Two Significant Tele Zooms

<p>... announced on January 6:</p>

<ul>

<li>Olympus 300mm f/4 - $2,500</li>

<li>Panasonic 100-400mm f/4-5.6 - $1,800</li>

</ul>

<p>http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/m43-gets-big-and-expensive.html</p>

<p>I would prefer the Panasonic 100-400 if the 400mm focal end proves to be sharp. - Longer reach, weighs less, and less costly. More likely though (my guess) is that the Olympus 300mm is a higher-quality build.</p>

<p>The early reviews look pretty good:</p>

<ul>

<li>Olympus 300mm (<a href="http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1840">link</a>).</li>

<li>Panasonic 100-400mm (<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/2683456245/panasonic-adds-leica-100-400mm-f4-6-3-tele-zoom-to-micro-four-thirds-lens-lineup">link</a>).</li>

</ul>

<p>Interesting lenses but a bit pricey perhaps.</p>

<p>Nikon 300mm f4: around $1300</p>

<p>Nikon 200-500mm, around $1400</p>

<p>These lens comparisons can become contentious, since you're not comparing apples with apples. Try the Nikon 600mm f4 for price comparison - same field of view (on full frame), same aperture. I couldn't tell you the exact dollar price, but I feel it's in excess of $2500.</p>

<p>I do not remember is 75-300 has anti-shock mode ,but at f -8.0 was very sharp to 585mm focal .</p>

<p><em>"not comparing apples with apples"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

True but 600mm FOV is just that, it is not a true 600mm. The Nikon 500mm lens delivers a genuine 500mm.<br>

<br>

Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled with my Olympus system, just disappointed with the cost of these two new lenses.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled with my Olympus system, just disappointed with the cost of these two new lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am with you. For Olympus, think their R&D cost may be higher as (1) they are not as established as Nikon on long lens technology? (2) Added cost for installing IS on the lens for the benefit of non-Olympus M43 cameras that lack built-in IS. (3) Ongoing R&D cost to catch up with Nikon on focus tracking (a tech I talked with told me this feature is in high demand thus one of their top priorities). Also, there's a marketing hype about this lens. A friend who uses EM1 said she heard the price would be $6,000 - and some people were ready to pay that amount. Imagine that.</p>

While the Oly 300 f4 is somewhat pricey, it is somewhat concerning that it weighs more than a Canon 300 F4L

IS which is designed to cover a sensor 4x the size of m43. While I am sure it will optically outperform the older

Canon design and its IS performance (with an Oly E-M1) may be amazing, its still a really big and heavy lens

for M43.

<blockquote>

<p>a really big and heavy lens for M43.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I was so surprised that it weighs more than 3 lbs (52oz). While I am used to Nikon's heavy weights, this runs contrary to M43's small-size-and-light-weight appeal. Now the big Nikon 80-400 AFS is just 4 oz more, and the AFD version @47 oz is actually 5 oz lighter. Doesn't seem to sound right. :)</p>

<p>Again, I am very, very happy with my Olympus system but frankly it may make more sense to buy a Nikon DX body like the D7200 which offers excellent IQ, resolution and AF and either of the two Nikon Lenses I listed over either of the two new lenses (they are just too expensive IMHO).</p>

<p>Apples to apples? Just how big an image circle do telephoto Nikkors like the 600mm have to cover?</p>

<p>Elliot, exactly right.</p>

<p>1,800 for a zoom that is f6.3 at the long end is kind of a bad joke, imho. And 2500 for that 300 is super steep, too.</p>

<p>Impressive handson review here (<a href="

) of the 100-400 - very tempting... However, I need to know if it is just as sharp at 400mm.</p>

 

Robin Wong recently posted a review of the Oly 300mm F4, with what I would consider, impressive set of

images and incredible performance of the combined IBIS and IS on an E-M1.

 

http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2016/01/olympus-mzuiko-300mm-f4-pro-lens-review.html

 

Note that he was not particularly happy with its weight and balance, finding it fatiguing to use hand held.

 

While I am not in the market for either lens, if I where to go on another safari, or back to Costa Rica, or other

wildlife related trip, I would more likely rent the Panny 100-400 for its versatility.

<blockquote>

<p><a href="http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2016/01/olympus-mzuiko-300mm-f4-pro-lens-review.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(link)</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very impressive! Can't for an equivalent comparison with the Panny 100-400.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Impressive handson review here (<a href="

rel="nofollow" target="_blank">link</a>) of the 100-400 - very tempting... However, I need to know if it is just as sharp at 400mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Bought this lens last week. Now I know: It's very sharp at 400mm! </p>

<p>Warming up to M43 more and more, but not ready to forget Nikon yet until I am totally comfortable.</p>