[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 zooms.
–
And finally I am sure it’s going to happen. Olympus will launch their first f/2.8 constant aperture zoom. The lens is said to have a better performance than the [shoplink 31225]Panasonic 12-35mm X lens[/shoplink]! And the quality is as high as the glorious [shoplink 25320 ebay]Zuiko 14-35mm f/2.0 (here on eBay)[/shoplink].
I also have been told there is one more surprise to come beside the new camera and lens…stay tuned!
—
The two superb Zuiko f/2.0 zooms:
14-35mm f/2.0 on [shoplink 25320 ebay]eBay (Click here)[/shoplink] and via Slidoo eBay.
35-100mm f/2.0 on [shoplink 25119 ebay]eBay (Click here)[/shoplink] and via Slidoo eBay.
—
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
228 Responses
Let me guess… its a fast tele zoom 😉
Yes. To the awaited 12-40mm 2.8 would perfectly fit the rumored 40-200mm 4.0!
See http://www.43rumors.com/patents-panasonic-makes-a-cameraball-and-olympus-the-40-200mm-mft-lens/
“40-200mm 4.0”
This lens can only work as a replacement of 40-150/4-5.6, not much difference. What they should release is 40-150 f/2-f/2.8.
It IS a major improvement, if
– image quality is really superb
– it is weather sealed
– considering you win a full stop at 150mm and above
Awesome! I hope the new 2.8 lens will start a bit wider than 12mm and go to at least 45mm. A 1,200 dollar price tag won’t turn me off.
another anonympus with deep credibility.
And photography, surely.
LOL
Do you realise what you are asking, a 4x zoom instead of 3x zoom while still constant 2.8.
I don’t care how big and heavy the lens is. My servant will be carrying it for me.
You must have mostly EP-5s as first, second and third body and only premium lenses of course -LOL
Another dickhead who can’t take responsibility for themselves.
Amalric’s dentist is a weirdo
Why use m43 if you don’t care about size/weight.
Size is not everythig that matters, dickhead!
The FT version is 14-35 and F2.0!, i’m sure that a little more reach is possible if it’s only F2.8, closer to the sensor, and bigger than the 12-35.
Personally though, i think it’s stupid not to do the 12-60 F2.8-4. The reach has way more value than a constant aperture, and F2.8-4 is plenty for normal allround use. The primary reason to get a zoom is reach, then all it needs is just to be sharp and not slow. Everybody should own a 45/1.8 for portaits anyway.
+1000
if you had ever a 12 60 you should know in most cases it is more likely a f4 lens, the max aperture drops quickly.
+1
Perhaps the dentist could pull all his teeth out so we can’t understand what he is saying?…or if you prefer…I could go to work on him…I bet that I could be a bit more effective than his therapist!
I’ve never experienced more pecker heads in my life, than on this site. You guys give DPR a run for the money. Grow the fuck up.
Way to elevate the discourse.
Please go back to DPR 4/3 SLR forum.
No.
Now bend over….this won’t hurt a bit…….
It’s not below them. They are already mentioning these troll clowns, as if it they were important to them. Their aim is to discriminate against m4/3 banning even those who want to discuss 4/3 lenses.
DPR’s mods are their Nazi minions. Don’t buy from Amazon from their site!
Admin should do some banning here, too, and he should start with you. It’s your behavior that’s brings out these trolls. You bait them. Is it any wonder they troll you?
Others here post “controversial” views on cameras and photography in general and don’t attract nearly as many taunts and jeers as you. I doubt that’s ever occurred to you, though, you seem incapable of self-reflection.
It’s only a coward of a special kind that can call being true to facts ‘controversial’. Did I ever work against m4/3?
These people and attendant trolls hate m4/3 in the first place because it’s ‘disruptive technology’ and it obsolesces their miserable investments, or their conventional views about the world.
I see that you belong to the same class of misers. Instead I welcome m4/3 as a long needed evolution in digital imaging. So keep off.
That is because he is an IDIOT and a RACIST.
You forgot he’s also bald!
and UGLY, too.
constant f/2.8 is not good news. It means another 3x zoom. I was hoping for a 12-60.
what focal length range?
please be 12-60. (at constant 2.8 we can probably forget that)
constant max aperture is nice, but in real life less a limiting factor than the focal length range.
I don’t care if its better than this or that other lens – I’m only getting one expensive zoom and it has to have a useful range.
Exactly that´s the point for me, too! I´d love to get a 2.8 zoom. But I won´t buy it with a range just covering 12-35mm. Then, I´d prefer much more a 14-50 2.8. A 12-60 would be a dream. But I don´t beleive in that with the compact size that I prefer.
I also wouldn’t buy it if it’s only 12-35… 12-40? I don’t know… 12-50 would be nice. Anyway I think Olympus would sell more items of this lens if it would be a 12/14-50/54 2.8-3.5/4.0 that would be better then the existing kit lenses but not so good as the Panasonic 12- 35, maybe optical quality like the 43 14-54, and if the price would be around $ 700. For this rumored lens (better then Pana blablabla I expect a price around $1200 – 1400). I still think, Fuji makes a much better job with their lenses…
So what you really want is a 10-60mm f/2.0 zoom that is the size of a panasonic 14mm f/2.5 and you want it to cost $150, right?…oh…oh…let’s throw in IS too while we’re at it!
No one said that. We´re talking about something like a 12-50 2.8. And the price shouldn´t be as astromomic as the prize of the 14-35 2.0.
Please, keep in mind:
A Canon 17-55 2.8 IS USM is about 750 to 1100 euros.
A Nikon 17-55 2.8 IF-ED is about 1300 euros.
A FUJI 18-55 XF 2.8-4 is about 700 euros.
A Tamron 17-50 2.8 is about 400 euros.
I also think most people would be satisfied with “very good” image quality. For outstanding image quality there are still the 14-35 and 35-100 zuikos.
So all the really good ones are expensive, and they don’t have a range that is comparable with a 12-50 on m4/3. No idea how much you know about optics, but a constant f/2.8 aperture with a more then 3x range is going to be both expensive and optically compromised.
Very good on current bodies still means it will be a limitation for upgrading, and no, the 14-35 and 35-100/2.0 lenses are not at all an alternative for 2 blatantly easy to understand reasons:
– they don’t have usable AF on any existing m4/3 camera (and only one in the forseeable future if the rumors are right)
– because of flange distance and design they are much bigger then needed
With all respect, you have a point in that thete should be both medium and high-end options, but the solutions you suggest are just silly.
Wasn’t there an Olympus patent for a 12-40mm f/2.8 zoom? Pretty sure if that was the case, then it certainly would be the focal range of this new lens. I am confident that a Oly can produce a higher quality zoom than the Lumix, but even more certain will be the significantly higher price. The only high-quality M. Zuiko zoom for m43?… Sure to cost a fortune!
Remember that Olympus does not have to build OIS into every lens so I imagine that this lens would be priced at or marginally close to the lumix 21-35 (~$1200)
OIS components are not going to make a significant difference in the final price of a lens.
Sadly many people here don’t understand anything about consumer prices and their relation to cost.
Exactly.
A 12-60mm f2.8-f4. A native M4/3 version of the Olympus 4/3 lens, with the same optical quality, would be perfect. Replicating lenses that are already available makes little sense.
For me, zooms are all about convenience, so if I’m going to use a zoom, I want a useful range like 12-60mm. The 12-35mm just doesn’t cut it for me in that regard. I’d sell my little used 14-140mm to help pay for it, too.
Guessing one more surprise… Dismantling old FT is no longer surprising… Starting 645D?
One more surprise is telezoom.
My 50-200 will have to do.
@O
haha you’re being a free…
It also has constant f stop. Better than competition. Let’s wait for the trusted sources for more information.
Don’t get too excited. “Better than 12-35” = $1400-1500.
Then I would wait for the next generation of the Fuji cams and buy a kit with the 18-55 and 55-200… 😉
My thoughts exactly. Higher quality than Lumix? Probably. Higher price than Lumix? Definitely!
No OIS no buy!
At that tele range?
Good don’t buy one, not having the OIS in lens’ is a smart move from Olympus.
OIS = no buy…!!!!!
It’s an Oly’ lens, it does not need OIS.
Yeah….the Pany 12-35mm is already overpriced……
I do not need a lens that it ‘better’ than the Panasonic just a fast weather sealed one that is cheaper! ~$800
please can’t Sigma just come and show how to do it properly.
Sigma would need to design MFT specific lenses for that to become a reality…which unfortunately they do not.
Sigma would just slap a M4/3 mount on a big, fat APSC lens and tell us they’re doing us a favor.
absolutely…as far as MFT goes…but ….they are not all bad…I picked up their 35mm f/1.4 for my 5DMarkIII…and it is an incredible lens…..seems all manufacturers have their strong points and weak points…
As of late the Sigma Company as a whole has really started showing up in a good way…just not for this format.
let s hope it is the 12-40mm that was mentioned here a while back
12-45mm with Image Stabilizatiion…now that would be a surprise!!
Oly bodies have IBIS, no need for OIS.
I know…that is why it would be a surprise!
FT lenses are that big (almost like FF) to achieve the superb quality despite the small sensor of FT.
So a small mFT lenses will not really equal the quality of the FT lenses, thats only marketing..
But maybe the quality is superb for a mFT zoom like the 12-35mm is also superb.
There is a tradeoff between size, focal range, maximum aperture and optical quality. If you want small you have to compromise at least one of those. IMHO this new Olympus zoom will be quite large.
If Panasonic can do it, in their 12-35mm, Olympus should be able to do better because it does not need OIS in the lens.
my hope would be that it is smaller and lighter than the pana 12-35mm because of not having OIS.
I would also hope for cheaper, but I realise that is unlikely.
75mm lens size order of magnitude is ok for me.
it’s a very good point. Although progress has been made with motor size, design efficiency and lightness of materials, the chassis reduction would be minimal, with the same sensor size, we are talking similar glass size in the end.
This lens would prove something about m4/3 — can Olympus buck the trend that compact zoom lenses will always be a bit flawed and under-perform from their 4/3 counterparts? Because that’s what’s been happening.
” better performance than the Panasonic 12-35mm X lens!”
That’s easy to say now, but only time will tell …
Another piece of good news, this time even without a price tag guess. 🙂 🙂 🙂 Definitely not prepared to sell my almost new car!
A 50-100 f/2.8 would be useful. I’d prefer an internal zoom version that doesn’t have a silly telescoping lens barrel.
Since the 12-60 will probably work very well on the new OMD, I don’t need anything in that focal range. I do have the 14mm and 60 mm macro. What I still do need is a 9 or 10mm f/2.8 prime.
Didn’t Panny has the excellent 35-100 f2.8 already?
The Panny lens is not that great wide open at the long end. Also, OIS makes the lens bigger.
Stil hoping for a nice quality weatherproof 14-150 or better 12-100/150 and preferably in m43 making it a nice travel kit with a omd or the new em1 pretty sure it would meaning flogging my swd lenses, and I know it will not come close to my 12-60 or 50-200 but it would mean 1kg instead of 2,5kg in your bag.
Unfortunately there are no 12-1200 mm f1.0 Hq lenses which are still pocketable even bridge cams are relative big with that the lens for the compromise not bad but if you realize how big it is for that smaller sensor, you know that something like that for 43 will be twice as big in all directions probably a lot more
So what can we expect from Oly wide angle f2.8 zoom
– fast internal focus – Yes
– weather sealing – Yes
– lens hood – No
– black version – Only at doubled price
– manual focus like 12mm / 17mm ? Unlikely due to weather sealing
– internal zoom? Unlikely, see how long the 12-50 got due to this
– same IQ as 14-35/2? Unlikely, f2 zooms used focal reduction to get there
None of the Olympus weather sealed lenses are silver, so if it is weather sealed, it will probably be black. The 12-50 is either black or grey, but I think they only offer the black lens in the kit.
I hope it’s not 14-35… too little range. 12-35 or 14-45 would be fine
Of course it will be better… until the tests come out. But who care, cos the orders will have been placed by then.
Eh? Given how easy ut is to cancel orders, I don’t understand your logic.
LOL
The focal length will be 30-32 mm, but at superb quality.
You Sir, Just made my day~=D
Let me guess: it will be gray, but a new gray that doesn’t match any gray body, there will be a more expensive limited black edition, hood will be optional, provably at $100, if the lens is sealed it will be made of plastic, if it is metal it won’t be sealed… for $1500 .
Maybe it will match the new grey of the GX7?
(FT5) Olympus f/2.8 zoom coming and is better than the Panasonic f2.8, Nikon f2.8, Canon f2.8, Sigma f2.8 and anything f2.8.
But I have no clue what better means. 😀
That’s nice and all, but one reason I am looking to move to m43 is that lenses are supposed to be cheaper as well as smaller. If this lens is expensive, which I expect, then I’m not interested. No m43 lens should be over $1000 at the very most.
And should be closer to $500.
If its too expensive for you then don’t buy it! There are already a lot of great lenses out there which fit to your price expectations. Or you can use legacy lenses for an even better price.
These high grade lenses are expensive because they deliver high IQ and are well built (see reputation of 43rds lenses).
The m43 system is maturing and needs to cater professional photographers or people who have a lot of money to spend as well
If they would only offer expensive lenses I’d second your claim, but as it is, I am happy to see the system growing and maturing.
If you want to pay peanuts you’ll get crappy quality – there are lenses for people like you, this is not one of them.
$500-$1000 is not peanuts in anyone’s language. For example just look at the number of people complaining on here about the price of the best m43 bodies.
Have you price the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L lens or the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 lens. If the upcoming Olympus lens is equal to the quality of those two lenses and cost about $1,200 USD then it will be cheaper than FF lenses. Anyhow, it is great to see MFT lenses expanding upward. There are plenty of cheap MFT lenses already available. Anyhow, it is nice to hear that the 12-40 is going to be a constant f2.8. I was kind of afraid that it will be the less expensive f2.8-4.0 version. Now let’s bring on the 14-150 f2.8-4.5 weather-sealed bad weather walk-about lens.
The only way it will be the same quality of the FF 24-70 is if it will be at F1.4 cross system comparisons are pointless me I want a 25-600mm F2.8 like on Panasonic FZ200 .F2.8 is F2.8 right?
Nope, if you want a fast lense f2.8 is f2.8 indeed. If you mean DOF than, of course, there is a difference.
I shoot a lot in low light, and there fast lenses come in handy.
If mft or apsc hasn’t enough DOF for one, than one should go FF.
F-stop or relative aperture is the relation between entrance pupil diameter and focal length, and an indication of brightness. So yes, f/2.8 is f/2.8, regardless of format.
That you think f-stop means dof just shows you have no clue whatsoever, f-stop is only an indication of dof for a specific combination of format, focal length and subject distance, change any one of those and dof changes.
No, a 100mm f/2.8 doesn’t collect 4x the light of a 50/2.8, both will require the exact same iso and shutter speed in the same amount of light.
The price of the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 lenses prove nothing, because those lenses are also overpriced and profiteering. Olympus pays their lens engineers the same salary whether they are working on a new kit lens or R&D for a trickier high quality lens. So there should be no extra R&D costs to cover. Raw materials for a small m43 lens are not significant, and should be proportionally less than larger lenses.
The prices of lenses simply reflects what people are willing to pay for them. Since Canikon people are willing to pay for those f2.8 lenses, they can overcharge them, and do. Similarly since many people here are saying make the lens high quality and I will pay whatever the cost, even > $1000, it shows people are letting Olympus profiteer off them as well.
“That’s nice and all, but one reason I am looking to move to m43 is that lenses are supposed to be cheaper as well as smaller.”
m43 is wrong for you. Check the Pentax Q. (Seriously.)
m43 matches the APS-C IQ. High quality optics is highly miniaturized. That all isn’t cheap. (Well, at least not at the moment.)
“m43 matches the APS-C IQ. High quality optics is highly miniaturized.”
Right, and look at the price of crop lenses as opposed to FF lenses – a max of $1000, and most good ones closer to $500. Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 is $799 in case you are thinking that fast glass makes an exception. Panasonic’s prices for their two f2.8 m43 zooms is offensive and pure profiteering. I refuse to support that with my $$.
m43 is not highly miniaturized, it is just a bit smaller than other lenses. Medical imagery is highly miniaturized, and Olympus has plenty of experience with that anyway.
So I stand by my original comment, and reject m43 ‘not being for me’.
OMG, my prayers answered!
12-45mm or even 12-40mm is fine with me, and even a larger size is fine as long as it has stellar optical quality. IQ, IQ, IQ. It should be better than the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 or it should be possible or likely, since This should be possible given that an Olympus lens does not have to have OIS. The savings in weight and dimensions can be used to get more glass in and have less compromise in designing a top performing lens that is not too big.
I still think, concerning zoom lenses, Olympus is not really listening to what people want, or not interested in what people want…
Just reading this thread it appears what people want is very wide ranging. Ranging from a moderate proce lens with good image quality to an high price pro-level lens with a equally higer price. The zoom range also goes from 12-35 to a 12-60 to a 14-100. The f-stops go from a constant f2.8 to a f2.8-4.0.
So in an idea world Olympus will release both a high end 12-40/f2.8 and a mid-range 12-60 f2.8-4.0. But it looks like for the time being we will be getting the 12-40/f2.8 and maybe a 14-150/f2.8-4.5 (if my source is correct). 🙂
Personally I could go either way. The f2.8-4.0 zoom used in conjunction with the fast primes, or the f2.8 will just replace the fast primes for nearly all my use. It is just nice to see something better coming along.
I never really understood paying such a high price for a 12-35 zoom when you can get better primes at lower prices. Just get the 25mm 1.4 and zoom with your feet! On thr other hand my 35-100 has come in very handy and is an excellent lens. Oly would do better to produce a lens in this range..
Sounds like you just contradicted your initial point…
No, the second range, 35-100 is always going to be much further away from the shooter than 12-35, hence its still more practical to pay for this zoom range.
@ admin “I also have been told there is one more surprise to come beside the new camera and lens”
That would tie in with the 3 question mark Facebook teaser. I wonder if the XZ2 will be replaced this year.
Change the picture: put there the 12-60mm instead of the 12-35mm and everyone is happy!!!! Me to 🙂
Since the GX7 has IBIS, I might consider this lens. Depends on a few things though:
– GX7 IBIS works as good as current Oly 2 axis IBIS.
– it covers more focal length than 12-35
– while still starting at 12mm
Perhaps its an outstanding 14-17mm f/2.8 ; )
Thats one awesome lens, dude!
Yea, but seriously it should cover the standard primes; 24, 28, 35, 50 and 85mm:
12-42,5mm F2.8.
Simply perfect!
compact m43 with fixed 35mm prime f2, articulated screen, 5-axis stabilization, AVCHD v2.0 codec that supports 1080p@60fps and don’t forget the 3,5m input stereo mic 😀 weather sealed would be a bonus for only 1000$ price.
“Good news: Olympus f/2.8 zoom coming and is better than the Panasonic 12-35mm X zoom!”
No, good news would be if it was faster than F2.8. This way, it’s just more of the same.
? Not more of the same if it has a wider range and/or is better optically.
I’d say that my good ole Nikkor 24-70/2.8 was my favorite zoom in the past, with a very useful range. A slightly wider range would be ok.
Since I have a few good, pocketable primes for m43, a zoom in this range is maybe not my first purchase — but it may be useful in situations where it is difficult to switch lenses fast enough.
good news – you will be able to get an Oly camera and then go get the f2 zooms!
Otherwize keep a size advantage and use m43 F2.8 lenses!
Its perfict – with oly making PDAF camrea for m43 it means you have all the 43 lenses as well – working as native lenses, made to cover only a 43 sensor.
The m43 lenses will be good and small and the 43 lenses are excelent and fast.
Bet it’s gonna be a rip off.
Seems to me that so many want the ridiculous at bargain basement prices, so here is my entry to the ridiculous and it’s only a 2x zoom range.
My wish is a 5-10mm f2.8 constant, it will be weather sealed, focus by a new ‘Hyper Levitation Magnetic Field’ that will be so fast it will be almost instantaneous, it will actually be so fast that no test equipment currently available, will be able to measure the time taken to lock on. Oh yes the price will be no more than £1001, Olympus apologize for being unable to keep it under £1000.
That’s my contribution to the loony toons wish list.
have the panny 12-35 going to be hard to beat it by much ? its going to be one of those pixel peep better
unless its not a 12-35 at all ?
then it might be better for the purpose it could have more range
if its a 12-35 cant see many panny users selling theirs unless its something crazy like a 1.8 ? but for a 2.0 I wont bother
if its a 12-70 2.8 🙂 that would be cool
what I want is a really nice super wide that does not ghost purple all over the image when shot into light ! just make me a super wide zoom as nice as your 75 1.8 OLY !!! can you do that 😉
Yes, a 9 f2.8 to go with the upcoming 12-40 f2.8 would be nice.
Olympus bodies don’t correct lateral chromatic aberration, so comparable Olympus lenses typically do a better job correcting this than Panasonic lenses (the Leica co-branded lenses are an exception). All an Oly 12-40 f/2.8 would need to be optically superior to the Panasonic 12-35 is fixing its issue with lateral CA in the corners. The improvement in out of camera JPGs wouldn’t be visible on Panasonic bodies.
Olympus bodies don’t correct lateral chromatic aberration, so comparable Olympus lenses typically do a better job correcting this than Panasonic lenses (the Leica co-branded lenses are an exception). All an Oly 12-40 f/2.8 would need to be optically superior to the Panasonic 12-35 is fixing its issue with lateral CA in the corners. The improvement in out of camera JPGs wouldn’t be visible on Panasonic bodies.
my wish is a 10-60 mm/f2.0 with OIS. Price < 1000 $
What can I say? Make a wish!
for my GX7. OIS >>>> IBIS
We already know in advance that its better? as in FT5?
I am willing to believe, yet I’ll wait for reviews…
Admin is an Oly fan..
Please! Shoot the message, not the messenger.
the 12-35X may be little sub optimal at the wide end, but still very well rated. If you can stomach the price, it’s more than faster zoom for the sake of faster zoom, its in a different class. Period. Yet, I can already see nit pickers claiming that one or the other is sooooooooo much better. I say, lets not get carried away too early.
better lumix X 12-35mm zoom ! Ok but least time pany will introduce new fast zoomm
may start 2.5 or 2.0 is possible but the main i want high grade in small circle sharp ,bright
or something new material (no glass) i will waiting for. 😉
i’m happy for them to sacrifice range in order to improve f stop, iq and weight.
with modern sensors and optics like the 75mm 1.8, you can crop in a crazy amount. if the iq is there to begin with.
It’s a blind game, my guess definitely not 12-60 but something with a rather restricted range. If a mFT analogue of 12-60 can be made AT ALL, they would have done it already. And in times of crisis, it could hardly be close to the expensive Zuiko 14-35mm f/2.0. So, something like 14-30, with a very broad appeal. Which would make me happy. Because otherwise I would have to consider replacing the 12-60. And I love my 12-60 … 🙂
Why?
When it’s so much easier to crank out marginal iterations 14-42mm lenses by the boatload.
Where is the news or facts?
Except that is F2.8 constant zomm and supposedly has great image quality, we now nothing.
And suddenly pops the readers whish list all over in the comments.
It’s a rumor site, genius, not a news site.
It’s right there in the title.
Must be a 12-40 or 14-50mm f2.8 otherwise i don’t care.
Way to go Olympus. How deep are you trying to dig your grave??
Now why is expanding the range of MFT upward where the profit margins are bigger a bad thing? If you believe corporate earning statements, selling inexpensive cameras with inexpensive lenses are not making them any corporate profits. The inexpensive cameras and lneses are pretty much covered now. So where do you expand the range? Upward is the answer and upward in quality means upward in cost.
Its probably this one: http://www.43rumors.com/patent-olympus-12-40mm-f2-8/
12-40mm f2.8 and weather proof is my hope!
yes.
and at ~1000 euro, with the same IQ as 3-4 primes (24,35,50,80mm), a lazy guy like me would be happy
What is the point of stating that it’s better than the Panasonic 12-35? Is that a hint at it being the same focal length?
Point of reference.
The 12-35’s performance is unimpressive compared to the HQ series zooms for the 4/3 system. The lack of a normal zoom with iq comparable to the 14-54 or 12-60 zooms is the biggest limitation of m43 lens selection outside of the super-minitelephoto range
Get ready for additional price drops on the Panny 2.8 zooms… this will be a win-win 🙂
we don’t know the focal range LOL this is useless news!
Whatever, I do not have the premonition that it will be better in all-round terms than my beloved 12-60. For being better it would have already been made. The very appearance of the slow 12-50 proved this. If Oly had given us something similar to the 12-60, the EM5 would have been a much greater hit. I did not buy EM5 because of the slow 12-50 and the inability of 12-60 to focus fast on it.
Any information about the zoom range?
Seriously, what is it with you people moaning about the prices… Are you expecting this lens to be going for $200?! Sigma’s 24-70/2.8, one of the cheapest lenses of this type on the market sells for just below $1k. Mu43 has always been slightly overpriced for lenses but that’s just the way it is. Wake up, premium (Mu43) lenses will NOT sell for cheap regardless of their actual quality and how they compare to full frame equivalents (OK they are not on par but still pretty damn good). With IBIS and the latest bodies you can shoot in dim light above f/4.0 and still get usable results, so if the f/2.8 zooms are outside your price range, stick to the slower zooms, there’s nothing wrong with them. No manufacturer is going to give away constant f/2.8 zooms 🙂
As to the actual topic of this thread – I do hope the Oly zoom starts at 12mm, not at 14mm. I don’t suppose we’ll get internal zoom but that’s fine. Also please make it 58mm filter thread size (at least not bigger) so don’t have to invest in more filters 🙂
Sigma 18-35 f1.8 cost only $799 and Sigma 18-50 f2.8 cost $400.
Did Oly ever better the Pany/Leica zooms in the 4/3 system? Why would anyone expect different now?
The 12-60/7-14 was better than the Panasonic zooms, the f2 zooms were easily better.
The Oly costs $1800, and weighs in at a hefty 780g the Pany costs $950 and weighs in at 300g .If you are not bothered about price weight or size then surely mFT is not your best option. As for the 12-60 it is a great kit lens but a making a variable aperture zoom is always easier than making a fixed aperture zoom. The 12-60 has funky distortion at the wide end and moves quickly away from F2.8 as you zoom.Compared like to like the 12-60 holds no advantages over the Panasonic 12-35 other than the extra focal length
If you are already a happy owner of the FT glass go for it you have nothing to lose.From a typical mFT user opinion regarding the 7-14mm etc paying double and carrying a lens that weighs 2.5x times as much to gain a fraction better performance just doesn’t add up
We were talking about 43 not m43. You brought m43 into the discussion.
12-50 2.8 would be nice, weather-sealed, and a matching 50-200 2.8 or 3.5 plus 2x extender to make it 400 5.6. Unless Oly makes a fixed 400/4 or 400/5.6. Then an extender would not be so important.
Will this be sold in kit with the new OM-D?
It would be a fine paradox, Oly giving the choice between the old and the new.
I am not attracted by zooms, but if I were, I would seriously consider the 14-54 mk2. It is still relatively small, and a good range, for a smallish price.
Keep the price of the system down, although Oly might be interested in the opposite 🙂
I doubt 2.8 high end would make it into a kit. I think they did a kit with the 12-60 at one point (to showcase that “fastest focus in the world” marketing ploy).
I’m a zoom guy, myself and a solid zoom like the 12-60 would make me less concerned about how well my 4/3 lenses perform on the new body.
12-60 is permanently attached to my e-5. If the new lens can somehow get me to forget that pairing, then Oly wins and can have my money.
I dunno, having watched the Olympus scene for the last 11 years or so, but not actually owning the 14-35mm or 35-100mm, the 14-35mm has been a problematical lens. It has been the lens that the most number of people complained about mis-focusing, etc. I saw a lot of posts from people that gave up on the 14-35mm and went back to the 12-60mm or 14-54mm lenses, or having to send in both E-3/14-35mm to Olympus to get them adjusted. In the E-30/E-5, it was the lens you had to do the auto focus adjust on it to get reasonable results. Given the complaints about the lens, I suspect it may have been the reason Olympus added auto focus adjust to the user menus.
Now on the other hand, the 35-100mm always seemed to be rock solid, delivering the winning images, and was the goto lens for the high end event photographer.
So, the new lens being better than the 14-35mm, I hope so.
Indeed. That was a lens I had in mind, because of the calibration needed, OTH it is so heavy that it will be soon forgotten in the m4/3 context.
Better than the Panny 12-35mm? in your dreams! Considering Panasonic’s cameras and lenses have wiped the floor with the entire Olympus range.
Silly fanboi
Panasonic do make two nice lenses, the summilux 25 and the 12-35.
By far the IQ king of the system is the Zuiko 75 and the 12mm is a stellar wide angle lens.
Simplistic arguments saying Panasonic is better than Olympus or vica versa are moronic.
When it comes to brilliant lenses from Panasonic, you forgot to mention quite a number of lenses, among them the Pana 7-14mm. The 7-14mm not only is an exceptional performer for an ultrawide zoom, but also is more relevant to this comparison than the Olympus lenses you dare to mention, as we are talking zooms here. And it seems that Pana has an edge there. Oly’s 9-18mm clearly has the better price-performance-ratio (I own it and love it myself), but can’t rival Pana’s 7-14mm in the IQ department. A similar situation for the standard zooms, where no other offer comes lose to the IQ of the 12-35mm. Or even for the bread-and-butter kit zooms, where Pana’s 14-42mm, though not a stellar performer, still has an edge over its cousin. For the longer focal ranges, the situation is more on par, but Pana certainly doesn’t lose out here.
I own the 7-14, and it is a very nice lens, but its far from perfect, and can’t hold a candle to the zuiko 7-14/4.0. Main issues are flare, axial ca and lateral ca. Pana bodies correct the later 2 but not completely, and can’t do anything about the first. Calling this an exceptional performer is just silly, it has too many flaws for that. Good enough for me to own one? Yes, most certainly.
With regards to the tele lenses, the m.zuiko 40-150 is better then the pana alternatives, while the 75-300 isn’t everything considered…
And why are we talking zooms only? The top level poster was talking about lenses and about ‘the entire range’, that clearly isn’t just zooms.
The Olympus 7-14 costs double and weighs 2.5x times the Panasonic and is only a fraction better.The in camera corrections are a design choice aimed to make the lens smaller and lighter while still performing very well.
The zuiko 7-14 is more then a fraction better, but as you say, that comes zt a price, financially, in weight and in size.
And I’m totally aware of the in-camera correction, but that only partially corrects the ca ON A PANASONIC BODY and not at all on an Olympus body, and again, this lens is rather flare prone.
It is a good lens and imo totally worth what I payed for it but to be excelent it should not have any flaws for normal use, but it does.
I can smell your fear from miles away.
Olympus bodies don’t correct lateral chromatic aberration, so comparable Olympus lenses typically do a better job correcting this than Panasonic lenses (the Leica co-branded lenses are an exception). All an Oly 12-40 f/2.8 would need to be optically superior to the Panasonic 12-35 is fixing its issue with lateral CA in the corners. The improvement in out of camera JPGs wouldn’t be visible on Panasonic bodies.
These lenses need to come out faster so the FT 2.0s can go lower in price. I still have a few more to collect!! For real!!!
nobody needs an expensive f2.8 zoom. for 1000 $ f2.0 is a must
F2.8 is for APS C & in order to be on par , F2.0 with latest M4/3 sensor will do in today’s tech .
Why can’t Pana & Oly understand this ?
Now it really rely heavily on sensors to perform for this F2.8 lenses especially in low light situation .
The reason behind this is all this type of lenses are more for the incoming revolutionary sensors as suggested in 2014 to 2015 . Therefore an Organic Sensor theoretically will light up all so called fast F2.8 lenses .
they do understand
You are correct wrt DOF. Otherwise, you are wrong.
* 2.8 for m43 equals 2.8 for APSC when it comes to exposure.
* your confusion is made obvious by your concern about the sensor. If you claim that 2.8 APSC must be compared with m43 at 2.0, then you must also compare pictures taken with APSC and m43 at different ISO numbers to get a fair comparison. But you don’t seem to be concerned about a fair comparison.
That’s the thing no one here wants a fair comparisons they want any comparison skewed towards mFT.It is ludicrous to compare lenses between systems based on a nominal aperture setting.
It is the end result that counts and an F2.8 shot on FF will have very different DOF and critically total light than from a mFT lens at F2.8 just as an image taken with a smaller sensor camera with an F2.8 lens will have a very different appearance to one taken with a mFT camera. I wish this wasn’t the case as a constant aperture 25-600mm F2.8 lens would be a fabulous do it all option sadly the sensor. There is no problem for posters working out the 2x crop factor on equivalent AOV lenses pity so many forget the 2x also applies to aperture with regard to DOF and total light.
I for one are grateful for the 2x crop factor despite its obvious disadvantages as the advantages far outweigh them for me.I spend all my spare time trekking about various wilderness areas and the smaller lighter system is a real godsend for me as I am not getting any younger.
Total light argument has to do with sensor size and not with the lens. Yes f/2.8 means exactly the same in every system because it is the relation between aperture diameter and focal length. DOF? That has to do with aperture diameter, magnification (which depends on focal length, sensor size and print size) and subject distance. Equating f-stop to dof is a clear indication of echoing ‘full frame advocacy’ without understanding it.
That said, you can indeed use equivalence rule of thumb to get nearly the same picture.
Your idea of ‘fair comparison’ is producing the exact same image.. this totally ignores that different systems are geared towards different kinds of usage, different styles etc, and the only actually fair comparison is if a specific combination of lens + camera can be used to make good pictures of a given scene. By insisting it must be the same image you are trying to eliminate any differences with the obvious consequence, you eliminate allmost all advantages of the specific systems.
If Olympus are bringing out new lenses then, for my OMD, I would like an ultra, ultra lightweight 250mm or 300mm f/5 to complement my 9-18 and 14-150 (a lighter version of the latter would be most welcome). Wishful thinking!
I don’t care too much for the constant f2.8. I’d rather have 12-60mm f2.8-f4. But please whatever you do Oly, put weather sealing on it! The lens ranges sorely lacks lenses with weather sealing at the moment.
I don’t see them doing 12-35mm f2.8 as we may as well get the Panasonic equivalent now, unless its significantly cheaper or has weather sealing as it’s certainly not going to have OIS.
We should examine the situation within m4/3 from the Panny-Oly competition point of view.
It seems that any quiet agreements between those players are now overthrown. They are competing in every field:
* most appealing entry level camera (GF6 vs. E-PM2)
* best kit zoom (the appearance of Panasonic’s new 14-42)
* coolest small enthusiast camera (E-P5 vs. GX7)
* best camera in the system (GH3 vs. high end OM-D)
* most ambitious lens designs (fast zooms, 75/1.8 VS. 42/1.2)
* best sensors (with or without help)
Olympus must be determined to regain the momentum and feels confident that the September announcements should play to that effect. This competition is all about prestige. Pricing policy is only a small factor here because the new gear is probably truly outstanding and not only by m4/3 standards. But my main point is this: having two eager players in the system is proving to be an asset whether they choose to cooperate or fiercely compete.
Agree and I believe this is an often overlooked advantage of the mount: Complimentary competition, although less so on the lens side.
What does mean “better performance”? range? IQ?
hope this lens will be same quality as 75mm Olympus (not range but IQ)
So the Olympus zoom will have even better OIS than the Panasonic? Fabulous!
Come on!
maybe better than 12-35mm X, but Zuiko 14-35mm f2 is in different league
“I also have been told there is one more surprise to come beside the new camera and lens”
Haha, the lens hood is included!
And carry case. 🙂
“Olympus will launch their first f/2.8 constant aperture zoom.”
I hope you mean “Olympus will launch their first f/2.8 constant aperture zoom _FOR m43 SYSTEM_”, because they had f/2.8 zoom before.
If this site were a restroom I wouldn’t even risk a bowel movement here.
GX7
pending new OMD above the EM5
EM5 to remain available
pending Pan 42.5/1.2 re-announced
pending Oly f/2.8 zoom
… a good season for the m43 system!
(and a busy time for Mr Admin)
How could 43rumors possibly make a FT5 claim that the coming Oly 2.8 lens is better than the Pany one before there has even been a test? Maybe because it does not have OIS?
The most important “news” about this lens is that it will surely be optimised for PDAF on-sensor. Now they can produce the expensive zooms we’ve been waiting for, but they won’t be as fast on the older bodies….OOOPS! say all the recent upgraders!
because one of the admin’s sources has used it
We do not need another mid range zoom at any aperture!!! Make some good long lenses!!!
this is so stupid on the part of panasonic and olympus. the whole point of a small sensor is that for the tradeoff of not having a high iso sensor, pane/oly can have a two stop faster lens that full frame can never match. take for instance a lens thats at f2.0 on full frame and a comparable lens for m43 at f1.0: full frame now goes on the defensive because it MUST have to be 2 stops better at high iso. this is m43’s proverbial ace-in-the-hole for small sensors, but pana/oly continue to give the advantage to full frame and aps-c by producing lenses about the same speed…
basically it would require pana/oly to get serious and bold and make lenses fast and always faster then their competition, but that requires them to put their proverbial money-where-their-mouth-is. which they won’t do. and we wonder why their sales aren’t impressive. who wants less for about the same price?
though I’m sure most don’t remember the 35mm wars of the 70’s on where oly tried to comprete with nikon and canon by making the om system. it was excellent, but it was never as complete or fully supported as nikon and canon committed. that’s because oly is too scared to risk jepordizing their medical instruments business if such a outlay of financial commitment backfired. … and they do it again! stupid!
even the awesome 14-35 f2.0 lens was a compromise as it wasn’t equally wide as it’s counterparts. and.. when they came out with the 7-14mm, it was a full stop SLOWER than full frame! that’s just stupid. I use this lens and it’s major drawback is it’s a dog when the light levels drop. and with out high iso, it’s doubly screwed! think about it… this ridiculous focus on small when it’s really irrelevant (consider the sony full frame point and shoot!, and the NEX serious with a bigger sensor and same size basically).
I really don’t know what you’re complaining about???
You want m4/3 makers to produce f1 lenses? Don’t you like the Nokton f0.95 lenses?
There are some fine f1.8 lenses. Each system has it’s place. I don’t think that m4/3 should be making low f-stop lenses just because theoretically the smaller sensor gives to about 2 stops more light. On stop of that, Olympus gives you an extra 2 stops (even more) with IBIS.
To be honest, indoors I normally shoot open (f1.8 on most my lenses) but sunny outdoors, f5.6 or more is fine. f1 isn’t really needed.
first off, the noktons are not that sharp wide open, and second, their not autofocus lenses. I like the noktons but they’re not in the same category as nikon and canon pro lenses. fast lenses need to be sharp, at least in the center, wide open. that IS the point of a fast lens.
the 1.8 lenses are not really fast. this last crop of oly lenses aren’t for pro use as they’re not weatherproof, and their speed is compromised for size. what I find odd is that most these lenses (12 f2, 45 f1.8, 17.5 f1.8) are slower then their pro counterparts for full frame! If nikon has a 35mm f1.4 for full frame, a sensor 1/4 the size of ff should be able to have a lens 1 stop faster. and since it takes 2 stops to equal the same DOF, it only makes sense to try and be at least equal to what pro lenses offer in ff and then be 1+ stop faster. that creates a tradeoff that makes a smaller sensor legitimately usable.
IBIS is something different than having a fast lens.
my point has more to do with being competitive with the main competition since the sales figures aren’t looking good. and when sales are not good, the company doesn’t want to keep investing in better glass. many peeps buy nikon and canon because of the legacy, depth and overall professional capacity their entire system offers. most never ever get the pro glass, but it’s a primary reason they accept buying BIG cameras.
for the average person, what you shoot with and when is more than adequate, and what oly and pana produce suffices, but sales don’t succeed on the merit of what’s offered, rather what potential exists for the shooter. Nikon and Canon have that and Sony is trying hard to create that same sub culture.
Nokton proves that ultra fast lenses aren’t that big. it would be nice to see oly match it with a full auto lens.
In practice, m43 lenses can realistically be one stop faster. The “FF sensors performs two stops faster than m43” myth is already busted (as in “not generally true”; see dpreview posts comparing the EM-5 with various FF cameras). In essence, that means that f/2.0 lenses are good enough to equal their FF f/2.8 counterparts on a proper m43 sensor. It will take a few more years before we get f/2.0 zooms, but thanks to Sigma, f/2.0 and faster will be the norm.
In the meantime, m43 is still smaller and cheaper than FF. The seventies are a long time ago, but it’s good to see Olympus hasn’t forgotten the OM glory days.
Regarding the FT5 rating of “better than Pana 12-35mm”, admin also had “GX7 has the best m43 sensor yet” and so far, this seems to be right; although it’s not better by a wide margin. I expect the same from the new Olympus lens. If it is a 12-40mm, no OIS could mean exactly the room for improvement we’re talking about.
No OIS is probably the reason it will be better. I can only assume that it is easier to design nice optics without having to worry about stabilization. I also hope it comes in at under $1000.
Indeed, OIS is an “issue” to the quality of a lens.
That’s why, or example, that Zeiss never produced any lens with internal stabilisation.
I don’t know how much it interferes with the quality though.
Most people view the DOF issue as a negative for 43rds but consider this. My main business is weddings. I need shallow dof but I need enough dof so 2 people are in focus. When I shot Canon 5dll I used f4 with 70-200 to accomplish this. When I switched to 4/3 I could go down to f2. I had the same dof but I gained a whole stop of light. so in a dark church long lens 200 f4 3200 iso with 4/3 I was at 125(ibis) f2 iso 800
Many people shoot flowers and cats wide-open and live for “bokeeeeh”. They are silly. In principle, FF has little or no advantages for group, landscape and tele photography. However, FF cameras still kick ass when stopped down to f/4 and smaller. Next generation of m43 sensors will make the differences practically irrelevant.
I personally have shot for a year with a 5dll and my second shooter uses a 1dmlll. we cannot see the difference in quality. If you look at dpreview and compare the d4 to the omd there is little difference in image quality.
I will never understand what some people like about portrait pics where only the tip of the nose is sharp…
Haha, they pay top money to buy the sharpest lens corner-to-corner wide open, then use the lens to shoot portraits with the most blurry backgrounds.
I totally agree with you!!!!
Even photos taken with m/4/3 that have only the tip in focus (YES, IT’S DOABLE PEOPLE!) are bad.
There is a fantastic example over at photography.exchange. I’ll try to find it.
Post of the day. Shallow depth of field many times is not what is needed or wanted.
Exactly! I have been a pro for nearly 20 years and especially on medium format it was a battle to get MORE DOF. The whole DOF nonsense is propagated 99% of the time by amateurs, I reckon, looking for ways to justify their ridiculous purchases.
I use a 45 and a 75 for portraits and I have no trouble getting the DOF for a good effect, and have to be bloody careful in doing so lest I lose it where it is needed.
Now image your FF portrait shot at f1.4 blown up to say 2 metre sq (because you sooooo need those megapixels!) you will end up with a mush with maybe a sharp eyelash swimming in it.
The other BIG advantage with M4/3 is if you use a lot of flash, you can now use speedlights where a FF might need a pack, because you CAN shoot wide open and still have usable DOF. That 2 f stop difference all the Fool Frame twits keep going on about is that difference.
The fact is most pros need more DOF on a day to day basis, too many people assume Pros are all artists making atmospheric images. Just look at all the great photographers and see how much DOF is an issue.
Sigma created for 4/3 a 18-50 F2.8 and a 70-200 F2.8…
An Olympus weather sealed 12-40 F2.8 will be ok ,but i personaly prefer to buy and use a 30 F1.4 Xenon instead.
my wish would be a weather sealed F2.8 like 50-150 or 60-180.
It is a Zuiko, not a mZuiko right? So only for 4/3 format, not for micro 4/3. What the point to compare this lens with a another format lens?
No, it’s an m.Zuiko—that’s why the comparison with the Panny 12-35/2.8 was made.
The lack of OIS is one thing, the element/group count could be another. The 4:3 14-35/2 had a element/group count of 18/17, which was pretty high even for a zoom. Its 35-100/2 brother was even worse with a element/group tally of 21/18. Each of those elements robs the object plane of light and contrast as the light from the subject plane passes through the elements. (This is why prime lenses are always sharper than zooms built to the same quality standards.)
If Oly ZD is designing (presumably) the µ4:3 12-40/2.8 (and also its presumably upcoming 40-150/2.8 big brother) with less elements and with the same quality standards, it’s possible for them to produce a zoom duo that is actually SHARPER than the famed F/2 zoom twins, all in lighter, more compact lens assemblies. Wouldn’t that be a hoot?
If you are a professional lens designer, I’ll eat all my zoom lenses for breakfast.
It might be partially true, but it also depends on how big the front element is, and more importantly from what DxO calls Light Transmission.
I tend to believe those who argue that in the past slower lenses gave better results because they could be more easily optimised in terms of resolution.
Therefore if you have a sensor which is two or three times more sensitive the need for fast lenses is less, if what you look for is better resolution.
There are many more factors than it appears to the consumer. What matters is the combined yield of the camera AND the lens. And there the maker certainly knows more than the latter.
The MFT standard relaxes the FT requirement for telecentricity, and this alone makes lenses a bit simpler (and considerably smaller).
FT 7-14mm F4.0 18 elements in 12 groups
MFT 7-14mm F4.0 16 elements in 12 groups
FT 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 13 elements in 9 groups
MFT 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 12 elements in 8 groups
FT 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 10 elements in 8 groups
MFT 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 8 elements in 7 groups
FT 25mm F1.4 10 elements in 9 groups
MFT 25mm F1.4 9 elements in 7 groups
What would be interesting would be, instead of emulating a 24-70mm angle of view, Olympus emulated that other constant zoom used by working photographers: the 17-35 (or 16-35). So, instead of a 12-35mm MFT, Oly could make an 8-18mm. With less of a zoom range, it would be sharper, have better light transmission, and better color rendering. Doubt they have anything like this planned, but it would be nice.
Doubtful, since there are already 9-18mm (Oly) and 7-14 (Pana).
I agree with Eskimo Micronian because the 9-18 and 7-14 are very slow lenses. I use the FT version of the 7-14 and also use the 9-18 and both struggle to be usable when you walk into deep shade, the sun is setting, etc.
I think their thought process is if that make it faster than 2.8 they will loose sales on their primes. If I had a 12-40 2.0 I wouldn’t buy the 12, 25 or 45
If I can have a stellar 2.0 zoom, it’ll surely cost you approximately, so Oly could actually get more money out of you. The main problem is that 2.0 zooms are still huge beasts, even in m43, and the gain is no as great as some years ago, because high ISO has vastly improved.
Will this be out before November 30th? Do you think? I would like it for vacation.
I don’t think so… Introduced in september means available in shops in february, march next year 😉
if it is not 12-** it will be useless
Thank goodness all the experienced photographers disagree wholeheartedly.
Then we will have the kit zooms, some expensive high-quality zooms and nothing in between like the 43 14-54… really clever…
If it’s 12-40 f2.8, I’ll assume it’s around 300grams and if it’s weather sealed than it’ll be a perfect alternative when I don’t need all that reach that my 12-60 gives but light weight and compactness for example overseas travel takes priority.
50-200f4?….if such a lens is released and works just as well in all aplications exept for aperture size but is considerably lighter than my 50-200swd than I may have to say goodbye to that
50-200swd but no being hasty yet.
After these two weather sealed zooms are released perhaps they should focus on weather sealed primes.
The system has great primes and more are coming but a category of HG and sealed primes would be a truly attractive proposition for some high end users not yet convinced.
Sealed lenses could include – 300f4,
ultra wide angle prime, UWA zoom, a couple primes between 17 and 30mm with an f1.4 aperture, a sealed pancake lens.
Than a range of lenses in the tradition of a 45 f1.8 with cheaper biuld quality but equal image quality to the 45 f1.8 would be lenses that are much more accessible and appealing to the happy snappers that have upgraded from p&s cams and have nothing but an epm and kit lenses and are playing with the idea of a 3rd lens. These customers are unlikely to look at a 12 f2 or 75 f1.8.
I vaguely recall the Scnhieder lenses were supposed to weather sealed as well correct Admin?
Yes, I have been seriously surprised at the scarcity of weather-sealed µ4:3 lenses, especially with ambitious designs like the 75/1.8 and 12/2. Come to think of it, I need my weather-sealed 12/2 to have a black chassis as well.
Oly ZD has passed patent plans for a pair of telephoto macro lenses—the 70/2.8 and the 100/4.5. I hope the 70/2.8 is a metal-clad pro lens with similar or superior! sharpness to the 60/2.8 reference lens. The 70/2.8 (or 35mm equivalent 140/2.8) is a good focal length for full face portraits—much like the 35mm equivalent 135mm lenses are.
The Oly ZD arsenal for µ4:3 HG/SHG lenses I would like to see is:
Ultra WA: 7/2.8, 8/2.8 fisheye, 10/2, 7-14/4 (with built-in filter turret for polarizer, strong UV, & at least two strengths of ND)
Medium WA: 12/2 (black metal chassis), 12/2.8 tilt & swing
Moderate WA: 17/1.8*, 17/2.8 tilt & swing
Normal/sub-Normal: 20/1.4, 25/1.8, 12-40/2.8
Short tele: 45/1.8*, 45/1.4 (metal chassis)
Medium tele: 60/2.8 macro*, 70/2.8 macro (metal chassis), 100/4.5 macro, 40-150/2.8
Super tele: 150/2.8, 200/2.8, 250/4, 300/4
* denotes lens is already released
If it starts at 12 and ends anywhere near 35 then this lens is stupid.
So.. according to you, Olympus shouldn’t release a high quality zoom covering the rather common 24-70 ‘ff equiv’ range to go with their om-d pro? Or are you trying to suggest they should just try to sell a branded version of pana’s 12-35/2.8? Or is pana stupid as well for having a 12-35/2.8?
Or could it be that you are stupid yourself?
Wait, you mean we are finally getting a “Olympus Micro Landscape+ ~ Portrait+ Zoom Lens” to go on our upcoming “OMD+” ?
^^
May be this New Lens smaller than 12–35/2.8 Panasonic Because out of Is..?
It could interest me if it’s something between 12-45 or 12-60 because there’s no Olympus M4/3 like that today. I don’t want to switch every minute between those 12/25/45/75 lenses.