Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 1, 2007, 12:52 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,535
Default

I e-mailed Olympus UK a few days ago and thought I'd ask them whether they were going to do another Olympus show in London and also bug them about 14-100 or 50-100 f2.8 lenses. Here's the response from the UK marketing dept:

"I have been informed by our Marketing Division that lenses similar to the ones you have mentioned are in the pipeline, and in addition to this we hope to have a Lichfield show on Isle of Wight in May. However we are currently looking at other options. "

The rest of the e-mail just mentions that they are unable to say anymore at the present moment.

Now if they do a 14-100 or a 50-100 f2.8's I'll be happy but I think we'll just have to wait for PMA 2007 to see what really turns up.

Cheers

HarjTT

:O :?
HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 1, 2007, 11:43 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Mikefellh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 1,707
Default

Henry's (located in Canada) have their imaging show also in May, and Oly usually have the new stuff by then. Of course we'll have to see if the changes in Olympus Canada (if you can call them that) will make a difference in their booth.
Mikefellh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2007, 6:20 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 822
Default

I would guess a 14-100 would be more of a travel type lens, something like an f3.5-4.5. I suspect putting fast glass over that long a range would get heavy and very expensive.

But, for a variable zoom, there are alot starting with f2.8, but I wonder why no one ever does one that starts at f2.0? I think a 35-100 f2-3.5 would be almost ideal. 30-90 f2-3.5 might be even better. It might be a bit pricey I guess, but it would have to be a good bit less than the 35-100 f2 pro. It would be nice if it could weight no more than the 50-200 as well, though it wouldn't be too much lighter than that.

I like the idea of one short fast lens covering that short telephoto range for low light and portrait type shooting. Then lighter weight slower lenses covering everything else for when you don't need that bright glass.

It should also cover the seams in the lower lens lineups, for times when you wouldn't want to be withcing too often between 14-45 and 40-150, or 14-54 and 50-200. Or 12-60 and whatever they might add in the 60-xxx range to match that.

And, alternatively, might pair nicely with an 11-22 or even for some the top pro 14-35 expected to be introduced.

kenbalbari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2007, 7:31 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

indeed at least some of this is an alignment to accepted sizes from other brands
both Nikon and Canon have walkabout glass of around 18-200mm, usually junk.
Or the more impressive from an alternative third party like Sigma's 50-150 f/2.8 APO EX DC, for once something decent from them. Even Tamron's 18-200 fits here too.

Prime component of these lenses seems to be convenience, and hafway decent aperture at the cost of size and weight.

Riley
Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2007, 7:51 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 822
Default

Interestingly, the Oly 18-180 looks very competitive in that range as well. Clearly an improvement over the Sigma it seems to be based on, according to popular photography.

18-180 f3.5-6.3 Test

"SQF charts generated from our computerized optical bench show results in the Excellent range for all focal lengths, superior for the class. (Most superzooms fall in the Good range at their longest focal lengths, but most also go out to 200mm.) DxO Analyzer 2.0 tests found barrel distortion in the Visible range a t 18mm (0.51%), and Slight pincushioning at 100mm (0.20%) and 180mm (0.18%), also a well-above-average performance—both Sigma and Tamron digital superzooms showed barreling in the Noticeable range at 18mm (1.19% and 1.66% respectively). Its light falloff performance was exemplary, with no visible vignetting at the longer focal lengths, and vignetting gone by f/4 at 18mm. In all, a very strong showing."

The thing is, a 14-140 or thereabouts would likely be more suited to this format.


kenbalbari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2007, 8:15 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

Oh sure, on a 4/3 the tele aspect is roughly twice as effective. But I think the thing is this, when someone begins to shop around for a system, they innitially work on the numbers. After they get through that period they read other opinions, reviews etc.

What 4/3 consortium need to do is to fill the system out so there are no longer any holes. They need to catch up on things like AF and shutter speeds. When that point is reached they will generate more sales. Because when they get there people will begin to realise that the 20-150 they were looking at isnt the 30-225 that it is on APS-C, its 40-300, which looks and is a lot more useful.

For it is one thing to have a carry camera that covers a given range, but another entirely when its coverage is such that you can get by without carrying another lens to supplement the range. Sort of a 4/3 superzoom, but without the usual distractions superzooms suffer from.

With Canon now employing their version of liveview on the D whatever Mk3, people will begin to look around at why big C sees this as useful, and why their xti doesnt have it. Recognition of these features is gold to 4/3, and legitimises the direction and innovations. What 4/3 need to do is innovate something that the others cant innitially scoff at, and cant steal from them later.

Riley
Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2007, 9:17 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Mikefellh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 1,707
Default

Rriley wrote:
Quote:
What 4/3 consortium need to do is to fill the system out so there are no longer any holes.
It's one thing to fill the holes, but it's another to do it that will satisfy the high-end people, and the economy driven users. I admit I'm in the latter category, and use OM lenses to fill the holes (like the $5 28mm f/2.8 I bought yesterday).

For me the only hole that needs to be filled (since I have lenses up to 1000mm with a 2x converter) is the wide end of the spectrum...they have satisfied the pros with the 7-14 and the 8mm, but what is needed is an affordable wide lens...it's easy to do tele on our cameras due to the 2x factor, but a lot harder to do wide affordably.
Mikefellh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2007, 11:16 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,535
Default

From what I've read from people with the 18-180 its a real mixed bag of a lens and is not even as good as the kit 40-150. Personally, I think they should have just released a 14-100 (28-200) f2.8-3.5 which would have gone up against the Canon/Nikon 28-200's VR's and for the consumer end of the market where the 18-180 is really aimed at say 14-100 f3.5-5.6.

Cheers

HarjTT

:O :?
HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2007, 1:58 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 822
Default

Well I wouldn't really even expect the 18-180 to be as good as the 40-150. But that's the same tradeoff on all lenses of that type. If it's better than the Sigma, Tamron, etc. versions of that sort, I guess it's good enough for what it is, for people who want one all-pupose lens. I suspect the Nikon 18-200 VR might not be as good as the 40-150 either (but at least close).

But for those who want those things, I guess it's worth noting on the higher end that one of the Leica lenses already on the map is a 14-150 OIS.

The Nikon 18-135 though is unusually good for a lens of that type. I agree I'd like to see them match that with a 14-100, where there might be a bit less sacrifice optically. The longer end isn't as important there. It would help them sell the E-400 up against the Nikon D40 and similar lenses.

On Edit:
*Actually has a 14-100 already been announced? I just saw therre's one listed here:

http://fourthirdsphoto.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=6300

One of the other rumours out there by the way was that there is a more affordable wide angle lens in the works as well. That seemed to come from the same source as the 12-60 and 180-500 rumours initially. The part I didn't like from those rumours was the part about "no new primes". I 'd like to see just one fast short tele prime--with quicker autofocus than the 50 f2.

kenbalbari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2007, 2:29 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,521
Default

HarjTT wrote:
Quote:
From what I've read from people with the 18-180 its a real mixed bag of a lens and is not even as good as the kit 40-150. Personally, I think they should have just released a 14-100 (28-200) f2.8-3.5 which would have gone up against the Canon/Nikon 28-200's VR's and for the consumer end of the market where the 18-180 is really aimed at say 14-100 f3.5-5.6.

Cheers

HarjTT

:O :?
From what I've seen, Nikon's 18-200 is pretty much a mixed bag too. Some places, like here, give it a pretty good review, although you see plenty of quotes like "not the shapest lens you'll see":

http://www.photographyreview.com/sf-...eviewscrx.aspx

Compare that with the data at the user's (and the author's)reviews on this sitein which the lens looks like a real dog...

http://photozone.de/

Which is "right"? I think for about the same money I'd rather have an 11-22 Zuiko.

When it comes to 18-200 or 28-200's you'll never have a very high quality option. People looking for a one-lens solution are not going to want to paythe price a high quality optic wouldneccesitate to build in that range- take a look at Canon's 28-300L. It costs over $2,000, it's an f3.5-5.6 lens and it weighs a ton. That's the build quality it takes to make one of these that's even palatable to serious users.

If it does notsave weight over carrying an 11-22/50-200 combination, why would anyone serious about image qualitybuy one if they already had the latter? I've used a 100-400L Canon lens before. Last thing I'd want to haveto usefor EVERY shot would be a lens that came anywhere near approaching what that lens or the 28-300 Canon lensweighed.

a 12-60 (24-120 35mmequivalent) lens makes more sense, but again, I don't think you'll get an f2.8-3.5 lens. I think it'd be closer to f3.5-5.6, which may be good enough if you have a body with image stabilization built-in, but I've owned enough f5.6 zooms in the past. In the end, anyone serious about image quality is going to own at least two zooms, and I think Olympus current f2.8-3.5 zooms are about as good as it gets in balancing optical quality, speed and zoom range convenience.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:48 AM.