Zuiko 70-300 coming - Oct.

[Mr. Pickles]

I agree with Max in that we need to behave a bit better.

Also, the Sigma version that is rumored to be rebadged, has a "macro feature", and no where have I read that the Olympus 70-300 also has a "macro feature". Right?

Also, Olympus may say it is built better, and I'd say to wait and see rather than assume it is junk. Olympus has "said" it is a $399 lens, but Sigma says their 70-300 APO lens is actually a $300 lens. This of course is the manufacturers price, so we could also assume that places like BHPhoto will sell it for $300 or so.

If it has a bit better build, isn't it worth $100 more? If it doesn't have a "macro feature", is it better or worse than an actual Sigma?

Each purchaser needs to decide.

[Max@Home]

...and another thing we (or at least I) do not know yet: will the glass inside be 'Sigma' or 'Zuiko build after Sigma specs' ? There could be a little to a LOT difference in that aspect regarding the final IQ, too!

...€0.02 more...

Max@Home

[Olyirrisistity]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

I agree with Max in that we need to behave a bit better.

Hear! Hear!
Honestly dougjgreen, my posts were kind of light-hearted dialogue. Didn't expect you received them the way you did. My use of the word "knowledge" was intended to be impersonal, simply to constrast with "speculations", which are the only things we've got so far, since the lens has not yet been released.

[dougjgreen]

Originally Posted by Olyirrisistity

Hear! Hear!
Honestly dougjgreen, my posts were kind of light-hearted dialogue. Didn't expect you received them the way you did. My use of the word "knowledge" was intended to be impersonal, simply to constrast with "speculations", which are the only things we've got so far, since the lens has not yet been released.

Well, the way I interpreted them was that, irrespective of what you intended, you came off like a complete jerk. I was not speculating. I was stating the obvious to anyone who has a clue how these things work in the industry.

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

Also, the Sigma version that is rumored to be rebadged, has a "macro feature", and no where have I read that the Olympus 70-300 also has a "macro feature". Right?

As for whether or not the Olympus lens is also a macro lens - the following quote is lifted directly from the Olympus website:

"Additionally, due to its unique optical design and impressive minimum focusing distance, this telephoto lens enables consumers to get up-close (38 inches / 0.96 meters) to subjects when taking macro shots - essential for capturing the intricate detail of a flower or jewelry. The lens will be compatible with all E-System and Four-Thirds system cameras, and it will be available at an attractive price for consumers."

The minimum focusing distance of the Olympus lens happens to be the same as the Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro zoom. BTW, In other mounts, this Sigma lens is available NEW, from several reputable vendors on ebay, for prices WELL under $150. Here's one example:
eBay: SIGMA 70-300mm DG Lens Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT XTi (item 280133824608 end time Jul-19-07 17:14:55 PDT)

This is the lens that Olympus will be listing for $399, and we will be lucky to see it have a street price of $300 in 4/3 mount.

[Mr. Pickles]

Well, Sigma makes two versions of this lens, as you probably know. One is a DG version, and the other is an APO DG version.

The link you supplied that said it is the APO one, is not the APO one. The text doesn't indicate, and the picture is the non-APO one.

According to Sigma, the non-APO version has a MSRP of $200, and the APO version has a MSRP of $300.

If the Olympus one is a re-badged Sigma, then some may wish to bash Olympus for re-badging it, and selling it at a $100 premium, and that is fine. I would wonder if all they care about is Olympus because there are hundreds of product pushers that are selling products that are identical to lesser options everyday. Wal-Mart comes to mind. Think they have their own health care, or cookie and popcorn factory?

If you don't want to buy the 70-300 lens, than don't. I'm not going to, but not because I think they are ripping us off. I think Canon and Nikon rip off their customers everyday too. And if one got an new E-1 for $500 or $600, then they ripped off Olympus, and good for them.

[dougjgreen]

You are correct that the lens selling at 47th St. photo is not the APO lens. (The difference is that the APO lens has two more ED elements in the front group - and based on the Olympus spec, it's the APO lens that Olympus is rebadging) - so yes, the price difference is not as drastic as my previous post claimed.

And you are right, I have no intention of buying this lens. I am simply pointing out that the Olympus lens is, in fact, the Sigma lens. BTW, if this were actually a GOOD Sigma lens (of which there are many), I would have no objection whatsoever to Olympus re-badging it. My issue is that it's a lens that has been fairly consistently reviewed to be mechanically a piece of junk, and I'd prefer something better, even if it cost more.

[Mr. Pickles]

In my Canon days, I had a Sigma 70-300 lens, and I found it to be a decent lens for the money. I wouldn't go to war with it by any means, or crack someones skull open with it (because it may break rather than crack the skull), but I wouldn't say it was junk mechanically. It certainly wasn't above average or great, but given the price, it was what I expected.

In this scheme that Olympus has, it is certainly worthy of being in the bottom tier, where the kit lenses are. I'd say the kit lenses are built as well or a tad better, maybe. Optically, the Sigma was above average for the price and thus they get the same "optical love" as the Olympus kit lenses.

[Olyirrisistity]

I just discovered that I still got the Sigma APO 70-300mm bought for my Nikons a couple of years ago . So this is another reason for getting the Zuiko 70-300mm, even if just to find out if the two are indeed the same lens. Since the appearance has changed a lot in the Zuiko as compared to the Sigma, I would not be surprised if the innards have also changed. The only thing I dislike is if it's $400 in the US, then it would usually be £400 in the UK (as if we UK people don't know how to convert money! )

[dougjgreen]

Originally Posted by Olyirrisistity

I just discovered that I still got the Sigma APO 70-300mm bought for my Nikons a couple of years ago . So this is another reason for getting the Zuiko 70-300mm, even if just to find out if the two are indeed the same lens. Since the appearance has changed a lot in the Zuiko as compared to the Sigma, I would not be surprised if the innards have also changed. The only thing I dislike is if it's $400 in the US, then it would usually be £400 in the UK (as if we UK people don't know how to convert money! )

I would think that having one copy of a mediocre lens would be more than sufficient.

[Mr. Pickles]

Originally Posted by dougjgreen

I would think that having one copy of a mediocre lens would be more than sufficient.

Nope. One can never have enough junk. You ought to see my room here. Junk, junk, junk. It multiples while I am away. I got 100 CD's here with junk on them, and they ain't pictures. of course, none are labeled.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by dougjgreen

I would think that having one copy of a mediocre lens would be more than sufficient.

...perhaps he wants one per-lens-mount ??



Max@Home

[Olyirrisistity]

One can never have enough junk.

But seriously, what is the alternative if you want something in this focal range? Would you go for the ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 90-250mm F2.8, which is only 4kg in weight and £4000 in cost ?

[dougjgreen]

The Olympus autofocus alternative is the 50-200mm with a 1.4 TC - a known good solution, but over $1000. For me personally, I use a manual focus Tokina ATX 100-300mm f4 (Nikon AIS mount) that I bought on ebay for slightly over $100 a couple of years ago to use on my Nikon film bodies. In addition to being mechanically outstanding, it's fast and optically surprisingly good on 4/3.

[Olyirrisistity]

I’ve now got both the Sigma 70-300mm APO and the Olympus ZD 70-300mm, and I can confirm that although it can be said that the two are distant cousins, the Olympus is definitely not a rebadged Sigma, and it's worth every penny I've paid for it.

I tried out the new lens in the last couple of days by itself and with the EC14 and I must say, I’m very pleased with the results (as opposed to the results I’ve got from my Sigma ). It’s so good in the hand that it looks like it’s going to be my pick for a trip, instead of the well-respected Olympus 50-200m (The 70-300mm is much less bulky than the 50-200mm, even when the EC14 is added.)

Since there’s a good user’s review of the lens, much of which I agree with, I’m not going to repeat here what needs to be said, but leave you with the link to the review, together with a couple of the photos of the 70-300mm+EC14, as I know a few would be interested in this particular combination for long reach in a compact package.

Here is the link for the review:
http://www.43photo.com/blog/?p=121

And here are some simple photos by the 70-300mm+EC14 combination (All photos are resized jpgs without any other adjustment. All exif’ are left intact for those who want the data):

[Paul Shields]

Looking good. How well is it doing hand held at 300mm and with the EC-14? Is the IS on the E-3 helping a lot? That would be awesome if you can shoot equiv. 840mm hand held .