[shoplink 25320 ebay]
[/shoplink]
Image on top: The [shoplink 25320 ebay]Four Thirds Olympus 12-35mm f/2.0 lens[/shoplink].
We are getting closer to the big Photokina event in September and I am sure Olympus and Panasonic will announce many new cameras and lenses. There is one big question I have for you. The Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 lens is a great lens but I keep reading that some of you want an even faster zoom like the Four Thirds Olympus [shoplink 25320 ebay]14-35mm f/2.0 (Click here to see it on eBay)[/shoplink]. I am sure Olympus is interested to know if you would prefer such a lens (in m43) version over the new Panasonic 12-35mm.
Let’s say Olympus would do a lens like that:
12-35mm f/2.0 (2mm wider than the Four Thirds version)
weather sealing, power zoom (not available on the Panasonic),
no Image stabilization (unlike the Panasonic that has in lens OIS)
Almost Twice as big as the Panasonic lens
Price $2300 like the current 14-35mm lens price at Amazon (Click here) and $1,000 more than the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 (at Amazon).
[poll id=”139″]
Please send a honest answer! 🙂
—
Panaosnic 12-35mm X lens preorders at Amazon, BHphoto, Adorama, Amazon Germany, Amazon UK, Fotohanskeuzekamp, Amazon Japan and Digitalrev.
190 Responses
I voted for the Panny, but ultimately it all depends on the quality – if the Oly is as good as the 14-35, I might be tempted to tolerate the extra bulk, weight and expense.
I wonder how many people that voted for a f/2 zoom would actually buy it? Probably a few.
Besides, I just don’t understand the point of such a lens. Its as big and bulky as APS-C or FF lenses, and will feel unbalanced in tiny bodies such as the OM-D. If I wanted such a big lens in my bag, I would probably put up with the extra weight of a bigger sensor body, while also improving the handling of the whole combo.
I might understand that people shooting video could be interested in such a lens because of “cinematic dof”, but then again, wouldn’t it make more sense having a stabilized lens in that case?
It’s all about using the right tool for the job. If you need a heavy/bulky zoom than get a heavy/bulky DSLR., ’cause a small/light M43 camera isn’t the right tool for you.
Robin Wong still uses his E-system Olympus http://robinwong.blogspot.com/ Recently he was using the 35 Oz ED 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 to shoot a Marathon. This lens would be out-of-place on a 7.65 Oz E-PM!, but it is right at home on an E-5.
Cinematic DOF is NOT paper thin. Just go down to your local Multiplex and check-out real Cinematic DOF.
the ZD 14-35 and ZD 35-100 are probably so big because they seem to be 28-70 and 70-200 designs with a focal reducer implementation. that would explain their bulkiness. Olympus choosed for extreme performance instead of compact design. I think for M43 they would be willing to sacrifice IQ for more compact design.
The attitude Olympus had with Four Thirds was “okay, we are going to make a complete camera system that can do as many things as we can make it do. Here are some tiny lenses for those of you who want that, here are some lenses that are a tradeoff between performance and size, and here are some lenses that are the best we can make. Yeah, they’re big — you may not want to pay for or carry them, so don’t buy them, but someone out there wants them.”
Unfortunately, Olympus is willing to sacrifice image quality with micro Four-Thirds in order to deliver compact and light lenses. They’re as bad as Canikon.
Not only is the increased f-stop VERY nice to have in many situations, but the narrower DOF is also preferred by many….
That’s why the 35-100/2 is a very nice competitor to the canikon 70-200/2.8.
However, the 35-100 should come in an SWD version… and given as a gift to me for still using my E-3… 🙂
You’re a troll, right?
Everyone, please ignore this post. He’s just a troll.
I dont see why he should be troll.
f2 is better than f2.8 and these Olympus SHG lens are really something.
Truth is that 35-100/2 isnt competitor to Canikon 70-200/2.8, from speed POV it doesnt have competitor (there are no f2 zooms) from DOF, its competitor would be Canon 70-200/4 (which btw. is great bang-for-buck lens).
But as I said, there are no lens like these. And given m4/3 lens can be smaller, they could actually make it even more faster (think f1.4 – f1.8).
14-54/2,8-3,5 or 12-45/2.8-3.5 please
+1
Much better than those two ridiculous propositions, both the funnily mispriced Panagadget and the huge useless 2.0 zoom.
+1
I would prefer that lens as well.
Yes please! I take most of my photos during my travels and those zooms would come in handy, not to mention affordable. =D
high optical quality 12-60 pretty please – very top of my list
+1 with the 14-54/2.8-3.5 (CDAF & no adopter)…or 12-60/2.8-4 also CDAF & no adopter…need (or want) all rounder traveling lens
still hesitates to pull the trigger on the FT version
i never wanna buy this normal zoom because i prefer to use 7-14mm , 25mm/1.4 , 35-100mm (so i wanna request for 35-100/F2 instread *-*)
Oly, please, focus on primes. 17/1.4, 10/2.0, 150/2.8, 300/4
Why a 10mm prime? Is the 12mm a hair split too tele?
I would like a 10mm too. The difference between a 20 and a 24mm is quite noticeable (135 equivalent). I won’t be against an 8mm (16mm equivalent) either.
I would jump all over a 7-8mm fast prime prime lens. The wider the better…
I know all that. I switched from 20mm to 25mm, which is comparable of a difference. Noticeable, but not big enough for me to want having both.
I just don’t think its a big enough deal to make it a priority in Olympus’s premium prime’s roadmap. My 2¢.
the 12mm ain’t going to lose much resale value on Ebay and you might be years waiting for the holy grail. I say that 17% difference in FoV is not worth to wait.. Besides, the other 3 suggestions from Miklos fills much bigger voids.
Yes, a small 9 or 10mm prime is much needed.
Correction you mean 1000$ more than the panny. That’s a lot of cash for amateurs, pros will think in another way…
thats my issue. I earn a good living, but I cannot justify $2300 for a single lens, especially since you will still need to keep the primes for travel gear (weigh and size), so such a large and expensive zoom is an add-on in m43, and not a replacement.
At this price range and size, wouldn’t it be almost easier to use two e.g. OMDs and a 12mm and 20mm/45mm prime?
Bigger aperture and optics – or is the quality of SHG as good or better as current m4/3 glass?
SHG is much better….
Two OM-D’s one with 12-35mm f2.0 and the other with 75mm f1.8. Would cover my needs 90% of the time and allow me to work quickly.
I don’t understand why those people don’t just use full frame. f/2.0 zoom lens makes no sense on any system. It would be better to increase the sensor size and use a f/2.8 zoom lens then. Or a full frame camera with f/4.0.
for one, size and weight
That’s two… 🙂
That’s two… 🙂
That’s two “That’s two… :-)” 🙂
I need F2.0 for low light videos. Not for shallow depth of field.
Exactly. People love to say that an f/2 on m4/3 is equivalent to an f/4 on full frame, but that’s only in terms of DOF. A 45mm f/2.8 on m4/3 is the same as center-cropping a 45mm f/2.8 on a FF (technically with the same pixel density) where the subject covers the same portion of the crop on FF as the whole frame on m4/3. The cropping makes the FOV equivalent to a 90mm on the FF (here, with the subject covering the full frame) and doubles the DOF, but the “brightness” of the image is unaffected. A lens is as “fast” (ability to use a faster shutter due to larger aperture) as its f-stop regardless of format; it’s simply less shallow than the same on FF. If you need shallow DOF and a faster shutter, use FF, but if you actually want some DOF (we’re not talking about a compact camera with huge DOF on an f/2) with your faster shutter, then m4/3 is actually better.
The idea is that on FF you can get two stops better high ISO performance. The illuminance (watts per meter) with f/2 on Four Thirds is 4x as much as f/4 on fullframe, but the fullframe sensor has four times the area so it gathers the same total amount of light.
Noise roughly depends on the total amount of light gathered, so — all other things with the electronics being equal — an ISO 1600 f/4 fullframe picture will have the same DOF and noise as ISO 400 f/2 on Four Thirds.
The cost, size, sharpness, and weight of the lenses is another issue, though.
If what you said was correct then there would be no such thing as a point and shoot or a phone camera. But they do exist and work very well.
Proof, http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
? I don’t get why you think linking an article comparing images shot at ISO 50-80 is relevant to disproving what he stated.
I don’t fully agree on the 2 stop advantage fully – It varies.
Manufacturing capability and tech used has a profound effect on capability. Heck – the g10 should outclass the p45 back at very high ISO where CCD just doesn’t handle well. That’s not the point of medium format.
Why not? its the output that counts. Its a stupid statement by Walter.
….not again…
I use full frame Nikon when I want to but also want the option to use high quality M43. These cameras are now very capable machines offering very high quality images They can now be viewed as an alternative to full frame where they suit the job better.
Or why not get one camera body per lens? For each lens you buy, get the mest camera available for that lens.
I don’t want that. I want ONE camera, and I want the lenses to be small when possible. But if some things cannot be made small, like a fast tele or a super fast zoom, then I’ll accept that and get that big and bulky lens.
Actually, I wouldn’t buy any of the two.
I simply do not see why I should buy an excessively fast and excessively expensive zoom lens at all.
For me, zoom lenses are for convenience, not for perfect image quality or for extreme apertures. Right, they should be of decent optical quality, and they shouldn’t be too slow, but they shouldn’t be too big or heavy either.
That’s why I never bought a Zuiko 14-35mm f/2 or 35-100mm f/2 for my E-30, instead I bought the Panasonic/Leica 14-150mm f/3.5-5.6 plus the Panasonic/Leica 25mm f/1.4, one giving me much more versatility and the other giving me even more aperture and light.
That’s what I’d choose again today if I had to, and it’s something that I’d choose for a Micro Four Thirds camera if I had one, too. Unfortunately, the 14-140/150mm and 25mm f/1.4 options for Micro Four Thirds aren’t really as good as the long-existing Four Thirds options, even though no existing Four Thirds camera is quite as good as the OM-D E-M5 today.
Which is one of the reasons why I’m still no candidate for buying into the Micro Four Thirds system.
Cheers,
Rob
Actually the m4/3 PL 25/1.4 (on GH2) is a bit better than the 4/3 PL 25/1.4 (on E-5), and much smaller.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/miklosrabi/6775219027/in/set-72157625085757906
You have to compare lenses on identical bodies, of course. From what I read so far, while the MFT lens may have advantages in center sharpness and chromatic aberrations, the FT lens has better corner sharpness, less distortion and it vignettes less. At least part of the MFT lens’ smaller size was clearly achieved by neglecting optical correction in favour of post-correction of distortion and vignetting – although Leica once said they’d give their name only for lenses which do /not/ need digital post-correction.
Probably no /huge/ difference, but overall I think the FT lens is better. (I hope to compare the two lenses myself in a couple of days on an E-M5, although it won’t be too thorough a test.)
Did you see the link in the photo description?
i think they should be compared with the same body and same sensor.
i have a Leica D 25/1.4 and i also tested my friend Leica DG 25/1.4 on my panasonic GX1. one thing i’m really sure is the image quality is not that different.
so i quite sure that the test results on that link might have something wrong. 🙂
ps. this is my flickr GX1 set (most of them are Leica D 25/1.4, only 4-5 pictures are from Leica DG 25/1.4)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/u-th/sets/72157628616071465/
(hope it can be useful)
Yes. The test, if we can call it one, shows only a small part of the image, probably the centre portion, which does look sharper with the MFT lens. But even if this result was perfectly correct, it isn’t the whole story – as I said: there’s edge sharpness, there’s vignetting, and there’s distortion.
Well, I think f2 lens simply werent for you. Leica 14-150 was and still is one of best existing super-zooms (its more like set of primes from 14 to 150mm), so I understand why you were happy with that. Its incredible lens.
If some lens should be “re-done” for m4/3s its definitely this lens. And maybe original 14-50mm f2.8-3.5 Leica.
We did a test with both lenses on the E-M5.
The 4/3 Version performed superior mostly in two aspects: contrast was much better, and it was sharper by a bit as well.
From a optical design pov (distortion correction, vignetting, CA etc.), most mft lenses should perform weaker than their ft counterparts. But I think they correct that very well in camera. Nevertheless I don’t mind using the E-M5 with the 35-100 or 14-35 for best quality. Just the AF could be a bit better ;D
(waiting for the OM-D Pro with 1/8000 and at least ISO100!)
Cheers,
Chris
I would like (for M4/3’s) a 50-200 f2.8-3.5 zoom (or similar) of the same IQ as the 4/3’s one. It would be ideal for indoor concerts & events to get really nice sharp shots.
Yes! I second that. The lack of such a lens for MFT, optimally with the option of a decent 1.4x and 2x converter, is what I’m missing the most (while the existing FT lens’ compatibility remains too limited).
>>> Unfortunately, the 14-140/150mm and 25mm f/1.4 options for Micro Four Thirds aren’t really as good as the long-existing Four Thirds options,
I sold my 25mm PL to buy up an epl1 and 20mm f1.7. Best decision I ever made. I loved the bokeh on the 25mm f1.4 PL – but on my e620, AF was a dog in low light. CDAF was more sure even on the e620, but just too slow. The micro 25mm panny doesn’t lose out really to the original. Especially when you’re talking about missing a shot due to poor AF.
I would not……. I am more a fan of primes and a 2.0 zoom on an MFT camera …kind of defeats the purpose of the system for this photographer. Too large and expensive.
I would just step up to my FF camera. MFT complements my FF. It is not my only camera system.
Its an incredible system though.
You’re saying $100 more… I think such a lens would be closer to the $2500 to $2800 range. (think of the 100-300 vs 75-300. The Oly lens is -slower- yet twice the price.
Would I buy either? Um, not in the near future. A 50-200 with macro (thinking along the lines of the 12-50, but a tad faster) or a 150mm macro might tempt me, however.
I do not think the answers are honest. We can see how big demand will be for the already pricy Panasonic lenses. The Olympus lenses at the same standard like the Four Thirds version will be twice as expensive.
Who can justify to spend 3000 bucks on a lens? I would guess maybe one out of a hundred readers of this blog. To the rest: keep dreaming!
I bet that most people who want an f/2.0 zoom are full of it and wouldn’t actually buy it once they realize the size and price.
Me, I’d simply prefer that Oly makes an updated m43 version of the 12-60 2.8-4. Corner-to-corner sharpness is more important (to many of us) than more DoF and the 12-60mm range would be much more convenient than the 12-35. A 12-60mm that’s a wee bit smaller and can auto-focus quickly on the m43 cameras would be the ultimate walk-around lens.
+1 I would love an F2 zoom, but not if I had to sell my fillings to pay for it.
+1 for the 12-60 ! Hey oly do you listen to, my money is ready !
+1
+1
hear hear.
12-60 2.8-4.0
send the bill my way.
+1
+1
i would take some fast primes with me.
it’s lighter, faster and cheaper to take the 12mm + 45mm olympus + 20mm panasonic with you.
No.
I’d rather like luminous fix focal to complement f/2.8 zoom instead of a bulky f/2.0 zoom.
PS : as suggested by BornBad, an f/2.8 zoom with the presents 12/20/45.
I’m not a pro. I voted for the Pana. Oly 2.0 is expensive and I use aready the three fast primes (12,20,45).
A cheaper lens, like the 14-54 would be o.k.
According to some reports the 14-54 mkII is already fully compatible with m43 (with adapter). I.e. it should focus fast, on par with native lenses – possibly the only 4/3 lens to claim this.
The 14-54 MKII does autofocus on m4/3 with adapter, but not nearly as fast as the native lenses. I use one as my primary lens and it is fairly quick, but nothing to brag about.
I would gladly pay the cost to upgrade to a 12-something f4 native to m4/3.
Thanks for sharing!
+1. I use the FT 70-300 – veeery slow…
That said, It’s one of the cheapest, yet best long lenses for the system up to 200mm. Drop to f8 if using higher than 200mm.
On bright days, I can’t complain about the focus speed at all.
We want a m43 version of the fabulous 12-60 f2.8-4 !!!!
If I had the money thats what I would spend it on…but maybe f2-3.5? 🙂
+100
12-60mm is the proven great lens and it should be converted to m43 version without any delay.
+10
I much prefer manual primes, but there are times when zooms and AF are convenient, like travel and social situations where swapping lenses is inconvenient. I have the 14-140mm and when I do use it, it’s rarely at the long end, I have a 100-300mm for that.. A12-60mm would be a perfect replacement.
Yes a compromise between the two mentioned lenses, like 2-3.5, no power zoom, no is, weather sealed and < 1500$
size wouldn't matter so much with this lens, keep the pricwe down 🙂
I would accept a slightly darker version for compactness. Right now, I find my 12-60 too big on my E-620. But I love the range for travel.
I don’t find the 12-60mm too big. In fact, I would happily still be using it – even on my E-PM1 if only the autofocus wasn’t a let down on m4/3. That was a fantastic lens and there really should be a m4/3 version.
Right on. I’ve switched from Olympus (not really due to any complaints I had about Oly, to be clear), but I doubt I’ll ever love a zoom lens any more than the 12-60. What an awesome lens… just fabulous.
In my opinion the panasonic is already overpriced. 12-35 2.0 or 14-42 2.0 at 1500 euro is the way to go. Why we have to pay a huge premium for f2.8?
Why not ask for them at £500? Dream on, fast zooms are always more expensive and never mind the weight. There are also few buyers, which in itself pushes up the price. Get real.
Check up what’s real.
Olympus 14-54/2.8-3.5 is only $600.
That’s a F2.8 not a F2.0. So try reading the post.
Alex was talking about the Panasonic f/2.8 zoom, which is hugely overpriced based on the comparison with a similar Oly lens I made.
Whether the price tag on the f/2.0 zooms is justifiable is another matter and there’s no base for comparison. Of course untuitively it should be more expensive than an f/2.8 zoom but how much is a matter of pure speculation.
Admin, please add a “none” option to your survey. And while you’re at it add a “both” option too. I wonder how many readers would tick it.
+1
Provided the Olympus 12-35 f2 is considerably lighter and smaller than its 4/3 counterpart than I’m interested. If its as large and heavy than its a mismatch with any m4/3 body and defeats the purpose of this system. A 550 gram 12-35 f2 with an em5 and grip attached is about the limit of what I think is practical with this platform. After that it looses what defines it which a balance of IQ and light weight.
I think its all down to the price/performance and size. I still think pana zoom is expensive, so I cannot fathom paying more for Oly. Oly should not make the same mistakes as 4/3. The lenses are great in 4/3 but never really fulfilled the “small” promise made by them. I love my 11-22 but I’m now looking more seriously at 12-35 because of the size. The only reason I have not pre-ordered one is the price. I would love to see a m43 12-60, same quality, same price (still cheaper than 12-35). I don’t think there is a market in m43 for super-expensive and bulky (albeit super quality) zooms.
+1
I voted Oly, but guess what? They don’t need to remake that lens for m4/3, they only need to make an adapter that enables PDAF on m4/3.
To keep the size down, they could make a 14-30mm or 11-25mm F2 for example. They can throw out weather sealing and power zoom as well AFAIC.
Why would they make an adapter which would convert a small camera into a big one when they already make a big one?
Because the m4/3 12-35mm F2.0 as admin suggested would be “almost twice as big as the Panasonic” 12-35mm F2.8, which means it wouldn’t be much smaller than the Four Thirds version.
I will take the Panasonic… it is being paired with the GH3 for a reason. Stabilization for video.
+1
I’m not against F2.8 , but the sensors in m4/3 can’t really perform if lighting is not sufficiently good . F2.0 is to have back up for such possibilities . The new sensors feature in GX & EM are much better but still need to further improve .
Unless there is a real revolutionary sensor , then I’ll take back my words ” F2.8 is not for M4/3 , if you mind about your optics ” .
I would like the F2.0. Shallow DOF on M43 is hard to get. F2.0 would help a little.
For $2300? No. For $1500? Probably.
So that’s a “no” for me.
$1500?
the f2.8 is $1300…
A 12-35 zoom is NOT about shallow DOF whatever the aperture. Its main advantage would be high shutter speed at low light. Oh, and read this:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/06/in-defense-of-depth.html
That is a nice piece of writing and, I believe very apt to put up here. Many here must loose a dimension to their photographs by the use of shaving DOF. The classic 3 pegs on a line and only the centre one in focus does nothing for me. I wanted to see the fly on the last one as well as the spring corrosion detail on the first one. I also want the portrait ears and hair in focus not just one eye and 4 eyelashes.
ignore – i hit the wrong reply button 😛
For as much crying and moaning over lens prices as we see here I find the amount of people ticking the $2300 very suspect. Those same people would be endlessly complaining about the price if such a lens did come out.
+100
Why not a Olympus version of the Panasonic with no OIS and power zoom at the same price or less. I would not use a larger lens and certainly not pay more if they are removing IOS. 2.8 would be a good compromise and for what this lens is used for it is already big enough!
I know there are fast primes out there, but I think the with advent of a weathersealed m43 camera Oly should also focus their efforts on delivering fast, weathersealed zooms. I wouldn’t want to be switching between primes in the middle of a thunderstorm.
7-1200mm f/0.95 SHG pancake zoom ($199)
PLEEZE!!!1111
you forgot macro 1:1 or more if possible (5x magnification is appreciated !) 😀
..and tilt-shift as well..
I would really love to see Oly come out with a 400mm or 500mm prime with an aperture or 4 or 5.6
Ram
You do realize that a 400mm/f4 has an objective (front lens) diameter of 100mm (4 inches), and a 500mm/f5.6 is 90mm? These would be almost as big and just as expensive as their FF cousins – although perhaps optically simpler because the required angle of view in m43 is 1/2 that of FF. Throw in AutoFocus and bigger still. Until such time that the m43 market approaches the size of the historical highs of the SLR market, quality m43 super telephoto will not be offered to us.
I have the 43 14-35 & 35-100 and would pay for the m43 versions IF and ONLY IF the quality is the same or better on a m43 but I would not pay more than the 43 price. However, given all the primes that have been released, I don’t see it happening. I feel they would make a great two lens vacation setup
I would buy neither. It is just damn too expensive. I would pay $1000 for a weather sealed high-quality 12-150/f4 though.
How about neither.
12-35 ans 14-35 are not really comparable because the focal length of the wide end is not the same. For some of us photojournalist and doc film makers, the extra wideness of the Panasonic lens can be critical in some framing scenarios.
f2.8 versus f2 comes down to the quality of the optics at full aperture. Law of Diffraction aside, my experience has been that the slower lenses are sharper and have less aberration and obviously are smaller than the one-stop-faster counterparts. As sensors get more and more sensitive and the quality improves at higher ISOs, the f2.8 will EFFECTIVELY be the same as an f2 later on in the evolutionary timeline.
Finally, Fixed aperture trumps faster full aperture for zooms in video application. No question at all about that.
With all due respect for your experience, but the existing Olympus FT f/2 zooms are some of the best lenses ever made and they’re decidedly better than their f/2.8 counterparts.
Meh, I use the 35-100 f/2 for my video work and Im not terribly impressed. Im interested to see how the 14-35 looks, I think I will sell the 35-100 and but the 14-35/35-100 panasonic set with the money. Less light, but the 35-100 isn’t sharp until 2.8 anyway, so that where I shoot.
In theory.
In practice, the 12-35 is on the level of a 14-54 (while costing three times as much and having worse build quality), which is worse than a 12-60, which is worse than a 14-35.
To put it differently, the 12-35 is a regular entry-level kit lens being sold for 4-5 times as much money as it realistically should be.
This seems to be the case indeed unless further reviews and samples prove the Panasonic is optically miles ahead of the 14-54, i.e. firmly in SHG league.
An entry level kit lens is not defined by its focal length range. Repeat. An entry level kit lens is not defined by its focal length range.
“I keep reading that some of you want an even faster zoom like the Four Thirds Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0”
Alright Admin, be honest as well, along with the Panasonic LC-1, isn’t this more about a personal wish than about something a majority of readers actually want? I mean, of course some here have expressed it, but if we go that way everything has been expressed. So why don’t you just write that it’s a lens you really want instead of making it pass as “the will of the people”? 😉
The poll counted my vote, so tell me how is the poll not representative of what the readers want?
For one thing – throwing powerzoom in there. That should be a separate choice/question..
Thus we can conclude that his dream combo would be Panasonic L1 with Olympus 14-35mm F2.0 lens :).
$100 dollar more = $1000 dollar more
The price is much too high, i would buy the panasonic 12-35 if they lowering the price…
Olympus should make something similar to their FT 14-54 f2.8-3.5 Lens, for a reasonable price i will buy it in a heartbeat!
I would buy the panasonic 12-35 if they lowering the price…
Olympus should make something similar to their FT 14-54 f2.8-3.5 Lens, for a reasonable price i will buy it in a heartbeat!
I would buy the panasonic 12-35 if they lowering the price…Olympus should make something similar to their FT 14-54 f2.8-3.5 Lens, for a reasonable price i will buy it in a heartbeat!
need OIS
Honest, schmonest. Everybody in the survey business knows that respondents will insist on “the best”… until they actually spend the money.
If you were able to check the actual sales figures for this lens, you’d get an idea of how many people would really buy a Micro 4/3 version.
You mean until they actually don’t spend the money AND complain that the price is too high. 😉
f2 zooms too heavy for m4/3.
I dont see myself spending an extra $1k for it. Not when i need two of them for my business. I have the 12-35 X on order from B&H and waiting for the 35-100 so i can do the same.
$1000 is hard to justify for one stop. It’s hard enough to justify $1300 for f/2.8 in the first place. I could get better low light performance by upgrading my camera body.
If I needed less DoF a 5dM2 kit with 24-105 f/4L would be equivalent in most respects (including price)and and include a FF camera for an alternative aesthetic.
***note that I’m not engaging in equivalency warfare, just stating my personal preference.
Like many others, I need and would buy a more modest workhorse lens — something similar to the 14-54 or 12-60 from the regular 4/3 system. I really have very little need for f2.8 and even less need for f2. What I do need is a professional quality normal range zoom in a relatively compact and affordable package.
I would be happy with less zoom range and faster speed:
14-35mm f/2
14-28mm f/1.7 (imagine that!)
As far as size goes, it just has to well balanced with the body.
==As far as size goes, it just has to well balanced with the body.==
It has, and it won’t.
I wouldn’t buy either lens. They’re both too large, heavy and expensive for me.
I bought m4/3 for the size and weight advantage over APS-C.
When I need a fast lens I use a prime.
+1
The 12-35mm isn’t particularly big and at 305g, not exactly heavy, either.
4/3 lenses are a different story.
Not much actually. The 12-60’s weight is directly proportional to its zoom range advantage over the Panasonic. About the same goes for the 14-54. Brightness difference is negligible, if any.
The question is not good for me, because
I don’t like power zoom.
twice big is too bad (but this is the point to choose for the question).
F is the ratio of the effective aperture vs focal length. So F/2.0 is rationally 1.4 times ( root 2 ) larger than F/2.8 in diameter.
In this meaning, “twice big” is too big. 1.414… times bigger is reasonable (theoretical).
yes to the lens and price, hell ney to the powerzoom. why are you including this? I’m a videographer and i want it for video and there is no place for it in my tools…I don’t need it, I don’t want it. do you see film cameras or RED’s or Arri’s with powered zooms? you do not. There is a place for powered zooms, but not here.
Not a videographer but strongly agree
The whole point of m4/3 is small. Why would anyone want a lens the size and weight of a f/2.0 zoom on a camera this small? The Panasonic 12-35 looks pretty good and is still small. What I would prefer to either would be a m4/3 version of the 14-54 f/2.8-3.5 or 12-60 f/2.8-4. Please, please give me a normal mechanical zoom ring, none of this power zoom garbage (a mechanical focus ring would also be nice, but I know that won’t happen).
All my Panasonic lenses have a focus ring – the 12-35 will have one as well. Whether this mechanically drives the focus or controls the focusing motor (focus by wire) should be immaterial, as long as you can turn AF off on the camera.
Except I have yet to use a focus by wire lens that was as precise as a mechanically coupled one.
I agree with John. I’d really avoid any lens with power zoom. I had no interest in the Panasonic 12-35 until I found out it had a zoom ring – now I’m quite tempted by it. But the focus by wire is really painful to use. It’s a bit better with the Panasonic bodies where they give you a range scale on screen.
In fact, the focus by wire is probably the main reason I will avoid the Olympus 60mm Macro. I really wish Schneider would do a manual focus macro..
I liked this idea initially, but after reading that it would be twice as large as the Panny, I’ve now changed my mind. A larger aperture would be great, but most of us bought into the m4/3 system for smaller, lighter bodies and lenses.
Yikes,
I first read that the lens would be $100 more than the Panny. Sound OK. But $1000 more? Not a chance would I buy that lens.
I would buy the fast Oly zoom at the current price of Panny’s 12-35mm, and I would buy the 12-35mm if it cost less than what they are currently asking. I’m glad there are options like this for the videographer crowd and for the prestige it brings to the brand, but the most-loved m4/3 lenses, the ones that sell by the truckload, are those lenses that are good + good value.
Yeah, there is a typo in the question. The Olympus lens is $1,000 more than the Panasonic lens, not $100!!!
If they could give me a slightly wider range, I would opt for the f/2.0. If not, I wouldn’t bother with the cost and instead would buy some primes.
Under the title pic it says
The Four Thirds Olympus 12-35mm f/2.0 lens
Such a lens does not exist.
The surveys on this site are pointless. I remember one person commenting on that Oly and Panasonic should pay more attention to the lens survey result. Would you really pay attention to a survey result where the top voted lens was a 12-50mm f/2.0???
I went on BH to show you that it does…
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/546539-REG/Olympus_261011_14_35mm_f_2_0_ED_SWD.html/BI/4499/KBID/4968
Then I realized that its the 12mm wide you are talking about. Its true, its not 12-35 its 14-35.
For me this survey was like asking, ‘would you buy a ferrari or a lamborghini?’. I have an opinion an that and would likely cast a vote between the two.
But what I WILL buy is Honda Odysseys for the rest of my life 🙂
The problem with that is it is no help to Oly marketing department making a decision on what lens they should be making. That is, makes this survey even more pointless if they’re looking at purely sales point of view.
People not planning to buy either makes no difference to them. They need the information/votes of only people who would buy this catergory of lens.
So, forgetting general brand image for a moment, ferrari and lanborghini don’t care what you or I prefer – only what potential buyers prefer.
Here is my honest answer.
I am willing to spend total of $4000, IFF Olympus can develop quality 14-35mm f/2.0 and 35-100mm f/2.0 zoom lenses, but at a significantly smaller and lighter than FT counter parts.
If they have to be as bulky and heavy, then they should be sub $3000 total.
I think it’s been mentioned before, but for me the Olympus f/2.0 makes no sense. The advantages it confers are 1 stop extra light and slightly better DOF control, but at the cost of FF size and weight. If you are that concerned about light capture and DOF, and clearly have the money for top glass, it would make more sense in my mind to go FF, where you get way more DOF control, and have less noise at high ISO that more than compensates for the extra stop of light. Yes, the olympus is a gem of a lens, but its size and weight fly in the face of the raison d’être of the m4/3 system.
If Olympus came out with a 14-35 (or 12-90) F/2 constant I’d buy it in a heartbeat. Right now I’m hoping the release a 25mm built like the 12mm and upgrade the 45mm with the build of the 12mm.
A m4/3rds 14-54mm would be much more useful.
Out of the 1000 people that have voted for the f2 zoom. Maybe 3 would have the money to buy it and would buy it.
People say they would but, yea. That lens wouldn’t mesh well with m43. Too big.
I voted yes because it said 100$ more. I would not even consider for a second spending $1000 for one stop and three times the size
I’m an Olympus guy but I voted for the Panny 12-35 because the size is right, the performance looks great, the extra 2mm on the wide end will be nice and I can never see myself paying more than $1500 US for a camera lens. I already made a deal with my wife that allows me to buy the 12-35 if I lose 25 lbs and keep it off or three months, haha!
When m43 was announced, one of its advertised “advantages” was that smaller sensor and shorter flange distance between lens and sensor meant the lenses could be made smaller and cheaper.
I feel that the prices for m43 glass are going up. I voted for the panasonic. If olympus releases such a lens, it should be cheaper than its 43 counter part and full frame equivalent.
I’d imagine that a large proportion of the price of a lens is decided by what the market can stand rather than what it costs to build. The build cost, etc. would give you a minimum price but the maximum price is a marketing decision. If we must consider build cost then the quantity produced should have a big effect on that, so yes, as the system becomes more popular the potential market is bigger and the volumes should go up and the prices down. But wait! If all the companies are going to build similar lenses then they’ll each get a smaller share of the market… Hmm. No. on reflection I think the marketing department will put the prices on.
Biggest factor I see in pricing of Lenses is more or less the same as that for bodies and that applies across the field for every manufacturer. The constant upgrading of equipment, if we look at the legacy glass, how many iterations were there of the standard 50/1.8 Zuiko (4 maybe 5) over how many years, we’ve already had 3 versions of the standard zoom for u4/3 all this comes at a price. As regards colour they were Black as was Henry’s Model “T”. So the question we have is how long will we have to wait for the technology to settle down, my guess is for ever, it is the world we live in, technology equates disposable unless you are happy with your older versions of a particular item.
I would go for the slower lens, but I would pay more for a faster 9-18.
I dont see the need to remake the lens, the original is flawless, how can they have any significant saving of size and weight without sacrificing the purpose of such a lens.
Professionals carry heavy equipment, that is the price they pay for perfection. Once you start compromising, well you get just that, a compromise.
I enjoy the prime route Olympus is currently taking, it fills the gaps in their 43rds lens suite, and if they can get AF on m43rds bodies my 12-60 will work just fine on my EM5, hell they already gave me the mmf3 for free!!
Ab
I’m still considering buying the 14-35mm f2 and E-5, but ideally a successor which is what I’m hanging out for…….. I’m currently using an E620. I love m43 but would prefer larger and heavier provided the quality is still significantly better.
As someone who owned a 14-35/2 along with an E-3 , I can say that I would not want it again.
Optically it was superb. But the AF was near useless : 1-2 seconds to judder the massive amount of glass on to focus.
If the panasonic lens’s aperture is too slow then a far better option would be 2x E-M5 one with the 12/2 and the second with the 25/1.4.
You over burdened the question. It should have been a simple 14-35 f/2 lens. Adding power zoom and taking it to 12mm is totally unrealistic. The lens you describe will never be made. A 14-35 is a possibility, but a 12-25 f/1.8 is more likely than a 12-35 f/2 with power zoom. The 14-35 f/2 becomes the most likely to become a reality.
M43 is all about high quality in a small and discrete package. Monster f/2 zooms do not belong. A well-balanced, compact 14-40 f/2.8 zoom (similar to the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for APS-C but smaller of course) would fit the bill.
Let’s see….a 12-35 f/2 zoom…..hmmmm……..
I know, this is just a wild, sick idea, but how about this instead:
12mm f/2
20mm f/1.7
25mm f/1.4
45mm f/1.8
Yeah, it’s wild & nutty, but you know, there could be a market for four very small, very fast primes that you can buy on the installment plan rather than a $2,500 USD super duper zoom….and we’ll bump it up to a full 45mm, for the portrait photographers amongst us.
I wonder if anyone would go for something like that……hmmmmm……
– Olympius
Notice the gap between 12 and 20 mm.
In my 35mm film days, I carried 24mm, 28mm, and 50mm primes. The poor 28mm was almost always ignored thanks to the superior view of the 24mm. However, I do wish I had a 35mm….that would have had come in handy.
So, what we really need to see is a 17mm f/2 (or even f/1.7) pancake. It would be nice to see Olympus come out with something like that, especially if it were optically as good as their 12mm and 45mm lenses. A simple 25mm f/2 pancake would be appreciated as well.
– Olympius
I’ll take a Voigtländer 17.5mm, thank you. 😉
The 12-35mm is actually quite desirable, even though I much prefer manual primes to auto-zooms. I think of zooms and AF as convenience features to use primarily in situations where there are certain constraints, like time and/or impatient companions… basically, travel and social situations.
Right! That’s what I’d always go for if I’d really want aperture. The only thing that’s missing is a decent, fast, AF-capable 17mm option.
On the other hand, for those situations where I’d need convenience and versatility rather than aperture, I’d go for something like a 14-150mm. Unfortunately, both MFT offerings are substantially worse than the fine Panasonic/Leica D Vario-Elmarit 14-150mm f/3.5-5.6 for FT.
I would buy a 12-60 with a constant aperture of F4.
Uniform sharpness from center to corners is more important for me than fast apertures.
I don’t understand why you make such a poll while the Panasonic 12-35mm isn’t even widely distributed and tested. Let’s see how customers like it and whether it is sharp or not.
We don’t need enormous lenses zoom fr mft. We need sharp lenses with good corners. Fr that compromises ave to be done. For me I prefer light and compact lenses to wide Max apertures. I’m not ready to give up the main advantage of mft, aka size and weight. But I want saro corners, so it is either a fast prime or a slower zoom.
2000 USD zooms on toy format? What a load of crap. Learn photography and get a proper camera. Is this some sort of sick joke?
Learn photography and you will realise that big is not better in all but a few instances.
Bigger is better more often than not I am afraid.
Given the ever increasing ability of digital cameras to provide clean results at ISOs that would have been unthinkable even a few years ago, much less back in the days of film, I find the need for extremely large aperture lenses to be dramatically reduced. I wouldn’t be willing to accept the size and weight compromises assumed for this mythical lens.f/2.8, right now, I find to be the sweet spot between size and low light shooting capability.
When I really need shallower DOF, I’ll go to my 25 f/1.4.
I would accept some size compromise for a greater FL range, though. Something like a 12-50 f/2.8 instead of a 12-35, and a 50-150 f/2.8 instead of a 35-100.
14-54mm II with MMF-3 already satisfied me, not interested in both of them.
I was with your hypothetical Olympus lens description and thought it would have been a reasonable lens for its price until you said “power zoom”.
That’s a feature I would specifically avoid regardless of the specifications of the lens.
I think the lenses would be closer in price than Pana would like. The Oly lens would not need a IS mechanism in is but would be designed wider. I would definitely go for the Oly with an EM-5.
Pro lenses are not for consumers.
I’d pay 2500$ easy for a 12-4x f.2 for m43. It might not be supercompact, but there is something like diminishing returns regarding size. If I get .8 stop by making the lense a little bigger and more expensive then go for it. I want variation and if some broke bum cannot afford it hey, so what?
And yeah, I don’t like to switch lenses all the time. So why not make 1-2 optically fantastic fast zooms? There are people that will buy them.
I owned the 14–35 f/2.0 back when I had an Olympus E-3. Optically wonderful, but the damn thing wouldn’t focus reliably, even on static subjects, and was just as big and heavy as the Nikkor 24–70 f/2.8 used by the pro that I was backing up.
I picked up an E-M5 as the basis of a small, lightweight system for travel and social situations and want similarly small, lightweight, and crystal-clear lenses to go with it. A behemoth of a lens like a 12–35 f/2.0 defeats the purpose IMHO. One of the great things about an E-M5 sporting a small prime is that it doesn’t scream “serious camera” and intimidate the subject.
Maybe Olympus can produce a m4/3 body that provides the bombproof AF needed by wedding and event photographers. Then such a lens would make sense.
These cameras are not for pros or anyone with expectations, that is the point. Thus, these prices are plain silly.
If I would have that kind of choice I would buy the
– Olympus M.Zuiko SHG 12-35mm /f2.0 with powerzoom for HD-video and the
– Olympus M.Zuiko SHG 35-100 mm /f2.0 with powerzoom for HD-video
(power-zoom abilities like the m.Zuiko 12-50mm kit lens)
Admin please let opt for M.Zuiko SHG-powerzoom versions for HD-video.