. Others will clearly think differently. The rumors could also prove to be wrong. I do think, however, there will be a lot of people that will think about this pretty close to the way I do.
Just a pro-body µ4/3 from Olympus (no matter what it looks like) doesn't excite you?
Those are the two main factors to me. That it might look kinda like the old OMs is just frosting. That it might have a metal build/feel to it like the older OMs would also be a big plus. But that it's pro-body or semi-pro body (weather proof, tactile elegance, ergonomically laid out for access connivence, hyper responsive operation, studio level I/O) and from a company I can respect is all I need to get me excited really.
Bifurcator wrote:
Build quality of all lenses in the 60's ~ 80's and especially the earlier, were generally high across the board compared to what's been manufactured in the past 20 or 30 years.
That is pretty much what I was saying, not that they are as well constructed as a Zeiss or a 70s Pentax. Just that they are well enough put together to hold up just fine decades later, which to me qualifies them as "well built".
Well apart from the grip, I like it and would be very tempted. There is talk of a new 5-axis IBIS and that the EVF is of very high quality. Sure it would be nice if it were APS-C, but I can live with m4/3.
I hope it'll materialize. For me it ticks all the right buttons. Bigger than E-P3 is a plus for me as it'll be more comfortable for shooting, AS which I always liked, better high ISO (presumably), fast and accurate AF (I almost bought the E-P3 because of this), build it flash, build in EVF (I did not eventually buy the E-P3 because of this) and access to some very nice primes like 12/2, 25/1.4 and 45/1.8. It also looks good but that is not a purchasing factor for me. Otherwise I'd get the S2.
OM is a brand name, just like Mini and a few others that have been attached to new products that don't really have much to do with the original concept. But even if the BMW Mini is nothing like the real thing from the sixties, it's still a damn good car (a much better one actually). I'm sure the OM-D will be an equally good camera (it should be if the E-5 and the GH2 are anything to go by, and they are probably there nearest relatives of this new apparatus) and with access to what is one of the largest selections of high quality, made for digital lenses. Anything from a 7-14mm super-WA or a 14mm pancake to the 300mm f/2.8 in 4/3 mount. Or the Bigma if you can find one in 4/3 mount.
Ok... to educate the young, and help refresh the memories of the old, lets just remember exactly what it is that Olympus is about to offer us the digital equivalent of.
8 mm F2.8 Fisheye
16 mm F3.5 Fisheye
18 mm F3.5
21 mm F2
21 mm F3.5
24 mm F2
24 mm F2.8
24 mm F3.5 Shift
28 mm F2
28 mm F2.8
28 mm F3.5
35 mm F2
35 mm F2.8
35 mm F2.8 Shift
40 mm F2
50 mm F1.2
50 mm F1.4
50 mm F1.8
50 mm F2Macro
50 mm F3.5Macro
55 mm F1.2
85 mm F2
90 mm F2Macro
100 mm F2
100 mm F2.8
135 mm F2.8
135 mm F3.5
180 mm F2
180 mm F2.8
200 mm F4
200 mm F5
250 mm F2
300 mm F4.5
350 mm F2.8
400 mm F6.3
500 mm F8Reflex
600 mm F6.5
1000 mm F11
28–48 mm F4
35–70 mm F3.5–4.5
35–70 mm F3.5–4.8
35–70 mm F3.6
35–70 mm F4
35–70 mm F4 Auto Focus
35–80 mm F2.8
35–105 mm F3.5–4.5
50–250 mm F5
65–200 mm F4
70–210 mm F4.5–5.6
75–150 mm F4
85–250 mm F5
100–200 mm F5
20 mm F2
20 mm F3.5
38 mm F2.8
38 mm F3.5
80 mm F4 (Manual)
80 mm F4 (Auto)
135 mm F4.5
24 mm F2.8AF
28 mm F2.8AF
50 mm F1.8AF
mm F3.5–4.5AF
35–70 mm F3.5–4.5PF
35–105 mm F3.5–4.5AF
70–210 mm F3.5–4.5AF
Bifurcator wrote:
Just a pro-body µ4/3 from Olympus (no matter what it looks like) doesn't excite you?
Olympus has had 4/3rds "pro" bodies before. Remember the E series? Didn't do very well. The sensor doesn't compete with the larger sensors in other "pro" bodies. It is always at a deficit, it is still at a deficit, and "pros" care about this. Like I said, "meh". They need to step out and do something different, with a competitive sensor that most pros will consider competitive. This just seems like another level variation on their enthusiast camera range.
What they need to is remove the 4/3rds millstone from around their neck and do a mirrorless full frame OM and rebuild the OM system that Spyro has reminded us of. They can't do that on the back on a 4/3rds sensor becuase the people that need to buy mostly won't.
Ok... to educate the young, and help refresh the memories of the old, lets just remember exactly what it is that Olympus is about to offer us the digital equivalent of.
8 mm F2.8 Fisheye
16 mm F3.5 Fisheye
18 mm F3.5
21 mm F2
21 mm F3.5
24 mm F2
24 mm F2.8
24 mm F3.5 Shift
28 mm F2
28 mm F2.8
28 mm F3.5
35 mm F2
35 mm F2.8
35 mm F2.8 Shift
40 mm F2
50 mm F1.2
50 mm F1.4
50 mm F1.8
50 mm F2Macro
50 mm F3.5Macro
55 mm F1.2
85 mm F2
90 mm F2Macro
100 mm F2
100 mm F2.8
135 mm F2.8
135 mm F3.5
180 mm F2
180 mm F2.8
200 mm F4
200 mm F5
250 mm F2
300 mm F4.5
350 mm F2.8
400 mm F6.3
500 mm F8Reflex
600 mm F6.5
1000 mm F11
28–48 mm F4
35–70 mm F3.5–4.5
35–70 mm F3.5–4.8
35–70 mm F3.6
35–70 mm F4
35–70 mm F4 Auto Focus
35–80 mm F2.8
35–105 mm F3.5–4.5
50–250 mm F5
65–200 mm F4
70–210 mm F4.5–5.6
75–150 mm F4
85–250 mm F5
100–200 mm F5
20 mm F2
20 mm F3.5
38 mm F2.8
38 mm F3.5
80 mm F4 (Manual)
80 mm F4 (Auto)
135 mm F4.5
24 mm F2.8AF
28 mm F2.8AF
50 mm F1.8AF
mm F3.5–4.5AF
35–70 mm F3.5–4.5PF
35–105 mm F3.5–4.5AF
70–210 mm F3.5–4.5AF
IF ONLY! If they could even just deliver on an amazingly huge viewfinder view, I would be quite tempted. The rumored spec though is still the same 1.44MP's for the the viewfinder.
The new camera already has one dial more than the E-P3, around the shutter release, so this starts out well. The On/Off button has also been repurposed, which makes sense, given the prime location it occupies. Finally, the thumb rest is more pronounced. It looks like operation has been given some attention.
Also by opening a few you'll find that they took many shortcuts - sacrificing BQ for cheaper and easier production processes. For BQ every other major maker kinda snuffs them! Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, of the same ilk and all of the european makers. 
dont worry thats just an EP-something blended with an OM1 in photoshop