I would like to know from you what new MFT lenses you hope to see in 2015. Please write your favorite lens specs on the comment system below. Lenses high on my list are:
12mm f/1.0 Zuiko lens -> P.S.: It’s on an official Olympus patent and not just a crazy dream of mine 🙂
17mm f/1.2 OIS Panasonic lens
12-35mm f/2.0 Zuiko zoom.
So what’s your dream lens?
508 Responses
An 12-60 f2.8-4.0 would be awesome. I would like something as the HG line for 4/3.
Please a 10-100 F4
….and please make that par-focal with OIS 🙂
6mm F4 – tacksharp, (almost) no CA, reasonable filter thread
Totally agree about the lens specs, but I suspect the reasonable (front) filter thread will be difficult, unless they incorporate a rear filter holder like the panasonic 8mm has.
Might even say that a 5.6 version would suffice if it’d keep the size down and quality up.
I agree with you – 5.6 would suffice! Only rear filters would be not useful for me. Big stopper + ND grad + (sometimes) polarizer unfortunately need a thread…;-)
A 8 mm tilt/shift would be wonderful with 40 mega pixel!
Why? Wouldn’t 8mm on m43 at any reasonable (for TS) aperture have more than enough DoF already?
7-11/2.8 PRO and 8/1.8 FE PRO for starters 😛
Would love to see: – 12/2.8 TS PRO, or a
– 17/2.8 TS PRO, or a
– 25/2.8 TS PRO
(Is there a pattern forming?)
Dunno what in the telephoto. Suppose a 100-250/2.8 PRO that’d accept the 1.4TC?
9mm f2.8
my dream lens is 67.5mm/0.95 by Voigtlander.
The 42.5mm/0.95 is a little too short for me.
17,5/ 1.2 pancake ;-P
A very wide aperture 17.5mm or so. Or basically take the existing Voigtlander, add electronics for EXIF if not a full-blown AF motor, and do something to reduce the weight. Maybe even reduce the size. A tall order maybe, but surprise us.
We have three similar walk-around primes between Pana & Oly (15mm, 17mm, 20mm pancake) with different quirks. I have the latter with its slow AF motor; a trusty lens I’ve been using for years, but It’d be nice to have something to upgrade to.
– a really small 7 or 8mm f4 or 5.6 lens
Panasonic 17mm f1.7 or Olympus 17mm f1.8 II with improve optics. [Full frame equivalent 34mm] IS, weather sealing are great value add. Aperture ring, Leica branding, manual focus clutch are not needed but I don’t mind as long as they have good optics comparable to current primes such as the 12mm and 25mm.
A sharp 8-17mm f2.8 or f4 or f2.8-4 that comes with filter thread to take filter! [Full frame equivalent 16-34mm] Again, weather sealing is very useful as well as IS for Panasonic bodies.
A Panasonic 35-150mm f2.8-f4 X Lens with the same weather sealing and around the same size and weight of the current 35-100mm (height 100mm, weight 360g). [Full frame equivalent 70-300mm]
12mm f1.2 and 20mm f1.2
Olympus 45mm f1.0 or 1.2!!
Why not just buy the Pana 42.5/1.2? I doubt such Oly would be any cheaper.
I admit that I am tempted but with the Pana 42.5/1.2 I pay for things that I do not need / do not work with my Olympus body (OIS, aperture ring) and autofocus seems not work that great as well with Olympus bodies at wide aperture. So an equivalent in the 40-50mm range by Olympus would be perfect :-).
OIS works with Olympus bodies if you want. You don’t overpay for it much, all the 14-42 with OIS cost almost nothing. But you can use it on a Pana later, or sell to somebody who uses Pana.
There are plenty real gaps in the range, asking for duplicates is just plain wrong.
OIS was the part that I don’t need with my Olympus body. Of course I believe that there are bigger gaps but as I am interested in portrait photography (mostly indoor) a Olympus fast prime lens ~45mm ~1.2 is the lens I would wish for to work perfectly with my E-M1. As it seems others would like it as well and there have already been rumors about a fast prime Olympus lens in that range, so perhaps it is not that wrong after all.
Easy. An UWA prime that takes filters. 9mm f2.8 or something like that would do nicely.
+1000 I would prefer a little bit faster for stars photography…f2 is nice, that would result in f2 iso 1600 15s
a 200/4 or so, not too expensive
a 90 or 100/2.8 1:1 macro
200 F4, keep a weather eye open on ebay for a Zuiko, I have one and it’s superb.
yep I have one of those, but AF would be a great plus
Quality a la PanaLeica 15 mm, and zoom a la PanaLeica FT lens 14 – 150 mm:
12 – 100 f2.8 – 4
14 – 150 f3,3 – 5,3 (macro)
12 f1,7
17 f1,7
25 f1,7 (macro)
40 f1,7 (macro)
100 f1,7 (macro)
All lenses good for video also, through silent AF Motors and switchable manual focus a la Olympus 12 mm. Two versions: one with OIS, one without.
The ‘Roadie’ series:
12mm f/2
17.5mm f/2
25mm f/2 and
50mm f/2
All high quality, smallish, metallic, optically corrected and weather sealed. Distance scales would be nice
A better Olympus 17mm f1.8 II with improved optics
A longer focal length “super fast prime.” Something like 75mm F1.0 or 85mm F1.0 35mm focal equivalent. And weather sealed please. With a hood.
already exists. the 42.5 (85mm ff equivalent) OIS DG Nocticron F1.2. Weather sealed, with hood.
i would love to see a real wildlife lens like a 150-300/4.0 in a build quality comparable to the 12-40/40-150 f2.8 lenses
Sounds great!
15mm F1.8 Olympus (decent price)
12-25 f/1.8 zoom weather sealed with distance scale for manual focus in Oly 12-40 f2.8 style.
17.5 mm f/1.4 with manual focus and USABLE dof scale eg. start from 2/2.8 not from 5.6!
25 mm f/1.4 with manual focus and USABLE dof scale eg. start from 2/2.8
14 mm f/1.4 with manual focus and USABLE dof scale eg. start from 2/2.8
“25 mm f/1.4 with manual focus and USABLE dof scale eg. start from 2/2.8”
Take any old manual focus 35/2 and put it on a focal reducer. You can also already buy manual 25mm from Voightlander, SLR Magic, Kowa… no need in another.
I think a DOF scale of a full frame lens is not correct for MFT due to the different CoC and sensor size (DOF equivalence).
I’ll test it with my Canon FD lenses (24 f/2.8 and 50 f/1.8).
But, I think that those lenses are missing on MFT lineup.
The manual 25mm from Voightlander is a good lens but DOF scale is a joke, it starts at f/4 on a lens with f/0.95…
DoF scale is BS anyway. DoF for 1000 lines per picture height is not the same as DoF for 2000 lines, which is not the same as DoF for modern sensors.
DoF scale has been useful at the time of film photography. How many lines per picture height does the film have?
The standard was 1000 lines (which most contemporary lenses did not resolve anyway, at least at DoF-limited distances and apertures). Modern sensors and lenses resolve more than that.
Well with my Canon FD 24mm I made a new infinity registration (https://www.flickr.com/groups/1084614@N23/discuss/72157627345186393/) because most mount adapters are made slightly short in order to ensure that all lenses made for a given lens mount will be insured to focus at infinity.
With the new infinity mark on my lens it is usable with prefocus in the same way it works for infrared photography. Distances and DOF markings match.
What does it have to do with meaningless DoF markings? I did not say enything about distance scale…
How could I test DoF markings without a working distance scale?
Using legacy manual lenses with adapters is an alternative for manual focusing using DoF scale, but you need to recalculate DoF scale and rebase infinity marking.
Summarizing, I think that:
17.5 mm f/1.4 with manual focus and USABLE dof scale eg. start from 2/2.8 not from 5.6!
25 mm f/1.4 with manual focus and USABLE dof scale eg. start from 2/2.8
14 mm f/1.4 with manual focus and USABLE dof scale eg. start from 2/2.8
are needed because no VALID alternatives exists at the moment in MFT lineup for those lenses.
What do you mean by “correct” DoF? Technically, anything outside of plain of focus is out of focus, so absolute DoF is always exactly 0. Now, the question is how much unsharpness is still acceptable for you, and I doubt it is exactly the same as for any particular DoF scale designer, and actually changes with the viewing size and distance of the photo, eyes of the observer etc.
Even focal distance is meaningful only in 1 particular point (say, center of the frame), as focal planes are not flat, and even if they were, distance to a point on a flat surface perpendicular to the optical axis depends on a specific point.
https://www.flickr.com/groups/1084614@N23/discuss/72157627345186393/
Kowa 25 has no DoF markings and is huge, I think is a completely useless lens.
I’d like a faster version of the Lumix 100-300, say 2.8-3.5
M43 really needs affordable ultra wides.. such as 6-12 f4, 7 -14 f4-5.6, mid range priced zooms 12-50 f2.8-4, primes such as 60 f1.8 and better telephoto lenses
A weathersealed normal prime.
Could be done by Refreshing the 20mm pancake with faster quieter focus Too.
Other than that, a more affordable wide zoom would be nice.
+1 to this!
A new 20mm with internal focus like the 14mm would be great, if they design according to their new GM style, even better.
A cheap wide angle zoom like the 9-18 is also needed. The collapsible construction of the zuiko lens doesnt give a solid feeling. Maybe something like the weather sealed 11-22mm from the FT catalog would be a good addition.
Upgrades of the old ones but in pancake format
And more weather sealing.
200/2,8 would be nice..
And a 17,5-35/1,8, if sigma can do it so can Olympus..
A not so standard, but great for low light indoor work, I would like a 30mm F1.0 / T1.2 prime
100 or 135 f/2.8 macro from oly
50-200 2.8-3.5 m43 from oly
or i would like 150 2.8 macro and 70-300 4-5.6 from Sigma
But most of all 100 or 135 or 150 prime for normal price for anyone
totally agree with a longer macro lens. I used to shoot with the sigma 150/2.8 on 4/3 – a true pleasure for insects
Agreed.
A high quality long macro is overdue!
Right now, I use adapted Nikon 105mm f 2.8 and 200mm f4 IF (both manual AI-S) macros. The 200mm I bought on kind of a whim, but it’s one heckuva nice lens! Having that much working distance for shooting bugs is fantastic!
Light 12mm with sharpness similar to 25/1.4
A 12-150mm with electronic zoom and a MF ring that keeps working when the camera is filming in CAF mode.
12-60 2.8-4.0
12-35 2.0
UW prime (7.5 mm?) that’s not fisheye
17mm f/1.2 OIS is very interesting. But I need pana/oly small GR!
Improve the 100-300mm
9 or 10mm prime
17mm f/.95
Olympus 6mm f4 pro (not fisheye)
Olympus 12-60mm f2.8-4 pro
Olympus 12-100mm f4 pro
Olympus 17mm f1.2 pro
Olympus 25mm f1 pro
Olympus 45mm f1 pro
Olympus 75mm 2.8 pro macro 3:1
Olympus 75mm 1.2 pro
Olympus 150mm f2 pro
Olympus 40-150mm f4 pro
Olympus 150-300mm f4 pro
Olympus 400mm f5.6 pro
Panasonic 17-175mm f4
Panasonic 20mm 1.2
Panasonic 100-300mm f4
17-175?
I’d also like to see a good wildlife lens e.g. 100-300 2.8 or 4 as tele lens size/weight is a major advantage of mft format.
17/1.2, 25/1.0, 45/1.0 (all with AF).
12-35/2,
12-100/3,5-5,6 (light, compact collapsible design like 12-32/3.5-5.6 and 35-100/4-5.6).
14mm f1.8. The much neglected 28mm (in 135) is an old standard that has real nice all around abilities in WA territory. Together with a 25 or 45, this would be a reasonable two lens set for about everything.
Something new:
17-35mm internal zoom (and maybe weather sealed)
…and something updated
9-18mm non-collapsible design (and maybe weather sealed)
and 400/5.0 for birds
The 300 F4 + 1.4 TC will be practically this
– Weathersealed primes
– 100mm f2.8
– 200m f2.8
8mm or 9mm f/2.8 prime.
It seems like a lot lot of people would like to see a really fast 17mm Lens. Me too!
A cheap and cheerful UWA rectangular prime.
2nd hand 9-18.
Yeah, I’ve been toying with getting one. Still not what I consider cheap compared to Samyung fisheye and the 20mm pancake. And it’s still a zoom at the end of the day, weight and complexity savings with a quality boost of a prime would be a nice fitting in the line up – imho.
Pro 75mm 1.8
Pro 25mm 1.8
Premium 9 to 18 v2, weather sealed
Pro 10mm f2
10mm f2,8. Hurra-hurra!
No question, the 17mm f/1.2. A possible 12mm f/1.0 would be cool, however, most people including myself wouldn’t buy such a lens, because it will be huge and bloody expensive.
A par-focal zoom lens with o.i.s. While such primes listed would be great, the are already a wide range of really great fast primes, and cine primes. how about a manual par-focal cine zoom.
10-50 would be ideal… just dreaming here
35-100mm f1.8 Yes I know it would be fat, but if one doesn’t like it, use the f2.8 instead.
too bid honest, I think the current line is perfect with the new ultra prime and the pro telephoto taken care off. Faster prime and zoom is fine but it’ll be too big and expensive to make sense for m43 – start to really lose its light weight combo advantage and reason to begin with.
400/4
A fast prime between 8-12 mm 1.2
67.5 f1.4 & a long zoom, maybe 100-300 or 200-400 f2.8 or f4.0
That is compatible with a good TC 1.4
35-100mm 2.8 or faster from Olympus. Smaller, lighter and cheaper then the wonderful 40-150.
Why don’t you buy it from Panasonic then?
First, a high quality weather sealed 2x converter for lenses like the 18/75mm
also an olympus weather-sealed fast AF 2/20mm ( non pancake )
Not going to happen, but another refresh of the 20mm 1.7 is much needed. A great lens optically in a small package, but holy crap its needs an autofocus upgrade for real.
This is a wishlist so please do not knock it for the sake of it.
Servo and Manual Zoom Lens 12-150mm f2.8 Constant Aperture, True Parafocal, Fully Weather-sealed
Panasonic Prime Lenses (Leica)
10mm f1.2 with Auto/Manual Focus, OIS, Click less silent aperture and focus
12mm f1.2 with Auto/Manual Focus, OIS, Click less silent aperture and focus
16 or 17mm f1.2 with Auto/Manual Focus, OIS, Click less silent aperture and focus
25 or 26mm f1.2 with Auto/Manual Focus, OIS, Click less silent aperture and focus
30mm f1.2 with Auto/Manual Focus, OIS, Click less silent aperture and focus
50mm f1.2 with Auto/Manual Focus, OIS, Click less silent aperture and focus
Edit: I would also like to see OIS on any;
Servo and Manual Zoom Lens 12-150mm f2.8 Constant Aperture, True Parafocal, Fully Weather-sealed.
A 12-150mm f2.8 Servo and Manual Zoom with OIS would be great ! Neither Panasonic or Olympus are offering this at the moment, it would make MFT great for run and gun, documentary and even broadcast situations !
Panasonic Leica 12-35mm f/1.7 OIS
This would be a dream run-and-gun video lens.
Panasonic 6mm f4 rectilinear
(for architecture interiors)
A long zoom for sport/wildlife, extending gapless from the 40-150/2.8.
IOW, a 150-350/2.8-4.0 PRO. No need for TC-14 compatibility, as 350mm is long enough as it is.
And such a lens will not cannibalize the 300/4.0 PRO, as the zoom will be more expensive, bigger and heavier. But it will cover all focal lengths from 150-350, and thus bring the native Zuiko SHG 90-250/2.8 legacy and immense versatility over to the m43 camp
nice, but 350mm is not enough. As long as mFT offers a native Resolution under 24MP there is a need for a lens with a a focal lengt of Minimum 400mm.
The longer the bigger, and a 450/2.8 will be too big!
The native 90-258/2.8 is already 3270 gr, and anything bigger becomes quite cumbersome. For long telelenses, the smaller sensor format effects lens size way less than for WA (that w/ m43 no longer need to be retrofocal, and can be designed much smaller). Hence a compromise is needed, and the sweespot for size, weight, reach, brightness and cost I believe would be around 150-350/2.8-4.0. Going beyond 350mm (FF eq. 700mm) usually brings little to the table, apart from atmospheric distortions, contrast loss and blur. So the reach is sufficient, and keeping it gapless from the 40-150 is more important! I.e for landscapes too, in which the FT 90-250 truly exels!
Make it 150-450mm f/2.8 and it is 3.3x zoom.
40-150mm f/2.8 is 3.75x already
12-40mm f/2.8 is 3.3x as well
7-14mm f/2.8 is 2x.
The 150-450mm f/2.8 Pro would make the Pro line perfect. Having all those four lenses would give perfect coverage from 7mm to 450mm and there is no a situation you could not go. All those would fit to very small bag/box when in safari or wildlife, taking very little space from camping gear, food, water etc.
And that zoom would challenge even this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0E-nZOlY_k
Just in fraction of the size and weight, offering 2 stops more light than Canon and still be sharper and higher quality overall.
1. 400mm F/4.0 Pro or 400mm F/5.6 (Zuiko Pro Quality)
2. 150-500mm F/4.0-5.6 (Zuiko premium quality, weather sealed)
otherwise it would be nice, if Sigma will adapt their 150-600mm F/5.0-6.3 Sport Lens to mFT
1. almost here already, 300mm f4 with tc1.4 will be 420mm f5.6, i’m not worried about quality, even 40-150mm zoom shows amazing results with this tc. For difference need to look at 200% near the edge to spot something.
2. would be awesome, but at least something more realistic. Like the canceled panasonic 100-300 f4 pro quality 🙁
I don’t like the handling with a TC. And even if sharpness wouldn’t be an issue, bookeh will become ugly and turbulent.
would be happy with any of these 3 wishes.
My wish lens is a weather proof Olympus 17 f/1.2.
My wish camera is a e-m1 ii with a popup flash. I have the e-m1 now, but do not like carrying the clip on flash for general shooting. The fl-600r is great, but not for general walkaround. E-m10 is tempting, but uses a different battery. Was waiting for the e-m5 ii for a second camera, but no built in flash.
Better yet. Instead of a popup flash which can get caught on things, a fill flash on the face if the camera like on the fuji x100 series would be great too. I might buy a faster Oly 45mm too like a f/1.2.
Any UWA prime, preferably 6mm. On the long end you can use lenses of other systems, on the short end they are non-existent.
Olympus PRO 12-60mm f2.8 – 3.5
Olympus PRO 6-12mm f2.8
Olympus PRO 17.5mm f1.0
More motorized zooms, namely 100-300mm would be great. More stabilized primes.
Desperately want an upgraded Lumix 100-300mm with at least an f/4 constant aperture throughout. Would also love to see a 400mm f/4 fixed focal length. Heck as long as we’re dreaming why not a 300mm f/2.8. That would be a serious commitment to really take a leap forward for the professional ranks.
Don’t even try, those would not fit to jeans pockets people here seem to want everything to fit. So they are against anything like f/2.8 150-450mm zooms or 200-400mm f/2.8 zooms.
They don’t get that with such lenses you can get the couple shots that brings few grands a trip, deleting the costs of such lens in few trips.
Now to get such reach you need to get 135 format camera with ultra long 400mm f/2.8 and use a 2x teleconverter. So you need to drop 15k just to get that combo in use. I would gladly drop a 5-10k for 150-450mm f/2.8 Pro from Olympus. Would be smaller and lighter to use with mirrorless technology to guarantee better success.
Love your thoughts on this. I agree with bigger and faster lenses!
35–100 F2 Lumix Vario
Olympus 42,5 F1 + GX8 5 axis IBIS + DFD for Olympus lenses
Yes , you remind me there still a missing lens to be produced .
The 35-100 F2.0 .
Let’s make it happen but please not F2.8 !
1. 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 (Distance and DOF Indicators)
2. 75-300mm f4.0-5.6 or 100-300mm f3.5-5.6 Power OIS
50mm f1 PRO
Hi Stig, 25mm (50) or 50mm (100), which do you mean???
100
Support .
This is a true rival against the 42.5 F1.2 .
PRO 17mm f1 or f1.2
1. Panasonic 12-35 & 35-100 f2 with aperture ring and manual focus ring (no by-wire system) + better OIS system (35-100 is still jittery after update for handheld movie capture)
2. Pana 100-300 f4
3. Oly f1.0 lenses
Optically decent, weathersealed 12-50 (or 60) f/2.8-4.0 as a middle ground between cheap plastic kit lens and large, heavy and expensive PRO lens.
A totally unimpeachable, razor sharp across the board, metal built, sub-$400.00 12mm 2.8, and 17mm 2.8. And a 17mm 1.8 MkII that has perfect performance. Otherwise everything else is fine…
long macro, 100mm at least and better telephoto zoom. Panasonic sure played on my feelings, announced plans for high quality 100-300 zoom and latter canceled this idea 🙁
Light, collapsible but weather-sealed 11-70/2.8-4.
Sounds great. Perfect walk-around lens.
Exactly. It is maddening that for perfect light walkaround cameras like OM-D or GX7 the lens like that is still missing. 12-40/2.8 is great but too short (in FL) and expensive. 12-50/3.5-6.3 is way too dark anywhere but wide end and again too short (and does not collapse at any FL). All the 14-140/14-150 miss useable wide end and too dark again…
A high-quality, compact and weather sealed semi-fast normal zoom that starts at 12mm.
1) 25-75mm f/1.8 or f/2
2) 7-25mm f/2.8 (or faster)
3) 200-400mm f/2.8-4
All PRO quality of course.
And a ~50mm f/1.8 pancake. 🙂
A 25-75mm f2 and 50mm f2 pancake would be on my list too…
3) ?
you must be kidding. Costs > $ 10’000 and weight min. 4kg
Oh… you are not professional, I see.
Pro 150-450mm f/2.8 here please. Possible to do, costs below 5000€ and worth every cent. When you become professional, such price is nothing. And benefit of 4/3 sensor is that focal length with that aperture is always 30-50% lighter and smaller than anything you get to 135 format. And from olympus it would be far better than anything you get from Canon and Nikon.
And people would buy it. Not same amounts as 45mm f/1.8 or 25mm f/1.8 but would buy it because there is huge amount of professional wildlife and sports photographers who want to get rid of their 135 format cameras but they can’t because m4/3 choices doesn’t offer the focal length!
And wildlife photographers I mean wilidlife who are photographing wild animals in wild rural areas where you can get eaten by a lion or puma, not walking parks where wolfs etc are trained and hand feeded.
If you can’t worth such lens or you don’t need it, then it is not for you and you don’t need to buy it. But such lens is required and needed seriously.
Can you point to a fast m43 tele that’s 30-50% lighter and smaller than its 135 equivalent? Oly’s 40-150 f2.8 looks to me just about the size and weight I’d expect if it were made for 135, closely matching a slower but longer CaNikon 70-200mm f4.
Pentax’ 300mm f4 for the 67 format was almost exactly the same size and weight as Nikon’s of the same vintage for 135, despite throwing an image circle more than twice as wide. It doesn’t seem that the size of the image circle has much bearing on the size and weight of a tele lens of a given FL and aperture.
The nearest equivalent I could find is Sigma’s 200-500 f2.8. It costs $25,000 and weighs 35lbs. The next best thing is a 200-400 f4 costing $6,200 and weighing 7.4lbs.
I’d like these M43 lenses:
67.5mm f/1
10mm f/1.8
300mm f/2
All weather sealed, with aperture rings
Good idea .
Although I really like what you have highlighted , the 67.5mm F1.0
but I think the chance Oly make it 50mm is much higher than 67.5mm .
50mm (100 FoV) would be good too but I’d love a classic 135mm FoV to sit between my Olympus 45 and 75. A 50mn f/1 could be Oly’s answer to the Leicasonic, but I see M43 as a system not separate brands, so personally, I’d prefer something more differentiated. 🙂
60mm sits between 45mm and 75mm, not the odd 67.5mm. The difference between 60mm and 67.5mm is negligent. On normal portrait range it is 5cm forward. On landscape it is cropping 40px from edges.
A 135mm f/2 isn’t really an odd size. Pretty classic. That’s what the 67.5mm f/1.0 would provide. The 60mm f/1.0 that you’re looking for would be pretty great too but I’d prefer the extra reach of the 135 FoV over a 120, and perhaps, selfishly, as I already have the Oly 60 macro 😉
Of course is the much anticipated M Zuiko ED 50mm F1.0 .
The 12mm F1.0 is good to have as well .
As for Pana , please come out another Nocticron otherwise my $$$$ likely go for Oly .
Whatever they do, I hope they will consider the extra resolution of next sensors, otherwise all these dreams will be of lesser use.
My cents: a 17.5mm f1.2 with an IQ on paar with the Voigtländer sibling I own.
A 25mm f1.2 with Nocticron image quality (sharpness and microcontrast) wide open
Both from Olympus, no I.O.S.
I would pay 1200 euros.
“IQ on paar with the Voigtländer sibling” + “Nocticron image quality (sharpness and microcontrast) wide open” = not sharp with lots of aberrations.
Perhaps your copy: my Voigty 17.5mm at f1.8 kicks my MZuiko 17mm f1.8. Youdon’t even need to pixel peep.
Show me a lens (not corrected via software) at f1.4 and “faster” that does not show purple fringing and chroma aberrations on contrasted areas. (Hint, I think only Zeiss Otii deliver that performance. Not even Leica Summiluces)
You wrote “wide open”, not f/1.8.
http://www.lenstip.com/upload3/3705_roz_centr.jpg
Sure, but wide open is f0.95 and I wish an f1.2. At f1.2 the center is already sharp. At least on my copy.
Center. And tests show it is not all that sharp even by 1.4. These kinds of apertures are just wrong, too hard (heavy, expensive) to correct, and unusable in any decent light with 1/4000s shutters. If you really need them, better change the system to the one with larger sensor and darker, simpler lens for it.
As for me, m43 at f/2.8 is plenty of light in any reasonable conditions and DoF is as short as needed (just choose FL properly). With global shutter faster apertures would make sense sometimes, but with this outdated mechanical nonsense – not really.
Well, until now I have usually followed the rule of thirds, therefore I don’t put subjects at the corners of the frame. If I need that sharpness all across the frame it’s probably because it’s a landscape, and in that case I’m not going below f4 (unless it’s a night shot).
Are you saying that it’s better not to have an f1.2 lens on this system?
And we should stop at f2.8?
Perhaps you don’t have any use of such lenses, but I don’t see why Oly or Pana should not patent and produce them.
Again, my Voighty 17.5mm wipes the floor of the Oly sibling, at all apertures. That’s the quality a “serious” lens should deliver to have my attention.
(You do know that also Noctilux is soft wide open, considered its price? Still..)
Don’t forget, the more, the better, more lenses mean also more competition and lower prices (keeping our feet on the ground and not asking for a 50mm f1 pancake at 299€).
No, I am saying that if you need more, upgrading camera to the one with bigger sensor (which available now in compact thanks to Sony) is cheaper way to go than having faster and faster lenses. Basically, Panasonic 42.5/1.2 is $1500 (with discount), while A7 is about $1000 now, and gives the same performance at 2.4. MF 85/1.8 start from $150-200.
I use an FF f/1.8 prime with focal reducer, giving me the same 1.2, but only during the night.
A 25mm 1.4 II in which the rattlesnake has been stealthily killed. Ideally redesigned to be like the 15 and 42.5 Leicas.
God bless you! 🙂 at that point let them squeeze a bit of light more, and have a f1.2 🙂
Instead of F1.2 , why not F1.0 ?
Or you think Pana only capable of F1.2 only ?
I prefer f/0.85… much better! f/1 is for the weak…
Get a Voigtländer 25mm and use it within your lifetime. 😉
If only it had a better DOF scale… starting at least at f/2!
Definitely!
I look at Leica or Zeiss rangefinder lenses and wonder WTF the people at Cosina were thinking with the lame DoF scales on the M4/3 Noktons.
Because it’s easier to do an f1.2 lens than an f1.0 lens. If I had to choose, I would like to see a good f1.2 rather a mediocre f1.0. If both are stellar, then f1.0 is my choice.
+1
I would prefer, that they keep it f1,4 but make the lens a little smaller.
Sigma made a constant 1.8 zoom for under 1k with exceptionnal optical performances. I speak for those of us who don’t mind size, for those who use the flexibility of the platform rather than the portability:
1- Constant ultra fast zoom, heck, if 1.0 is possible just do it, with video gear, autofocus optionnal.
2- Start a line of funky lenses, we are going out of our way to adapt cctv lenses and russian stuff from the 50s, character and personnality, rather than stelar performances, is sometime what you want.
3- A freaking 17mm f1 or less, weather sealed, with autofocus (is electronic contacts cannot fit in the lens just make a unit for the hot shoe that transmit to the lens wirelessly), yeah, I want it that bad.
Yes it is f/1.8, Olympus had f/2 before sigma, beating sigma in sharpness and contrast. And other m4/3 lenses beats that sigma by 30% in sharpness.
But could we please push a side for year or two the common 12-60mm range? We have enough coverage there! Olympus and Panasonic are not competing at all in the ultra wide range or long telephoto range, that are m4/3 cameras territory. Yet people just here wish they would get their pocket cameras.
Pro line is for professionals, not for hobbyist who want to be carrying small pocket cameras. Professionals needs tools to make the photo, they have now everything from 12-210mm but are missing the both ends small parts. 7-14mm is coming that fills that cap nicely so the 150-450mm zoom is the only thing missing anymore, f/2.8 of course.
When you go wildlife photography or sports photography, you can carry that 1kg weighting telephoto lens gladly. As it isn’t 3-5kg and it isn’t so thick and big.
a tiny (much smaller than the 17/1.8) affordable and weathersealed 17/1.2 with good centersharpness at f/1.4 and ok cornersharpness at f/5.6. that would really make me think about mft again (combo wit the pana GM)
otherwise ill go for the upcoming sony a5 with the voigtlander 35/1.4 plus adapter
A5? What’s that?
I have the Voigtländer 35mm f1.4 (nice little lens!!!) and had a similar plan, but with an A7s II.
A5 is a rumored lower cost FF Sony E mount mirrorless.
If the A5 has an EVF, I’m in
To me, the m4/3 lens portfolio is – thanks to the existing or announced Olympus Pro lenses – is mostly complete so that I don’t have much desire for another lens.
If anything, I would think of a 2.0/100mm.
Besides that, I would appreciate, if some of the relatively poor performing m4/3 lenses will face a modern improvement or better quality control: O 2.0/12mm, P 1.4/25mm, O 1.8/17mm, P 1.7/20mm (needs better AF), P 2.8/12-35m, P 7-14mm (needs less flare and fringing)
None of these lenses can match the excellency of the Olympus m4/3 Pro lenses.
I think they need to leverage their telephoto advantage much more. Something affordable in the 200-400 range. A 200 f4 for under a grand would be a very welcome addition. Or a sharp 300 f5.6.
Funny… I read people here complaining all the time about too many lenses in the 17-45 range and guess what ? People are asking for more !
EXACTLY!
It is crazy! There are awesome choices for everything between 12-60mm focal lengths and then two awesome zooms like 35-100 and 40-150mm and cheap versions of those and then even cheaper ultra long ones 100-300mm and 75-300mm and people ask from same scale that has most choices! Weather proofed, fast etc.
We still don’t have anything between 7-9mm primes at f/2.8 to cover the basic needs for small and ultra light daily lens!
Not a zoom of Olympus Pro level from 150mm up to 500mm! Primes doesn’t work in tele end as they are too limiting. Further you are then more you need the composition choices as you cant move around.
It is crazy how people want variable aperture lenses, meaning they shoot only in auto mode as they don’t even care that you suddenly drop one stop in tele end!
Weather seal the Olympus ED 75-300 F 4.8-6.7 II lens. Maybe make it F 4.0-5.6. Add weather sealing to all lens in future.
– Pancake 17mm F1,8 OIS or 17mm ~ F1,4 OIS
– Compact Superzoom with good image quality and 12-60mm F3,5-5,6 OIS
100mm macro.
12-60mm f2.8 (or f2.8-4 for the cheapskates), with close-focus ability and weather-sealed. It should be at least on par with the Oly 4/3 12-60mm, too.
100-400 f4 with OIS.
How about a Voigtländer Nokton 67.5mm f0.95!!! 🙂
This
I’d be happy if Panasonic acknowledged and fixed the problems they have with their existing lenses (flicker, jitter, etc.) — which is why we bought Oly instead. P’s lenses, like Oly’s, ARE optically beautiful, but why not fix the problems to PERFECT them? And Olympus? The autofocus on the 12-40 2.8 PRO we bought died in about 4 weeks despite almost no use just as I was going to Japan for a TV show (some footage we shot with the lens with the GH4 was broadcast nationwide there). Olympus in Osaka refused to replace the lens despite the fault they confirmed and would not lend me one for just the day I needed one to shoot with while they repaired mine, although they easily could have. Yes, they had a quick look (only) at the lens, but now the zoom ring moves around past the 12 and 40 … thanks for that! And the teleconverter we got with the 40-150 2.8 PRO we just bought has an artifact on it and is going back. I don’t like my time being wasted, I never had ANY problems with my other Zuiko lenses, and I like a company to listen and respond properly! A company survives on the quality of its products and customer service. Additional lenses? How many more do I really need? The 7-14 2.8 PRO I expect to be outstanding and that rounds out the PRO series for me. How about a powered zoom with good specs for video work (and a way to connect it). Did I mention proper video quality. But please, PERFECT what we already have, build customer service other companies would be jealous of … and bring back the worldwide warranty. Thanks.
A 18mm or 21mm equivalent, f2.0, in pancakae size.
Very useful for architecture trip photograhy, and almost rare in every manufacturer gear…
I’d love to see a 50-200 f2,8. Even a slightly updated, better and faster, version of the pana 45-200mm would be quite nice.
u43 has so many nice lenses. But they are comparably expensive. No $100 nifty-fifties or $200 short teles. The 14mm f2,5 is the closest to Canikons budget line-up.
So, would like to see an updated (cheaper) 14mm f2,5 and 20mm f1,7 (both two of my favorites)
There is also a lack of a cheap-ish non-exotic portrait lenses comparable to a classic cheapo FF 85mm. The 42.5 f1.2 is excellent but expensive, same with the 75mm f1.8 which is also a bit long. Maybe a non-IS 55-60mm f1.4 for apprx same as the oly 45mm would do it?
14mm , 17.5mm 25mm all f1 or f1.2 at least, weather-sealed, sharp and creamy bokeh wide open
A dozen more 14-42mm kit lenses……………….Panasonic can make it 14-42.5 with supa dupa mega OIS
A very light weight (280 grammes), M.Zuiko, f/6.3, 300mm telephoto with image quality on a par with my 14-150 for £400!
I was just setting about trying to articulate my wish when I saw you’d beaten me to it. Exactly what I want!
Panasonic:
1. 100-300 f 2.8- 4.0 or a straight 4.0, and a matching 1.4xTC. Make it a a very fast focusing lens.
Olympus:
1. 150-400 at least f5.6 or faster.
2. Mid-level 12-60 f2.8-4.0
3. Mid-level 60-250 at least f5.6 or faster.
4. Mid-level 9-20 f4.0 that takes filters.
5. Mid-level 10/f2.8
6. Pro-level 20/f1.2
7. Pro-level 40 f1.2
8. Pro-level 120/f2.8 Macro.
Dave
I would love to see something at the longer end, maybe a 100 mm 2.0 and a 200mm 4.0. A wide prime would be nice and I wonder why nobody already did a 67,5mm I really liked the view of an old 135mm lens. But my favourite lens should be a tele(prime) and sharp
Fisheye zoom 8-16mm for underwater photography
I would like to see a Zuiko Pro quality long telephoto lens that makes a significant advance in terms of weight, size, and speed. Weather sealed versions of the Zuiko premium lenses would also be welcome.
I would keep Pro line on the expensive line, meant to professionals who need that kind body build and quality. So just pumping aperture big (f/4) because someone doesn’t have money or doesn’t like the weight is wrong customer in that area then.
A 150-450mm f/2.8 would be small and light compared to anything what 135 format offers. Still offering field of view that 135 format owners would not get under f/5.6 or f/8 (with 2x teleconverters). It would be the ultimate lens for wildlife and sports shooters, whos backs are hurting to lug those 135 cameras around or are required to do heavy cropping.
Olympus had a 350mm f/2.8 that was a small size what it offered:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/images/350alensfront.jpg
And it was for 135 format. It can be made half smaller by diameter just because 4/3 sensor. The downside with that lens was in its first lens coatings that were very vulnerable to touching and everything, why you had always a special case front of it before shooting.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/images/350mmf28optic.jpg
It wasn’t small. It weighed 3.9 Kg.
Pro-level 8 or 9mm rectilinear (ie not fisheye) lens. It’s the dust-proof (mainly) I need. Splash-proof is nice. f4 would do me fine.
I think I’d go for the 9mm, to keep the proportional distortions of human bodies / faces at the edges a bit under control.
Wouldn’t mind if it was f2.8 instead of f4.
Built like 17mm 1.8 is pro enough for me.
17.5 – 25 – 35mm 1:1.4 “Tri-Lux” PRO lens with aperture ring. Pretty please. =]
Plus 42.5mm 1:1.4 and 85 1:2.0 PRO with aperture ring. Override if you prefer a wheel.
And just to remind myself what really matters, below pic was taken with the fiendishly good 38mm 1:1.8 that used to be the basic lens of the Olympus PEN-F system. Yes, it’s sharp at full res. Bokeh is slightly more cluttered and swirly than I like, but it handles transitions beautifully.
The 1.5 tri-state series sounds great.
100-450mm for birds & 100 macro for bugs
a good intermediate zoom, that does not set the compromize like the 12-50 on macro capabilities
I’d like a good all rounder, range like 12~13 – 45~50 mm, f2.8-3.5~4, weather sealed, size similar to 12-35 pany (more range, lower aperture), priced a bit above the 12-50 Olympus.
That combined with a similarly specs lens in the 40-150 mm range. There is a big gap between the pro zooms and the entry level one here.
Normal 7mm f2.8
Panasonic should go for a wide and fast rectilinear prime. Somewhere around 10-12mm f.095 with auto-focus and O.I.S – optically excellent glass with low CA and nano coating – DFD focus support on Lumix bodies and in-camera CA removal if needed. BAM!
No need for a Size Building Fast Lens with these newer High ISO’s that are low noise on the current M43rd’s – I want an all-in-one walk around lens. 12-75mm F/4 would be about perfect for me! A price tag around $599. should be an easy feat for Olympus, Panasonic or Sigma.
ENG 12-60 F2.0 version of the Sony FE 28-135
I think a fixed prime 450mm F 4.0 weather sealed, constructed in composite, that is compatible with the 1.4 X teleconverter and the soon to be announced 2.0 X teleconverter.
I’d love it if someone were to make a decent and affordable 14mm f/2 lens. (I’m not a huge fan of the Lumix one, though I do own it.)
Also, a 17.5mm f/1.4 would be nice.
I would like to see a break in the rule, that fast lenses are high quality and high price while slower lenses are always lower quality and low prices. A 12-45/3.5-4.5 don’t need to be a cheap kit-lens. I would like to see high quality lenses which are small and I am ready to pay the price.
A would like to see a 100-300/4.0-5.6. But it should be as sharp and as small as possible.
reasonable, my words
Agree completely. I don’t need a fast lens, not with today’s sensors. In fact I rarely go higher than 400 ISO with slow lenses.
But I do want a high quality AND small lens for hiking.
The nearest we got was the old Panasonic 14-45mm F3.5 to F5.6 which is reasonable quality (if you get a good copy) and small.
Give me a better version starting at 12mm and I would pay the same as the Oly 12-40mm.
Give me a better version of the Oly 9-18mm as well and I’d be very happy.
improved 100-300
For all those asking for f/1… they are going to be big, VERY expensive and still vignette like crazy wide open (and you will be lucky if they don’t produce color shifts in the corners). And their T-stops will be unusually dark compared to T-stops anyway. And you almost always will have to use ND filters on them. If you really need f/1 on m43, and don’t care about their sizes that much, you are in the wrong system and would be better off using f/2 on FF (like 28/2 on Sony A7II).
Why would you need to use ND filters on them? Who shoots wide open in daylight? Fast lenses are for low-light shooting…
That’s only half of what they do. Aperture affects your image in 2 ways: Light and depth of focus. So they’re also used for amazing subject isolation. If you want to achieve that you’ll need a big aperture and an ND filter if shooting in bright surroundings. That is exactly why I simply have a variable ND filter on my SLR Magic T0,95 – and it’s not a problem really. I only take it off when shooting in low light.
Anybody who wants stronger background blur shoots wide open. And yes, in any kind of daylight f/1 is unusable. Just get A7 and 28/2, it will be smaller and cheaper anyway (no way 14 f/1 is going to cost $450 in m43).
55-200 mm f 4
I haven’t read all of the replies yet, but a weather sealed equivalent of the Panasonic 20mm would be nice as long as it is under $500 (i.e. something in the 17-25mm range that is at least f/2). And having a 150-400mm f/4 or f/5.6 weather sealed lens that is small also would be nice to pair with the new 14-150mm-II lens for vacation travel.
I’m dreaming of a edge-to-edge-tack-sharp compact 12-84, at least 2.8 Zoom for less then 800.- bucks!
Haha just keep dreaming …
I may have mentioned it before, but I would be extremely interested in a reasonably compact and sturdy, optically excellent, fast focusing 19mm f1.4 lens.
A decent and not too expensive wide angle prime (no fisheye). Something like a 9mm f3.5. Basically a non-fisheye version of the Samyang.
Hi, I need a *fast* autofocus 20mm f1.7, currently considering the 25mm 1.8, but it is just a workaround.
I would just like some more affordable prices on pretty much all of the semiprofessional lenses. I think m43 glass is still incredibly expensive when you compare them to canon or Sigma lenses. And let’s not forget: those need bigger glass to cover the larger sensor.
But M4/3 can achieve equal resolution and tend to incorporate a lot more exotic elements, so it’s mostly a moot point…
Competing with the prices for 3rd party lenses is not going to happen, but I agree that it would be nice to see more mid-grade weather-sealed lenses, like the Olympus HG line for 4/3s.
Panasonic 100-300 constant F4 OIS Weathersealed
AGREE 100%
I`d like to have a Leica DG summilux 17.5mm F1.4 ASPH. with length under 60mm and a Leica DG summilux 25mm F1.4 OIS with aperture ring and Lumix G X VARIO 8-17mm F4 OIS with length under 70mm . that would be perfect for M43 lens system
that 17.5mm would be close to the pl15. Extremely much so. Unless they make it f1.2 or something in the Nocticron stratosphere, it will be cannibalizing..
To all those who want f1.0 or f1.2: This is not what m43 is for – maybe as one specialty lens. If all Pro prime lenses show as f1.0 lenses then better buy a FF system, IMHO, alone the price of such lenses will be prohibitive. I own the CV 0.95/25mm and while this is a excellent lens for a small range of applications, my f1.8 lenses show as the real m43 lenses.
And the problem to have a 1.6EV faster Olympus hiqh quality glass in small size is?
You don’t get that those f/0.95 lenses are big and heavy because they are designed to 135 format and just added the mount.
Olympus can make a tiny small lenses with f/1 and f/1.2 with ease and they will be great for the many situations because we get autofocus and even faster shutter speeds etc.
If true, that f1.0 can be small then I take my post back. But as far I know the CV 0.95/25 is a lens for m43 only and it is large for a f2.0 lens in FF terms. All I am saying is, that not all Pro primes must be f1.0. No doubt the m43 system is versatile an the best system there IMHO. My personal wish would be a 1.8/14mm m.zuiko Pro lens.
I would leave the Pro level out from those f/1 and f/1.2 category. The Pro line should be for professionals who need flexibility and tough build.
f/1 and f/1.2 lenses are more like the premium level next to 60mm macro or 12mm f/2 level. Doesn’t need to be weather sealed etc.
Now too many wish everything would come in “Pro”. Even the 17mm f/2.8 is great lens and you can get it for 65-99€ sometimes as new.
A non-weather sealed build means that it can take normal splashes like light rain or snow, but just don’t leave it there hanging. And can be used in freeze environments but need to be careful how you bring lens out and back in. Requires good handling.
Leaving weather sealing off and such metal builds drops price dramatically. And you would use far more those f/1 lenses even when they would be level of build in 45mm f/1.8.
You’re wrong, but luckily it is not you who defines “what m43 is for” in the first place…
The purpose of Micro Four Thirds is not only to provide a limited mainstream subset of the options the big DSLR systems offer, just in a smaller package, but to come at least close to making the big DSLR systems superfluous. Olympus and Panasonic didn’t give up their DSLR lineup only to replace it with a less versatile, just more compact new system. And to do that, they have to offer nearly everything you get for the big DSLRs – not only including extremely fast lenses, but also extremely long lenses.
No one is forced to buy any of those. But the more versatile a camera system is, the more users it will have, and the better it is for everyone who invested in it.
You are right, it is not me who defines what it is for. But I am very convinced that size is a major point to go with m43, at least when I remember the latest interviews with Oly execs lately. m43 owners already pay high prices for small sizes. I agree with all you say about versatility. So where is the difference you are pointing at?
One (or Two if Panasonic joins) 150-450mm f/2.8 (or if required f/4) from Olympus doesn’t make any other lens big or heavy. You still have the small and light system. You don’t need to buy those ultra telephoto lenses because you don’t want larger than pocket camera.
The difference comes in size and weight. The lens for m4/3 camera is always smaller than same focal length with same aperture for 135 format. Because the circle diameter can be much smaller, elements can be smaller and everything is smaller and lighter.
We pay prices but we get quality. The good common m4/3 lenses are sharper than you get for 135 format, excluding couple ultra hiqh expensive ones.
Here is Zeiss “Otus” f/1.8 85mm what is considered one of the sharpest you can get to 135 format portrait lenses:
http://www.lenstip.com/upload3/4160_roz.jpg
And here is the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 ultra-cheap (129€).
http://www.lenstip.com/upload3/3483_roz.jpg
Here is Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 zoom:
http://www.lenstip.com/upload3/3824_roz_centr.jpg
And here is the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 that is expensive (899€)
http://www.lenstip.com/upload3/3712_roz.jpg
No matter how you put it, the Zeiss is less sharp, and resolves less. Even at the worst edges the cheap Olympus 45mm f/1.8 beats the ultra expensive Zeiss Otus. 4500€ vs 130€ and you can’t even beat that. Isn’t it funny?
So next time people whine about m4/3 lenses being expensive, you should know that you are buying higher quality glass than you can get for 135 format.
LOL @ the people on the internet… Those charts are line pairs PER MILLIMETER (lpmm). The full frame image plane is several times larger than the m43 one, so you get a whole lot of more resolution!
For example the 45/1.8 at f/1.8 resolves around 46 lpmm at the edge, while the Otus resolves 41 lpmm at the equivalent DoF. Now you consider that the full frame sensor is four times larger, you get roughly four times the resolution!
Right, I feel pity to have started such a mess with my post…. m43 is an excellent system already and we need to dig deep to find something better even today. The OTUS comparison is funny indeed. Nevertheless I have to support Juurikas that one won’t see a difference at normal print sizes. What if a OTUS would be put on a m43sensor? The OTUS would fail in comparison. But that is not what it is meant for. Larger sensors are always better in that regard although larger sensors are irrelevantly better if printing normal sizes. So lets go on with causing confusion…
You didn’t start anything. We pay for excellent lenses. It is just the problem that some people believe larger sensor is better always. It isn’t.
The m4/3 format has always 2 stops benefit for extra light compared to FF. That 2 stops more light can be used to lower ISO or faster shutter speed. It gives the possibility to freeze the motion easily (important in sports and indoor movement) or use lower ISO to gain even better SNR than FF sensors have.
Example of the E-M5 Mark 2 that has “little worse” sensor than E-M1, but yet it beats in DXO tests styles the famous competitors, even the FF. In SNR and DR.
http://cdn0.mos.techradar.futurecdn.net//art/cameras/Olympus/OM-D%20E-M5%20Mark%20II/Lab%20charts/Olympus-OM-D-E-M5-II-dynamicrange-RAW-650-80.jpg
http://cdn3.mos.techradar.futurecdn.net//art/cameras/Olympus/OM-D%20E-M5%20Mark%20II/Lab%20charts/Olympus-OM-D-E-M5-II-signaltonoise-RAW-650-80.jpg
The m4/3 system has evolved in last 4 years a lot. You can place the cameras against almost anything and it comes on par, little over or little below depending situations (low light, hard light, bad light, bright light).
With so small differences really that every mention that FF is better are so negligent that it requires that the print gets written a text
“THIS IS TAKEN WITH FF, PRAISE THIS PRINT!”
As you don’t otherwise recognize which one is which.
http://www.thewanderinglensman.com/2014/02/the-practical-difference-between-full.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlGffGBz8uQ&t=198
The lenses we get for m4/3 are worth of every penny. Those are small, light and ultra sharp. Even the 40-150mm Pro is ultra small and light compared anything similar that others have, and it is so sharp that others doesn’t have anything like it (you can place it next to 75mm f/1.8 and get identical results)
http://robinwong.blogspot.fi/2014/10/olympus-mzuiko-40-150mm-f28-pro-lens_13.html
Left 40-150mm Pro and 75mm f/1.8 on right.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YaYxnJrUWfY/VDpwOptPxvI/AAAAAAAAi-A/XpHqSN8nh6A/s1600/MC14.jpg
And that 75mm is worshippped by FF lovers. They wish they would have anything like that as it is there with Zeiss Otus, you need to get that $4500 lens to get that $800 lens level! It is crazy!
It is up to photographer to really get everything out of these lenses.
And give ups f/1 or f/1.2 that are sharp wide open and we will have such possibilities that eat alive any FF user that gets closer as they can’t handle the truth if they see the results (and the lenses comes with sharp quality).
Oh, and here is the inferior olympus 17mm f/2.8 MFT50
http://www.lenstip.com/upload3/2707_roz_centr.jpg
As everyone can see, it isn’t any good compared to others, but it is still awesome compared what good FF lenses does! And real life results like 5D Mk 3 + Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM vs E-M1 + 17mm f/2.8 are so a like! 1500€ vs 99€ and small and cheap beats the big boy! LOL. And then some people say that oly and pana should invest to better glass! Hah!
Small size cameras + small highest quality lenses and we don’t have any reason to bend in front of any FF shooter or even think about that their cameras are better. They just feel bad that they have larger, heavier and more expensive setup that they cant use so creatively!
Finally, we can print large! Very large! And no one can do more than whine about how it isn’t a FF!
It is more today about post processing than cameras! It is who have the latest software and who is ready to spend time to get the wanted results!
So get your camera out to the great place, capture the moment and then learn to use software and you get results with m4/3 that no FF shooter gets better!
But we need long lenses, we need high quality ultra fast zooms to cover something like 150-500mm! f/4 minumum but f/2.8 is preferred. Not all need that as 40-150 and 35-100 range covers most whiners long tele reach. We need that gets wildlife and sports photographers pants pockets get holes as they are so hard throwing money to screen that they are desperate to get their hands on such zooms!
Thank you Juurikas for all this. I am a m43 convert and own a whole system, m.zuiko 75mm included, so no need to convince me. I still own a Canon 6D and a CV Ultron 40mm only and do not let it go. I can not explain the difference between these two systems in a technical way, only that DOF/bokeh is different with FF compared to m43 at the same FL. The differences between the two has to do with style and personal taste and surely can be translated into technical terms. This FF combo is more ‘organic’ while the m43 is ‘harder’ and sharper at times, what has its applications. So no ‘better’. I agree that software and PP is key today, but I do not like that conclusion.
Before you LOL @ the people on the internet…
Four times the resolution requires FOUR TIMES the pixels on EACH DIMENSION, which is SIXTEEN TIMES the total number of pixels. Even a 50MP FF sensor has only 3.125 times more total pixels and just 1.88 times more pixels across the long dimension of the frame.
http://www.lenstip.com/126.1-article-Frequently_asked_questions.html#14
http://www.lenstip.com/126.1-article-Frequently_asked_questions.html#23
The correct way to compare lens resolution capability is to use LPMM.
You get more resolution when you have more megapixels, but you don’t get sharper image, just more pixels.
Example: You can take E-M5 II and use its High Resolution function and you get higher resolution AND more details than any FF camera out there, even compared to new Canon 50Ds and r.
There is currently no lens for 35mm sensor that outresolves the m4/3 lenses.
And when you do the real world tests, it is true, m4/3 lenses beats 35mm sensor lenses, even the Zeiss Otus.
And with m4/3 having “just 16Mpix” you get it far more easily sharper image handheld than example A7r with Otus with its 36Mpix handheld, Because when you add the resolution, every small shaky thing makes blurrier photo. You don’t just need very heavy tripod and extra weights on that A7r but you need very stable ground to get everything out of that resolution. And yet the m4/3 has higher amount of details.
The difference is that a system like m43 can be both, depending on what lenses I choose – very compact on one hand, and super-large aperture and super-telephoto and everything else on the other. The DSLRs can only be the latter – they cannot be compact.
A, say, 12mm f/1.0 m43 lens will very probably be more expensive than a 24mm f/2.0 lens for a full-frame DSLR, and it probably won’t be much smaller, either – but it will offer shooting options you’d otherwise have to buy and carry a DSLR for, in addition to your m43 body. For me, that’s still a monetary and compactness advantage even if the m43 lens was bigger 🙂
And if you want smaller, you still have all the more compact wide-angle options there are plus those which are still to come.
Actually I value the versatility of Micro Four Thirds. Slap a pancake on it and it’s a coat-pocketable street shooter. Attach some heavier glass and it’s a DSLR replacement. Put a multi-shot E-M5 II on a tripod and it’s nearly a medium-format replacement for product photography / still life. It’s that level of versatility that draws me to MFT.
Personally I’m not looking to start an f/1.2 collection, but I’d love to have one as a specialty lens, like you say.
I want to see an 65 f/1.8 OIS, by Panasonic and f/1.8 or f/2 zooms.
200mm/f4.5
Panasonic :
There is a Leica badged 14-50/ f2.8-3.5 that came bundled with the L1 that could use a m43 redesign.
Speaking pf PL, now that the PL15 and the PL42.5 has gotten us used to a new Gestalt of slimmer metal construct, aperture ring, AF/MF switch and convenient lens shade, the PL25 could use a v2. As a bonus, a notch faster.
A modestly fast tele zoom in the 45-200 range that finishes at f4.0 at the tele end.
That 2.8/150 that has been on and off on the road map. They should do something about it. A release, maybe…
Olympus :
they have spoiled us as of late with pro lenses. Some more “intermediate” such as the 1.8/17 would be cool. Maybe that long awaited modestly fast UWA prime in a price fork not too alien from their 9-18 zoom.
My bigger wish from them would actually be a long macro. f4.0 100mm.
Sigma:
are they going to stick to f2,8 ?
Schneider:
They should issue a public announcement that they consider thinking to release their announced trio of native m43 lenses somewhere, maybe in 2016. A few new mock up shots would be cool.
Anyone:
A few tilt shift. wide and not so wide.
To tell you the truth…I have 10 of the best MFT lenses right now. I have no intention of “upgrading” my Panny 7-14mm to the Oly…. (and I am an Oly fan)…it really is that good…and its small…why bear the expense and the size…no one will notice…if I have a good photo. Truth.
I am looking forward to the new long prime from Oly…but that is about it…. (maybe a wide tilt-shift in the future if I get rid of my FF kit)….I think I have everything covered quite nicely…now about the camera sensor….um..errrr…………..
improved 100-300 OIS – sharpt, fast AF… f4 would be nice. Think of all the birders out there would swithc – getting older, tired of lugging large cameras around.
+1
Agree 100%, 100 to 300m f 4.0 pro level zoom. The most underrated advantage of m4/3 is the doubling of the lens focal length. I shoot birds and aircraft and really want some longer, pro-level lenses. I will buy the Olympus 300 f4 when it is released.
If using a Lumix body I wouldn’t get the Olympus. Need the OIS.
Correct you are. I have an EM1 and EM5 II and use the Panasonic 100-300 all of the time.
I am finding the 100-300 OIS is better on the E-M5ii than its own S-IS is when at the long end and on a reasonably fast shutter.
For slow shutter the E-M5ii is ridiculously good, you can get motion blur from shooting a snail.
Even if he were, there’s not much of a choice currently, is there? The 100-300 is such a dog…
With an extra long lens you need a tripod.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed but Panasonic cameras can shoot long no-stabilisation legacy lenses hand-held slower than the 1/focal.length rule of thumb dictates.
Not as well as an Olympus body but well enough to consider using something like an old long Tokina. Panasonic also make up by having less noise than an Olympus meaning it can use a higher ISO at dusk with a better exposure solution. (I use both Panasonic and Olympus)
Lower noise would be the GH4 or GX7 only, I shoot lumix but have been quite envious of Olympus ISO performance.
Me too, it is designed to take the MC14 X1.4 teleconverter
Agreed. Performance of the 100-300 is very weak at the long end.
Not after you clean it 😀
Take your 100-300 apart and clean it. It’s f/4-5.6.
Cleaned up and serviced they’re sharp and bright and focus very quickly on pin-point AF
You can even cobble the DMW-GTC1 X2 teleconverter onto the end (600mm 😀 ) if you don’t mind cropping off severe vignetting. Oh yes, it AF’s nicely
100mm f2 or 17.5mm f1.2
A 14-50/ f2.8-4 would make my year. Weather sealed would earn extra points.
what’s wrong with the oly 12-50?
ok it’s slower – but far from unusable
But we have the weather sealed 12-40/F2.8 PRO and the X12-35/F2.8 so ???
Panasonic Leica 25mm f1.2 (f1.0 if it’s possible to keep the quality wide open)
The f/1.4 is remarkable but I wish they’d fix its keystoning.
After those f/1.0-1.2 primes and known Pro lenses (300mm and 7-14mm and 8mm) I wish Olympus will focus to two things.
150-450mm f/2.8 Pro zoom.
8mm f/1.8 prime like 60mm macro to complete the 12/17/25/45mm series with ultra wide lens.
pana 100-300mm f/4…or oly 150-400 f/4 😉
Panasonic should launch something for videoshooters. Well, 12-35/2,8 is great and 14-140 good for it’s range. But we are looking something between them, like X 13,5-80mm f/3,5 with OIS, powerzoom and constant size.
Also I should mention, that both Sony and Canon have OIS in it’s high speed primes, like ef 35 f/2 IS and e 35 f/1,8 OSS. So, 42,5 f/1,7 OIS should bo coupled with something like 21mm f/1,8 OIS for handheld shooting in low light.
Lenses under 60mm can be hand-held without any stabilisation down to 1/focal.length.
How slow a shutter do you want to use, go much under 1/60 and we get a lot of motion blur from the subject. I got motion blur shooting a steam traction engine (max speed 3mph) at 1/40.
It’s all about handheld video, not photo. For video, even Voight 17,5mm is too long and needs deshaker to be applied on postprocessing.
Just weather seal the 25 1.4 and I’m a happy camper.
just got this lens – yeah I wish it was sealed, but at least it was pretty affordable 🙂
I got my barely used version for $325 US about a year ago (right when the Olympus 25 1.8 was released).
and it *is* absolutely amazing, even though you can’t take it out in the rain.
100-250 mm f2.8 to f3.5. Keep it under 1 kg preferably. Other specs identical to the 35-100 f2.8 in each and every way..
If you can find anything like 100-250mm f2.8-3.5 for under 1 kg, anywhere in the world, let me know. The closest thing anywhere on the market is the 90-250 f2.8. You know, the lens that weighs 3.27 kg and costs $5000?
The X35-100/F2.8 is superb but the 100-300 is only f/4.0-5.6
Why is the wide end so slow?
An X3 zoom is do-able i.e. 100-300 but making it much faster would make it huge
Me, I’d like a faster 100-300 but what I’m using now is reasonably fast for its size.
A prime can be faster than a zoom and Olympus are offering us a fastish 300mm prime very soon.
We need a pro grade superzoom like 14-150 f1.8-2.8. That shouldn’t be bigger than a full frame 28-300 f3.5-5.6 which is the exact equivalent. Difference is that FF superzooms are usually fairly mediocre. I’d pay even $1500 for a pro grade superzoom as long as it has top notch IQ and is weathersealed.
I know it’s dangerous to ask an off-topic semi-noob question here (beware the trolls) But, screw it: Anybody know of using a FT to MFT adaptor (MFT body, FT lens) will affect the focal distance of the lens? Using an MMF adaptor with an Olympus 70-300mm for example – still 300mm?
The Olympus 4/3 to MFT adaptor places the 4/3 lens at the correct back-focus distance for the MFT body
MFT (or M43) is a lens fitting whereas the sensor is the exactly same “four thirds” size so the crop factor remains the same X2 and hence lens focal length field of view remains the same; 300mm is 300mm (do stop converting to FF equivalent 🙂
Not all FT(4/3) lenses actually AF all that well as a rather different focus drive mechanism was used, most will AF especially on the E-M1 which was designed to enable this but they tend to AF slowly on M43 at best.
neat, thanks 🙂
The problem with focusing is in that PDAF focus was used in 4/3 DSLR cameras, and then the CDAF focusing was implemented in those by Olympus for Live View. When then Olympus and Panasonic made m4/3 mount (still use same 4/3 sensor format aka 110 film format) the CDAF was chosen to be the focusing system as there was no mirror. And the PDAF on the sensor was technology not used.
The PDAF use different focus registers commands than CDAF does. So the m4/3 mount camera using 4/3 mount lens needs to use CDAF focusing and translate the commands to PDAF commands.
The difference is that with PDAF the PDAF focus sensor tells lens directly how much to focus, to what direction and on what speed.
The CDAF focus ask first lens to start moving one direction (usually closer) and then if contrast is added keep going until contrast level is reached and gone over, then lens is commanded to return back to the other direction and stopped until the contrast is strongest.
Now, translating totally different complex focus mechanics to simpler focus motor slows it down and doesn’t always like it as the motor was not designed to make small corrections so accurately as the CDAF designed lenses are.
The Panasonic DFD focusing is similar, it reads the blur and calculates the focus distance and direction, doing similar thing as PDAF, but still use the CDAF to nail the focus.
Olympus Hybrid PDAF+CDAF does same thing, first use PDAF to get direction and distance and then locks focus with CDAF. Firmware 3.0 changed that so only PDAF is used that disables CDAF when H+CAF mode. And there is no back/rear focus problems as the PDAF sensors are on the image plane level instead separated unit that can get out of alligment from image plane like with DSLR happens.
That would explain the behavior of my Olympus Zuiko 70-300 FT – I prefer to go manual it’s so darn slow at hunting for focus. Good thing it was cheap…
It’s the same size sensor (physically), so the field of view is the same. 300mm FT still has the same FoV as 300mm MFT. AFAIK, the reason the converter has to exist is because the flange distance is a lot shorter on MFT than it was on FT. The converter acts as a standoff so the back of the lens sits at the correct distance from the sensor.
Leica 7, 8 or 9. Also, what I would love is the Leica 12-37.5 f1.7-f2.8 that the LX100 uses, but as a standalone lens to keep on my GM1 most of the time. I’d also like a MkII of my PL45 that’s a bit slimmer, metal finished and with an aperture ring.
Lotta folks here hoping to defy the laws of physics. My no-fairy-dust-required hope is for a 50-200 f4 or a 100-300 f4. I’m perfectly aware that these will be about the same size as FF equivalents.
These are already out there, where were you?
The Panasonic 100-300 is f/4.0-5.6 already and yes it is a fair size but not the beast that FF ones are. Also works out faster than the Olympus 40-150/F2.8 zoom with the MC14 teleconverter. Glass is as good as the Olympus but lens is smaller, which means less wobble. As with any extra long lens, OIS does a better job than body stabilisation, its own OIS gives me a better EV solution on the E-M5ii than the E-M5ii own S-IS does, this is go-figure time. Olympuis are now talking VCM in lenses and bodies so they may soon be combining lens+body stabilisation. 😀
Olympus are offering us a fastish 300mm prime soon, as in very soon, that will take their MC14 teleconverter. That means a 420mm lens with AF at last.
The Panasonic 45-150/F4.0-5.6 is better glass than their 45-200 and their 14-140 and small and light and handy it is too, and cheap which makes it all the better. Being so light it can be hand held close to a stop slower shutter than the bigger lenses even with OIS or IBIS running.
Since when was f4 equal to f4.0-5.6? Perhaps you could read more carefully before posting a smart-aleck reply.
He clearly wants faster telephotos with higher quality than the existing options. And is willing to pay for it with size, weight, and price. i.e. the standard trade-offs that people make for better glass. Doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.
I find that most posters actually have very sensible wishes.
A 100mm F/2.8 would be nice
macro please 🙂
Isn’t there already a 35-100mm F2.8?
I’d like a compact and light M.Zuiko version of the Zuiko 12-60mm lens or a 14-75mm lens with a reasonably fast aperture range e.g from f/2 or f/2.8. Panasonic’s production of smaller and more compact lenses is going in the right direction for me so a wider range of these would be welcome.
I’d like to see a 7mm f2.8 non fisheye as compact as possibile and a 12-35 mm f2.
Yes, this kind of super wide prime is really misssing.
judging from the price of the current 12-35mm I’d hate to see the price tag on such a lens – cha-ching!
12-60 f/2.8-4.0 (could be a constant f/4 or even an f/3.5-4.5) Basically a replacement for OLYMPUS : ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 SWD
this
+1 with aperture ring please
Yep. Good call.
+1 for 12-60 f/3.5-4.5. I want it lighter than my present 12-60.
Aside from a 14mm shift lens…
A small LCD to display aperture combined with focus distance to also produce a dof spread. Perhaps a little archaic but welcome for someone that sometimes prefers to pre-focus distance and depth then adjust camera distance to shoot.
A f2.8 or f4 8mm prime – small and light and with excellent IQ. That is really missing in their lens lineup
Yep!
The hobbyist who can’t afford the 7-14 zooms, doesnt nedd them either, but wants something a bit better than the oly fisheye body cap – needs sth. like this!
Anything longer than 300mm like a 450mm or even a 600mm. I care not whether it’s a prime or a zoom so long as it’s long enough for wildlife with a good sharp image and AF
Anything longer tends to be impractical and difficult to use without an amazing tripod and seriously good stabilization. Current stabilisation ( both in-body and in-lens) limits hand-held usability to 300mm in my opinion.
I have handled a 1200mm (equivalent to 2400mm) on E-M1 and totally perfect with IBIS. Sure I can’t get 1/4 shutter speed but 1/15 and up just great.
The longer focal length problem isn’t stabilization, you can always find a tree or rock or something what to use to hold camera while waiting.
The problem is air. The air gets way too problematic at 300mm focal length. Your shooting periods are limited to morning and evening when air is cool, or to winter periods. Don’t even try to shoot anything on day time when sun is shining, in rain or mist you don’t get anything.
True! We do need longer than 300mm. Considering buying metabones adapter and Sigma 150-600 soon if Pany doesnt come out with something. Should have OIS too.
150-300mm F4 OIS weather-sealed zoom (sharper than the Panny 100-300mm) @ $1000-$1300. 8mm or 9mm F2.8 rectilinear prime @ $350. That would more or less complete the system.
150-300 F4 weathersealed sounds nice! Could also do with a weathersealed version of the 14-140mm. Maybe a fixed length with powerzoom version of the 14-140 that is also weatherproof. Might as well make it 12-140 then 🙂
A new 3D lens but f 1.8 🙂
(and with more stereo separation )
800 F2.0 nand-holdable would be my cream lens 🙂
Haha. If they make it a pancake lens, than 500mm/2.0 would be enough.
20mm f/1.0 with FN button & silent drive
35mm f1.8 with focal reducer elements built in (50mm full frame equivalence instead of 70mm)
Soooo you basically want the 25mm/1.4 from Panasonic? Because your theoretical 25mm/f1.2 will still have a T-stop penalty from all the extra elements, so it’s unlikely to transmit much more light. Or be any smaller, or lighter, or less expensive. Why go with after-the-fact lens design principles?
I have and love the pana 25 f1.4, but even though it’s equivalent to a ff50mm there’s no getting around the fact that it’s actually a 25mm lens with 25mm distortion. A 35 on a speedbooster looks more natural from the same shooting distance.
Man, I’m so tired of the way this weird perspective myth gets perpetuated…
http://admiringlight.com/blog/perspective-correcting-myth/
Interesting read. Thanks.
Can you really blame them? People don’t need these days learn anything from the start when they want to start photography as hobby (or even start as being professional) like it use to be on film era.
I would force every one to start with pinhole camera and B/W film. I would not give them a any other camera in their use before they master pinhole cameras. After that I would give them a architecture camera and require them to learn what it really means when all different factors are changed individually and how does those affect to final image.
After that all the crap what is going on the web about crop ratios to sensor sizes and apertures, focal length to perspective compression etc would be found foul by everyone. As they would have physically handled and changed every aspect in camera individually and know what and what not some change do.
But instead we have people making youtube videos and sharing DXO points without really knowing a twat what they are using.
Desperately need Panasonic 100-300mm f4 zoom lens, same quality as the 12-35 f2.8 and 35-100 f2.8 to complete the system
Second this! Could even be a 100-400mm 🙂
12-40mm f2.8-4.0. Useful and not very expensive.
Second that.
Second second that!
Useful maybe, but very unlikely since both P and O have a lens that starts at 12 and is 2.8. Then again, I don’t know how much 4.0 on the long end reduces size / complexity.
If the lenses aren’t breaking the f1.2 barrier then there’s not much reason to release anything because they just repeat what is already available. I’d like to see some faster lenses which might make me go buy a new one but for now I have all I need
Oly should firstly launch its 300mm F4 lens that it announced long time ago before they should think about any other lens. No other lens has had such a long head-up time period.
The extended range X10 zooms are never better than the X3 zooms we have, extending the zoom range introduces compromises in design: if the wide end is corrected for barrel then the other end pin-cushions; if the long end is corrected for pin-cushion then the wide end barrels.
That being so there is little drive to make them faster, currently f/3.5-5.6
If you want faster, you put a better lens on, a fast prime or shorter range zoom e.g. X12-35/F2.8 or X35-100/F2.8 .
“Pro Grade”? No pro I know, including myself, would ever use a lens that had the eqiv. 35mm sizing of a 28 to 300 zoom. By it’s very definition, that’s an amateur lens.
I would really like to see that 12-35/2, since previous variant for 4/3s was pretty awesome (less wide tho). Mostly cause Panasonic is softwared piece of .. you know what. Panasonic want absurd money for lens thats performance is half software and it doesnt work in every light condition (CA crawls out, PF too). Uncorrected its really ugly lens.. very poor optical design.
Every high performance car on the market has an engine that has little performance or won’t even run without its computer. That isn’t poor design, it’s taking advantage of modern technology to be competitive and deliver the most performance for the money. A truly poor optic can’t be corrected by computer; the idea that a design intended for digital correction must be “poor” is simply wrong.
I would not advise Panasonic to have their designers chase after recommendations from internet posters who don’t understand, and will most likely find any reason not to buy Panasonic whatever they do. “Don’t want to pay for OIS” “They use software correction” “They make vacuum cleaners” “It’s only good for video, I’m a stills man” “I’ll wait to see what Olympus does” Whatever.
You live under assumption that it works perfectly. It doesnt. Thats the problem.
I dont mind Leica T lenses being SW corrected. You know why? Cause they work absolutely perfect in every light (despite being corrected same way as Panasonic lenses – distortion, vignetting, CA).
Why I call that Panasonic lens overpriced piece of …. is cause it doesnt work as it should. It has poor output cause they relied too much on SW and not enough on optics. And in same time it costs too much.
They make vacuum cleaners, well, Samsung makes everything, nobody cares. Also Panasonic makes nice TVs and fridge freezers. I own one piece of each. 🙂
What I would advise Panasonic is bit less importance on “we can fix it in SW” and bit more “design it as proper lens”. Also every software correction costs something, if you think it doesnt, you are properly designed idiot.
200/2.8 with matching TCs.
Definitely a 17.5mm 1.0 or 1.2! I know it’s very similar to the voigtländer, but the voigtländer doesn’t have Autofocus!! With that amount of dof this becomes all the more important!!
And I’d also like a 7 or 8mm prime that isn’t a fisherye… Not sure whether they could correct that via software as well, so that you can switch between fisheye and defish via software correction. In that case I’d even prefer the software update. Otherwise it’s always a hustle to do this on my pc, would rather have it out of the box…
24-105 F4 Premium compact Lens
I love my Panny 14-140, but the min aperture could be a bit better than 3.5-5.6. If they could possibly do a lens that covers this many focal lengths with a larger aperture, and sooomehow keep it a reasonable size, that would be killer! Is f/2.0 too much to ask for? 🙂
What i need is a mid-level wideangle zomm, like a 14-54mm F/2,8-4,0
smaller and lighter than the 12-40 2,8, but better quality than std. 14-42
A longer 1:1 pro macro lens.
The m.zuiko 100mm f2 macro pro
for instance with plenty diafragma blades for a beautiful bokeh.
Yes, that would be terrific.
12mm F1.0 and a 7mm F1.4. That would complete the wide end of the lineup.
Fast Telephoto primes and reasonably fast telephoto zooms. Like something
Brighter/faster than that 75-300.
Primes:
F4 400 and f4 500 to go with upcoming f4 300
As for zooms a faster 75-300 or a fast/bright 150-300. Or 150-400. I am happy with the 12-40 and 40-150 everything over that needs serious work for m4/3.
A re-engineered 17mm 2.8 to replace the less than stellar 17mm 2.8 from the dawn of MFT history.
I would definitely prefer to have a 17mm F1.2 available! That could be a very interesting lens! Though I don’t need the OIS with my Oly body. But the price point will be the critical thing here. That lens needs to be at around 600-900€ to be really attractive and compete against the Oly 17mm F1.8
What about a Zeiss Loxia alike line for MFT?
Some fast f1.2, weather proof primes would be nice! And get the price down lower than their full frame equals.
At least four of the following lenses:
8mm f1.8 (not fisheye)
21mm f1.0
50mm f1.0
100mm f2 macro
150mm f2
12-35mm f2 or 10-25mm f1.7 to cover wide angle to normal perspective
35-100mm f2
100-200mm f2.8
We already has plenty of small light lenses for those that want to travel light. We need stuff for professional use that is still smallish, weather sealed, and not have OIS.
PANCAKES! extra syrup! please!!!
Yes, but only real, 100% Vermont maple syrup!
Nikon has some experience with fluids in the camera. We should give them a call. But seriously, more prime pancakes would be huge win for the system. Too bad Pana and Oly basically stopped after one lens (20/17 respectively) and Pana is focusing on reducing the lens diameter for the GM series.
There is going to be a few poor Japanese guys tomorrow that are told to compile a list of every lens mentioned in these (almost 300) comments, and then told to analyze it to see what is the most asked for lenses.
Hopefully “we really want an ultrawide rectilinear prime” translates properly into Japanese 😉
I think Oly makes them already.
They’re for peeping up poop chutes. ? ?
A better quality long lens from panasonic. I would love something like a 150-450 f3.5-5.6 or 100-400 f3.5-5.6 with pro like sharpness. They may not at this point have the camera body that can make it competitive with a canon 7d and 100-400, but if Pana builds the lens they will also likely improve the AF to match.
Let me summarize: shorter, longer, faster, better and .. cheaper.
Based on history, you may get only one of the wishes. Not even two.
12-150 Constant aperture Power Zoom for video.
I want a non zoom fixed lens 24-100mm f0.05 with twin cam 4 cylinder dual overhead exhaust putting out 450HP and 500 lbs ft of torque. Also make a hybrid lens for dry and water and so sharp it can cut a bread. All this lens at 10mm L x 10mm W…
@ADMIN How about turning this into a poll?
rectilinear UWA prime wins the popular contest, no contest. 😉
A rectilinear UWA probably tops my list as well. That and the 67.5mm f/1.0
Power zoom with adjustable zoom speed (on the lens directly in a few steps and with smoother starts and stops). Constant aperture & weather sealed would be GREAT. Focal length wise a 14-60mm F4 would be “enough” – to keep it smaller and cheaper (in this shape it would be THE LENS for the GH4 for example).
AND most important: PLEASE include repeatable manual focusing (like with the Olympus 12-40 for example) – It´s jut annoying to pull the focus with the Panasonic lenses (it´s a mess to be honest). Btw.: No feature – But a “MUST HAVE FIX”: It would be GREAT to get a stabilized (Power OIS) lens WITHOUT micro jitters (and maybe even with a few OIS steps to choose the right setting for the actual shot) …
Please let me dream ^^ *g*.
Remake of sigma 18-35 1.8 that will ne smaller, lighter, and may be 14-35.
300mm f4 is all I want for 2015.
6mm prime!
Sigma 10-30 1.8 MFT
Also the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 in MFT!!!
100-400
My plan is to buy a new EM1 within the next 2-3 months. I Expect my primary lens to be the new Canon 100-400 on the Metabones adapter with full electronic coupling.
Full electronic coupling except for autofocus.
Lens #2 on my list would be a travel zoom of something like 12-240 AND that 12 is after distortion correction has been applied. 14-150 doesn’t cut it at the wide end.
G5 +17mm f/1.2 OIS
Yes, a fast as possible 12mm and 40-ish would be nice.
10.9-34mm, F1.7-2.8 with aperture ring, and very compact.
Panasonic already makes this lens, btw. They just attach it to a fixie.
Unfortunately, it probably doesn’t work as an interchangeable lens, since it has a leaf-shutter. The rear element probably comes very close to the sensor inside the LX100, and certainly when collapsed it is likely almost touching it, which would interfere with the inside of an interchangeable lens camera…
Probably right, but even if it was redesigned with a slightly larger barrel, it would be really nice.
25mm f/1.0 for me.
67.5mm f1.4 w ois, 10mm f2, 25mm f1.2 w ois, 17.5mm f1.2 wois. 12-100 f3.5 constant aperture & Parfocal, 100-300 with better optics and constant aperture + Parfocal.
No need for new lenses. The selection is good as it is. Go out and shoot more.
No need but its fun when there is a new cool lens.
For me:
1. 8-16mm Fish eye zoom
2. 150mm F5.6 AF Mirror Lens
3. 90-250mm F2.8
Pro quality Panasonic 100-300 please.
90-250 f2.8
12-35/2.0 parafocal servo zoom with manual clickless aperture and manual focus. (Yes it would be physically huge)
I would love a rectilinear 8mm prime lens.
I have been waiting for this. I think this is the one true hole in the lineup. The 7-14’s go some distance in accomplishing the need, but a smaller, lighter, less expensive 7mm or 8mm f/2.8 (or f/3.5 or f/4 even) prime that is optically corrected to avoid severe mustache distortion at or below $500 would be ideal.
The other end, for me, being super tele lenses could lend tools for sports or birders, etc and as we see the hybrid AF mature, the system can then really compete on more even footing. The Oly 300/4 will be exciting, and I’d like to even see a 400mm or 500mm prime although I don’t know how much I’d personally use them, it would still be cool to see for the system.
Fast 17mm for sure. 1.2 or faster would be great with smallest size/lightest weight possible for a high IQ fast prime. Great bokeh and please, weather sealing on primes! Oly or Pana, don’t really mind.
A 25mm f1.0 or 1.2 would be great.
A 12-75mm f2.8-4 w/ 1:2 macro capability.
A 100-400mm f3.5-4.5.
I’d like to see the 14-50 f/3.5-4 in micro four thirds mount, with OIS for sure.
documentary makers using M43 urgently need a 10x zoom – 14-140 would be fine ideally with F2 constant aperture (or failing that f2.8) of the same optical standard (or higher) as the 12-35 / 35/100 zooms. The lens will be largish, but not too large.
A stabilized anamorphic lens
PanaLeica 10mm f/3.4 Super-Elmar (f/3.4 might already be in diffraction territory on MFT, so a f/2.8 Elmarit will be OK too.)
We already have PanaLeica 15mm, 25mm, 42.4mm, 45mm. 10mm seems the obvious extension.
It doesn’t need to be fast. 10mm will have tons of DOF and high ISO works well these days.
But it does need to be tiny and optically distortion free. With a WA lens like this we expect the corner quality to be high and not stretched from automatic RAW distortion correction.
a 75, 90 or 125 would also round out the top end, but I hope they do a super/ultra wide like what you suggest here first.
A higher quality & faster 100-300 with OIS, or alternatively a 300 or 400 with OIS. Panasonic, get on it!
12-50 2.8
18/1.2
> 18/1.2
We won’t stop until we have a lens for every fl from 10-20 😉
well, actually it would be nice if we had something that could compete with fuji’s compact yet fast 23/1.4
1) 8mm f4.0 rectilinear (most wanted)
2) 100mm f2.0 macro
3) 100-300mm f4.5
4) 12-60mm f3.5-4.5
Leica 25mm 1.8… (w/ OIS). I love my Leica 25mm now, but it’d be a beast w/ OIS.
After the 300 f4 maybe 400 f4 or 200 f2.8 . 200-400 f5 would be cool too. Then a 50 f1 and 10 f2.8 🙂
cheaper lens that can be bought in my country
A compact very high quality Olympus 12-45 or 14-45 zoom, with whatever aperture range (f3.5 to f5.6??) that allows it to be as compact as the current Olympus 14-42 kit lens (not the EZ version, that would be asking too much). The lens would have the optical quality of the Olympus 12-40mm Pro zoom, and would ideally be water proof. Then I would have the ideal camera set up: the E-M1 with 12-40 as my regular combination, and this new lens with my E-M10 when I’m traveling light. I currently carry the E-M10 with two primes: a 17mm and 45mm, but would dearly love a very, very high quality compact zoom that would complement the camera’s small body.
a prime longer than 75mm, and make it a macro!
I’d love to see a 16mm as fast as possible (sharp/HR at 1.2 or 1.0) !
A telephoto zoom for nature like 4/100-300 (maybe with built in 1.4x)
small tele primes like 2/135 or 2,8/200
Panasonic 17mm F1.2!
I’m waiting for Sigma to get off their ass and make the 4.5mm lens for the EM1 at 9mm f/2.8 or 3.5. Yes I’m using it now with an adapter ring, and it works very good, but it would be nice not to have an Auto Lens Canon Mount be full Manual on this camera. This is the only thing holding me back from dumping my Canon gear and going pure Olympus.
If the sky is the limit and the package comes with a rich uncle to finance them? Hmm… Insofar as my brain tends not to operate beyond what I can imagine being able to afford, I would be practical and pragmatic first. So, my first bit of wishing would be that all of the current lenses should cost half as much. I’ve got five so far. My second wish revolves around the 12-50mm lens I already have, but do not often use. Experience with it tells me that I want a 12-60mm lens, and could part with the constant aperture of the current pro lens, if the 60mm end of my hypothetical lens was not slower than f4.0. In low light, I am satisfied that I will use primes. That offbeat lenscap 9mm fisheye thingy provokes thought too. How about 11 little gold contacts that provide EXIF data for another $100, and a defish art filter built into the camera? On the totally unrealistic end, I would like an affordable 12-150mm f3.5 constant zoom with no distortions, aberrations, flares, drop-offs in edge sharpness, vignetting, etc. I would like all of my primes, f1.0, no price premium. Here is an obvious one. The extensible 9-18mm lens. It is not perfect, but it would be nice if the styling was updated to match current crop of premium lenses. Both of the other medium-price zooms have arrived at the style-matching party (75-300mm and 14-150mm).
14-35mm f/1.4. I dont care if its as big as a brick… then i dont need my canon anymore
Is Canon supposed to stay unchallenged in being the only company that has a pro-level superzoom lens with very good image quality, the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L? Except that Panasonic already has such a lens for the Four Thirds mount, the Leica Vario Elmar D 14-150mm f/3.5-5.6? Except for the “pro-level”, since it’s not environmentally sealed?
How about something along the lines of a “PRO” M.Zuiko 12/14-140/150/160mm f/3.5-5.6 with similar image quality, perhaps even slightly faster? I wouldn’t mind if it was not quite as compact as the existing m43 superzooms, by the way.
I can’t agree more! +1 for IQ-centric high ratio zoom (like old FT Oly 12-60 or Leica mentioned). It does not have to be too compact, light, fast and cheap but versatile and sharp.
Well Olympus has just released the 14-150mm F4-F5.6 II, a weather sealed lens. The results seem fine to me.
Have doubts about both of them (Canon and Olympus) being PRO. Yes despite the L.
12mm f2.0 tilt shift lens
One more comment: SIGMA should also get their act together: release the 150-600 (contemporary) for m4/3 mount
It’s unusable at the long end.
compact 200mm f/4
pancake 25mm f/2
compact 10mm f/4
20-80 f2 would be ideal
Yes, 20-80 mm would be a fantastic range. I could also accept f2.8.
weather sealed primes! 17mm, 25mm and so on
weather sealed primes
Panasonic and Olympus should stop releasing 1.8 lenses and get working on 1.0 and 1.2 lenses.
The moment Canon and Nikon release a mirrorles system on bigger sensors, m43 system is dead.
Only thing to save m43 system is adequate lenses for same or in the range of full frame shallow depth of field.
Also, wide lenses, 7mm at 2.0 or 2.8, not f 4.0, what the hell panasonic, is bad enough that tiny sensor is horrible in low light.
I am pretty happy with the lenses. A 12-35 would be nice as soon as it remains compact.
I’d like a bit more on the sensor side, especially shadow detail, I do not see any need for better glass if there’s no plan to take advantage of it…
But there are 12-35 2.8 and 12-40mm 2.8, both weathersealed? Are they not good enough for you?
Sure. I just supported the OP’s wish for a 12-35mm f/2.0
Canon released a bigger sensor mirrorless system over two and a half years ago.
1 : Weather sealed fast primes. 12mm f/1.4 or faster, 17mm f/1.4 or faster, 25mm f/1.2 or faster, 45mm f/1.2 or faster. Ideally f/1.0. AF of course. And priced right, not $1500.
2 : Ultra wide angle primes, like a 6 or 7mm, 10mm.
3 : A 12-35mm f/2. Not 14mm at the wide end. Must be 12mm, or wider.
Oh, and a 12-50 or 12-40 f/2.8-4 that is sealed and AFFORDABLE to bridge the gap between slow kit zoom and the 12-40 f/2.8 PRO.
I’d personally love a 13.5 – 27 f/1.8 OIS.
On the one hand, the lens sytem for m4/3 is entirely complete for my shooting.
OTOH, I’d love for someone to remake the 20mm pancake, but with acceptably fast focusing. It better on the newer Oly cameras, but still much slower to focus than every Oly lens I have.
It’s slow to AF because of its fine very accurate focus threads. It is still very fast focussing compared to other makes of cameras.
Do make sure you have done its firmware update because that does speed it up especially on Olympus backs.
Thanks! I’ll check out the firmware (I’ve never updated firmware on a *lenss*.)
new Olympus camera with geomembrane sensor (hopefully E-M1 II)
combined with Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 PRO, a fantastic lens that make Oly haters whining around… lol
Small ultrawide prime thats razer sharp. 9mm f/2.8. I want it small enough for my gm1.
You cannot break the laws of physics. Low f-number means big lens.
You should see the the GM1 on the back of the 100-300 😉
9mm f 2.0 not a fish eye, 12 f 1.0, 14 f 1.0, 17 mm f 1.0, 25 f 1.0… prime lens.
90-250 2.8
If you happen to have an E-M1, there already is the <a href="http://four-thirds.org/en/fourthirds/telephoto.html#c=OLYMPUS&i_090-250mm_f028_olympus"Zuiko Digital 90-250mm f/2.8 with the MMF-2/3 adapters, and you can get a 1.4x and a 2x converter to boot which both work very well with that lens. A 90-250/2.8 couldn’t be made much smaller or cheaper as a native Micro Four Thirds, anyway…
Actually it could be made smaller and lighter. Just like the Pro line has already shown that equivalent are smaller and lighter.
The difference isn’t like FF vs MFT but it is still big difference. That is exactly reason the m4/3 mount was designed to get the lenses even smaller. As the 4/3 mount lenses did have difference to 135 format lenses but not a enough.
Telephoto lenses of certain focal lengths and above cannot be made significantly smaller or lighter for mirrorless cameras than for DSLRs, because in telephoto lenses it’s only focal length and aperture which determine the design. If such a lens becomes smaller and lighter, it’s purely because of an optical design that forgoes optical correction for compactness, something which could have made the DSLR lens smaller, too, if that would have been desired at the time.
Have you seen the price of that thing? Ouch!
Btw it will run on all mft cameras not just the E-M1, although that has the sensor designed to handle the focus of 4/3 lenses, the GH4 with DFD should push it even faster. (Panasonic made four thirds too)
The original ?-500mm Bigma was four-thirds fitment.
Right, I once tried the Sigma 50-500 on my E-30, and I’ve heard it would combine quite well with the E-M1. Regarding the GH4, to my best knowledge it doesn’t handle non-CDAF-capable FT lenses well, but I would be interested in links to information that says otherwise!
Thank you, useful information.
Whilst the E-M1 is the only one ever fitted with non-CDAF pixels, the brains behind focussing is the camera and the GH4 has four brains.
fyi “Newer Panasonic cameras like GH2, G2 and G10 feature some improved autofocus functionality using FT lenses.”
– those are old cameras now.
If I win the lens, I will test it on GH4, E-M5ii, E-PL7 and GX7 and may get back here with results
I’ll be watching this space! Did I already say that, a few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to play with a GX7, and beside liking the camera very much, I found it focusing surprisingly well with my FT-mount Panasonic “Vario Elmar D” 14-150/3.5-5.6, at least as fast as the E-M1? The “Vario Elmar”, though, is specified as “contrast-AF compatible”, while most Olympus-made FT lenses aren ‘t and none of the Sigmas ever was, unfortunately. Interestingly, the E-M1 doesn’t care for “contrast-AF compatibility” of FT lenses; if it’s a FT lens, the camera falls into PDAF mode, I don’t get a choice. (I see, of course, that the E-M1 belongs to the kind of camera with which reviewers already tend to complain about too many choices…)
What would be really nice would be if Oly upgraded the AF motors on those top pro 4/3 lenses. The Top Pro lenses are all totally amazing lenses, but they are being held back by not having top notch AF motors.
There is still no UWA prime from either Olympus or Panasonic. None at all! Also nothing that is pro or very high quality for a 35mm equivalent lens. A weatherproof AF 17mm f/1.4 that is evenly sharp and without all the common flaws like huge vignetting, distortion. Again, nothing!
Just lots of great portrait lenses. Panasonic just realised a 42.5mm f/1.7 when there are so many portrait lenses, and all nice ones already. Why? Will Olympus match that with its own 45mm f/1.2? And then a 67.5mm from Panasonic? Why all the duplication while serious gaps remain?
On FF, 24mm and below is UAW
That means on mft 12mm and anything less is UWA and 14mm up to 20mm is WA and 20-25mm is standard etc
The terms wide-angle, ultra-wide-angle, telephoto, long and extra-long are actually defined in terms of the negative size, its diagonal, length and height.
The 135 film is a compact film size, it is so not full frame (that’s about 10×14 inches, the size of a sheet of photo print paper)
The 35mm negative is 24x36mm giving it a diagonal of 43mm
Height is 24mm = UWA
Length is 36mm = WA
Diagonal is 43mm = standard lens (45-50mm)
and so on
The gaps are what zoom lenses are for. They cannot be made as fast as a prime.
You zoom a prime with your feet. One really only needs a geometric progression of prime lens sizes 12(14), 24(20-25), 48 (50), 100, 200, 400 and so on. Have a look at the aperture F-numbers to get the idea.
I’ve got the Panny 20/f1.7 and the Leica 25/f1.4 and I’ve got to tell you, that Leica is redundant.
f/1.0-1.4 or better lenses to compete with DSLR equivalence maybe for Pro, everything else f/2.8. Time for 12-50 (II) digital zoom lens or something targeted as a ‘cinema’ HD lens maybe 14-140 f/2.8 or better. Lens hoods for all lenses. Spending hundreds and not supplying a plastic part or overcharging for it is counter productive.
In general higher IQ, better focusing, higher dynamic range and low noise and higher ISO and video capable camera system to begin with. Better firmware support for lenses and camera system.
That’s Olympus. Panasonic provide hood and bag.
How about lens we don’t have but could use? Like an 8, 9 or 10 mm rectilinear lens? F/2.8 would be enough.
Even 4.0 would be enough for outdoor work.
Olympus 9-18/F4-5.6
Sorted that for you there 😀
To be honest it is not a brilliant lens and I switch to the X12-35 at 12mm
The other trick is to slip a wide angle lens filter on to go wider than 12mm.
Problem with all the ultra wide angle lenses is they all distort the edges and need cropping, back to square one then.
Panasonic has been quiet of late, wonder whether they are rethinking their offerings or waiting for new tech.
I pick:
100-300mm F/4.0 – a popular request and will sell, weather sealed
17.5mm F/1.2 – M43 still don’t have a pro standard 35mm equv. weather sealed
8/10.5mm F/2.0 – M43 still lacking with wide primes
10-60mm F/4.0 – a travel zoom option, weather sealed
They’ve just released two lenses – arguably not stuff for the PROs, but still. But maybe they are working on Cinema lenses?
I reckon they want to sack their ad-men: who on earth targets the GH4 only at videographers when it simply has the best still image of all the mft cameras.
The E-M1 may be close but I’ve recently got the E-M5ii and my GH4 is wiping the floor with it due to its poor colour, low dynamics and high noise.
As far as I’m concerned they should bin their cine work and concentrate on the main market.
More wide angle lenses, no thanks. The mft x2 crop factor is ideal for wildlife, so where are the long lenses. The very first Bigma was 4/3 format, what on earth has happened to that, where’s the mft version?
The current 100-300 is already f/5.6 at the long end
That lens could be made f/2.8-4.5 but not cheap.
I do have a FF 55-225/F3.5-4.5, shame its glass isn’t as nice as the 100-300 though
Do note (!) it is still only a 55-225 on mft 😀
I would like a 12mm F2.8 or F4 shift lens for architecture. As for the rest we are already very well covered. No need for tilt : the MFT sensor size offering more DOF than FF ones. So keep it simple and more compact.
Shift is nothing without tilt, regardless of sensor format. People do not use tilt only to get more of your object into focus, they might also want to use it to get less of it into focus, or to direct what little of it does get into focus and what not while shooting wide-open.
And you’re wrong, MFT does not offer more DOF than FF. With FF, you can always stop down two stops more (as long as the specific lens offers that F-stop you need).
I think rrr_rrr means, for the same F stop (light) it m43 and smaller) offers more DOF which is correct.
Subject isolation is nice but to a degree. MF and FF have nano DOF compared to 35mm and smaller sensors, that’s why a fast lens on the former formats is max F2 or F2.8.
The point in photography has been to capture the moment while your subject is recognisable and aestetic. Having just one eye-lash in focus is not. But on the bigger formats unavoidable in low light.
Now in todays era, many don’t know better than nano DOF is cool and only this is responsible for the best IQ and looks PRO.
The thin DOF has been used decades ago as well, by medium and large format photographers. Where just one eyelash was in focus and everything else was out of focus. Or the other eye iris is in focus and everything else blurred, using tilt-shift technics.
But even if we look most famous portraits, they are all taken with such depth of field that is possible with f/2.8 lens on 4/3 sensor. The nose is in focus, eyes are in focus, hair and bear is in focus and most often ears are in focus.
The depth of field is about 15-20cm.
Using Olympus 45mm f/1.8 wide open in normal portrait distance (0.8-1.2m) 2-4cm and that is so narrow that you get exactly only the eyelashes in focus if wanted. There is no need any wider aperture to get things out of focus. Even f/2.8 gives almost identical narrow depth of field.
The reason to use wider aperture are two reasons:
A: To get more light.
B: To get subject isolated even from further distance, this is possible with f/1.8 very well.
The A is the most uselful reason to pay more for fast lens, so we get the FAST shutter speed, hence the name “fast lens”. Get the motion freezed and subject in focus.
Even the FF doesn’t allow to use widest apertures most of the time, even portraits are most often taken with f/3.5-8 to get subject in focus and background blurred. But they need to use so high ISO to keep subject and camera motion freezed that qualitu suffers.
MFT is the best format out there. the best.
Those who come and say that MFT doesn’t offer the DOF what FF does, they are mathematically correct. But visually they are incorrect as there is no such difference in final print. Those who claim FF has the benefit doesn’t take portraits and doesn’t take their cameras out. Otherwise they would know that MFT is the best format out there and they would not talk trash about FF being superior.
Pros like Bailey used Olympus lenses for portrait not because they were good but because they were soft.
You seem to get things right for the first time where you admit that one needs minimal DOF “to get subject isolated even from further distance”, but then you show your complete ignorance of the subject in claiming “this is possible with f/1.8 very well”, which would be nonsense even if the focal length, which would be mandatory for any such statement, wasn’t missing (and perhaps you were relating to the 45mm lens). Why? Because the artistic wish to get distant subjects isolated knows no limit in distance. There is no such thing as too little subject isolation. There are only systems with more and with less restricted DOF bandwidths, and it’s smaller sensor systems which are more, and larger sensor systems which are less restricted. Full stop, end of story.
As I said above, Micro Four Thirds does probably offer sufficiently little restrictions in DOF bandwidth for the huge majority of real-world applications and sufficient image quality for even more, which is why I myself have chosen Micro Four Thirds as my primary camera system. That doesn’t change the stated facts, or the fact that there are demands Micro Four Thirds cannot satisfy, and that these don’t have to be esoteric demands either.
Years ago shallow DoF was a Big Problem and lens designers went to a lot of trouble to increase the DoF on 35mm film SLR lenses; bokeh was most undesirable.
More DOF for the same F-stop is completely irrelevant. More DOF for shooting parameters which offer roughly the same image quality at the same shutter speed, i.e. at equivalent ISO, would be relevant, but MFT does not offer that over FF.
Shallow DOF is not only good for portraits. And there is no such thing as too little subject isolation, one reason being the wish to isolate distant subjects. There are only systems with more and with less restricted DOF bandwidths, and it’s smaller sensor systems which are more, and larger sensor systems which are less restricted.
Micro Four Thirds does probably offer sufficiently little restrictions in DOF bandwidth for the huge majority of real-world applications and sufficient image quality for even more, which is why I myself have chosen Micro Four Thirds as my primary (currently single, actually) camera system. That doesn’t change the stated facts, or the fact that there are demands Micro Four Thirds cannot satisfy, and that those don’t have to be esoteric demands either.
DoF is only partly aperture, a lot of it is lens design and do you know, they design lenses to be sharp not blurry. They want a deep DoF. Bokeh is actually a fault.
Ok, seems you really know all about optics and photography there is to know… (NOT)
i wish 10-38mm f2.6-3.8 or leica zoom
Panasonic should upgrade the 100-300mm to f/4.0 or faster.
It is f/4-5.6 which is pretty fast for a long zoom lens
To make it faster they would need to reduce zoom range and/or increase size: 300mm f/5.6 needs the iris 54mm diameter, 300mm f/4 needs the iris 75mm diameter.
Well I want to replace my Olympus 17mm f2.8 but the only options are Olympus 17mm f1.8 or Panasonic 15mm f1.7. I want to have out of focus effects and wide enough for selfies. Problem is, these two are way too expensive!
I suggest Panasonic make a 17mm f2 and undercut Oly’s price by 30%. Only are being spoilt charging so much for a pretty usual lens.
Personally, I think it’s weird that there’s nothing faster than 1.8 (with AF) for one of the most popular focal lengths. In that vein, the price on the Oly 1.8 would also come down if Pana released a 17mm 1.4. that is priced only a tiny bit above Oly’s.
I like your reasoning and hope Panasonic make something like that. You can’t have enough choices in this focal range!
Fast and wide should be easy.
Think – 17mm f/1.4 would only need a 12mm iris. There’s not that much glass needed there.
Problem is we’ve gone under the magic 23mm image circle diameter. It has to be focussed evenly across the sensor or you get very severe distortion
You want the Panasonic 20/F1.7 then, it’s one of the must-have lenses anyway.
12-35mm F1.7
Do-able but hideously expensive. You want primes for that speed.
25mm with OIS is what Pana essentially misses.
25mm will hand hold at 1/25 or slower so why do you want OIS.
That is already so slow we get motion blur; often too slow to use.
To go slower we use a bean bag or tripod.
For video. I don’t do stills. There is too much RS jello without OIS that sucks at any shutter speed. It’s just not so apparent for stills but effectively ruins video.
If you do video then you want the GH4 because the E-M5ii is simply not as good at movie shooting. I have both.
You’ll also be lucky to shoot consistently for longer than about 6 minutes on the E-M5ii before the sensor overheating safety cut-out kicks in. I’ve been testing that; it will do 10 minutes then the time gets less and less. Nor will it shoot a file greater then 4GB. This is all in the manual. Oh, and the image degrades to reddish as the movie progresses too. So does the E-PL7.
If you are a videographer then please throw away those horrible old cine lenses, you need AF and OIS.
9/2,8 + 55/1,2 + travel zoom 12-50/2,8-4
4-400mm f1.2 and the size of Oly 12-50mm and no excuse please!!!
…or I’ll stick to Full Frame
Where is the 4-400mm f/1.2 lens to FF, and size of the 12-50mm from Olympus?
It was sarcasm I think
A 100 – 400mm F4 – F5.6 weather sealed with a function button, and tripod mount.
Zoom (thumb and middlefinger) and focus (thumb and index finger) rings must be operable while tripod mount rests in the left hand.
From Pana it must have OIS, from Olympus it doesn’t need OIS.
Forgot that the Olympus needs the dual voice coil motors. It will be a stunning sports and BIF lens!
Not with F4-5.6 it isn’t.
f/2.8 is requirement and f/4 is minimum, both constant speed.
Sports and wildlife photographers would be pleased as that 150-450mm would be smaller and lighter than anything from Canon/Nikon, even when f/2.8!
would love to have / buy that too, and a 70-200mm MFT, with f2.8 (or 4.0), weatherproofed a must !, preferably from Pana (OIS !)
I’m thinking Olympus may be about to try combine body+lens stabilisation for the long lenses with those VCM in lens and camera.
Body stabilisation really, really does not work with long lenses.
I like to see a super telezoom as well, but with different f
f2.8 150-300 mm
or f2.8-4 150-400 mm
f/2.8 at 300mm is a bit of a no-no and f/4 at 450mm is a very big expensive ask.
It think we won’t see at most one or two lenses from Pana and if we’re lucky one additional lens from Oly. Oly still has 3 lenses to release this year, Pana has already announced 2. I doubt they’ll release more than four this year.
As usual, I also want to reiterate that I’d really like to see the fabled Panasonic 12-50 2.8 – 3.3 (OIS?): http://www.43rumors.com/ft4-panasonic-is-preparing-a-12-50mm-f2-5-3-3-zoom/
How would that be better than the X12-35? What would be the point?
Given that the cheapo 14-42 52Ø is one of the best lenses out there …
Add the aperture ring of the Panasonic/Leica 15mm to all lenses with constant aperture because it is a big pleasure to use (i.e crate a version II of the lenses):
25mm 1.4
42,5mm 1.7
60mm 2.8 Macro
12-35mm 2.8
35-100mm 2.8
If it gets the same look and feel as the 15mm I would be more than happy.
Another wish is to combine the manual focus of the Olympus lenses with distance marks with the Panasonic Aperture ring for all primes.
I meant the 45 2.8 Macro instead of the 60mm 2.8 Marco 🙂
For the amount of macro I shoot, a screw on close-up ‘filter’ is the way to go.
I’d like a crate of those lenses too.
But I’ve already got all but one of those and I manage very well with the aperture on the thumb wheel
400 mm f/2.8 or 600 mm f/4.
dream on – but 400/F4.5 and 600/F6.3 are do-able
Some budget lenses please. I am not a professional, so cant afford to spend so much on lenses. But i am very interested in photography and want to to take all kinds of good photos to share with friends and family. So, something in the budget range of the following would be great :
Wide angle (<=10mm) lens.
Super fast portrait lens (<=f1.4) .
20mm like walk around pancake prime with fast aperture.. which actually focuses faster than my 20mm f1.7.
That would pretty much be my kit all the time… if available.
It’s an expensive hobby.
We are talking about enthusiast amateur lenses here.
Pro lenses can run to £8,000 to £11,000 or more. Gulp!
10.5-37.5mm F/2.0 😛
Teleconverter for the 75-300mm lens. Or…bring out a Pro version of the lens with a TC made for it.
I would say “not a Pro”, just a “Premium” would be ok, e possibly with a shorter range (like – for instance- 110-300/f4-5.6)
All I need is 20/1.7 which focuses fast on Oly bodies (think 25/1.8 in terms of focusing speed, but like 20/1.7 in terms of size and FL)
Panasonic 100-300/f4 or 100-400/f4 with OIS is on top of my wishlist!
There is a real big reason why a zoom lens like the 100-300 is variable aperture and only f/4.0-5.6
Firstly, fixed aperture compromises optical design.
Secondly f = 1/(FocalLength) i.e. 300/4 = 75mm diameter iris which would need a lens body of over 100mm diameter and probably new car price.
The Bigma 150-500/4.5-6.3 is longer but not as good glass as the existing Leica designed Lumix 100-300/F4.0-5.6 (the Oly 75-300 is a good lens but much slower and inferior)
Note 500/6.3 = 80mm which is not as big as you are asking.
Primes of 450/F4.5 and 600/F6.3 are big. expensive but do-able
I am sure Panasonic can do it. Lets start competing with Canon/Nikon/Sony and make a 100-300/f4.
Panasonic 10.5mm f/2.5 would be quite nice lens to have.
Also, anything wider than 14mm from Panasonic would be almost as equally good.
X12-35 then, sorted.
I like a Panasonic lens 12-60mm, would be a nice all round lens !
That’s a 5X zoom and would not be worth making as top quality i.e. fast.
They already make a 10X zoom 14-140/F3.5-5.6 which is a fine walkabout lens.
Maximum zoom for top-end stuff is 3X. It’s to do with the physics of lens engineering design.
I’m happy with the number of primes a available and don’t need more than my 8, 17, 45 & 75mm
I would consider replacing my 12-35 with a 12-50 if it was around the same size and weight, even if it was only 3.5
To go with that a quality 50-150 similar in size to the 35-100 would be perfect 🙂
A powered large zoom, like a 12-120mm or more.