100-400 in spring?

Jorginho wrote:

Eric Nepean wrote:

doccy wrote:

http://www.43rumors.com/and-this-is-the-next-panasonic-mft-lens-coming-spring-2016/#disqus_thread

Who knows if it is true - but seemingly ETA in Spring 16. Desperate to know the price!

-- hide signature --

https://500px.com/docwheeler

Astrotripper wrote:

The guys at Lenstip took a few shots of the prototype at IFA in Berlin. The article is in polish, but you can check out the images. No new information on the lens itself, unfortunately.

My thoughts after seeing those photos:

• it kinda looks smaller than I expected
• it definitely looks like the front element will extend when zooming
• any idea what's the lock/unlock ring for? zoom position lock I pressume?

I note that the 100-400 has the largest front element/entrance pupil diameter in the M43 lineup so far

• 100-400 F6.3 = 64mm
• 100-300 F3.5-5.6 = 54mm
• 40-150 F2.8 = 54mm
• 75 F1.8 = 42mm

The next big lens will be the Oly 300 F4, with a 75mm front element/entrance pupil diameter.

What the M43 series is missing, compared to the CanNikon lens series, is the those big fast telephotos with big entrance pupils (and big price tags)

Its not surprising those big lenses cost more, those big optical elements have to be hard to make, and the blanks will be expensive.

The 800mm F5.6 mentioned in an earlier post has a 142mm entrance pupil. An M43 match would be 400mm F2.8, and would probably cost over $10K. However there are still far more Canon owners than M43, I doubt there is enough M43 market to make such a product financially viable.

I have the FDn400mm F4.5 (89mm), it is pretty darn heavy (old Canon technology) but it is a stop faster than the 10-400 will be. I bet Olympus could make a lighter version.

Well their 12-40 f2.8 is not lighter at all and their 40-150 f2.8 weighs more than twice what the 35-100 f2.8 weighs.

IMO The Olympus 40-150 F2.8 is about equivalent in FOV, DOF, IQ, zoom range and entrance pupil size to the Canon L series 75-300 F4 to F5.6. Cost is about the same, the Canon has 19 elements and the Olympus 16 elements.

There is a Sigma 75-300 F4 to F5.6 lens, with 14 elements, but costing 1/10 the Canon and Olympus, and it is not weatherproof - I would assume the IQ matches the price tag.

The Canon weighs 1050 g compared to the Olympus weighing 880g.The Sigma at 550g probably represents the best that can be done regarding weight at the expense of other features.

Compare with the 35-100/F2.8 which weighs 360g and has 13 elements:  The diameter of the 40-150 is larger by a factor of 3/2  (50% multiplier, this affects all metal and optical components), the optical elements are more numerous by a factor of 16/13 (reasonable that a few more elements are needed for the bigger zoom range - 23% multiplier) and the lens structure is longer by a factor of 3/2 and has more leverage on the lens mount requiring more strength  (assign 25% multiplier assuming half the weight of the lens is the metal frame)

So a wet finger guess is that a comparably designed lens is 360*1.5*1.23*1.25 = 830g.

IMO the 880g weight of the Olympus 40-150/F2.8 is quite reasonable for a top quality weatherproof lens with these optical characteristics.

If one wants a 40-150 Telephoto which has a smaller aperture and is lighter, well, there is already one of those.

Of course the latter is not really comparable due to Oly's longer FL at the long end, but it is hardly an indication Oly is into light weight when it comes to high IQ lenses. They are a bit heavy at least for a m43 lens to my mind.

-- hide signature --

Eric
When the light is gone, the picture is gone ....

The 100-400 seems to be an exc ellent lens and perfecty in line with the other two weathersealed zooms by Panasonic. They will make for a small light weight and very capable setup it seems.