Supposedly, there is an Olympus announcement coming around the end of August.
Maybe, obviously, the PEN E-PL7 will be announced for immediate sale. The replacement for the OM-D E-M5 should be announced, as well. However, I'm more interested to see the final realization of the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens, plus whether they've got the 7-14mm f/2.8 ready.
The ultra wide angle lens is important to me, especially since I've been photographing at skate parks lately. I don't really care for fish eye lenses and Olympus still sells theirs--and a certain BMX rider has been on me to buy it, for that exaggerated perspective. However, f/2.8 vs. f/3.5 makes for the difference between getting the shot and not. (My first thought about this lens was that it would be great for the real estate market, but they're generally fine with point and shoot cameras.)
Of course, is it as important as it was even five years ago? Putting an LED array on the hot shoe will provide sufficient lighting that the BMX rider will be blinded temporarily while moving close. Plenty of people have mentioned flash, which amounts to the same problem. Studio lights with massive battery power? No, thanks.
The Nikon D810 might provide a better low light experience with the right weather-sealed ultra wide angle lens. It had better at the weight, the size, and at the price. Remember that the sensor itself mimics the size of 135 Format film--roughly 24x36mm and that is not huge or heavy.
Of course, the slippery Nikon Df has the sensor from the D4 with extra low light sensitivity, but it will probably be a handful to use for sports.
In any case, the Olympus E-M1 and Panasonic GH4 will work well for me, and hopefully, the new lenses will be everything I need. I'm especially looking forward to replacing Panasonic's dismal 35-100mm f/2.8 lens with the 40-150mm f/2.8. (It's amazing how different their 12-35mm and 35-100mm are. I never ever hear negative remarks about the 12-35mm f/2.8 lens.)
Of course, the 40-150mm f/2.8 can't really replace my 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 because of the lack of reach. Having the 135 Format equivalent of 400mm is awesome, especially when it's sharp. (Panasonic's 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6 doesn't seem to be sharp anywhere, but it's small and light with a 52mm filter size that covers a lot of plastic vs 67mm with a large front element. Can't expect much.)
If the 40-150mm is as sharp as my Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0, I'd be thrilled and amazed. I don't expect that. I expect it to be somewhere in-between the 50-200mm and the 35-100mm f/2.0 in all aspects, with the price, also. This is the case with the 12-40mm f/2.8 and the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and 14-35mm f/2.0.
The 7-14mm f/2.8 really signals an end of Four-Thirds for me. I looked at the Four-Thirds 7-14mm f/4.0, which is an amazing lens, but couldn't get past the f/4.0. I would be using it on micro Four-Thirds equipment but it would negate any advantage the newer sensors have. Using it on the E-1 and E-5 would be practically perfect though. However, these are not really landscape tools and the way I would want to use it would not be practical, even if I spend a lot of time in bright sunlight. I shoot at night also. (This is also a sticking point with the 8mm f/3.5 fish eye lens.)
The price of the 7-14mm f/2.8 is going to be high. I'm guessing that it will be around US$1999.99 and the 40-150mm f/2.8 should be around US$1499.99.
Update 2014.08.17: The E-M1 is rumored to get 4K recording? It doesn't even do well with the recording abilities it has. It would be great to see a huge upgrade to 1080p, complete with high bit rates, but I can't imagine that happening either. It was a bit amusing to see someone submitted Olympus' high end testing cameras as evidence that Olympus can do video. If you're in the market to record and test vehicle crashes, I'm sure they're just fine. I only want to record 1080p and 4K at the moment.
Update 2014.09.25: The 40-150mm f/2.8 will be released in November for US$1499.99. The micro Four-Thirds 1.4x teleconverter will be US$349.99, which is about $90 cheaper than the Four-Thirds version.
The E-M1 version 2.0 firmware included many little updates but no 4K video. Supposedly, there is still some hope for that, and some individual is working on firmware hacks, but what will Olympus do? They couldn't even save the majority of my settings.
I have yet to be invited to a pre-release even for the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens. I'd certainly like to make sure it's worth the money. I continue to hope that micro Four-Thirds will work for me, whether Panasonic or Olympus. However, the Nikon D750 looks a great product.
I've considered a trade-in of my Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens for the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens. If I end up with a GH4, as well as the E-M1, I'll probably need the 35-100mm lens.
Update 2014.12.18: Now that the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens and matching teleconverter are available, I'm looking forward to the 7-14mm f/2.8 and I'm sure others will be looking for the 300mm f/4.0. I'm wondering if the 300mm lens will be a made-to-order item, as is the Four-Thirds 300mm f/2.8 lens.
The Four-Thirds 300mm f/2.8 lens is US$6499.99, a bit more expensive than the 90-250mm f/2.8 lens that has been US5499.99 but is now $4899.99 at Adorama. I don't expect that the micro Four-Thirds version will be close but would US$1999.99 - $2499.99 be unexpected? If it's more than that, there will likely be resistance from people who would actually buy it. It's a valid point. There are plenty of people who complain about the price of every higher-priced lens, fairly priced or not, especially when they're not going to buy one. Should lens makers sell the wares for less than it costs to research, design, and manufacture them?
Showing posts with label 300mm. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 300mm. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Friday, February 14, 2014
Olympus' new PRO series lenses for micro Four-Thirds
I'm really not sure about these lenses yet but they are good for Olympus. They have meaning for me because I've been using Four-Thirds equipment for 10 years this April. The weather-sealed designs of my Olympus equipment have been instrumental in keeping the equipment safe in any circumstance I've had to photograph.
I have several Four-Thirds lenses--2 Super High Grade lenses (14-35mm, 35-100mm), 3 High Grade lenses (14-54mm, 50-200mm, 50mm macro), and 1 Leica/Panasonic lens (25mm). Weaning myself from these lenses will be difficult because they're quite amazing. I've found myself time and again disappointed by the majority of micro Four-Thirds lenses. Those few that are great, are getting some reinforcements.
As they cast off their Four-Thirds line of dSLRs, they brought forth lens designs, in-between the HG and SHG lines of Olympus Four-Thirds lenses, but this time for micro Four-Thirds, and with constant maximum apertures.
The 12-40mm f/2.8 is already available and it's very good, positioned between the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and the 14-35mm f/2.0 Four-Thirds lenses.
The 40-150mm f/2.8 seems to be on-schedule and should arrive about halfway through 2014. I suspect that the image quality will be roughly the same as the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 and not that close to the 35-100mm f/2.0.
Prior to CP+ expo, they showed new mockups of a 7-14mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4.0.
The 7-14mm f/2.8 obviously has a larger maximum aperture than the current 7-14mm f/4.0 that is highly regarded by Four-Thirds users. As with any ultra-wide lens, it has a convex lens element in front, meaning that adding an optical filter is not easily possible and the lens doesn't support them directly. I've been considering the Four-Thirds lens quite a long time, as the weather-sealing is a major factor for me. I see a demonstrator available every so often for a considerable discount. However, f/4.0 is difficult to use with the older sensors, unless I carry my cheapo studio lights with me, and somehow power them in an occasional outdoor twilight shoot.
The 300mm f/4.0 has a smaller aperture than its Four-Thirds equivalent, a rather huge lens that is/was priced at US$5999.99, I believe. That could be the price of the 90-250mm f/2.8. They were within US$1000 of each other. The 300mm f/2.8, like the 90-250mm f/2.8 was built to order, rather than trying to stock something so complex and unique. The f/4.0 lens will be much less unique and won't be able to be that heavy but hopefully, won't rely on electronic tricks to fix optical flaws, due to its smaller size. I would expect that the 300mm f/4.0 will be roughly twice the price of the other three, possibly US$1999.99. If higher, I don't see it going for more than US$2999.99. Photographers of birds would surely like lighter equipment, but I wonder if the maximum aperture will cause them concern. If WiFi was enabled, they could have several of them pointed at a certain sport from different angles with the savings they got from not buying a 135 format 600mm lens.
They're still missing a 150-300mm f/2.8 zoom to fill the gap. I wouldn't expect that lens to be US$999.99 but it shouldn't be outrageous, and being a 2x zoom lens, it could be light even with a very good optical design. Given the current micro Four-Thirds 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7, they probably wouldn't even want to make people think about a comparison with a similar focal length range. I currently use both the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 and 35-100mm f/2.0 but for different sports. I'm not sure that working with two mirror-less bodies and two lenses is convenient to complete the 50-200mm range, but that's what they're doing anyway, not going with a 50-200mm. The 40-150mm f/2.8 will certainly be close enough to the 35-100mm f/2.0 but there won't likely be a 4x zoom that will directly replace the 50-200mm, which is my most-used lens, followed by my ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 lens.
It's good to see Olympus finally decisive again, after 10 years of an almost completely aimless walkabout, even if there were some interesting highlights.
Update 2014.02.20: I bought the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens yesterday. It's good to have a somewhat wider view, from 14mm to 12mm. It made quite a difference--between getting the shot and getting part of the shot. The lens feels right at home with the GH3, despite the lack of image stabilization. It's sad that it won't work on the E-5 but times change.
Update 2014.02.25: After a few days of use of the 12-40mm, I'm as much in love with it as the 14-35mm f/2.0 lens, but with slightly lower expectations. The great thing is that the lens hood is small enough to carry with me, though I can't imagine it's big enough to be incredibly effective. I'm trying to remember whether I used it during the Olympus photo walk when the sun was just over the state capitol building and the Panasonic lens gave me huge lens flare but the Olympus lens mostly rejected it, even with the sun in the frame.
Could these keep me from moving to FujiFilm?
Update 2014.03.19: The 12-40mm seems quite amazing for the price. It has brought new life to the GH3, as the color is so much better than that of the 35-100mm f/2.8. Sadly, I have to wait for the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens to come from Olympus, but that should be around September, which will likely be a good time to purchase the Panasonic GH4. Since the GH3 has a larger grip than the E-M1, I doubt I'll have any trouble keeping my hands steady during sports. If I can do it with an E-1 that doesn't have stabilization, and the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 or E-5 with the 35-100mm f/2.0, I should be able to handle the GH3/GH4 and 40-150mm f/2.8.
Update 2014.12.16: I'm interested in the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens and it's available now, along with the 1.4x teleconverter, though I noticed something disturbing earlier.
I found this comment from Jordan Steele concerning his review of the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 lens and also concerning the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8:
Now, I'm concerned about the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens, considering my previous experience with my 35-100mm f/2.8 lens and huge lens flare.
I have several Four-Thirds lenses--2 Super High Grade lenses (14-35mm, 35-100mm), 3 High Grade lenses (14-54mm, 50-200mm, 50mm macro), and 1 Leica/Panasonic lens (25mm). Weaning myself from these lenses will be difficult because they're quite amazing. I've found myself time and again disappointed by the majority of micro Four-Thirds lenses. Those few that are great, are getting some reinforcements.
As they cast off their Four-Thirds line of dSLRs, they brought forth lens designs, in-between the HG and SHG lines of Olympus Four-Thirds lenses, but this time for micro Four-Thirds, and with constant maximum apertures.
The 12-40mm f/2.8 is already available and it's very good, positioned between the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and the 14-35mm f/2.0 Four-Thirds lenses.
The 40-150mm f/2.8 seems to be on-schedule and should arrive about halfway through 2014. I suspect that the image quality will be roughly the same as the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 and not that close to the 35-100mm f/2.0.
Prior to CP+ expo, they showed new mockups of a 7-14mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4.0.
The 7-14mm f/2.8 obviously has a larger maximum aperture than the current 7-14mm f/4.0 that is highly regarded by Four-Thirds users. As with any ultra-wide lens, it has a convex lens element in front, meaning that adding an optical filter is not easily possible and the lens doesn't support them directly. I've been considering the Four-Thirds lens quite a long time, as the weather-sealing is a major factor for me. I see a demonstrator available every so often for a considerable discount. However, f/4.0 is difficult to use with the older sensors, unless I carry my cheapo studio lights with me, and somehow power them in an occasional outdoor twilight shoot.
The 300mm f/4.0 has a smaller aperture than its Four-Thirds equivalent, a rather huge lens that is/was priced at US$5999.99, I believe. That could be the price of the 90-250mm f/2.8. They were within US$1000 of each other. The 300mm f/2.8, like the 90-250mm f/2.8 was built to order, rather than trying to stock something so complex and unique. The f/4.0 lens will be much less unique and won't be able to be that heavy but hopefully, won't rely on electronic tricks to fix optical flaws, due to its smaller size. I would expect that the 300mm f/4.0 will be roughly twice the price of the other three, possibly US$1999.99. If higher, I don't see it going for more than US$2999.99. Photographers of birds would surely like lighter equipment, but I wonder if the maximum aperture will cause them concern. If WiFi was enabled, they could have several of them pointed at a certain sport from different angles with the savings they got from not buying a 135 format 600mm lens.
It's good to see Olympus finally decisive again, after 10 years of an almost completely aimless walkabout, even if there were some interesting highlights.
Update 2014.02.20: I bought the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens yesterday. It's good to have a somewhat wider view, from 14mm to 12mm. It made quite a difference--between getting the shot and getting part of the shot. The lens feels right at home with the GH3, despite the lack of image stabilization. It's sad that it won't work on the E-5 but times change.
Update 2014.02.25: After a few days of use of the 12-40mm, I'm as much in love with it as the 14-35mm f/2.0 lens, but with slightly lower expectations. The great thing is that the lens hood is small enough to carry with me, though I can't imagine it's big enough to be incredibly effective. I'm trying to remember whether I used it during the Olympus photo walk when the sun was just over the state capitol building and the Panasonic lens gave me huge lens flare but the Olympus lens mostly rejected it, even with the sun in the frame.
Could these keep me from moving to FujiFilm?
Update 2014.03.19: The 12-40mm seems quite amazing for the price. It has brought new life to the GH3, as the color is so much better than that of the 35-100mm f/2.8. Sadly, I have to wait for the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens to come from Olympus, but that should be around September, which will likely be a good time to purchase the Panasonic GH4. Since the GH3 has a larger grip than the E-M1, I doubt I'll have any trouble keeping my hands steady during sports. If I can do it with an E-1 that doesn't have stabilization, and the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 or E-5 with the 35-100mm f/2.0, I should be able to handle the GH3/GH4 and 40-150mm f/2.8.
Update 2014.12.16: I'm interested in the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens and it's available now, along with the 1.4x teleconverter, though I noticed something disturbing earlier.
I found this comment from Jordan Steele concerning his review of the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 lens and also concerning the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8:
The Panny is way better in the flare department
Now, I'm concerned about the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens, considering my previous experience with my 35-100mm f/2.8 lens and huge lens flare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)