Matti Sulanto had an opportunity to talk with Mr. Kataoka, who is the General Manager of Olympus Product Development R&D Division. The video can be seen on top of this post. These are the core info:
– Four Thirds User are very valuable to Olympus and they will continue to develop bodies that can be used with Four Thirds lenses.
– Olympus developed MFT lenses for general users. We are focusing on the tele lenses.
– Collaboration between Olympus and Sony is mainly on the medical business.
Source: www.sulantoblog.fi
112 Responses
Can’t get the volume up. Anyone?
There’s only a left channel, no right…
Thanks! That means my left speak is faulty. 🙁
Tele prime lenses are always my favorite lenses .
Please come up more lenses of this type such as the 45mm & 75mm . Now how about a 150mm ?
I rather to have something short with F2.0 aperture than a 150mm with f2.8 .
If I am not mistaken there is Oly 150 f2.0 already. Just wait for the new body which will be able to focus 4/3 properly. It cant be expected that the m4/3 version of that lens would be particularly smaller than the 4/3 version.
And Panasonic will come out with their 150mm 2.8 by the end of the year if you want a smaller native M4/3 option
There’s still a wide, affordable prime missing. something like a 10mm 2.8. Tele is boooring.
Why is tele boring?
Agree. Only one fast(ish) – 12mm F2 AF wide prime and one without AF – 12mm T1.6. Choice is still poor at the wide end for m4/3. They should focus at wide lens development.
I agree with Narretz, sorry Ulli :).
why Miroslav?..why????
The eternal question, the question of all questions… I guess we’ll never really know :D.
“There is no such thing as boring FoV, but there are boring photographers”
-anonymous.
…ok lets not do a bad case of shooting the messenger, not the message: tele angle is my favorite fov for landscaping. It can also be used for sports, wildlife, compression effect, abstract photography just to name a few. Calling it boring is a sweeping statement.
Waited so long for the 10mm 2.8 prime. Now I am thinking of getting the 14mm 2.8 Samyang and put a lens turbo with 0.72 FL reducer and 1 stop better F-stop. = 10mm 2.0 prime for m43.
Photography isn’t all about ‘wide’ or ‘close’ as I want a faster telephoto zoom in M4/3’s, something like 50-200mm, f/ 2.8(-3.5) with similar quality to the 4/3’s SWD lens.
Do you see no use for taking pictures of things that are far away? I don’t get it.
Maybe Narretz hasn’t heard of wildlife photography. 😉
10mm f/2.8 would be great. Maybe Samyang will make one for us…
Funny: in the related posts, you can see a link to a rumor about a Panasonic 12-50 2.8-3.3 lens from 2011. It reads like the lens was already confirmed. I wonder what happened to it. admin? Kit with GX2? 😉
in GX2 rumors that called “special kits” !!!
They’d better include grips on those tele lenses, because you sure aren’t going to carry it by the camera and have the mount break.
Support the lens, just like you are supposed to do with any tele on any body…
funny, I have a 135mm on my Pentax MX body, and I haven’t seen any mount problem…
I routinely use a Canon FD 135 F2 on my GH2. No problems at all. I’ve used longer FD zoom lenses which put even more stress on the mount with no problems either. Stop making unfactual claims and assumptions.
You prob mean while walking around, not during the actual shooting I hope.
Yes. I can run and jump with a 35-100 attached to an E-5 (I do airsoft photos as a hobby) and not worry about structural integrity of the camera – and that’s a 1.5 kg lens.
I wouldn’t trust any m4/3 camera with anything more than 0.5 kg, unless stored in a bag when walking around. I broke an E-520 with a 70-300, and I’d put that camera on the same level of subjective sturdiness as an E-M5.
The 35-100 is definitely too heavy for most MFT cameras(maybe except for the OMD and surely the GH3, if the adapter would not be the weak link). Airsoft? you participate actively? My most recent outdoor session involved an airsoft prop, I was a bit nervous as its illegal to use it in public places here.
Sometimes I shoot pellets, but mostly I shoot photos 😉 My only problem is that the 35-100 isn’t quite wide enough. A 25-100 would have been perfect.
Much more important than lenses is this solemn promise about FT bodies. Simply can’t wait to see.
These solemn promises amount to one body every three years.
4/3 owners can relax and go on w@nking smoothly in the meanwhile 🙂
Provided they don’t go blind…
Amalric some might mistake you for blind with those glasses 😉
It’s only that I am here in incognito. 🙂
Besides one sees better with the eyes of imagination. Tiresias the fortune teller was blind 🙂
how come you always give such clever answers 🙂
“Develop bodies that can be used with four thirds lenses”- more ambiguity. M4/3 has bodies that can be used with FT lenses. The most important part is the support but still different from real FT bodies.
I’m going to continue developing my time machine too
Who first, or wanna join me? 🙂
Nobody is talking about proper reflex bodies. The future of the 4/3 mount is mirrorless.
mirrorless/EVF indeed…..WYISWYG is my personal reason for going mirrorless.
give us a very nice 100/1.8 and 150/2.8 macro but first do something with your video mode b/c right now its quality is garbage.
300mm f4 please!
yes, an m4/3 300mm f4 please. and weather-sealed please, plus an accompanying m4/3 1.4 x weather-sealed extender. that will take me to currently unaccessible places for my bird photography.
Lets see what 1.4x does to existing and roadmap tele lenses
42.5 1.2 -> 59.5 1.7
45 1.8 -> 63 2.5
60 2.8 -> 84 4.0
75 1.8 -> 105 2.5
150 2.8 -> 210 4.0
adding a
200 2.8 -> 280 4.0
would be one way to go for m43
If we could get a FT->MFT 1.4x focusing extender, all FT tele lenses could be used…
thanks, ha, for your reply-post. normally my lumix 100-300mm does a splendid job when i travel and in those situations when the use of the 4/3 300mm f2.8 is not just viable. that’s 3.2 kg + 1.8 kg for my lightest tripod which i can only use when i have scouted and studied the area and the target species. with either tc14 or tc20, the output is simply superb. my m4/3 travel and stealth gear is simply the best compromise in many birding situations. but the equivalent reach of the angle of view of 600mm falls short often, in my experience. a 1.4x extender on a 300mm f4 m4/3 lens extends that reach to match my needs in the field. for normal focal length situations, i have the prime lenses to cover them without resort to extenders.
your suggestion of a 1.4x extender on a 200mm f2.8, i agree, is an interesting combination especially if the size and weight matches my current set-up with the lumix 100-300mm and would even be faster, if only a little bit.
The commitment to 4/3 repeatably expressed by Olympus senior employees is truly remarkable. It seems almost as if they don’t care much for m4/3 and regard it as an ill favored necessity. They do care about those poor sods who are stuck with all this expensive glass and wouldn’t rest until they can provide a satisfactory solution.
The new, rumored hybrid mount camera is aimed at those loyal customers rather than at the general market. Just like the E-5 was. It is heart warming to see Olympus invest all those resources in products which have no chance of ever becoming profitable with the only intention to compensate old followers for the misery they have been suffering. Others should watch and learn.
+1 FT might be seen by Olympus as the 1st son who will always stay special to them.
Unfortunatelly yes. They should finally realize, the 1st son is dead and give all attention to the 2nd son.
I thought the 1st son is still at the intensive care….you want to pull the plug?
*beep* *beep beep* *beep beep* *beeeeeeeee*
No, that must be the Canon M you can hear dying in the next bed. 😉
Somehow, I don’t think you’ve ever met the 1st son. I you ever rent & try some of the SHG lenses & an E-5, I think you might have a different story to tell. Some people have paid good money (lots of it) to have those lenses & all you can say is “it’s dead”.
They are a cheap bunch to whom everything is disposable and the concerns of others matter not a whit.
Truely a form of low life 🙂
The bodies come, bodies go, while the lenses remain. By providing body which can use both m4/3 and 4/3 lenses every user has much wider spectrum of lenses for any particular need. Of course, there is that size advantage of wide lenses designed for m4/3 but as you go longer, the size advantage diseppears. Than you will be albe to choose between smaller aperture/lighter lens for m4/3 or larger lens/larger aperture for 4/3. I believe they hope they will be able to sell more of the HG and SHG lenses in the future.
I also dont understand what exactly do you mean by “…The commitment to 4/3 repeatably expressed by Olympus senior employees is truly remarkable…if they don’t care much for m4/3..” – do you realise that there are about 3-4 new bodies for m4/3 released every year while there is about one 4/3 body in 3 years? that is the commitment?
Unfortunately the commitment comes through by words, not by deeds. Yet in the past 3-4 years every interview with a senior figure from Olympus begins with a message of deep empathy towards the owners of HG and SHG glass, usually followed by a reassurance that Olympus is working on cameras which will enable it to work seamlessly.
Since I am getting old, I remember how demeaning it was for a company in film days to change mount.
There is a contradiction between digital and film, because a change of AF system makes material lenses suddenly obsolete. Traditionalists despised even 4/3 CDAF compatible lenses and LiveView – perhaps they felt the danger, for their film like lenses.
Digital is not only about a change of mount, it can even be about a change of format. So we see that both 4/3 and m4/3 who were despised for the small sensor surface become a universal format, thanks to an improvement in technology.
Thus high IQ becomes a moving target. Lenses are not forever, although people cling desperately to them. We already have the first prototypes of adaptive optics, liquid lenses that will dematerialise the optics. Thus what you own today may not be worth a fig tomorrow. I am sure this consternates Oly’s older members of the board, who feel that traditional respect for olders is going to the dogs.
I love legacy lenses but I don’t delude myself that they will do a second coming. Therefore 4/3 lenses are a family’s tragedy. After having extracted some $ 14,000 (someone calculated a well rounded 4/3 system) from customers they feel ashamed.
But I saw it coming when I read that the E-P1 had been engineered by the P&S team at Oly, not by the dSLR one – they were separate.
So we have a generational conflict among designers inside the same company. Plus members of the board who side for some designers against the others. But then they must put smiling faces, and do as nothing was happening, and that they know best our interests. So they feed us legends 🙂
A ‘well rounded’ 4/3 system for what? $14000?
Eh..
E-620 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC-14 + FL50R costed $14000? Uh sure.
Oh.. you meant picking the most expensive components to fill out the range, add every option you can think of to base a price on, and then act as if that is what most customers spent? Talk about delusion.
You know very little about 4/3 do you? Plus you cannot avoid to stalk your betters, little man?
Because USD 14,000 was exactly the figure calculated by a nature photog. at DPR’s 1022. The figure he needed to get an equivalent system at Nikon.
A pro of course, and one who hated Oly for having forfeited 4/3. I guess that most went Nikon anyway, and I can understand them. However it’s not the kind of dilemma I have to face thankfully.
I always did with very little, and I am proud of it.
“You know very little about 4/3 do you?”
Actually, I’m a long time 4/3 user, and still own a ‘well rounded’ 4/3 system, but whatever.
“Plus you cannot avoid to stalk your betters, little man?”
Ah, ad-hominum ? Totally perfect indicator that you have no argument with regards to the nicely rounded system that I suggested that is costing a fraction of $14000.
“Because USD 14,000 was exactly the figure calculated by a nature photog. at DPR’s 1022. The figure he needed to get an equivalent system at Nikon.”
And that means what exactly? That his specific needs and idea of addressing those needs are representing a majority or even all photographers?
What I didn’t like at 1022 is that for a few pros using rationally SHG glass, the majority were lens snobs who thought that the pecking order depended on how fast their zooms were, no matter the weight and the cost.
On average the might have had some USD 6000 invested, which is still a tidy sum, if you have to fork it again.
So yes, it was a breach of trust, but as we saw AF is one of the fastest changing technologies, so I would be very wary before investing big sums in any system, unless you can offset them through paid work.
“What I didn’t like at 1022 is that for a few pros using rationally SHG glass, the majority were lens snobs who thought that the pecking order depended on how fast their zooms were, no matter the weight and the cost.”
Few people rationally need the SHG glass, but many people would have a use for the HG glass. Thats exactly why I dismiss this ‘$14000 well rounded system’ claim. Yes you certainly can spend that much if you want to (and twice that amount as well with a bit of effort), but its really silly to suggest that most people would do so or that you can’t have a well rounded system for a much lower price.
And what you say is a large part of why I mostly ignore the discussions on dpreview, they have very little to do with photography, and a lot with showing off how expensive and ‘pro’ everyone’s kits are.
With regards to investing $6000 in a camera system, why not? lets say I don’t buy it for the long term, and count on a ‘usable life’ for it of 3 years. Thats about $2000 a year. I know many people spending more on their hobbies then that. Its merely a question of if the enjoyment you get from the use and results of such a kit being worth the money to you. A pro must be able to consider return on investment, but that isn’t the case for a ‘non pro’.
Also, you are right that AF technology changes, but, the kind of information that is useful for quick AF with pdaf optimized lenses is also very useful for ‘modern’ cdaf optimized lenses, so there is a good reason to strive for technology that permits this, even if you are not at all interested in using 4/3 lenses. This is a simple matter of ‘knowing’ always being better then ‘guessing’ no matter how good you are at guessing.
“Because USD 14,000 was exactly the figure calculated by a nature photog. at DPR’s 1022. The figure he needed to get an equivalent system at Nikon.”
Duh, my well rounded 4/3rds system has one zero less that the crazy number you stated.
Well I am sure that not everybody is a pro or that crazy, but that was the discussion. And as I mentioned the lenses defined the pecking order.
I personally never had invested more than 1000 EU in 4/3, so for me the transition was painless, Fact is that the only ‘lenses are forever” are the MF ones.
And if you are American, call yourself lucky, because you are paying 20 or 30% less than the rest of the World, Japan included.
Some of the best photogs. of the past used one body one lens, and I find that the ‘minimal equipment needed for the task’ is still a good principle. If anything goes wrong, this way, you’ll have to accuse your own lack of talent, instead of the equipment, like the majority does, to camouflage their lack of talent.
So I have mixed feelings towards 4/3 and I wish that m4/3 never becomes a luxury system, as it became. There isn’t a better way to send away young talented photogs. than to peddle luxury goods. To paraphrase HCB ‘we are hunters, not dentists’ 🙂
Get a G5 body with the 25/1.4. 🙂 Reasonably affordable (within the $1000 budget you mention) and capable enough that most people will be limited by their own capabilities instead of the camera and lens. Only drawback is that you’ll have to walk a bit more due to lack of zoom, but that would be a good idea for the health of many a photographer anyway.
Don’t agree. If they fix the focus issue there will be huge benefits for u43 users who want to use the HG and SHG glass. Exising 43 glass is compact, outstanding quality and covers pretty much all the bases. Any serious u43 shooters should be glad to have access to such tools!
Agreed,
I have a cople of SG, HG and SHG lenses and a E-3, but I also have an EM-5 with a couple of lenses. What´s wrong with having a camera body that I can use with all my lenses?
me too. i have a good number of outstanding 4/3 glass which i use with my e3 and e30. and i have the em5 and m4/3 glass as well. if the issue is satisfactorily resolved by technology, this will expand both possibilities and flexibilities.
Better zooms, zooms, zooms, and not only tele zooms…
Video please, better video please!
Come on, MFT is for primes only. Or mainly. Because MFT zoom lenses are as big as FT zoom lenses and at the same time slower. MFT cannot accommodate quality glass like 12-60, the best zoom ever (among all manufacturers). Or, to put it otherwise, it is becoming obvious that a lens like the 12-60 cannot be manufactured for MFT, for some reason. Otherwise they would have done it, right? Hence, FT cameras are needed not only for the “old FT glass” but also for filling in the gap that formed from the impossibility to build a 12-60 and similar lenses’ MFT equivalents. One DSLR body and one (or two, why not) MFT body together – for a perfect tourist trip! I’ve been doing this lately with E-520 and E-PM2. But I would be happier to replace the E-520 with a new E-series body with the new sensor and stabilization.
I disagree. The lenses are smaller, lighter and very usefull. I want fast zooms, do not want to change all the time with all those primes.
So some of you have 12 f2.0 but really think a 10 mm f2.8 is a top priority? I think it is time Oly comes with their 12-40 f2.8 and 40-150 f2.8-f4.0 etc.
Hmm, pretty much all m4/3 zoooms that have an equivalent 4/3 counterpart turn out to be smaller then their 4/3 counterparts, especially when talking about a wide to short tele zoom, less so with short to long tele zooms. Compare the m4/3 14-42 with its 4/3 counterparts, compare the 40-150 in both systems, compare the 4/3 70-300 vs the m4/3 75-300.
When looking at the more expensive, higher quality zooms, those are not ‘as big as FT zoom lenses and at the same time slower’, the 12-35/2.8 is exactly 1 stop slower and about half the size and weight and with a better range. The 35-100/2.8 is again a stop slower at about half the weight and size.
In other words, your claims regarding zooms on m4/3 are just nonsense.
I agree that primes make m4/3 especially interesting because of the extra size advantage they give, but, that doesn’t mean zooms are useless, rather not actually.
Additionally, that something can be done does not at all guarantee it will be done, its not a matter of if you or I think it is useful, but of Olympus thinking its useful. The past tells us quite clearly that Olympus has its own at times rather odd view on what is useful. So the fact that no m4/3 12-60/2.8-4.0 exists does in no way mean it cannot be done.
– Four Thirds User are very valuable to Olympus and they will continue to develop bodies that can be used with Four Thirds lenses.
Is this an Actual Statement from Olympus? This must be a translation mistake.
Olympus needs to forget about Four Thirds and focus on Micro Four Thirds! Developing for FT will only put them on the selling block!
They can’t be serious, it didn’t catch on for good reason and it definitely won’t catch on now. In fact, it may confuse future MFT buyers.
No, if Olympus wants to have any chance on professionals considering them, they absolutely have to demonstrate they learned from the mistakes they made when phasing out the old PEN F and later the OM system. This has given them a reputation of not being able to produce a system that people can count on for a long time, or if that system can no longer be developed, a way to migrate to a new system without that causing a very steep initial cost.
Since much of the development for the currently unreleased ‘next generation’ of DSLRs has been done already, it isn’t going to bankrupt them, rather, it is going to put the time and money spent there to a better use.
I need a fast and wider than 12 mm prime. My tele needs are covered.
+F1.4
At least ;).
Actually, I f/2.5 or f/f2.8 is what I’d prefer.
A 9 or 10mm f/2.8 prime or such would be a nice addition, but the only advantage from a fast wide on m4/3 is that it allows for somewhat better shutter speeds. If you really want a narrow DOF at wide angles, your only choice is to go for a bigger format. This has to do with how DOF is distributed in front and behind the plane of focus works against you for shallow DOF when focal length (absolute, not ‘equivalent’) gets shorter.
The gains that can be had from a fast tele zoom or prime are bigger in that sense, and so is the need for fast shutter speeds when using a more narrow field of view.
So.. seeing there is a 7-14/4.0, the gains of a 10mm/2.8 are 1 stop of light in a range where it matters somewhat, whereas putting a 150/2.8 next to the 40-150 or 75-300 gets about 2 stops of light in a range where this really matters, and additionally gets you significantly more DOF control.
Not arguing against what you need btw, thats totally upto you, but I am trying to point out that the need for a fast tele lens is generally bigger because the advantages to be had from it (compared to already existing lenses) is more substantial.
You presume and write way too much. I never said I wanted “fast” lenses for more DOF control. I do use FF or my 4×5 camera for that. I just want a wider FL than 12 mm. Got it?
Consequently, and taking into account that I had clearly stated my desire for a fast, wide lens, and that my needs in regard to tele lenses was covered, you could have saved yourself the rest of your lecture. Of course, I understand compulsive behavior! 😛
I see. This isn’t a place for discussion, its just a place for you to advertise your needs exclusively.
I pointed out that what you are asking for is IN GENERAL (so, no presumptions about your specific desires, I obviously don’t know those) of limited use, and that indeed Olympus might want to concentrate first on things that are of somewhat broader use.
Since this thread is actually about Olympus saying they are going to concentrate on the tele lenses for a bit, that is actually pretty relevant to the topic, even if it is not what you specifically want right now.
Not to mention, I wasn’t exactly saying a fast wide is a bad idea or shouldn’t be made, I was however motivating why the focus for the system should be on a fast tele lens for now. That doesn’t depend on your or my specific needs, but on what exists and what adds the most value to the system right now. Yes, you will have to look beyond your own specific needs for that.
…but what is Mr. Kataoka going to do about the Olympus Strap Lugs…Whah…Whah….:-(….ohh…ohhhh….they hurt my whittle fingers….WHAH!!!!
🙂
This is great news! The only thing holding me back from switching completely from DSLR to m4/3 is the lack of good Tele lenses. As a wildlife photographer this is essential for me. They have the macro lenses covered, now bring on the long Teles!
In my opinion it is not a bad idea from Olympus to bring full support for FT lenses with mirrorless cameras.
Immediatly the whole camerasystem will grow to a mature system.
The current mFT cameras and lenses offer nice quality with very low weight and size, but there is no highlevel support, almost no real professional lenses and bad AF-C performance.
With enabling phase AF on mirrorless all the high class FT lenses (hopefully) can be used, AF-C will work like on DSLRs.
So Olympus only needs to give high level support for professional photographers to become an alternative to CaNikon.
Surely not in questions of DOF but in the field of quality images with corner sharpness..
bart: “pretty much all m4/3 zoooms that have an equivalent 4/3 counterpart turn out to be smaller then their 4/3 counterparts”
OK, smaller but marginally smaller and actually LARGER than in the FT-lens MFT-lens combination, PLUS MUCH SLOWER and MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE! Example (from today, Amazon de): Zuiko 70-300 4.0-5.6 €325 versus M.Zuiko 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 €696!!!!! What are we talking about, where is nonsense and where is common sense?
“OK, smaller but marginally smaller and actually LARGER than in the FT-lens MFT-lens combination, PLUS MUCH SLOWER and MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE! Example (from today, Amazon de): Zuiko 70-300 4.0-5.6 €325 versus M.Zuiko 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 €696!!!!! What are we talking about, where is nonsense and where is common sense?”
So, you have ONE, exactly ONE example of a more expensive lens, and silently ignore that the m4/3 version is in fact much smaller and lighter then the 4/3 version.
How about the 14-42? Much slower? 3.5-5.6 in both cases. Same size? check again. More expensive? uh, its a kit lens, and new both added around $100 to the kits they come with.
How about the 40-150? Much slower? 4-5.6 in both cases. Same size? check again. More expensive? a little bit when you count the heavily discounted 4/3 40-150 deals.
How about the 7-14? Much slower? f/4 in both cases. Same size? no, half the size. Same weight? no half the weight. Same price? no, half the price approx.
As for your 70-300 example, f/5.6 or f/6.7, indeed the m4/3 version is slower, but MUCH slower? Last time I checked this is about 1/2 stop slower indeed. Just enough to notice, but calling it ‘much slower’ is extreme exaggeration. You are right that it is much more expensive, tho not as much as you are trying to suggest, as the second incarnation of this lens has become a fair bit less expensive. Also you totally ignore that the m4/3 75-300 is in fact a fair bit smaller and a lot lighter then its 4/3 counterpart.
You don’t prove anything with a single example, especially not when there are so many counter examples.
You also don’t prove anything by changing your argument from size/weight to price in the middle of a discussion because the size/weight one didn’t work.
And last but not least, you also don’t prove anything by extreme exaggeration.
I think that Olympus need to look at introducing at least one very good quality prime around 300mm f4 or 400mm f5.6. It would be useful also if it came with matching teleconverters. This was a class of lens missing from the 4/3 line up (I own a 50-500mm 4/3 Bigma), although the 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 did somewhat serve this function. Not only is this type of lens popular with many birders and other wildlife enthusiats, but they consider it necessary. In other words they would not buy into a system that does not offer this type of lens.
Faster lenses don’t tend to considered affordable by many enthusiasts, and lower quality lenses are not considered acceptable. This focal length and aperture is usually considered the sweet spot in terms of a compromise between affordabiity, portability and quality.
Unfortunately those not into this type of photography don’t get it, and are very dismissive of this need. You often see the argument that because 4/3 has a 2x equivalent multiplier, such lenses are not necessary. This is misleading because most of these enthusiasts use these lenses on APS-C with a 1.5x or 1.6x multiplier, so the 4/3 equivalents don’t have a massive advantage in reach. The main point being missed is the lens usually can’t be too long, and enthusiasts would get an 800mm lens if they could afford it, or wanted to carry it around all day. It is essential if Olympus wants more of a presence in this market sector. It may not be the biggest market, but it is quite big and a consisent market.
There is a very good 4/3 lens in that range, the 300/2.8
Its just very expensive.
bart: “You don’t prove anything with a single example.”
And you are talking about kit lenses like the 14-42 and the 40-150. I am not taking these into consideration at all. They are for absolute beginners only – most of whom will discard them very quickly anyway. When 6 years ago I bought the E-520 with the two kit lenses, I used the first one for two months and the 40-150 once, for 50 shots. I bought the 12-60 and the 70-300 and the two kit lenses now serve to accumulate dust. I cannot and I do not want to sell them – because I would rather BUY them at their second-hand price. Yes, the MFT 7-14 is a good offer both in FT and MFT. But, in the long run, clearly MFT cannot offer even a small part of the HQ lenses FT still does, especially zooms and high-end professional lenses – SteB is making a point. Besides, on the one hand, I have just found that my E-PM2 does a good job with the FT 70-300. Focus is almost the same as on an FT body. On the other hand, the E-PM2 MFT body is extremely uncomfortable for a long zoom. You absolutely definitely need a viewer (an additional cost for a lower-quality electronic viewer) and even an additional special grip – and the E-520 – 70-300 is a top-notch combination ergonomically. I don’t believe the PEN/EM5 – 75-300 combo would be different ergonomically – and is much more expensive and slower. My point: a DSLR like an E-550 or E-50 is seriously needed for serious photography, in addition to the MFT system – which is for general users, on the one hand. And for serious users, on the other, but mainly with primes, not zooms and HQ glass.
The 70-300 (4/3 version) is rated as ‘standard grade’, just like the 14-42 and 40-150, and guess what, all those 3 lenses are upto a very similar level of optical quality. Its funny how you dismiss the first 2, but praise the 3rd. Why? because it was an after-market lens? Think again, there was an E-620 kit with this lens, and its as much a ‘kit lens’ as the first 2.
And for that matter, the 12-60 was sold as a kit lens with the E-3 and E-5, ‘kit lens’ does not mean ‘bad quality’ in case of Olympus.
There is also the 9-18, both a 4/3 and m4/3 version, same aperture range, but the later one is much smaller and lighter. This is also a ‘standard grade’ lens btw, of similar quality standards as the 14-42 and 40-150.
One of the lenses I pointed at, the 7-14, is not at all a ‘standard grade’ lens, but even there the m4/3 variation is significantly smaller and lighter, and its actually a lot cheaper as well.
So, yes, you were ALSO talking about a kit lens, the 70-300, eventho it was probably not included in your kit and bought separately. One could even argue you were talking about 2 kit lenses when considering the E-3/5 kit with 12-60. I was not exclusively talking about kit lenses, and still we have only exactly one example of the 4/3 equivalent being faster (and only by 1/2 stop at the long end), and all of the 4/3 equivalents being larger and heavier.
Sorry but there where equivalent 4/3 and m4/3 lenses exist, they are generally using the same aperture range but the m4/3 versions are smaller and lighter in all cases, so your claim is really not true.
What is however true is that there simply does not exist an equivalent to the 12-60 and 50-200 in m4/3. The closest are the 12-35 and 35-100, but you give up a lot of ‘range’ with those. Of course you do get back a much smaller size and weight and a constant f/2.8 aperture. No, the 12-50 (m4/3) is not an alternative at all, totally different price range, totally different type of lens.
This discussion really shows the difference between users of the two systems. Since the time the 12-60 and the 50-200 were created, the sensitivity of m4/3 sensors has gone up by three stops, meaning that you can reach 5000 ISO with relatively little noise.
So what need is there for 2.8 juggernauts? As always the masses will decide, but at DPR 1041 I see only a v. small number of fetishists asking for them. Zooms anyway are a bad 1960s concept which tend to promote ignorance about perspective, and related good composition.
They are lenses for dentists, or for lazy moneyed amateurs shooting from their cars. Thankfully the paradigm has changed, so many find their satisfaction in m4/3 without touching a zoom with a bargepole.
Digital is now dominated by sensors, lenses coming second. Even Oly’s digital teleconverter is so good that it doubles the usefulness of a lens. 4/3 whiners live in the past. Very few people will need their lenses, although they now can be found at half their price. Sad but true.
Sure, you can get results at much higher ISO levels now then you could with the best 4/3 camera, but those 4/3 cameras have never been very good for indoor use with available light, or indoor use where fast shutter speeds were needed. Why not make use of this improvement in sensitivity to allow m4/3 to cover a much wider field of photography?
Why would people want to give up on the dof control a f/2.8 aperture gets them at 100mm?
Using the sensor improvements to allow for slower but smaller lenses is merely one of the possible ways to take advantage of this, but will make the system lag in performance compared to other systems. What is the best compromise is rather personal I think.
You have a point about how zoom lenses have gotten in the way of people understanding perspective and composition, and how things like working distance and field of view interact.
But you are most certainly wrong about why zooms are a very useful tool.
I do concert photography and event photography among many other things, and for those, circumstances can change rather quickly, which would result in lots of lens changes and lots of lost photo opportunities, even when using a ‘classic’ 2 body multiple primes setup. I have a classic 2 body multiple primes setup, and for the long end that works fine usually for me, but I found I was changing lenses a lot for the ‘short end’, and added a 12-35 to address that. I’m sure someone more involved in sports would be of the exact opposite opinion and find primes at the long end not a very workable option.
Not having to change lenses while out in the rain is also kinda helpful for maintaining weather sealing
Not having to change lenses while near the beach quite helps against sand entering your camera
I could go on, but I think the point is clear.
No it’s not clear at all. I don’t have the same lifestyle you do nor the same needs I couldn’t care less about concerts, sports, beach and the like. And i bet the Chinese think the same.
We know now that m4/3 is bought by Asian, which have a lot of different interests, which probably don’t require voyeuristic long zooms, except if they can put them in their pockets when they travel by metro.
You are so passe’ Bart, your lifestyle couldn’t be more different from the camera joshi, which were the first customers of m4/3. That is the true reason why some lenses do not appear: the Asian girls couldn’t care less 🙂
Ah I see, no argument so back to ad hominum.
Please go grow up and learn to actually have a discussion someday.
I see, you don’t have such equipment so you just toss our and random statement or pseudo data you wish.
I have 4/3 and M.4/3 (E-M5) equipment and take diverse photos. I am finding my E-M5 quickly becoming my favorite. About the only 4/3 stuff I tend to carry now is the 14-54 MK II and adapter. That is one heck of a lens on the E-M5 even though it is just “HQ”.
“You have a point about how zoom lenses have gotten in the way of people understanding perspective and composition, and how things like working distance and field of view interact.”
Of course, zooms are very useful if they are fast enough for the camera’s sensor, have IQ sufficient for the desired product (not everybody makes huge prints).
Where zooms fail the beginner is exactly what you commented on. Too many less than skilled “photographers” use zooms just to fit the desired area into the field of view with no consideration for issues such as perspective or flattering portraiture.
Nothing easily replaces the proper distance between subject matter and the camera. Getting the distance “correct” essentially dictates the focal length needed.
Everybody keeps talking about how great ISO230000000000000000 is these days, no need for fast lenses anymore. Then I compare a picture taken at ISO 1000 and one taken at ISO 200, both with my EM-5 and I KNOW which one I will prefer. Every time. Which means I want my lenses to allow me to stay at ISO 200 for as long as possible.
Except that when people want better aperture they get primes, not zooms, in the m4/3 paradigm.
In September I really look forward to see the crowds spending their hard earned cash on fast 4/3 zooms. I am sure it will be terrific!
Well then I need a 300mm M4/3’s prime with a suitably bright aperture.
Well, after many slow zooms, I’m expecting some fast lenses now. 12mm f1.4, 135mm f2 or f2.4, 200mm f2.8, 300mm f4.
However, I’d want to see some weirdly fast lenses too, as f0.7. There are the f0.95 Voigtlanders, the upcoming f0.85 Ibelux, so why not f0.7? That would be a nail in the coffin of FF.
Another longer teles would be 400mm f5.6, 500mm f6.7, 600mm f8. All these should be possible with a lightweight design for M4/3. Coupled with a good C-AF, we’d have a great substitute for DSLR action shooting.
As a nature and wild bird photographer, i agree and say amen to those suggestions. And weathersealed, please, inclusive of the teleconverters. These would vastly improve possibilities, flexibility and mobility that are so important to this kind of photography.
Yes, the 70-300 optically is like a kit lens but, quite unlike 40-150, it covers a huge focal distance using quite a lot of light. The 75-300 MFT is not up to it. I do insist that at least as per the present, MFT cannot match FT here. Hence, an Oly DSLR with the Sony sensor and the new stabilization is badly needed. Why some people are so opposed to the idea does not stand to reason – I hope that Oly will not go back on their word.
Sorry Jankoff, but that is only about one lens, for which there exist 2 alternatives in the m4/3 system, one being as ‘fast’ as the 4/3 version, the other one being 1/2 stop slower at the long end. Which one is better? I’ve seen excellent results from all 3 lenses, but all 3 of them are a bit soft at the long end. m4/3 suffers from even worse c-af then 4/3 had when it comes to using such long lenses for things like birding or sports, which is a much better argument for wanting a 4/3 camera or at least something technically capable of focusing 4/3 lenses quickly.
And no, actually the 70-300 isn’t entirely upto the optical quality of the 40-150, the later is sharper over the entire shared range and gives better bokeh. Doesn’t matter really, my point was about you dismissing the 14-42 and 40-150 as sub-standard and for beginners only, while using a lens of a similar optical quality as an example. If the first 2 are sub-par, then so is the 70-300.
I’d rather say that none of those are sub-par, as I’ve seen very good results from all of them.
And eh, pointing out that your argument is extremely specific to one lens, and even there doesn’t entirely hold, has absolutely nothing to do with if I’m opposed to Olympus making another DSLR or not. It simply has to do with what you are saying only being somewhat true in one very specific case, and not true at all in pretty much all other cases.
It may well hold for you that the 70-300 on 4/3 is much more useful, but that is really a different argument then ‘m4/3 zooms being as large but much slower then their 4/3 counterparts’, the first is a matter of what you are using it for, the second can be demonstrated to be wrong in pretty much all cases.
Larger-aperture, prime telephotos–YES! Forget the 70-300mm f6.7 Olympus.
Amalric is right, there is no need for f2.8 monsters at long focal lengths–it goes against the whole idea of m4/3 (think small). We need to rethink what “large aperture” is in this age of improved sensors and superb IS. Something like 200 or 300mm f4 may be just right. Going to an f2.8 lens with a lot of extra size and cost is not sensible; just crank up the ISO a notch when needed for that formerly-impossible wildlife shot.
A 300/4 or such would definitely be a very valuable addition to the system, unlike a 300/2.8, for the reasons you mention. But a 200/2.8 is quite reasonable, a 135/2.0 even more reasonable.
The simple reason why f/2.8 is quite desirable on tele lenses is teleconverters and the widest aperture you can get with those. A f/2.8 lens can be used with a 1.4x or 2.0x TC while aperture stays at f/5.6 or faster, which means you will not yet be running into diffraction at the widest aperture (on current 16mp 4/3″ sensors). A f/4 lens would allow this with a 1.4x teleconverter, but would end up at f/8 with a 2x tc. If f/8 is still considered somewhat reasonable, then a f/2.8 lens allows using both a 1.4x and 2x tc at the same time, whereas slower apertures wouldn’t.
But indeed with very long lenses like a 300mm, f/2.8 makes things very big and expensive.
I say amen to that! M4/3 300mm f4. Weathersealed please.
My Wish list for longer Tele lenses:
Update the outstanding Zuiko four thirds lenses for the micro four thirds system too.
Beat the upcoming Panasonic-competition in the Professional segment with better Olympus (Super) High Grade lenses and the new outstanding Sony sensors for OMD’s and Pen’s.
• 100mm, f2.0 with MSC, contrast autofocus and phase detection focus (Panasonic: nothing)
• 150mm, f2.0 with MSC, contrast autofocus and phase detection focus (Panasonic: upcoming professional 150mm/f 2.8)
• 50-200mm , f2.8-3.5 with MSC, contrast autofocus and phase detection focus, perhaps as a power lens for video (Panasonic 45-200mm, f 4.5 – 5.6)
• 90-250mm, f2.8 with MSC contrast autofocus and phase detection focus, perhaps as a power lens for video (Panasonic: 100-300mm, f 4.0-5.6)
• 300mm, f 2.8, with MSC, with MSC contrast autofocus and phase detection focus (Panasonic: nothing)
• 200-500mm or 600mm, f 3.5-4.5, with MSC contrast autofocus and phase detection focus (Panasonic: nothing)
• 500mm or 600mm, fixed f 5.6 mirror lens, with MSC, contrast autofocus and phase detection focus (Panasonic: rumored)
• 1.4 and 2.0 x Tele converter for the most lenses above
By the way: Weather sealing is a must!
And for the Professionals daily life:
• 35-100mm, f 2.0 (Panasonic: 35-100mm,f 2.8)
• 12-45mm, f 2.0 (Panasonic: 12-35mm , f2.8)
40-150 f/2.8 for 900 usd please =(
Plz Olymus give us a 12-40 2.8, 40-150 2.8-3.5 and a 150-400 4-5.6 .
And perhaps a 8 2.8? Thanks a lot.
Some more details:
http://blog.pchome.net/article/727977.html
The next E camera will be release before the end of the year, it will be smaller and ligher.
thanks!
Have been waiting for an Oly 25mm f2.0 or 14-54mm f2.8-3.5 for M43… Still waiting.
Although it needs an adapter, the 4/3rds 14-54mm F2.8-3.5 II works extremely well on recent M.4/3 bodies such as the E-M5. I agree, a native one with MSC power zoom would be nice.
Hi there Dear, are you genuinely visiting this site regularly, if so afterward you will definitely take pleasant experience.