Ernie Aubert wrote:
I just received my reconditioned E-M1 Mk II from Olympus. I've done maybe 15 or 20 shots so far, most recently a few with my EF 300mm F4L IS and Metabones adapter in dim evening light. The camera chose ISO 6400, and I'm startled at how good they look; I don't even use anything above 3200 on my 5D III. What a terrific surprise! I'm going to do some comparisons with my AA-filter-less 80D when I get time. I'm feeling pretty delighted and hopeful.
Here's the first ones that weren't of nothing at all. The first had some cropping to rotate it; the second two didn't. The third was with a circular polarizer.
Mind you, these are just to satisfy savingspaces's edict...
Edit after the fact: They look awful here; I don't remember seeing the softening I see in these in previous uploads. I can't account for that.
Olympus had a 4/3 90-250,2.8. That's a gap that could still be filled. A 100-400, or 200-500 Pro maybe? Now that they have offered Pro lenses at f4, a Pro f4 long zoom is consistent. Even a 200-500,5.6 woman ld be nice. Lots of pros making a living with the Nikon.
An m4/3 200-500mm lens? That would be an INSANE 400-1000mm in FF AOV! I'd even let Olympus pick whether they want my right or left kidney for such a lens. To be honest, I'm not sure if I would prefer an f/5.6 or 6.3 lens with more reach, or give up some reach for, say, an f/4 lens. Plenty of times when I was shooting Canon, that I would have traded my 800/5.6 for a 600/4 because light gathering ability is so important when you want to keep Tv up and ISO down.
Birdie returned her PL 100-400 and got the 300 PRO for that reason - the PL speed at the longer end of the lens is just not good enough in low light. f4 + 6.5 stops of IS makes a huge difference.
mitesh wrote:
An m4/3 200-500mm lens? That would be an INSANE 400-1000mm in FF AOV! I'd even let Olympus pick whether they want my right or left kidney for such a lens. To be honest, I'm not sure if I would prefer an f/5.6 or 6.3 lens with more reach, or give up some reach for, say, an f/4 lens. Plenty of times when I was shooting Canon, that I would have traded my 800/5.6 for a 600/4 because light gathering ability is so important when you want to keep Tv up and ISO down.
Gotta say, the E-M10 Mk III looks gorgeous once again (m43rumors pictures). Really much has happened since the first E-M5 and even the E-M1 in pure of looks and overall design.
All the new F1.2 lenses will be great I am quite sure, specially the fact that they are weather sealed (or I am guessing they will be as they will be in the PRO line).
New high zoom sounds very interesting but I have no idea, perhaps something between the 40-150 and 300? 150-300? Or maybe something lower like a 100-200?
Pure speculation of course ... about the now-rumored Oly Pro zoom lens that could fill, in part, the native (no TC needed) focal length gap between the 40-150/2.8 and the 300/4 ... I would think that Olympus would not make something that might in fact hurt the sales of the 300/4 lens, i.e., cover that focal length at f/4. And I wonder if the fact that Pany has a 100-300 means that their patent on that lens precludes Oly from making something similar. I am no lawyer, but just wondering if that might be an issue.
Bottom line for me is I hope whatever they make would be no slower than f/4. I understand that size, weight and cost would be an issue for many prospective buyers. 75-250 at f/4, or even 75-250 at f/2.8 variable to f/4 would suit me just fine. Assuming it would be the same pro build with IS, it will be expensive. But I'd buy it in a heartbeat (as I have no interest whatsoever in the Pany 100-400).
Love the focal length of the Oly 4/3 mount 90-250 f/2.8 but the weight and size is astronomical - bigger than the Nikon stuff that I sold this past winter.
James Farrell wrote:
And I wonder if the fact that Pany has a 100-300 means that their patent on that lens precludes Oly from making something similar. I am no lawyer, but just wondering if that might be an issue.
Nope: Way too slow for my needs. Trying shooting an f/6.7 lens in the low-light Great Bear Rainforest of coastal British Columbia which I will visit at least three times over the next several months. ISO would be off the charts.
This is a well-thought out post, James! As much as I love my Big KaHuna (ZD 90-250/2.8), a more portable, native m4/3 version like the 75-250/2.8-4 you have suggested sounds like a great idea! Still would like to see an Oly 100-400/4.5-5.6 with Sync IS .
James Farrell wrote:
Pure speculation of course ... about the now-rumored Oly Pro zoom lens that could fill, in part, the native (no TC needed) focal length gap between the 40-150/2.8 and the 300/4 ... I would think that Olympus would not make something that might in fact hurt the sales of the 300/4 lens, i.e., cover that focal length at f/4. And I wonder if the fact that Pany has a 100-300 means that their patent on that lens precludes Oly from making something similar. I am no lawyer, but just wondering if that might be an issue.
Bottom line for me is I hope whatever they make would be no slower than f/4. I understand that size, weight and cost would be an issue for many prospective buyers. 75-250 at f/4, or even 75-250 at f/2.8 variable to f/4 would suit me just fine. Assuming it would be the same pro build with IS, it will be expensive. But I'd buy it in a heartbeat (as I have no interest whatsoever in the Pany 100-400).
Love the focal length of the Oly 4/3 mount 90-250 f/2.8 but the weight and size is astronomical - bigger than the Nikon stuff that I sold this past winter. ...Show more →
