[shoplink 25320 ebay]
[/shoplink]
Image on top: the Four Thirds [shoplink 25320 ebay]Zuiko 14-35mm f/2.0[/shoplink]. Same quality can be expected by the new f/2.8 zoom.
–
Two sources told me that there will be a new High End MFT zoom lens. I don’t have reliable info about the lens specs but I have been told the lens has an f/2.8 aperture. There is no chance to see f/2.0 zoom like the [shoplink 25320 ebay]Zuiko 14-35mm f/2.0 (here one Bay)[/shoplink] or [shoplink 25119 ebay]Zuiko35-100mm f/2.0(here one Bay)[/shoplink] lens. But at least the new High End OMD will be able to use the full AF potential of these existing FT lenses.
P.S.: The new High End Lens and the High End OMD will be announced the second week of September!
—
For sources: Sources can send me anonymous info at 43rumors@gmail.com (create a fake Gmail account) or via contact form you see on the right sidebar. Thanks!
For readers: Don’t miss any news. Join our group on facebook and follow our tweets.
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
149 Responses
a single high end zoom? please make it a 12-60, and I’ll shelve out for both it and the high end OMD and never say anything nasty about Olympus again.
12-60mm is not high end lens though
It’s an HG (High Grade) lens with excellent optical performance.
oly 12-60 FT is superb lens, I know it, because I have one
I’ve had mine for four years.
Hello… while you using for 4 years…
Did you found any some problem like… the crash of data stripe broke ? ( inside the lens )
Coz my friends found problem about that quite much and some body got the same problem after fixed a few months later.
Thank you
Lot’s of 12-60 have problem with aperture and autofocus motor.
I re-buy a 14-54 and sell 12-60 just 1 months after because I found the aperture is relatively small than 14-54, with 14-54 you can reach f2,9 at 35mm but with 12-60 that’s almost f3,6 or something like that, that’s half stop different. But when we speak of image, 12-60 is the king.
ํThank you Enzojz 🙂 for your informations.
I just wanna know that how about other people in another land about 12-60.
Coz I’m not sure that my friends that using 12-60 are not big sample space to judged the 12-60 to be the weak reliable lens.
Then… If you say so…
I will go to 14-54 Mk II as well as i intend.
However… If anybody has another information or comment to share…
I’m pleasure to read your contribute.
^__^
I bought the original 14-54mm and 50-200mm the same day, and never had a desire to replace the 14-54mm with the 12-60mm, despite the wider view (with distortion) that was supposedly so wonderful.
I still don’t have anything wider than 14mm and bought the 14-35mm for better low light work and stunning image quality. If anything, I might buy an 11-22mm, as its narrow 2x range will have less distortion, although I’ll need a 77mm->72mm filter adapter.
Unfortunately, the micro Four Thirds zooms don’t compare in a positive way and my GH3 sits when I need a wider view.
So far no issues. However, I use the lens most of the time at its widest setting and the rest of the time at its longest setting. Since I don’t zoom all the time, I don’t stress the aperture control ribbon cable all that much.
Also, I don’t remove the lens shade too often, because a number of people have sheared off the three plastic sockets that hold the front element in place. Stuck aperture issues and ultrasonic AF motor failures are fairly often reported.
Applying pencil lead (graphite) to the contact surfaces will fix the tight hood issue. It just needs some dry lubricant.
Usually I have no reason to take the hood off. I also do have a proper dry lube that works on plastic.
SHG lens will not come on M43 :-p
Although not called SHG, the 75mm 1,8 is of SHG quality so SHG lenses could be on the agenda. I hope so.
Although probably not SHG, perhaps the new lens will be a 12-60 …. followed by a 50-200 (please).
When the (all new) E3 was released it was sold with the 12-60 as a package…. it was a logical promotion to try and draw people into the system. When the E1 was released the 14-54 & (still a phenomenal lens) 50-200 were available too.
But if the new camera will combine the use of FT & mFT lenses (even those SHG zooms) , perhaps the new lens will be a range that does not currently exist.
As there are are several Panasonic zooms in the wider range (OK with CA I agree) I would really like to see a quality 50-200 and if it is not available in November at least roadmapped by mid 2014
Even the 14-42 can get you pro results if you use it well, so what’s high-end really.
You better believe that the 12-60 is a high-end lens! Corner-to-corner sharpness throughout the range, wonderful bokeh, and near macro-capabilities. If I could use only one old 43 lens, it would be this one. M43 is sorely lacking in a high-quality general purpose lens (equivalent to a 24-105 or 24-120 in the SLR world). A new 12-60 coupled with a new high-end Oly flagship camera would be most welcomed news.
I don’t even like zooms and I’d buy a high-quality 12-60mm in a heartbeat!
Exactly !
I don’t use zooms but I would buy it too, if quality would be that of the HG 43 lens.
I use zooms only when equivalent primes do not exist, but I was at an event last weekend where having a 12-50 zoom would have been quite handy; ended up using the Sigma 30 a lot, and a good zoom can easily outspeed and outperform that. I have also seen others do some great work with zooms. Perhaps this is the final frontier for letting go of my “MTF fetishism”! 🙂
Here’s one of my favorite zoom-users.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/roseannadana/
That lens, being the greatest wide zoom I have ever used, would be an instant buy into m4/3 for me.
BUT, knowing olympus, the m4/3 version would be a stop or two darker and suffer from more software-corrected distortion.
Oly lenses are FAR from what they used to be.
Finely the upgraded 14-150. Weathersealed. Same size but faster.
A week or two ago the Olympus Rep was at my local camera store and said a 14-150 f2.8-?? was coming this fall along with a fast kit lens.
Rumour has it that the new lens is a 12-120 F2.8-4.5 weather-sealed. Same size as the current M.Zuiko 14-150!
How did you edit your post? You previously posted “12-120 F2.8-5.6.”
Some people get all the privileges. 😉
Maybe it works in one particular browser, or……????
Maybe Rumuor Chap is an alias for admin. 😉
Dyslexia struck again. I want to be able to EDIT MY POSTS! 😛
Why cant I when Rumour Chap?
You’re not trying hard enough! 😉
is it really impossible to make f2 zoom for mft?
It’s possible to go even faster: with Speed Booster that Sigma zoom is F1.2. But would Oly make 12-25 F1.2 zoom for 800+400 USD?
I agree with whiskybravo: I don’t see what can that new Olympus F2.8 zoom offer more than the two Panasonic zooms.
Yea no it doesn’t work like that.
F2 zooms worked like that.
Pana 12-35:
1) too expensive for what it is (although I doubt Olympus will decide to do better, even without OIS)
2) lacks in range, hard to use as a single walkabout lens without cropping, and on non-MAR sensors, wide end needs a mm or 2 too.
3) exhibits significant CA, especially closer to the short end
4) not weather-sealed properly
I am sure with software correction very decent 11-70 f/2-f/4.5 could be made light and small enough, and then it could be paired right with 75-300 instead of 40-150.
Strange, I don’t hear owners of 24-70mm lenses on FF (equiv FOV) complaining that they need an extra 2mm on the wide end or that the range is too limited without cropping.
In fact, it’s a favourite lens for many, just as the 70-100 is a favourite lens for others.
I’m a Nikon shooter and I’d happily complain about the 24-70. It’s really sharp, but it’s really big and heavy, and I much prefer the range of the 24-120 as a walk-around lens. (I wouldn’t mind the lens going wider, but I’m a landscaper and usually carry a wide-angle zoom for that.) A revamped 12-60 for M43 would be AWESOME.
Exactly!
Add the 7-14mm for the ultra-wide end and you’d be set.
I’d add that if they can make a high-end 50-200 in m4/3, the 4/3 “Holy Trinity” will live again!
7-14, 12-60 and 50-200… What else?
Agreed and would be totally satisfied (for a while);)
“Strange, I don’t hear owners of 24-70mm lenses on FF (equiv FOV) complaining that they need an extra 2mm on the wide end”
When you take landscapes with 3:2 crop of the imaging circles, it is actually wider, by about that same 2mm eq, than 4:3 crop of imaging circle. So 12mm on non-MAR m43 cropped to 3:2 or wider (as usual for those FLs) is not as wide as 24 mm on FF (which is 3:2 to begin with).
” or that the range is too limited without cropping.”
Year, that is why there are no fullframe 24-105, 24-120 etc, right?
On OM-D, the view in the viewfinder (which takes very good part of field of view, probably even bigger than I would like to view a picture) is only as big as reality at 40mm (80mm equivalent), 12-35 does not even go there so everything is smaller than just looking with your own eyes.
12-35 is great when you have a second body with 35-100 mounted on it, like for work. As a single walkabout lens on a single body – sorry, even 12-50 is limiting.
Thats a bit on the hair splitting side, me think.
The 12-35 is a great lens that can now be purchased cheaply from Japan. (I acquired the 12-35 for $900 and the 35-100 for $1040 off of a Japanese retailer on ebay. Original packaging, but Japanese instruction manual and warranty.
Moreover, it’s a remarkably compact lens. The 35-100 is especially tiny, considering it doesn’t telescope out. The 12-35 has an excellent range. 12mm is wide enough for most circumstances (the extra 2mm at the wide end of the range are so useful) and at 35mm you can create very pleasing portraits. No you’re not going to completely blur away the background, but you’ll get good subject separation while retaining some context (I hate it when the background is completely blurred away).
I’ve yet to encounter an owner of either lens who is not more than satisfied with it. Most of the complainers are tech geeks who have never shot with it and care more about specs than photos.
hmm i have never seen the 35-100 cheap from japan via ebay. In fact, japanese ebay sellers are the most expensive regarding to item price.(While usa ebay sellers shine in the highest shipping rates ever lol)
Could you give the name of that japanese ebay seller?
I have seen those sellers, but plunking $2K on electronics without warranty – thanks but no thanks. I wonder why Panasonic tries to stiff US market vs their domestic market?
And even at that prices the lenses are overpriced, compare to what you can buy Sony DT 16-50 for example ($600), which is definitely more expensive to make than 2-35 as it is made for much longer Alpha mount, has physically bigger aperture/front element and covers larger image circle. New APS-C Tokina 50-135/2.8 (again more expensive to make than 35-100/2.8) can be had for less than $600. Even real FF 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 can be had much cheaper than Pana MSRPs for their quarter-lenses (1/2 FL * 1/2 diameter of image circle = 1/4).
Sorry, but with 12-35 and 35-100 Panasonic is engaged in price gouging, just like Olympus used to with 75-300 (and look how they could suddenly reduce price to almost half in v2 while making lens better) and still does with primes.
1) half the price of the full frame. People here want all lenses to cost 500$ or less.
2)24-70 is the popular range in all formats. 16-50 is 24-75 in aps c
3)an over exaggeration that can be corrected with one click in lightroom. I use it on the OMD regularly and rarely have to correct it. If youre a JPEG shooter that cant be bothered with RAW then you should also stop buying high grade stuff you dont need. And at any rate, other f2.8 zooms have the same or higher ca.
4)The moron that put up the video of it gathering water inside tested it with the lens not attached to a camera, it needs to be on a weathersealed camera to get the sealing. People will believe anything
It will be Olympus for a start. 😉
Past rumours have been suggesting 12-40mm (among the patents, I believe). I would love something in the range of the 12-60 but that might not be the case. I’ll probably be trying to sweet talk my wife into letting me get this lens though.
If you use an Oly Body: You would not have the problems with CA like you have when you use a Pana lens with an Oly body 😉
no – but now Oly have a camera that works with 43 lenses they don’t need to make any F2 m43 lenses – they can just sell you the 43 F2 lenses… which are a similar size to m43 lenses but very good/the best optical quality.
So you F2 dream will be this new OMD and a pair of F2 43 zooms that would give you 14-100mm (28-00 equiv) all the way at F2 with fast AF and apature control.
This would also open up use of some special 43 glass like the 90-250mm F2.8-3.5, the 150mm F2 or the mosnter 300mm F2.8!
“…they can just sell you the 43 F2 lenses… which are a similar size to m43 lenses…”
Errr – not quite!
“This would also open up use of some special 43 glass like the 90-250mm F2.8-3.5…”
The 90-250 is F2.8 – all the way.
Maybe you mean the 50-200?
well a similar size as a m43 F2 lens would be – maybe not so much the 14-35mm but i doubt there would be much size change with the F2 35-100mm…
And yep I got me lenses mixed up – either way both those lenses would be amazing if proper AF on latest cameras!
Have you seen the size of that one ? As the sensor didn’t get any smaller, so can’t the lens, not much anyway. And that’d just be too difficult to sell i guess.
What can it add that the pana 12-35 and 35-100 don’t have? They are both great performers and weather-sealed!
If it won’t have OIS, it must have stellar performance.
Also, I have often wondered if the lens could have an IS sensor in the tip of the lens for greater accuracy of the IBIS.
I guess they could win it on range… e.g. f2.8-f4 12-60mm in 1 lense
here’s hoping for a single, wider range, lens.
I’m not buying into a 12-35/35-100 combo.
A high quality, wide-angle to medium tele zoom is about the only lens I would buy anymore. I’ll gladly compromise some on speed.
Non-extending body, which Pana 12-35 doesn’t have. Given the price, I wouldn’t use it in heavy rain or very dusty conditions.
Also extended zoom range and improved sharpness.
What good is a lumix lens going to do for olympus needing a high-end zoom that can be packaged with a high-end om-d?
12-40F2.8, 40-150F2.8, 80-300F4
12-40F 2.8,
50-150 F2.8 (smaller then 40-150)
90-250 F4 (smaller then 80-300)
filter size 58mm
250/4 = 62.5 mm front lense – rather 67 or 72 filter thread
even olympus cannot cheat physics.
Is this the 12-40mm that was rumoured a while back?
Finally!!! All HG lenses from Olympus are very well made and with wonderful optical capabilities. I am waiting for this lens from 2011.
If it’s not 12-60 f/2.8-4, 14-54 f/2.8-3.5 or similar, I can’t see how it will differentiate from the panasonic.
+10
Exactly. Not only that, I find 12-35mm too limiting. If I’m going to use a zoom, I want some range!
12-60mm would give an extremely useful amount of zoom range, without resorting to the 14-140mm with it’s loss of speed and image quality.
I’ve got both the 12-35 and 35-100 and they complement each other nicely. I understand that some people don’t think the 12-35 has enough range, but I think it cuts a nice compromise between range, speed, and size. The 12-35 is especially good for sightseeing in cities or in circumstances when you don’t need telephoto. My normal set up is 12-35 during the day and 25mm or 17mm 1.8 at night. Ultimately, I think having the 2 extra mm at the wide end is more valuable than having longer range. I find I don’t use the 9-18 as much as I used to now that I’ve got the 12-35,
Of course it all comes down to shooting style. For people who like shooting primes, it makes more sense to get the 35-100 than the 12-35mm, since there’s so much compact small glass.
Another similiar FL with F2.8 again ?
No way I’m going to get it .
F2.8 not consider fast enough for M4/3 in such focal length , it can be better .
I think you don’t get the point, we all miss a quality zoom with more than 12-35, we need more tele. Do you think Olympus can make a zoom with f2.0 without a huge case, look at the 75mm how big is it. For me, a HG with 12-50mm will be perfect.
But it will be as big as the 4/3 glass!
not necessarily. I’ve noticed that lens for m43 are somehow smaller than on 43.
http://fourthirds-user.com/galleries/data/550/P6299866.jpg
Look at this :
http://matthewpiers.smugmug.com/photos/797626192_pB2Hf-S.jpg
Oly 7-14 f/4 vs Pany 7-14 f/4, same FL, same aperture, very different size 🙂
And while the pana 7-14 is very nice it can’t hold a candle to the zuiko 7-14 iq wise.
I would say 2.8 for zoom is standard …good to have choice of Pana/Oly …definetly there will be some differences/nuances between Oly & Pana 2.8 zooms
…f/2 zuiko zooms are exceptional and some say Oly achieve f/2 by something similar like metabones
…if you need super thin DOF and have plenty of $ wait for NEX FF
Hey guys, stop complaining !!! if you don’t want the new lens: just don’t buy it !!! It’s great, you will have CHOICE !!!
September will be hot hot hot !
Lets dont forget their best selling lens the 50-200. I would love to see this in 2.8
Let s hope it is the 12-40mm which has been mentioned on this site several times
For a rumors site, we sure dont have a lot of rumors on the new olympus stuff, especially since this stuff is coming out in about a month
It’s normal. The GX7 specs have been leaked months in advance. The OMD specs not. But it goes always up and down like that. There are many factors invovled that I am not disclosing here.
It’s too bad they won’t make a budget-friendly 4-3rds body. I never really liked the E-510, that I am still using and I can’t wait to replace it. But I really don’t want to shell out 2k on a body.
If you could afford the E-M5 with grip you would be more than satisfied with that instead of your E510 (depending on what lenses you have now).
give us zooms f/2.8 and primes as fast as possible with filter size not bigger then 58mm (f/1.0)
Voitlander f/0.95 without AF has 52mm (25/0.95) or 58mm (17,5/0.95)
in such case we will have small primes (f/1.8) with filter size 37mm or 46mm, and bigger (f/1.0) with filter size 58mm (comparable to FF lenes with f/1.8)
Quality zoom lens there will be. The term ‘high end’ is subjective.
>The term ‘high end’ is subjective.
but usually means ‘quality’
If I may say, the differentiation may be that it’s optically perfect instead of being CA and distorted when on OLY cameras only? I have my 12-35 and hate the distortion on the wide end. Which doesn’t come up on PAna cameras
it’s a real shame Oly & Pan don’t correct for each others lenses properly … it kinda makes a mockery of the shared mount 🙁
I’m not a fan of zooms but this dies sound like an interesting future launch – agree it should be something other than a repeat of the Pan 12-35/35-100. the logical guess is something different like a 14-60 or 12-50 perhaps paired with a 50/60-150 tele.
wonder how the old 43 14-54/2.8-3.5 will perform on the new dual mount camera?
“it’s a real shame Oly & Pan don’t correct for each others lenses properly … it kinda makes a mockery of the shared mount 🙁 ”
+1000 they should correct each other lenses…
I was tempted trying dxo optics pro 8 which corrects all the optics on any body automatically
I hope the wide end is 12 and not 14!
do you want a 12-35 (or 12-40 rumor)
or would you prefer a 14-50 as an alternative to the Pan
Oly & Pan have done well to not repeat each other on the primes … can they really duplicate the Pan zooms or are they better to offer something properly different
“do you want a 12-35 or would you prefer a 14-50 ?”
aaarrggghhhh nooooo!!!!!!!!!
I want to have my cake and eat it. twice.
if I really have to choose I guess I’d opt for the 14-50.
To me 14mm rarely feels limiting – except for interiors. For landscape I’d rather do panoramas. But on the long end, you can never have enough. Obviously one could always crop but the loss in resolution is just too important.
for me, extending the zoom range is about become a single all round / all purpose lens. Its almost all or nothing.
I want to carry no other lenses or perhaps just a single specialty lens like macro or fisheye or long tele on the side.
The 14-150 has become my no.1 lens now – and while ok, I would give up some range for higher quality – but 3x zoom is just too limiting, and I dont want to carry (and pay for) 2 zoom lenses.
12-60/2.8-4 being a 5x zoom sounds like manna from heaven.
The new lens is the 12-120, weathersealed 2.8-5.6. Same size as the current Mzuiko 14-150. It will cost US$ 899,-
I also hope that it is a 12 and not a 14. A 12 – 40 or 12 – 60 would be perfect. I have not purchased the Pana 12 – 35 or 35 – 100 because of the issues that they have on Oly bodies.
i was thinking about buying those Panny lenses..
WHAT ARE THE ISSUES YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ?????
no correction of CA with Pana lenses and Oly bodies. that can make very bad results ooc. that’s one reason I never would buy a Pana lens for my E-M5. the other reason is, that the zoom range is to limited for me.
Hard to beleive for me regarding the latest E-M1 rumors.
Why should Oly bring out an M.Zuiko prime zoom while releasing an E-5 successor with full Zuiko pd-af-support. An M.Zuiko prime zoom we should have got while releasing the E-M5 oder the E-P5. Or is Olympus going to cancel the FT lens production?
Otherwise I would appreciate it to get a light and compaft prime zoom for my E-M5! But please, no 12-35. I need it some longer!
Yea it makes no sense.
If they are really releasing a camera with ‘full’ 4/3 support then there are two really good Zuiko standard zooms to choose from. No need for a new zoom.
Unless they want the smaller size to be more in keeping with the likely smaller body of the new camera. I am keeping my HG and SHG glass as it will sought after in a month or two.
Maybe Oly wants to sell a new zoom to E-M5 and PEN users?? 🙂
Then why introduce a 4/3 camera? that will only hurt sales of their new lens.
It doesnt add up.
It’s NOT a 4/3 camera, the OM-D Pro is a m4/3 camera, which is backwards compatible.
As for the new lens I explained that it means that Oly is going to phase out remaining 4/3 glass and offer an alternative.
Just think: how much of the old glass it could sell when ebayed zooms are now one half or 1/3 of the price at the full introduction price?
It does make sense for people that shoot only m43. The new cam is also something for both parties, not only 43 users, so it might even be a kit option.
Yes hard to beleive this but i think the is true the is high end M43 over E-M5 if this will support FT lens is this good, but all tech in E-M1 can easy build an E-7 if Olympus will so this is sone E-5.
Everybody is concerned about range, but what I would like to see are genre-specific zooms with limited range. They can be made better and faster than the best general purpose zooms.
When will we see a 12-25 f/2.5 for the street or a 40-70 f/2.8 for portraiture? Perhaps not very soon.
10 – 25 2.5 would be amazing.
interesting thought – but Oly still has the bases to cover – having no high optical quality m43 zoom.
in a way you have those “genre” zooms already, in the 9-18, 40-150 and 75-300 – but a step up in quality would be lovely.
Then again, if the zoom range is too limited (eg. 2x ) why not just have a prime somewhere in the best spot of that range – and gain on all fronts ?
You have a point. I myself am accustomed to primes and generally prefer them to zooms, but then I’m an amateur. I imagine professionals would appreciate small, high quality zooms with limited but sensible ranges.
These zooms would be very special and very expensive. Oly is producing for the mass market. To me it doesn´t make sense to make very special lenses while not covering the damand of a broader target group.
I think you could easily find many thousands of customers for a Pro 12-60 2.8, but only few hundred for a Top-Pro 12-25. Even if the prize would be the same.
Hmm, I wonder how well the IBIS on the new GX7 works. Oly zooms are getting more attractive …
From the few zooms I have used, only the zd 35-100 was to my liking, because of the awesome performance wide open at various zoom settings. Since such fast zooms prob wont happen in mft format, I guess the hybrid OMD will maybe allow Olympus to come with a few new FT primes and zooms (since i used the 35-100 alot at 100mm f/2, i would be very curious after a prime 100mm faster then f/2)
Do not forget FT 150mm f2.0,great lens.
oh I am sure yes, I hope to own in this life.
See the can be funny and use SHG 150mm F2 on E-M1 but i can use the on ny Pen for this. 😉
Sigma set a new standard when then announced the 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM. This has given the APS-C format an edge. MFT would do well to bring at least F2 zooms.
I have 14-35m f2.0 and 35-100mm f2.0, what a great lens, but they have a lot of weight, sigma is also big. I think something like 14-54mm in a little small case would be great.
Ultra-fast zooms don’t make sense to me. They are large, heavy and expensive. Moreover, they are required in a very limited set of circumstances. A prime or two somewhere in the same focal length represent only a minute compromise. The problem with 4/3 has always been the lack of fast primes, but m4/3 has plenty. The advantage of APS-C in low light / DOF control will not be shaken by f/2 zooms for m4/3.
Indeed the big FT zooms are huge and heavy, but this was the concept of the SHG series “same size/weight as the high end 24×36 zooms but better quality”. While HG series followed the “smaller size but equal quality to equiv lens”
Not really. On APS-C that is 28-52mm equiv. That is such a narrow range that, at least for me, I would rather have a 35 or 40mm. It would be lighter, smaller, and higher quality, and I wouldn’t be limited any more than by the zoom.
for me the 14-54mm would be great in f2.8. Maybe smaller, cheaper and more consistent than stretching to 12-60. That on an ep5 would be a great walk around system.
I bet its gonna be something like 12-40mm f2.8
Enough to make you cream not enough to be totally satisfied. 🙂
Finally. I have been waiting for this lens. I need it to become a real photographer. I’m a little disappointed though that it isn’t f/0.95. 🙁
hehe, good post 🙂
If we talk by zoom here, can i be alive by an F1.2 also,…thik i.
So maybe the new lens will be available in shops next year in April? 😉 12-50 2.8-3.5 would be nice. I could also live with 12-40, or starting from 14mm, or 3.5-4.0. And hopefully there will also be a better weather sealed 40-150 soon, so I don’t have to send my 40-150 for cleaning of dust every 6 months…
I can’t see what all this grumbling is about. New body with FT support – this means the best zoom, 12-60, will be usable. Are Oly stopping its production? Are they continuing/resuming it? That’s the question. The manufacturing of mFT lenses by Oly has so far shown that a zoom like 12-60, simply, cannot be made. But now we have the option of using the “old” 12-60 – I am looking forward to this. Sorry, I can’t see the problem. Big size and weight? Not really. There clearly is a marked reverse relationship of having IQ and small size with zooms. Do go for the “heavy and big” 12-60 with a smaller body and you will be as happy as possible.
That makes a lot of sense. F2.8 is as fast as they Gould do their zooms. Go with the SHG 4/3 path of making big heavy lenses and then they will lose the smaller m4/3 proposition just like they did with 4/3.
Don’t want to go the FT 12-60 road? One can do even better: carry three small mFT cameras (epm2) with three separate lenses: Oly 12mm f2, Leica 25 mm f1.4, Oly 45mm f1.8/75mm f1.8. Yes, at a price, a little heavier and bulkier, but not intolerably so! And IQ? Immensely superior!
The reason Olympus has to make faster lenses is to compete with the shallow depth of field. The image quality is there. I am happy at 2.0 but 2.8 is just shallow enough. I have the 35-100 2.0 and the panny mft version and it isn’t even in the same ball park as far as quality. I cant wait for the new OMD
I don’t think zooms with that aperture range are about DoF shallowness, but more about being brighter for better use in dimmer situations (focussing & shutter speed), but also normally used in higher quality lenses that are above standard kit lenses. Brighter & higher IQ (sharpness etc.) are normally expected to go together. Well, that’s my take on it anyhow.
I dont know about the panasonic but the zd 35-100 has great object isolation for modelphotography. At 75mm it looks better then the already awesome 75mm 1.8
At 100mm its still the only lens which can open up to f/2 in the digital zuiko range.
with such output, we should not actually care anymore about the 35-100 being so heavy and huge. But it seems that everything smaller then aps should be small in all aspects…
Take Sony lens in RX100 (f/1.8-4.9), update it for slightly bigger image circle of m43 and slightly wider, add a couple of rubber seals – it still would be small and light by m43 zoom standards, and a perfect walk-around lens.
The problem – apart from the “slightly wider” which isn’t simple in a zoom – is that any fixed lens camera (the RX1 too) has a lot more freedom in lens design including making the rear element almost touching the sensor. It may not be possible to get the same size/performance ratio in a detachable lens.
LOL I read it as a never ending saga. How many Pros are here that would buy a fast zoom for their work? Probably one or two.
Olympus in fact sells an extremely limited number of additional lenses in comparison to the kits.
It is indeed significant that it could never sell the whole stock of 4/3 lenses when it probably stopped production some 5 years ago.
So it designs a m4/3 camera that can make use of the latter, and everybody gets ideas of restarting 4/3 production all the way?
Get real. It’s like you are being offered legacy lenses. At the same time Oly sends a message: it will offer a few modern zooms, but don’t expect the old panoply of choices.
Oly (and Panny) did their market research and noted like T. Hogan that the camera ILC market is under severe contraction. They’d be happy if in 2013 they could keep the same sales than in 2012.
Instead they will be down by 25% WORLDWIDE. (and 2014 might be even worse).
Do you launch a *whole new system* in the circumstances? You DON’T. And since you yourselves don’t buy as much as you BOAST, you are not in a position to ask anything, but you must accept gratefully what the two surviving companies will offer.
Because they might as well fold up if Japanese banks decide to cut the funds. Sony too is not far from there, so I predict that what we will see is the era of INCOMPLETE systems.
You’ll buy different ones depending on the lenses you need, and it will be VERY expensive: get an RX1 here and an OM-D there, or a Fuji – LOL!
If the trend slowly changed perhaps it would take ten years to get a full m4/3 zoom panoply, but I bet even that won’t change, unless we discover that the Moon is made of Gold. So CUT the crap.
Old 4/3 lenses are offered as a MAKE DO, and one Oly zoom is offered as a solitary bone.
This is reality 2013.
“Such is life, that whatever is proposed, it is much easier to find reasons for rejecting than embracing.” (from Joseph Baretti’s A Grammar of the Italian Language, 1762) 😉
Please tell me how many 4/3 new lenses has produced in the last four years – and how many fast m4/3 zooms?
Can you give a reason for Oly doing differently? LOL.
We actually got a firmware update on one of the 4/3’s lenses in Feb 2012 (70-300). Will that do? 😀
It tallies v.well with M. Terada’s statement of a few months ago, saying that the ONLY lens which was a marketing success in addition to the kit lens was the (modest) 45/1.8.
So there is a lot of people who talk the walk, but very few who walk the talk, in the matter of lenses.
@amalric
There are many of us non-pros (and the numbers, astronomically are higher than the numbers of pros) who demand a high quality zoom for their ‘serious’ hobby. like me.. i like a zoom for my walkaround travels * and i know a zoom will not give me the highest quality, so if i want to go that route i would want the best.
* i took a shot which ended up on the front cover of a book. i was on a tour, and i had basically no time to switch lenses between the wide angle shot i had just done and the zoom i needed for that shot. I may have missed the opportunity if i had to switch lenses.
steve
If it isn’t an f2.0 zoom 😀 maybe it is even faster like the new Sigma 19mm-35mm f1.8 for APC camera
expect the black version later down the year for 500$ more
If they want lots of sales then hopefully they’ve learnt that black is preferred more than silver, but if they’re hoping to get more out of us then…. I hope they don’t go the silver route first.
Obviously, none of us know what Oly will offer in the way of wider aperture zooms.
Naturally, each of us will have an individual preference. For my money (and I have only my own to spend) the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 always seemed about right. Not too big/heavy, almost par f-number end to end, close focusing, reasonably sharp and, above all else, the *hood* was included at *no extra charge*. Amazing, wasn’t it.
As far as sales would go, my guess is the long end of the range is more important than the wide end. From the info floating around, the best selling additional Oly lens has been the 45mm. Yes, cheaper than the 12mm, but I’d gamble price difference is unlikely to account for all of the difference in sales.
Hey, it’s just one potential buyer’s opinion…
If I had to buy a 4/3 lens it would be the 14-54 mk II., a 2.8
One of the things people don’t realise is that apertures below that, at least in m4/3, result in serious loss of resolution. So they might be fine for portrait but almost nothing else.
Same goes for Mpx count: the NEX 7 24 Mpx had the same resolution of the NEX 6 16 Mpx.
So begging for “More, more, more..” is childish, and is the very proof that people lie to themselves as to what photography is. Which is the acquisition of skill, not of lenses.
Oly does well to revamp 4/3 lenses but they might as well remember forever to what money disaster led listening to photogs. polls.
No surprise that they are much more careful now, and they are pulling the plug from the 4/3 system, at the very moment they allow the use of its lenses on a new system.
the FT zooms with f/2 are perfectly fine for more then just portrait, even wide open.
Yes, but that is besides the point. 4/3 lenses are te-le-cen-tric, while m4/3 are not.
I was just replying on the “below 2.8” claim; how about mft lenses in f/1.4, f/1.7,f/1.8 and f/2.5 ? Even the f0.95 Voigtlaenders have more then enough resolution. It is just that sometimes the dof is not wide enough. While its true one can still make astonishing pictures in portrait genre with little resolution, in general alot of portrait stuff is based on wideopen aperture with the main focus being tack sharp. For this you need a high performance lens and all mft lenses faster then f/2 fullfill this requirement. resolution charts will sometimes look a bit less impressive wideopen. But I admit portrait/model style is less demanding(like no need for great corner performance)
I am not making this up. If you to check Lensrentals figures you’ll see that CV and the PL 25 have *half* the resolution at full aperture, compared to 2.8:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/05/wide-angle-micro-43-imatest-results
So there are some very clear design limits, even for the best. However because of saying this I was banned and lynched at DPR. But the truth is that you are not going to shoot landscape with these lenses full open.
Before making an important expense, one should at least what will be the main use of the lens. But go tell noobs. They’ll have their vapours.
So what causes this limit? The fact that you can point at 2 lenses for which it applies doesn’t exactly make it a rule.
That most lenses perform better when stopped down somewhat is correct, but even that isn’t a rule. It would be if laws of physics cause such a limitation, but the matter of fact is that those say the exact opposite, bigger aperture means being able to image smaller details.
Wrong. The 4/3 standard says that lenses should be telecentric, but not all of them are. M4/3 standard does not state this requirement yet some lenses are telecentric anyway.
And its no magic bullet either.
yes i have read this link before, but its mainly about nr’s, so you get the impression that the results wideopen look much worse then it actually is. Wide angle is more critical. I am sure that with longer lenses its less of a problem if you shoot landscapes wideopen, but yeah, i imagine most landscape shooters stop down alot. I am sure you wont be banned here for saying this..at least i hope not lol.
OK, here’s my interpretation on what the “new” Olympus zoom may be.
If you check the Olympus Australia web page (Olympus Australia is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Olympus Japan so what they put there is directed from Japan), and go to their 4/3 lens page, now the only 4/3 lens listed as available are the very high quality “Super Pro” as available from dealers. The other lens groups, the “Pro” and “Standard” are all listed as “out of stock”. I am interpreting this change of availability as follows:
1. Olympus will continue to supply the excellent “Super Pro” series of lenses, with the wide apertures, for the forthcoming hybrid body as a way of delivering quality f2.0 or similar zooms which are missing at present in m4/3.
2 The excellent 12-60 zoom, in the “Pro” category, is now listed as “out of stock”. It is/was, however, a stellar performer and widely sold. My thoughts are that the “new” zoom to be announced could well be one with this 12-60 zoom range, maybe even with the 4/3 lens (wider) apertures, and replacing the existing 12-60 Zuiko 4/3 lens but with a m4/3 mount?
Just a thought…..
FT ZUiko SHG lenses AF problems in low light??????
I am v interested in the old FT fast glass, but seem to be a few reviws saying crap AF in low light. Any users have opinions on this?????