Posts: 621
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
0
Hi,
today was Olympus µFT announcement day, e.g.:
http://fourthirds-user.com/2010/08/olymp...p2_kit.php
http://dpreview.com/news/1008/10083110oly75300lens.asp
http://dpreview.com/news/1008/10083109ol...mmlens.asp
http://dpreview.com/news/1008/10083105olyep2kits.asp
Since nobody so far wrote it here, despite a strong interest in µFT here, seems to show that this is not what photozone µFT users have been looking forward to.
This must be one of the most expensive 75-300 lenses there has ever been <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
enjoy
Posts: 1,340
Threads: 55
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
0
They were leaked to rumour yesterday taking off the edge of the official announcement. Samples of the 75-300 don't look that good to me. Aperture seems rather slow. The only reason I can think of for that is to reduce diameter of the lens. And if it wasn't for the recently announced Canon 70-300L I wouldn't know of a more expensive 7x-300 lens.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1283279451' post='2380']
They were leaked to rumour yesterday taking off the edge of the official announcement. Samples of the 75-300 don't look that good to me. Aperture seems rather slow. The only reason I can think of for that is to reduce diameter of the lens. And if it wasn't for the recently announced Canon 70-300L I wouldn't know of a more expensive 7x-300 lens.
[/quote]
Sony 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G SSM <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
And of course the compact Canon EF 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM.
And then there were/are the Zeiss/Contax Vario-Sonnar [color="#FF0000"]T*[/color] 70-300mm F4-5.6, and the Zeiss Vario-Sonnar [color="#FF0000"]T*[/color] 100-300mm f4.5.
But yes, you of course are right. It is quite expensive.
Posts: 1,340
Threads: 55
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
0
Ok, how can I forget the DO since I have one. The Sony G I think remains quite a bit less even if it has crept up in price over time. Also I think we have to leave the shorter range faster than f/5.6 lenses out as a particularly expensive case.
I'm left wondering what is so special about the Olympus to justify its price tag? It supposedly has quiet AF motor, but is that enough in itself?
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
Posts: 8,004
Threads: 1,851
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
49
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1283280117' post='2381']
Sony 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G SSM <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
And of course the compact Canon EF 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM.
And then there were/are the Zeiss/Contax Vario-Sonnar [color="#FF0000"]T*[/color] 70-300mm F4-5.6, and the Zeiss Vario-Sonnar [color="#FF0000"]T*[/color] 100-300mm f4.5.
But yes, you of course are right. It is quite expensive.
[/quote]
Well, an MSRP of 900$ translates to 700$ on the streets. That's not too bad actually but surely not cheaps. The MTFs look good for such a lens.
The 40-150 ED is somewhat more disappointing actually - it is (physically) longer than its FT cousin ...
Posts: 1,340
Threads: 55
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
0
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1283282934' post='2383']
Well, an MSRP of 900$ translates to 700$ on the streets. That's not too bad actually but surely not cheaps. The MTFs look good for such a lens.
The 40-150 ED is somewhat more disappointing actually - it is (physically) longer than its FT cousin ...
[/quote]
Samples at Olympus Asia. Doesn't look so good to me.
The Olympus MTF is at 20 and 60 lines/mm... how do you compare that to Canon for example, who use 10 and 30 lines/mm? Is there a line pairs doubling I'm overlooking? Or are they really testing at a higher frequency?
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
Posts: 621
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
0
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1283283371' post='2384']
Samples at [url="http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/mlenses/75-300_48-67/"]Olympus Asia[/url]. Doesn't look so good to me.
The Olympus MTF is at 20 and 60 lines/mm... how do you compare that to Canon for example, who use 10 and 30 lines/mm? Is there a line pairs doubling I'm overlooking? Or are they really testing at a higher frequency?
[/quote]
Not sure. I am used to the spatial frequency being quoted in line pairs per mm (lpmm). Since both give lines per mm, there might be a factor of 2 hidden or this is just some sloppiness involved here. Since the Olympus lenses are meant to cover a smaller sensor with crop factor 2, quoting twice the common values would make sense from a technical point of view. From a marketing point of view, 10 and 30 like most companies would look better.
Comparing MFT numbers measured by different people is impossible. They don't give you enough details. Things like, are these computed or measured MTF. Do they use white, coloured or even monochromatic light? White light typically gives lower values.
I agree, with you on the samples. They are full of artefacts - most likely to high JPEG compression.
enjoy
Posts: 621
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
0
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1283282934' post='2383']
The 40-150 ED is somewhat more disappointing actually - it is (physically) longer than its FT cousin ...
[/quote]
HI Klaus,
what are you unhappy with? Just the size or is it more. Considering the size, this lens is not collapsible. Hence due to the shorter flange to sensor distance, I am not totally surprised at this. Looking at the MTF, contrast is lower than its FT cousin, but corner resolution seems improved, in particular for meridional structures. The latter could mean less transversal CA. Curious to see whether proper samples will or won't confirm that.
Joachim
enjoy
[quote name='joachim' timestamp='1283272062' post='2374']
Since nobody so far wrote it here, despite a strong interest in µFT here, seems to show that this is not what photozone µFT users have been looking forward to.
[/quote]
Spot on Joachim. I actually pondered posting about it but felt it was such a let down IMHO I didn't...
I mean "a special edition lens cap" on a "special edition black body" with a "special edition 17mm f/2.8" with a "special batch" of tele lenses? Am I alone to think it looks like a rather idiotic move? playing the design card only when the heat is rising seems foolish but I reckon Olympus is probably unable to push out an E-5 and another MFT camera at the same time or are we going to see a second press release?
IMO, at least on the lens front, it would have made a lot more sense to release a tele AND another type of lens and possibly one that stands out from the ALREADY announced Panasonic products (but it occurred to me that some MFT users haven't quite realized Oly & Panasonic lenses can be used on any MFT camera so...).
With the recent 14-150, the 40-150 and the 75-300, looks like we're going to eat a lot of high ISO, motion blurred, compressed perspective shots.
/rant
Posts: 8,004
Threads: 1,851
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
49
[quote name='joachim' timestamp='1283290792' post='2391']
HI Klaus,
what are you unhappy with? Just the size or is it more. Considering the size, this lens is not collapsible. Hence due to the shorter flange to sensor distance, I am not totally surprised at this. Looking at the MTF, contrast is lower than its FT cousin, but corner resolution seems improved, in particular for meridional structures. The latter could mean less transversal CA. Curious to see whether proper samples will or won't confirm that.
Joachim
[/quote]
I'm not unhappy with the performance but size-wise I'm expecting smaller solutions than for the conventional system. The package size is simply not any smaller than the E-4xx + 40-150mm. Even the 75-300mm is only marginally smaller than the 70-300mm and that's probably not because of MFT but because it's even slower.
I am, of course, aware that the format size advantage decreases when moving towards longer lenses.
I am, however, severely disappointed that Panasonic and Olympus are obviously always releasing lenses in the same class. Rather than filling the gaps competition seems more important to them which is an utterly useless approach at this stage. Who needs two fisheye lenses for god's sake ? However, this just reconfirms the poor marketing of the FT/MFT gang.
|
