I am not sure we will ever see this for real but Olympus patented a faster version fo the current 12-50mm f/3.5‑6.3 lens. This patented lens has a much more attractive f/2.8-4.0 aperture. The exact lens specs would be:
via Egami.
I am not sure we will ever see this for real but Olympus patented a faster version fo the current 12-50mm f/3.5‑6.3 lens. This patented lens has a much more attractive f/2.8-4.0 aperture. The exact lens specs would be:
via Egami.
*Please also check your spam folder if you don't get the confirmation mail. And mark the mail as "non-spam" to see the future newsletter.
78 Responses
This would’ve been more interesting if I hadn’t just purchases the 12-40 2.8, which I love. If this still had the power zoom function, wouldn’t it be better as a f4 zoom and not have the flicker in video
Maybe the new kit for a rumored E-M5 MKII?
Not so soon, I hope — Olympus has too many bodies, in fact I think they should cut back the Pens especially. Just one Pen EPL model + higher end EP with built in EVF. I’d rather have a Pen with built-in EVF than another OMD body. If they do revamp the EM5, I hope the Mk.II will be a smaller version of the EM1 design, which is quite nice to hold.
I rather have the “modular” EM-5 concept: Small body and light for use with small lenses, and when in need of more grip, just add the HLD-6 for that(also adding functions buttons). E-M1 is a little too big for some circumstances, and shrinking it’s size would hinder ergonomics.
If it’s going to be as good as the Fuji counterpart (or better) then this lens will have very good sales (weather sealing is a must).
http://photobyandrei.wordpress.com/
Darn. So close. Why not 12-60mm? Would have been even nicer if it was a 12-65mm constant 2.8, really.
Yes it would but that’s not the point, this is about a totally different product, why expect something totally different than what’s being talked about ?
You’re not aware of the history of the 12-60mm Olympus zoom, obviously.
Which was F2.8-4.
Hence the “it would have been even nicer” bit. Good Lord.
I mean of course it would have been nicer, but given the size of the 12-40 it would be quite huge and also heavy. Your wish just seems to me a bit too impossible. 😉
That would make it big, heavy, and expensive. For m43, small and light has to be a priority. Lower cost would be nice too. The 12-40 is too expensive for most people. With cell phones dominating general photography, cost has to be a consideration for the industry if it is to maintain volume production.
I wasn’t excited about the original 12-50, but then got one because it was the least expensive way for me to get a 12 mm focal length and also have macro. The lens has turned out to be much better than I expected, and the slow aperture not as big a problem. This faster version would be a good idea if they can keep the price down to less than half the 12-40.
I’m thinking $599 List & $499 street price would make this a real winner. Perhaps an extra $100 if it turns out to be weather sealed.
Yesterday I was photographing in a poorly lit local museum with the 12-50 f 3.5-6.3, most of the time at the wide end. With the EM-5’s excellent image stabilization, the slow speed of the lens was not a problem. A 12-50 f 2.8-4.0 would really make an excellent carry-around lens.
The 14-54 f2.8-3.5 and 12-60 f2.8-4were extremely popular in regular 4/3. I keep wondering why Olympus has not come out with something along those lines for m4/3. Maybe this is it at last. The 12-35 and 12-40 are just a bit too short for a portrait photographer like me.
This would solve the need of many users for an affordable compact semi-fast kit lens, better than ordinary kit lenses but cheaper than the constant aperture ones. Hopefully the variable aperture allows Olympus to make it as compact as the original kit lens but with internal zoom like the 12-50mm
Exactly.
I’d love a 12-60mm f2.8-4 as a casual and travel lens, especially if it were at least on par, or preferably better, than the 4/3 lens.
Right now, the 12-40mm is fairly appealing, but just a bit too short for my taste in zooms. Still, it’ll probably end up in my bag at some point.
Thanks to software correction, a µ43 12-60/2.8-4.0 should be smaller than the corresponding 43 one but how much? May be not enough. So they decided to cut the long end to get it more compact.
I like the 43 version but I find it too big. I’m still using the 14-42 when I want light equipment (for ski touring).
I’ve found the Oly 12-40mm to be one of the best zooms available for any system (especially when size is considered). The portraits are very nice at 40mm/F4. If the 12-50mm is more compact with a lower price, it will probably be a no-brainer to keep in the travel bag.
Everything I’ve read about the 12-40mm says that it’s excellent. I tried one briefly a couple of weeks ago and it was very nice! I like the fact that it focuses at very close distances, so it doubles as a near-macro lens.
Yes. That’s what I was wondering, too. There must be some reason Olympus is not replicating the 12-60mm, but it can’t be technical. That was a stellar lens, on my Olympus E1 back then.
Does anyone still remember the Panasonic 12-50 2.5-3.3 lens? Accroding to admin, it was supposed to be released in 2011, but then it apparently got postponed. Then admin never spoke of it again. Now that would have been a nice lens!
what?….really?!! never knew about it
Another awesome lens which would be a very good kit lens…..hope it has weather sealing and they price it really well
finally some hint about the missing range between slow kit lenses and the pro zoom! I hope they will release it.
and I don’t care if it is IF as long as it dust & splash proof. No need for macro range too. Coupled with the 60mm and a shorter bright prime, that’s all I need.
I believe it would be a very good kit for the EM-5 and it’s follower. 3 levels of camera 3 levels of kit zoom
I own the 12-40/2.8 and love it but would get this 12-50/2.8-4.0 if is is a little smaller. I am guessing it will be the kit lens for the E-M5 replacement. Now a 50-200/2.8-4.0 to go with it would be nice.
That’s a much better range than Fuji’s 18-55mm F2.8-4… would love to pair it with a GX7 body for street shooting.
24-100mm f5.6-8 FF equivalent lens which will cost 1000’s of $! What is the point of m43? Yes, we know, the aperture stays exactly the same blah blah blah, but why doesn’t any Little Four Third fanboy ever point out that the focal length also stays exactly the same, no matter what and isn’t 24-100mm. Here the clue – the sensor is ‘4 times’ smaller, which makes ”4 times” less image, which is the ‘equivalent’ to doubling the focal length, and your tiny ”4 times” smaller sensor, means ”4 times” less light gathering capability which makes your lens ”4 times” slower, which is the equivalent to 2 stops of aperture performance (speed), or 2 stops of ISO fail if it makes you feel better. But we know little 43 fanboys, you will point out that exposure will be exactly the same as a FF camera and lens, as it is will be with an original 2007 iPhone and everything will be in focus – well not as much as an original 2007 iPhone (all we have to ignore is the 2 stops of extra noise and blotchiness with your wonderful tiny43 – not so tiny $$$$$$ though. But at least your muscles won’t hurt as much carrying it).
No. The crop sensor does the same thing as Photoshop crop. The same F-number, the same intensity of light hitting the sensor. Stop trolling and spreading BS. Additional bit of info – full frame sensor doesn’t treat insecurity.
“But at least your muscles won’t hurt as much carrying it”
that’s the point you see ?
we “know” it is a compromise on quality. Point is: I want a small equipment that’s “good enough” quality wise. m43 fit the bills for me. Obviously, “good enough” quality wise for me is not the same for you.
Ultimately, it could cost the same as a 24*36 system, it will still be a better compromise for me than a 24*36 system.
Is it so hard to understand that someone may have different requirement?
Not everyone needs paper-thin DOF. And not everyone needs to shoot at candle-light-levels. Not to mention that “1000’s of $” is bullshit when the 12-40 f/2.8 retails for $1000
This lens would be adequate for my needs. My only worry is its size: a minimum length of 107mm and maximum of 153mm? For just 50mm focal length? I don’t need a pancake lens, but this is a behemoth…
One Word is enough: Nonsense!
And have fun to carry the tons of FF equipment you supposedly have. m4/3 users are more than happy to have abandoned this era. Many other do and will follow.
What if the m43 user is not in the physical condition to carry a full size camera? I can’t imagine myself carrying anything more than 2lbs. Lots of Asian people like me are not strong enough to carry a full size camera all day. Westerners shouldn’t have this issue but light weight camera like m43 is great for us.
Love it! Quote: “The sensor is 4 times smaller’. It is, of course, understood that FF is the reference and the only reference on this planet.
On a side note: I only shoot using prime lenses. Nobody prevents me from doing that (-:). The overall performance of GX7 + prime rocks (lots of light, good DOF, leightweight, compact, super fast AF, …). Have FF equipment as well but it is really heavy. If I can’t take it with me even the best FF reference performance is … of no use.
Have a peaceful day.
Only 24×36 is good?? Hahaha…. this BS is not valid anymore dude. Of course not you, but others here takes fantastic pictures with m43 and I’m sure you know that. The equipment is not the most important aspect, but maybe you don’t agree. But ok, we know, you have to justify the weight and cost of your stuff so you come here to vomit nonsenseness.
“the sensor is 4 times smaller, which makes 4 times less image”
Doh! I knew something was wrong with my EM10. That explains it. I’m missing three quarters of my image! Thanks Jim!
What’s your compact system, EOS-M?? You should be happy, Canon just announced a 90-320mm f/7.2-10. Woohooo!!
Wow…. Canon is so innovative… They try hard to bring the best for the masses… 😀
They do bring their stuff to the masses Canon has single rebel models that sell more than all of mFT put together
DSLRs are as disposable and common as toilet paper, only good for cleaning sht out of your butt
DSLRs are as disposable and common as toilet paper, only good for cleaning sht out of your butt
So if it sells it’s good. Philip Morris sells a lot of their stuff too…
Mental illness is a worrying scourge, so I have heard.
You are wrong on most of your points. You should really study up on the principles of photography.
I’m a 6d user but I can tell you that you are trolling. In terms of light gathering, a f2.8 lens is the same on every sensor size (if it has t2.8). Dof is the only difference so stop trolling.
Every system has its pluses and minuses and it’s good that there are many sensor sizes for everybody to choose what’s good for him.
http://photobyandrei.wordpress.com/
100% correct! f/whatever is f/whatever for any lens and sensor.
Yesss!! I have a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera and no matter the lens I mount on it (FF, crop, etc…) f/2.8 is always f/2.8. Tony Northrup is WRONG!!!
You are correct. F2.8 is the same on any lens and this would be a 12-50mm F2,8 – F4.0. However, if you start doubling the focal length and saying this is a 24mm -100mm equivalent lens you do also have to give the equivalent aperture which is F5.6 to F8.0.
And as far as light gathering is concerned, the sensor does count as it is the total light which is important for digital sensors which is the light intensity multiplied by the sensor size.
Otherwise an F2.8 to F4.0 tiny sensored compact would give the same performance as a Full Frame camera. It doesn’t because the sensor is much smaller.
I’m an m43 user and I know the OP is a troll, but he is right that the sensor size has to be taken into account when comparing this lens to an equivalent lens on a FF camera.
If you’re not doing the comparison it is irrelevant and the lens should be called what it is, a 12mm-50mm
Oh we m43 users REALLY care what you say. Please. Say some more.
just nit-picking. it isn’t the equivalent aperture, but the similar depth of field performance on a 135-sensor camera at those apertures.
so its really lens speed of f/2.8-4.0 with a deeper depth of field of f/5.6-8 due to the smaller sensor. which is a plus or a minus depending on the photography you’re doing.
f-number is the approximate ratio of the focal length over the aperture diameter. that cannot change.
What kind of pathetic life do you have that you NEED to crave for attention on a camera website ? Take a look at yourself, what kind of looser do you have to be to come here and spout useless BS at a system you clearly have not used, in order to feel good about your shtty disposable canikon DSLR ?
He just needs to get laid, dont give him more attention.
But your tiny 135 sensor is only 15 times smaller than my large format camera. That’s 15 times less image quality. And your tiny 15 times smaller sensor means 15 times less light gathering ability and makes your lens 15 times slower, which is 7 1/2 stops of ISO fail. Why do you “FF”m fanboys insist on using such a microscopic sensor? I suppose you fanboys will just justify it by saying your tiny sensor is in a smaller, lighter camera. A camer phone would work fine for you since you love using such tiny equipment. At least your toy sized gear doen’y cost as much and your tiny, girl like muscles won’t hurt from carrying it. And the loss of weight in your wallet by the over priced gear will help as well.
15 times less is 3.9 stops, which is nearly twice the difference between nano four thirds and 135. Where did you learn your math? In marketing school?
To James Pathetic Camera Loser: Do you have any skills as a shooter? You have a sure have a big mouth. How ’bout sharing some of your work?
Nice troll btw.
You speak the truth, my friend! But these m4/3 morons will never understand the truth. It’s sad, really.
Exactly! You can’t expect anything different from people who wouldn’t recognise a real camera even if it was shoved up their ass.
They are almost as sad as people using a 135 sized sensor. That tiny thing is 15 times smaller. How can you call that Full Frame when it is only 1/15 the size?
Irked you a little bit there, Jimbo? LOL!
Weel full frame delivers better image quality for sure, but does everyone need that ?
I hope they don’t put macro features in it and make is a bit smaller if at all possible with a bit better IQ. Not that the first one is that big, I do not own it, but I have seen great images taken with it. If it is weather sealed I might buy it as a travel lens for my EM-5! 🙂
Yes please Olympus, weather sealed make it a power zoom with OIS and send Panasonic an email with the DFD info while you are at it. Oh and can i have a free hood and a lens pouch please…and black for no extra?
OIS will make it bigger and they don’t need to since their bodies have IBIS. Also, I think its been a while since they offer the black lenses with no extra cost so I still do not get why people mention this.
…and if they could brand it Leica too… oh, but I think you might be dreaming of a pansonic lens ? I dream of one too – a 12-70 f4 OIS with a reasonable macro.
As a photojournalism, I was waiting for a pro weather sealed lens with a better range. I still find it a bit short, I would rather take it to 12-60mm like the good old zuiko lens.
Kneel and tremble before me, puny imbeciles! Ingest the seminal fluids from my phallic spear! Do you really think that your minuscule sensor will defeat me, the lord that rises above all? Crawl beneath me, and pledge your allegiance to the omnipotent deity of the full frame!
Embarrassing. You’re the type who carries guns into schools in the real world. Sad.
And you’re the type who takes everything dead seriously. It should be pretty obvious that the guy is just poking fun at all the ‘real’ full frame trolls.
Oh my lord, finally my humble pray has been heard by you the almighty. Please guide me and the rest of my kind to the DOF heaven where there are so much more light than this dark inferno of inferior MFT evils.
I would certainly be interested in a lens like this, being an owner (& user) of the 14-54 II lens. I bought that lens as it more affordable than the 12-60 & did live view (Imager) AF & so this would be a similar offering as an alternating to the 12-40, I hope.
BTW, to all those that responded to the troll, you were only feeding him. Ignore him instead & he might get tired of being ignored & eventually go away (we could hope anyhow).
The troll gets off on getting people react to him. We get off by bashing him. It’s really S&M enjoyment since both sides get off on it.
oh wow..this is just what I need.. a perfect range without the $1000 price of a full 2.8 lens.. Please make this below $600.
The 4/3 Olympus 12-60 f/2.8-4.0 had an MSRP of $1000
YEs, great please also make the 12-45 f2,5 to f3,5. On top of that 13-65 f3,2 f 4,8. The we need a 14- 60 F2,5 f3,2. We also badly need a 12,5-60 mm f3,5.
What we do not need is any good telezoom from 100 mm upwards. That we don’t we already have two of such lenses, so spare us…
Can’t wait for this, the 12-50mm it’s a great versatile lens