400 5.6? Doesn't ring the "fast" bell to me. 300 2.8 would be my guess but then again that doesn't really hit the "long" end but with the 2x factor I guess it still is 600 2.8......
arbitrage wrote:
400 5.6? Doesn't ring the "fast" bell to me. 300 2.8 would be my guess but then again that doesn't really hit the "long" end but with the 2x factor I guess it still is 600 2.8......
400mm f/4?
Olympus has patents for diffractive optics, just like Canikon. They should start using them in their camera lenses, too.
Olympus has patents for diffractive optics, just like Canikon. They should start using them in their camera lenses, too.
Yes 400 f/4 might be nice...well would be nice....if they have DO up to Canon standards then that would be a nice option but the only issue I see is these lenses can't defy physics with their front element size so they will be just as big as the Canon/Nikon/Sony variants. That for me would defeat the purpose of using the M43 system.
I think the 100-400 and 300 f/4 and a 400 5.6 would be my personal limits for long lenses on the M43 system. Anything bigger than that and I'd rather have a heavier body attached (i.e. DSLR).
arbitrage wrote:
Yes 400 f/4 might be nice...well would be nice....if they have DO up to Canon standards then that would be a nice option but the only issue I see is these lenses can't defy physics with their front element size so they will be just as big as the Canon/Nikon/Sony variants. That for me would defeat the purpose of using the M43 system.
I think the 100-400 and 300 f/4 and a 400 5.6 would be my personal limits for long lenses on the M43 system. Anything bigger than that and I'd rather have a heavier body attached (i.e. DSLR).
Might have some bearing/relevance on this vain. I've been playing with the M5 (as have you Geoff) and the 400DOii on it is to me no comfortable. The 400/5.6 is a joy, and the 70-300L another positive surprise. All this said considering comfort and handling. So I think size-wise there is a transfer of experience to the body size of the Olympus camera.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Might have some bearing/relevance on this vain. I've been playing with the M5 (as have you Geoff) and the 400DOii on it is to me no comfortable. The 400/5.6 is a joy, and the 70-300L another positive surprise. All this said considering comfort and handling. So I think size-wise there is a transfer of experience to the body size of the Olympus camera.
I agree the 400DOII is not a great lens for a mirrorless. Just feels awkward even though you do appreciate the weight savings but still balances awkwardly.
I love using 24-70 f4, 16-35 f4 and even 100-400 is okay on the M5 but 400DO and larger isn't for me.
I think for Olympus they should stick to 300f4, 400f5.6 and 100-400 as the maximum lens sizes.
arbitrage wrote:
Yes 400 f/4 might be nice...well would be nice....if they have DO up to Canon standards then that would be a nice option but the only issue I see is these lenses can't defy physics with their front element size so they will be just as big as the Canon/Nikon/Sony variants. That for me would defeat the purpose of using the M43 system.
I think the 100-400 and 300 f/4 and a 400 5.6 would be my personal limits for long lenses on the M43 system. Anything bigger than that and I'd rather have a heavier body attached (i.e. DSLR).
Well, a 400mm f/4 with some sort of DO, even with its large element would still result in the most compact 800mm-equivalent lens on the market. Canon's 400mm f/4 DO is shorter than it's 400mm f/5.6 prime. Still, I hear you.
It'd also be a super-high priced lens out of reach of most.
For my part, my longest lens for μ43 is 150mm and I don't expect I'll need longer...just dreaming...
MAubrey wrote:
Well, a 400mm f/4 with some sort of DO, even with its large element would still result in the most compact 800mm-equivalent lens on the market. Canon's 400mm f/4 DO is shorter than it's 400mm f/5.6 prime. Still, I hear you.
It'd also be a super-high priced lens out of reach of most.
For my part, my longest lens for μ43 is 150mm and I don't expect I'll need longer...just dreaming...
Yes without hood it is longer but with hood the DOII is longer by about 1/2". But the real issue is weight and there we have an 80oz vs 47.7oz in use weight....big difference!! The DOII just doesn't balance well on a mirrorless...I've used mine sparingly on the Canon M5 but it isn't something I will continue to do. The other issue was the M5 just wasn't up to driving the focus of that big lens fast enough on BIF.
It would surely be the smallest 800 f/4 lens on the market!! I use mine at 800mm but that is at f/8 and with the extra 2xTC length, bulk and weight
All this talk (good talk mind you) about DO lenses had me googling the 70-300DO.
Thoughts on it for the M5......no wait this is an Oly thread, nevermind.
For mFT I'm really not hungering for anything new, just to do better with what I've got.
One thing I don't have currently and for the foreseeable future is any kind of decent weather. First
camera manufacturer to bottle that wins me over
MM, could you please spell out what M5 refers to. TIA.
Good luck with better weather.
Here in NM we appreciate the moisture we are currently getting. .
MedicineMan404 wrote:
K-H its a new small mirrorless by Canon.
Best you don't know about it
Thanks MM, that was my suspicion, some Canon gear.
I own Nikon, Leica, Sony, Olympus, and Panasonic gear, never got into Canon stuff.
So that covers m43, APS-C, and FF formats, never owned MF or LF.
My most used favorite cameras right now are Sony A7r.2 and Olympus E-M1.2, each with its own strength.
Currently I am following also the Fuji GFX introduction with interest and observe how that goes.
For long tele shots, birding and such I settled on E-M1.2, 40-150/2.8, 300/4 Pro, and MC--14.
I still have my Nikon D800E and AF-S 80-400/4.5-5.6 but lost interest in DSLRs.
So, unless Canon comes up with some surprising new and revolutionary technology I won't be getting their gear.
No doubt Canon has great photography equipment, I personally just never got into it.
. yeah you can bet on that......
