New Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II lens

Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75-300mm F4.8-6.7 II lens

In addition to the XZ-10 camera, during the CP+ show next week, Olympus will also announce a new M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II lens for Micro Four Thirds (pictured above). Olympus advertised the older, already discontinued, version as the "the world's smallest and lightest 600mm super telephoto lens". The new lens will be available only in black color (the previous version was available also in silver).

Here are two additional images of the XZ-10:

Olympus-XZ-10-black Olympus-XZ-10-white

Via Digicame-info

This entry was posted in Olympus. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • mythbuster

    I expect they this time don´t say again it is “the world’s smallest and lightest 600mm super telephoto lens”, because it is a 300 mm lens. The Nikon P510 zoom is 1000 mm equivalent (with a tiny sensor) and far smaller than this.

    • Olympus sure has pathetic marketing department, calling this kind of announcement for “Big annoucement” and making a fuzz on their facebook page. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind product upgrades, it is just way to overdo things.

  • Slaven

    So, Xz-10 has 1/2,3 sensor and 27-135mm in 35mm EQV lens.

  • one day they’ll do a 55-400 5.6/8 saying it’s a world class leading invention : the most unusable tele lens !

  • Sebastian

    It’s not clear to me why pretty much no mount system has long budget primes. Nikon F -no. Canon eos -yes, but no IS. None of the third-party makers, either, and none of the mirrorless systems. But most have a long zoom, which turns out to be to slow at the long end or too soft wide open.
    M43 for example needs a 300 f/4. Simple as that.
    And hopefully Panasonic makes it so it’s somewhat reasonably priced. And has a hood.

    • spam

      That’s easy, consumers want zooms. Convenience is much more important than IQ. ANd the camera makers make what mot people want.

      • Sky

        if “consumers” would want zooms there would be no primes in the world.

      • Sebastian

        I think the market is much more differentiated. Sure there are people who only want zoom and they are the majority. Then there are professionals for whom only the best image will do because competition is tough. But in the middle is still a sizable market. And that market IS being served with shorter primes, even expensive ones. It’s just that for some reason the lens makers ignore us when it comes to long lenses.
        How tough can it be to design a 300 f/4? Maybe all the good designs are patented already? If oly did it they didn’t even have to worry about IBIS (of course the optional hood would cost as much as a kit zoom :-/.)

        • spam

          Of course there is a market for primes too, but Olympus and others make what the majority want/need first. They have limited resources and a 300mm F4 isn’t going to sell well. It’s not fast enough to be interesting for most pros, too limited and possibly expensive for most consumers. IMO Olympus is doing the logical thing with mFT. It’s strength is compact size so they design compact lenses first, then fill out with some high(er) quality primes with focal lengths they expect is easy to sell and which fit a compact system.

          There wont be many people doing sports or birding anyway with mFT until they get focus tracking to work well. Then we might see some longer focal lengths and/or faster lenses. Personally I’d like to see a 70-400, 100-400 or similar for mFT, but I don’t expect it anytime soon.

  • 300mm f/6.7… if it’s not for the stabilisation this lens couldn’t be shot at ISO 100 even in bright daylight. 600mm f/13.4 equivalent on full frame… can’t contain the excitement

    • jamie

      the DOF at 600mm f/13.4 on full frame would be vastly different than that of 300mm f/6.7on m4/3 though, and at that focal length you’ll more likely use a tripod than handheld. The Olympus IBIS is great but even with the new 5-axis one in the OM-D it’s still no match for the lens based systems from Canikon and others.

      • Erik

        That depends on what you are after ofcourse. I can’t speak for how effective the canikon lensbased systems are as I haven’t tried them but they don’t offer rotating stabilization meaning that the shake induced from pressing the shutter isn’t compensated like it is in Olympus. Ofcourse, that isn’t likely to matter much on the long tele end.

        • jamie

          no that doesn’t depends on what you are after at all. The advantage of ibis is that it’ll work with every lens and its cheaper to produce lens for the system ala olympus and pentax, but that doesn’t necessary mean it’s better, especially at the tele end of focal length and in low light situation, where lens based IS has an advantage in speed and accuracy that sensor based IS just can’t match at the moment(eg. panasonic vs olympus). I guess you’ll have to go and use one to see what i mean.

        • Sky

          pressing a shutter causes camera to rotate?
          Wow… these olympus shooters got seriously strong index finger. And completely unstable cameras.

          • mythbuster

            As the shutter button is not in the axis that goes through the gravity center of the camera, depressing that button always produces an angular momentum that causes camera rotation.

          • Sky

            That’s why you hold a camera by the lens – so that there would be no angular movement. I suppose in m4/3 it’s not always possible due to small size of lenses, but everywhere else? Angular momentum doesn’t exist as a problem.

          • mythbuster

            Ok, I only was trying to explain to you the physics involved in this matter, but you are free to say Olympus engineers they are wrong, can forget this problem and better work in some useful matters you know.

      • Sebastian

        The DOF for the two scenarios above is identical. For example, it’s 0.88 m for a subject distance of 20 m. That’s what online calculators return, and it makes sense.

      • No… you’ll have to look this one up

  • pl capeli

    can this suck less than the first one? too slow at the short and long end…

    obscenely expensive for this type of lens ,,,they couldn’t squeeze a half stop in ? Olympus either makes great glass, or sucky glass… its like microsoft crapping out great versions of windows and sucky ones …..corporate schizophrenia

    and im a m43 system user with 5 bodies

  • Raffwal

    I just bought into m43 and not NEX due to the better native lenses. And this is what they release: a telezoom dark as the night!

  • As someone looking for a long lens for m4/3, I am a bit disappointed with the darkness of this. It could be a great system for wildlife, but they don’t seem to have done as much to shrink telephotos as the wonderful wide angle primes. Maybe Panasonic will make something? After all, they are making some larger bodies like the GH3 and I don’t expect it to be all that small (but smaller than APS-C, for sure).

    • Sebastian

      In telephotos the size of the image (=sensor) does not have a great impact on the front element diameter, and that determines to some extent the overall volume and weight of the lens. Check filter size vs. f divided by f# (yielding the pupil diameter for an infinitely small sensor). For long f these are nearly the same, but for short f the front needs to be much larger to avoid vignetting.

  • Camaman

    Oh-Oh! They are playing the same game, again!

    I can see what we have going on here!

    THERE IS NO COSMETIC RING that hides the ugly thread on the front of the lens like the one on current 14-42 kit lens ! ! !

    I guess that will be $50 exxxtra!! But it will be metal…;-P

  • Back to top