[davidmanze]

SLR Gear reviewed it:

 

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1840

And they loved it, it passed every test with flying colours, sharp sharp and then some, success at even one second exposure??? no mention of bokeh though, it's diminutive size on 4/3rds body is an attractive proposition  for shooting @600mm. 

[Klaus]

I don´t think so. I have seen similar bokeh characteristics using the M.Zuiko 60mm f/2.8 Macro lens, which is definitely not that sharp.

 

Honestly, I'd say that the Bokeh isn't exactly an Olympus sweet spot (exceptions apply).

[thxbb12]

The physical dimensions of this lens are very disappointing.

I find it big, heavy and mostly very expensive compared to the competition (other 300mm lenses).
<span style="color:rgb(68,68,68);font-family:Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;text-align:justify;">It is especially true if you compare it to the Nikkor 300mm VR f4 lens which is designed for a sensor that's 4x the size.
The Nikkor is much smaller, much lighter and $500 cheaper.</span>

• Olympus size: 92.5 x 227 ; weight 1475g
  
• Nikkor size: 89 x 147.5 ; weight 755g
  

The Nikkor is 8cm shorter (!) and about HALF the weight while being much cheaper. I know that for longer lenses the sensor size doesn't play as much in the equation, but still. How did Nikon manage to make it so much smaller/lighter?

An Oly about the size of the Nikkor would have made much more sense IMO.

[Brightcolours]

The Nikkor is 8cm shorter (!) and about HALF the weight while being much cheaper. I know that for longer lenses the sensor size doesn't have so much of an affect as with shorter lenses, but still. How did Nikon manage to make it so much smaller/lighter?

 

Diffractive optics. I thought that was widely known ;-)

[thxbb12]

Diffractive optics. I thought that was widely known ;-)

 

Yes, but I don't see why Olympus couldn't use it in order to reduce the size of their lens, especially given the hefty price tag.

[stoppingdown]

Reasoning on use cases, this lens should be compared with a 600mm f/8: there's clearly a big size and money advantage here, even though the usual "equivalence" implications on DoF apply. I'd love to have it on my Sony E-mount system...

 

Sure, from the engineering point of view the Nikkor lens is much better - but don't forget that at the moment it's a one-of-a-kind thing, not the state of the art. I guess other manufacturers will go that way in future.

[Brightcolours]

Yes, but I don't see why Olympus couldn't use it in order to reduce the size of their lens, especially given the hefty price tag.

Apparently it takes a lot of time/knowledge to develop this technology. Canon more than a decade ago introduced it in a 400mm f4 (2001) lens and a 70-300mm lens (2004). It took Nikon till 2015 to introduce a lens with comparable technology.

 

So, in order for Olympus to use lenses like this, they have to invest a lot of money and time to develop the knowledge and manufacturing ability of such refractive optics.

[Brightcolours]

For size and weight advantages, I still have a 500mm f8 from Tamron and Tokina to use.

[thxbb12]

For size and weight advantages, I still have a 500mm f8 from Tamron and Tokina to use.

 

Yeah, but the "donut" bokeh of these mirror lenses is plain horrible  :wacko:

[Brightcolours]

Yeah, but the "donut" bokeh of these mirror lenses is plain horrible  :wacko:

So that means one has to put thought in using them, indeed. Sometimes I use the "donuts" on purpose.