Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
new Olympus lenses officially announced
#21
Quote:The 12-100mm f4 zoom lens focusses much closer at 12mm than at 100mm. Interesting but it can be a bit of a bother (I get the same thing when using my 70-200mm with extension tube).

Olympus puts this 24-200mm f8 FF equivalent lens next to a FF 24-70 f4 + 70-200mm f4 combination. A bit silly.

It is more comparable to the likes of Canon EF-M 18-150mm f3.5-6.3 IS STM which is a 14-120mm f2.8-5 MFT equivalent.

 

The specs show quite a lot of focal length shortening towards minimum focus distance with only 0.21x at 0.45m MFD. A nice lens (focal range and sharpness), shame about the small aperture and high price.

 

The 30mm macro appears to be a very nice little lens, but no mention of any light accessories to help with illumination with the extremely short subject distance to the front of the lens.

Regarding the 12-100, what is the "shame" exactly? Larger aperture would make it way too big and unsuitable as one-lens-fits-all travel lens (especially for portable mFT) and can you tell me what other long zoom starting at 12 mm with weather proofing, class-leading IS, excellent built quality and *likely* IQ can be had for less, or even at all? There aren't any - certainly not the Canon consumer zooms and pro Canon zooms are easily $2K. It's a lot of money sure, but reasonable for what you get in my opinion.
#22
Quote:Robin Wong has a blog entry about the Oly 25mm f1.2 with many images here: <a class="bbc_url" href="https://robinwong.blogspot.ch/2016/09/olympus-mzuiko-25mm-f12-pro-lens-review.html">https://robinwong.blogspot.ch/2016/09/olympus-mzuiko-25mm-f12-pro-lens-review.html</a>


The rendering is indeed quite nice, but the lens is huge. The Pany 25 f1.4 is tiny in comparison... albeit not close in IQ.


How did you reach to that conclusion? I could not see any side-by-side to the Summilux.
enjoy
#23
12-100 looks pretty sweet for travel, weather sealed, better range, better build, extraordinary IS, but the price is a bit high.
#24
Quote:12-100 looks pretty sweet for travel, weather sealed, better range, better build, extraordinary IS, but the price is a bit high.
 

MFT lenses were never cheap (other than the kit stuff).
#25
Quote:Regarding the 12-100, what is the "shame" exactly?
The very high price in combination to the very small aperture. That is a shame.
#26
All travel zoom lenses have a small aperture.

This lens has to be compared to something like the C28-300L - I'm not aware of another pro 'super'-zoom lens.

The Canon lens is substantially bigger and more expensive. Go back from there and the Oly is reasonable.
#27
Quote:All travel zoom lenses have a small aperture.

This lens has to be compared to something like the C28-300L - I'm not aware of another pro 'super'-zoom lens.

The Canon lens is substantially bigger and more expensive. Go back from there and the Oly is reasonable.
No other travel zoom with an FF equivalent of f8 costs $1300.

 

Saying this lens should be compared to  the Canon EF 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 L IS USM is strange to say the least...

This 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 is a 14-150mm f1.75-2.8 MFT equivalent lens.

 

The Canon EF-M 18-150mm f3.5-6.3 IS STM is a much closer match to this Olympus. Yes, it is not weather sealed. And the price is $800 less. And it is almost half the weight.
#28
Since when is the 18-150mm STM an L lens?
#29
A lens which is sort-of comparable may be the


 

Fuji 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 (=27-106mm f/5.3-8.5)


490g


75.7 x 97.8mm


MSRP: 900 US$


 

Olympus 12-100 f/4 = (24-200mm f/8)


561g

77.5 x 116.5 mm


MSRP: 1300US$

 

The Fuji isn't a great lens - and not marketed as pro grade anyway. However, even so, I don't see how the Oly is unreasonable in this comparison.

 

 

 
#30
Quote:Since when is the 18-150mm STM an L lens?
Why do you say it has to be an L lens? What does that L add, besides weather sealing?

 

Oh right, a red stripe. I forgot about that...

 

The Fuji 18-135mm is indeed very comparable to the Canon 18-150mm, focal length range and aperture wise. It should of course be 18-202mm. Both are comparable to the Olympus 12-100mm f4, where the Olympus has an advantage at the wide end and the Canon at the long end. 

The Olympus has the advantage of being weather sealed, and the Canon of being only $500 and quite a bit less heavy.

 

The Canon L lens has a much bigger aperture throughout the range, and has quite a bit longer tele reach too. It can best be compared with the Nikkor 28-300mm and Tamron 28-300mm, where the Canon is weather sealed and has the better optics (and the highest price by far).

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
4 Guest(s)