At what price would you buy the Olympus 150-400 PRO?

[ijm5012]

The 150-400 is shaping up to be a very special lens, offering nearly un-matched telephoto flexibility. However, that flexibility will come at a cost, literally, as we know the lens will not be cheap. I'm curious as to what price people would be willing to pay for such a lens.

It's pretty safe to assume that it won't come in at below $2k, as the PL 100-400 comes in at $1,800 USD, and is a slower, variable aperture lens. So, we'll start there...

 

[TNcasual]

You forgot to include “First born child” as an option.

 

[retiredfromlife]

Voted no interest as I a sure this will be out of my price range, happy to be wrong though.

I am still hoping for Olympus to give an alternative for the Panasonic 100-400 that is in the price range that is not more expensive than the 300 F4. Time will tell I suppose.

Still an interesting lens though

 

[ijm5012]

Voted no interest as I a sure this will be out of my price range, happy to be wrong though.

But that's the point of this thread: To say what price range you WOULD purchase this lens in, not what price you think it will be released for.

It sounds like if it were in the $2k-4k price range, it may garner your interest.

 

[retiredfromlife]

But that's the point of this thread: To say what price range you WOULD purchase this lens in, not what price you think it will be released for.

It sounds like if it were in the $2k-4k price range, it may garner your interest.

Yes you are correct, so I changed my vote for that price range
Edit the 2K-4K would have to be AUD not USD

 

[ac12]

Even at $2k it would be way above my budget, so without a client to charge it to, I would NOT buy it.

If I had unlimited funding, then a guess at the MSRP.
The similar focal length Nikon 200-400 f/4 lens is a $7,000 lens.
So my guess is the MSRP of a 150-400/4 will be around there or slightly less, so $5-7K, so I would target $6K.

edit: Reading the other thread, makes me think maybe HIGHER. Maybe closer to $8K+

 

[DennyVanNostrand]

Not that I don't believe it will be special, but what is so special about this lens. I'm not well versed in long zooms.

 

[wjiang]

Not that I don't believe it will be special, but what is so special about this lens. I'm not well versed in long zooms.

Pretty much as the focal length gets longer and the aperture smaller (relatively, f/4 is pretty fast for a supertelephoto), things get into exotic territory. Anything with the M.Zuiko Pro designator has been great thus far, and an exotic M.Zuiko supertelephoto zoom is as exotic as they come.

 

[Bidkev]

A cost accountant would have field day with some of these long fast lenses used by amateurs....................totally non cost effective. How much use will they get at the long end? How many keeper shots taken/cost per shot. Could those shots be covered by a similar length but slower lens? blah blah blah

The only "need for speed" that I have is in the rainforest, my state being as sunny as it is all year round, and I reckon I take less than 200 shots a yr in there so my panny 100-400 has me covered most of the time and even that was bought due to GAS as my 75-300 did a bloody good job and I reckon I could well manage without the panny...............it's a luxury so something more expensive would be even more so.

No doubt some pros would think it worth the splash and even some cashed up amateurs may well splash out also, but for myself, being the tight arse that I am, even if I was cashed up, I'd give it a miss if over 2K but I reckon you'd be looking at >4k and more likely nearer to8k

 

[retiredfromlife]

A cost accountant would have field day with some of these long fast lenses used by amateurs....................totally non cost effective. How much use will they get at the long end? How many keeper shots taken/cost per shot. Could those shots be covered by a similar length but slower lens? blah blah blah

While I agree to a certain extent;
To me hobbies have nothing to do with how cost effective they are. If we can afford a chosen hobby we just do it to the best of our means.

It is the same as the watch we select or cloths or our car. We often buy style / taste over function to a certain degree. How many of us just select water when we go out. [probably quiet a few I guess]

But that is not to say we should not optimise our spending to get maximum value for the not so easily obtainable cash reserves.

 

[Bidkev]

While I agree to a certain extent;
To me hobbies have nothing to do with how cost effective they are. If we can afford a chosen hobby we just do it to the best of our means.

It is the same as the watch we select or cloths or our can. We often buy style / taste over function to a certain degree. How many of us just select water when we go out. [probably quiet a few I guess]

But that is not to say we should not optimise our spending to get maximum value for the not so easily obtainable cash reserves.

I agree. It's a poll based on personal choice which is what I refer to and I'm not knocking anyone who wants to splash out. I'm simply saying that a lens that price wouldn't be considered cost effective by a cost accountant, and that is the way I look at (any) purchases before I buy, having once (many, many yrs ago) studied cost accountancy, which I utilise to be "canny with my cash". I know it's not in fashion nowadays, and that generally, the adage that "you can't take it with you" seems to be more en vogue amongst many senior citizens that I am acquainted with, but what I leave to my kids is a priority for me, one of them being autistic and never likely to command a good salary so I wouldn't even consider spending >2k and even then, only if I funded it via selling other stuff

 

[DennyVanNostrand]

Pretty much as the focal length gets longer and the aperture smaller (relatively, f/4 is pretty fast for a supertelephoto), things get into exotic territory. Anything with the M.Zuiko Pro designator has been great thus far, and an exotic M.Zuiko supertelephoto zoom is as exotic as they come.

That does sound exciting. That would be so cool if Olympus had a rig that was the envy of the camera world. I'm partial to my baby, but you know.............

 

[Lcrunyon]

I can honestly say that my wife and I enjoy doing nature and wildlife photography more than anything else, and this is a lens that I certainly want and have been waiting for. At this point I am seriously considering buying it even at a price on the higher end of this poll, but not without reservations. I can't be 100% certain until I know more about how it really performs. In the unlikely scenario that I think it is underwhelming for the asking price (a subjective measure, to be sure), I'll change my mind. I have one more caveat as well... I know it doesn't have to be, but for me this lens purchase is also tied to the E-M1X. While the E-M1 MkII is a great camera, I am not sure it is worth spending that much money on a lens just to put it on a body that is not at the top of the ladder with regards to shooting nature and wildlife. There are a few things I would like to see out of the E-M1X in order for me to feel it achieved what Olympus' strategy set out to do with it. I can see how they aimed at this with the E-M1 Mk II, but fell a little short compared to what are currently the top of the wildlife photography cameras. They're all things that I feel are within reach, and if the E-M1X and this lens surpass those bars, then I will probably be getting both.

 

[pdk42]

I had a 300/4 for a little while and it was a superb lens. I only sold it since I really wasn't using it enough. If I had one complaint though is that it wasn't a zoom. Lenses of this sort of focal length beg for some more framing flexibility so a 150-400 sounds ideal, especially if it can remain an f4.

If I ever need this sort of focal length again and the 150-400 performs as well as the 300 then I'd buy it at anything under $4k. Anything above that and I'd start to question my sanity

 

[speedy]

I can see it being in the 10K range personally. Zero interest at that, or even half that.

 

[pake]

I want that lens but unfortunately I (ATM) simply cannot justify spending over 1000 EUR on a lens like that. So I settle for my 100-300mm mk2...

 

[rogazilla]

I picked 2-4k but I am not a professional sports photographer nor someone who goes to every airshow or do birds year round.

I think if this is targeted for the pro, then it will carry a price accordingly. we can scream and shout how it is not for the masses... there are lenses for the masses. If the em1x weight in at about 2lb and they can keep this lens at less than 5lb. That's an advantage of 4lb over the 1dx + canon 200-400 combo. Not to mention the extended reach it will have over the Canon combo. The price of the Canon Combo is about (5500 body + 11000 lens). If Oly keeps their combo at (3000 body and 10000 lens) that is a 3000 saving already.

Otherwise keep beating the price of olympus product and complain that you wont be buying one really means nothing to olympus because you are simply not the targeted buyer for the gear... It will be really interesting to see what the body and lens can do though and if em1 is on a 3 year cycle, 2020 we may see some em1x tech being used in refreshing the em1 mkiii.

 

[davidzvi]

I voted not interested and money is not the issue. I just don't have the skill or patients, time, and interest to develop the skill. When I shot Nikon DX I would go between one of the 70-300mm options and the older 80-400mm, so 450mm and 600mm EQ. I've been hoping for a sub 100mm to sub 300mm f/4 (90-250mm maybe?). Maybe when the PL50-200 comes down a bit in price and the P1.4 TC is actually available I'll consider it.

 

[Mack]

It'll be interesting to see where the price point falls.

Adding PRO to the name implies it might have weather sealing that the $1,800 Panasonic 100-400mm doesn't have (Or does it?). The aperture thing, if it is f/4 throughout, will mean it has the front size of a dinner plate (~4" to 5" dia.) on the front and most of the full-frame versions use drop-in filters in a tray, but don't know about this thing.
Going to the heavier amount of glass used in a full-frame lens, with a larger exit pupil for a larger image circle than a APC-C/DX lens, will add a lot of weight too. Nikon has some VR/OIS zooms in DX size under $700 too, but they are variable aperture and not weather sealed (Okay. Not that sharp either!). Lots of plastic too which Olympus PRO may not have.

Been wondering about that claim of 5-axis stabilization too. Seems it would need some feedback from the sensor and all the user-selectable AF tuning points to work out.

I've noticed Olympus has lowered the price of many of their lenses recently. Might be the closing of the China plant and going elsewhere. I paid $1,299 for the 45mm PRO, and now it's down to $999 along with the other two PRO primes. The 300mm came out at $3K but is now down to $2,500 and on sale at times for $2,300.

Have to wait and see what the MFT looks like too. If they pull off another 12-100mm f/4 PRO MFT with that one winning a "Best Lens of the Year" award, this might cause a high price. If it doesn't, who knows. Having sold this stuff prior, go too high and people will buy the Panny, with a larger zoom range too, if the MFT is similar. Don't know if Olympus can pull a Leica price methodolgy -- yet.

 

[Phocal]

This lens is going to be expensive, large, and heavy...……………….I am ok with that.

This combined with the EM1X shows that Olympus is really going all in on m4/3 and finally playing to the strength of the crop sensor with respect to reach. Honestly the camera and lens are like my dream coming true. They come out with the camera I have wanted since switching to Olympus, full on integrated grip. Now they release rumors of a lens that is close to the Canon lens I always wanted for outdoor sport shooting but with the additional reach of the crop factor it is now a serious wildlife zoom. 800mm of reach at f4.0 lowers that gap a full frame camera has over m4/3, the closes you can get for full frame is 800mm at f5.6...……...so a stop closer in DoF (matters little to me does seem to bother some) and a stop closer in noise.

Now if they would just release a 400mm f2.8 I would think I died and went to photographer heaven.