(FT4) New 75-300mm II coming soon?
According to trusted sources form our Japanaese firends at Digicaminfo Olympus will announce a new updated 75-300mm II F4.8-6.7 ED lens soon. As I told you lats week the current 75-300mm lens is marked as “discontinued” at BHphoto (Click here) and almost completely gone from Amazon too (Click here).
—
Rumors classification explained (FT= FourThirds):
FT1=1-20% chance the rumor is correct
FT2=21-40% chance the rumor is correct
FT3=41-60% chance the rumor is correct
FT4=61-80% chance the rumor is correct
FT5=81-99% chance the rumor is correct
Ross
5 months ago |I want to see it with an aperture of f2.8-3.5 & then I’d get it. Of course, it would need excellent sharpness at the long end too. I don’t want much, do I?
Ross
5 months ago |It’s also good to see the cookies are remembering my details again.
Thanks admin.
Boooo!
5 months ago |Yay, cookies!
300mm with an f/3.5 means a minimum theoretical front element diameter of 86mm. Practically, it would have to be close to 100mm. That lens would be seriously big, heavy and expensive.
Ross
5 months ago |Yeah, I know. Just a little wishful thinking on my part.
I see others unrealisticly dream here at times & I can’t help doing it a little too.
Realistically, I truely hope they do bring us a sharp brighter zoom lens soon. I bought the E-M5 instead of the ZD50-200 lens for my E30 (I already had the EC14) & am now hoping for a micro 4/3′s lens that can do something similar, as are many others, I believe. Ah well, I’ll just go back to hopin’ & wishin’.
Anonymous
5 months ago |It’s a cheaper and more light weight version of 75-300mm with little worse image quality.
Rchard
5 months ago |f2.8-4.0 would be good enough for me.
Juraj
5 months ago |+1
or 100-300/4
Es
5 months ago |f/4 @ 300mm? Keep on dreaming. It would weigh at least 1kg, and that would be good.
homer
5 months ago |Isn’t that what they said about the Panasonic x zooms? And look at how small they turned out to be!
digifan
5 months ago |Well even F3.5 – F4.5 would be great if it retains the same dimensions, that would be considered a very big improvement I guess.
sneye
5 months ago |Why? If it ain’t broken don’t fix it. I don’t own a 75-300, but it looks to be a decent optic from what I see. Quite a bit of exotic glass in that tube.
Camaman
5 months ago |I bet its gonna be just a cosmetic update.
Hopefully I am wrong and they at least make it f4-5.6
Justin
5 months ago |Yes 150-300 f/4.0-5.6 would be a dream. It would need to be a bit bigger, but I’m fine with that as this is the ultimate killer app for the EM-5. Lightweight, stabilized, 600mm equivalent. What else could you want for.
Justin
5 months ago |I meant to say 75mm on the short end.
Rasmus
5 months ago |Yep, an excellent lens, as long as you don’t mind using ISO 3200 or higher all the time.
MAFAv8r
5 months ago |I only occassionally have to use ISO above 1600 with it using the IBIS on the EM-5. It is a beautiful lens, tiny, and well worth the price. Good enough for me to think seriously about selling my 50-200 and 1.4 now that I have taken around 1000 shots through it. Great for birding.
Rasmus
5 months ago |I have the 100-300 and even though it’s faster than the Olympus I consider it more or less useless during the winter months. All I get is tons of noisy ISO 3200 pictures. Yup, I get a few good pictures under a tropicak sun, but I can’t afford going there all the time.
MikeH
5 months ago |The revised lens will be silver only. No more black lenses without the additional $200 premium.
Bob B.
5 months ago |2.8-4.5 (or 5,6 even) if Oly can tighten up the IQ and CA at the 300 end. I would prefer to see sharpness, with size and cost lower. Realistically I doubt that you will see this lens at 3.5 or 4.0 at the long end …it would be big and expensive…but ya never know…
Onur
5 months ago |Interesting.
I just purchased Pana 45-175 as it is much more cheaper. I wonder if OLy can come up with something that is more comparable in terms of price?
Secondly, Shall we expect a huge price drop on the current version?
OMega
5 months ago |You cannot really be comparing Pannas 45-175 with Olys 75-300, they are hardly the same range.
TheEye
5 months ago |4.8-6.7? No thanks!
Matthias
5 months ago |+1. Especially because the IBIS of my E-M5 is not very good from 100mm…
fan_guo_lai_xiang_xiang
5 months ago |I haven’t got experience with other tele lenses, but the IBIS of my EM-5 easily beats the OIS of the Pana 45-200 on the long end.
I hope version II of this lens will become a little brighter, at least to be on par with the Pana 100-300.
Bob B.
5 months ago |+1
Yun
5 months ago |I think Olympus make a mistake in this one .
Same aperture as previous model .
Where is the next tele prime lens ???
150mm F2.0 ???
E-1
5 months ago |I know I sound like a broken record, but I want a m43 replacement for my 50-200/2.8-3.5 which is such a superb lens
(price, quality, size, weight, brightness)
SSP Eric
5 months ago |+100
And don’t forget — weatherproof!
DonParrot
5 months ago |Just purchased a used E-30 to get my 50-200 SWD back into action.
SteveO
5 months ago |Same pitiful 4.8-6.7 aperture range as the old one? What’s the point? This is a poor mFT replacement for the 4/3′s 70-300mm that’s faster and far cheaper at $400.
Come on Olympus, bring on some real zooms of 4/3′s HG quality (i.e., the 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 for $1200) but at least mildly reduced size.
DonParrot
5 months ago |I don’t think so. If the OBS camera comes later this year, we will be able to use all our fine FT lenses on this camera. So why replace them by something that will be only marginally smaller, anyway.
Miroslav
5 months ago |900 USD is too much for such a lens. 300 dollars is what its price should have been. That’s why it didn’t sell. I hope Oly will realize that.
OMDuser
5 months ago |I don’t need any f/6.7.
I have 75/1.8, therefore I don’t care what is aperture and optical quality at wide 75-300. Much more important form me is range 150-300mm, and the long end is much more important than wide end.
I don’t want slow 300mm. f/4 can be acceptable, I doubt if I buy f/5.6. For me, very intresting can be 50-200 with f/3.5 or f/4 at the long end, or better 90-250mm with f/4.
With reasonable size for micr43.
DonParrot
5 months ago |Well, even at f6.7 you can shoot fast moving subjects and get a nicely shallow DOF, with this lens:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/63427925@N00/7382599964/sizes/o/in/set-72157629685074626/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/63427925@N00/7382600854/sizes/o/in/set-72157629685074626/
It definitely isn’t a stellar lens but has got what it takes to amaze if you use it in the right conditions.
Ramasubramaniyan
5 months ago |4.8 to 6.7 aperture for the 75-300mm??
They could as well not release such a lens!
Pathetic for a company that claims to superior in optics..
Mr. Reeee
5 months ago |I’ll stick with my 100-300mm, thank you.
What is it with Olympus and slow zooms? Sure they want to keep them small, but not at the cost of usability and flexibility.
caver3d
5 months ago |Wow, I actually agree with Mr. Reeee. I’m happy with my Pany 100-300. And can use it with the E-M5 IS or GH2 and OIS. And it’s much less expensive.
Mikey
5 months ago |Admin, what about the black version of the Olympus 12mm lens? Online sellers are reporting that lens as discontinued as well. Is this one of those times when a company really means limited edition?
AMVR
5 months ago |I never understood how could they charge SO much for this f6.7 lens, that’s a ripoff plain and simple, Oly should pay people to get this lens. They should focus on a fast-ish std zoom (12-45 f2.5-4), like Fuji has for their X mount, how come they released such a lens so quickly in their roadmap and Oly hasn’t come close after all these years ? Considering it’s made for APS-C it’s remarkably small(contrary to what everyone expects from fast zooms, even for m4/3), Oly should have no problem making something equal if not better.
Andy
5 months ago |The 75-300 was not made for aps-c – the ft 70-300 was borrowed from sigma.
Many people who criticise the 75-300 have never used it. It is very compact and sharp at 300mm wide open. I would like a faster lens but as well as this lens. A faster lens would be bigger and heavier. This lens serves a purpose – a light, compact, sharp telephoto – it does that in an exemplary fashion. My only gripe is lack of weather sealing. Oh, and I’d like a 300/4 prime too!
digifan
5 months ago |Also the AF is very very fast on the current 75-300
Kabe
5 months ago |+100. Lens has excellent AF and works like a charm when used at the OM-D with ISO 1600.
DonParrot
5 months ago |+ another 100
Ross
5 months ago |Well then, maybe the new MkII version will be just as good at a cheaper price, I hope!
Harold GLIT
5 months ago |well this is supposed to be a light optic so the silly ramblngs for a 2.8 lens are looking for a completely different lens not a replacement
it would be nice if they could get a WEATHERSEALED lens , unless olympus claims again that a 150mm-600 is supposed to be used indoors too
personally I would rather have a 4-5.6 75 to 200mm . which is the limit for handheld images
Harold
Matt
5 months ago |It’s marked as discontinued because like all 4/3 lenses, it is. Ask any distributor. It just happens to be out for good at B&H.
I walked into two shops in my region looking for a 35-100. Asking if they can order, took them seconds to look it up in their distributor catalog/printout, and it was listed as “discontinued” too. This was 8 months ago.
It has nothing to do with a replacement. Doesn’t make any business sense.
Don Pope
5 months ago |This is a micro 4/3 lens, not 4/3.
shep
5 months ago |I’d be happy with, say, f5.6 at 300mm and will grudgingly accept f6.7 in exchange for the very low lens weight. A 300mm at f2.8 will have extremely low DOF, which is a real problem for wildlife (moving subjects). I currently use my Oly 40-150mm at about f7.1, not its maximum f5.6, for wildlife to increase DOF and deal with less than perfect focus as well as moving subjects. The ability to use high ISO in cameras such as the OM-D with very little loss of quality means that superlarge apertures are much less important than they used to be.
To use f2.8 properly at such long focal lengths you need a camera with super-precise focusing. A big CaNikon is needed for that. Such a lens would itself be big and heavy, not exactly the point of MFT. I’ll stick with my OM-D and appropriate-sized lenses.
Nordens Paris
5 months ago |Thats nice! I would also like to se a new version of the 14-150 with better speed and weather sealing. At least f3.5/5.6, maybe even a bit wider 12-150mm. It’s such a nice alround hiking lens.
Type-R
5 months ago |Yup, they’ll stick a big R in front of the f6.7 like so f6.7R just like they did with the 40-150 4.5-5.6R and you’ll get a spiffy new barrel design too. Optics? Same old same old 75-300 i’ll betcha.
emde
5 months ago |As long as they sell it for 500 EUR then, I am fine and will finally get it
-
5 months ago |So, summarizing most of the comments hier leads to the demands for a brighter, cheaper and better version of the 75-300?!
I wonder, do some of even think about the relity while posting?!
MAke it brighter (half a stop at the long end), and it will get heavier. Make it a lot brighter (1-2 stops at the long end) at it will be a lot heavier, and more expensive too.
I rather expect a weather sealed version (with a premium price tag!), it would be welcome for me, but if the premium price is 100 € at most. An R version is another good guess but somehow I do not believe it – “R” are only kit lenses up to now, and the 75-300 is no kit lens.
A remade optical design with less CA and more sharpness and built-in hood would be nice, but this will cost even more and I wonder how many of us would really want to pay for it. The same way I wonder how many of the ppl, demandind a 100-30/4 or 75-300/2.8-4 would like to pay the price and would also like to carry it – the ease of designing small objectives for µFT and other systems with small flange back diminishes with the incerasing focal length; look at the 40-150 FT and µFT..
Justin
5 months ago |I’ll pay the price and carry the extra weight. 75-300 or 100-300 4-5.6
homer
5 months ago |I think before I post, and yes, I want a brighter zoom. Much brighter even. F4 at the long end. It’s not gonna be stupidly big or heavy like you say. At least not for the people that are interested in photography instead of trying to fit the entire m4/3s line in our pocket.
-
5 months ago |There’s no way that, say a 50-200 2.8-3.5 for µFT will be that smaller and lighter than the FT one. A Sigma 100-300/4 weighs around 1.5 kilos, and even if it would be built for FT (or APS-C) it won’t be that smaller or lighter – just compare, lets say a Sigma 50-150 OS with a 70-200 f2.8 zoom for 35 mm.
No, most of you post without having any common sense or at least some knowledge about opics.
The xtra weight for 4-5.6 might be “just” 100 grams (fot instance) but then again this is almost 25% more weight. And thene again, if there is a market demand for it, Oly will let it out. I however doubt this – it’d be for sure more expensive than the current one and besides, Pana makes one which is at least 100 euro less expensive.
At the end – I would place my bet on a weather-sealed version, which is more expensive than the current one.
AlexV
5 months ago |BTW, maybe a tripod collar please
Incessant Troll
5 months ago |i love it how everyone is posting what they want. it is already designed and being manufactured. it is not the focal length, aperture, or price that you want. there is no lens hood. one color. eta for other color in limited and $300 more expensive = 12 months.
Hojk
5 months ago |It´s f/6.7 but you can use it at this aperture in contrast to 70-300 FT and 100-300 Pana which need f/7.1 to get sharp images @300mm!
I own a 70-300 FT via MMF-2 anyway as the 75-300 is overpriced, anyway
Ross
5 months ago |I’m still using my 4/3′s ZD70-300 lens too, but I would like something that will focus a lot faster & not be any darker than that lens & also be sharper at the long end. It would be worth paying for if such a lens was available.
OldAlaskan
5 months ago |A 250mm f/4 would have about 1/2 the mass of a 300mm f/4. I don’t really mind carrying big lenses, but I think I’d actually prefer a 250mm f/4.
EJP
5 months ago |f/6.7 is simply too slow and is uncompetitive. If it isn’t f/5.6 and the competition is, it will be outsold.
DonParrot
5 months ago |As I wrote further up, I can’t agree, here. it isn’t a stellar lens but very good and when the weather is fine, it can be used at f6.7 for nice action shots and produces a lovely bokeh.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/63427925@N00/7382599964/sizes/o/in/set-72157629685074626/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/63427925@N00/7382600854/sizes/o/in/set-72157629685074626/
-
5 months ago |Most of them write about the lens they’ve never used, so i wouldn’t bother commenting the nonsense. Pity, but that’s the internet foto-forum indeed – a bunch of people, comment equipment they’ve never used, asking for more which the’ll again never buy or use
sweln
5 months ago |14-50mm 2.8-3.5
75-300m 3.5-4.8
That should be fair to me.
avds
5 months ago |Oh well the cosmetically updated case similar to the one on the MZ 40-150 REV2 versus REV1 must be heading our way.