.
Egami spotted an intriguing new Panasonic patent disclosing the design of five fast prime lenses. Two of them are already known. The Panasonic-Leica 25mm f/1.4 and the second 42mm f/1.4 patent could be a small variation of the Nocticron 42mm f/1.2 lens. The other three lenses have very interesting specs and I certainly would be glad to see them make it into mass production. No let’s give a little help to Panasonic and let them know which lens you would consider to buy:
[poll id=”216″]
144 Responses
Too long, what i want is a fast sharp UWA !
I want a fast, inexpensive normal lens.
22.5mm 1.4 is what I want, and I want it now!
25mm 1.4
20mm 1.7
its all there
The key word in John’s statement was inexpansive, I guess. Both Canon and Nikon offer 50/1.8 for about $100-120. The main advantage of the µ43 supposed to be “smaller and cheaper” lenses. To the date the system failed to meet expectations.
who said anything about cheaper? the onyl reason Canon and Nikon can sell these lenses for so little is because they produce enourmous numbers. they might even sell them with next to no profit at all because they have so many other products that have high margins (and sell well).
These lenses are inexpensive – both provide much better iq than their Canikon counterparts – you can´t compare the Pana 25mm 1.4 with the Canon 50mm 1.4 – the Canon is crap (from f1.4 – 4) in comparison.
The Pany is even cheaper than the mediocre Oly 17mm 1.8. And you imply it would be too pricy? lol – it´s a bargain
At least Canikon users have a choice. Well, I have a choice too, but I chose legacy lenses. And I’m not alone. Here Panasonic and Olympus could draw more loyal customers. What is the beginner’s next lens for Canikon user? Yes, those (let it be mediocre) 50mm for $100. What is the next lens for beginner µ43 user after 14-42 zoom? Anything cheaper then $399?
I payed less then $399 for the 45/1.8 and the 20/1.7, both qualify as very nice ‘next lens after the kit zoom’.
but still your compact gems are 2-3 times more expensive than Canon 1.8/50 🙂
But still quite affordable, with very nice optical quality in a very small package.
And if those are still too expensive for you, there are 2 cheaper primes from sigma (especially if you find the slightly older version)
At least Canikon users have a choice. Well, I have a choice too, but I chose legacy lenses. And I’m not alone. Here Panasonic and Olympus could draw more loyal customers. What is the beginner’s next lens for Canikon user? Yes, those (let it be mediocre) 50mm for $100. What is the next lens for beginner µ43 user after 14-42 zoom? Anything cheaper than $399?
22.5mm, not 20mm or 25mm.
I want a pure normal, like in the old days of 35mm film photography.
Why is this so difficult?
In the old days of film photography, you’d get a 50mm, or at times a 40mm, neither of which are ‘pure normal’.
WTF. Do you realise how whiny you sound? How many companies currently produce a 45mm full frame lens? Nikon? Nope. Canon? Closest they have is the 40mm. Whiiiich is the same as – guess what – Panasonic does (and Pana was there first). Sigma? Nope. Tamron? Nope. Not even Voigtlander has a current 45mm lens, in any mount. So who does 45mm lenses?
What I want would be a 12mm F1.4 and a 150mm F2.0. The 150mm would need IS as well. They would be Big and expensive but I would be ok with that.
We already have a 150 f2 on four thirds. No is on lens, but gx7 suggest even pana is moving towards inbody is
I need IS for video.
Make sense. It why not buy a gx7 and a used 150f2 ( I got one on ebay for £900) – that combo will certainly be cheaper than a new 150mm prime even if that ends up being only f2.8 and you could have the combo I suggest right now. Would that work for you?
Sorry meant “makeS sense”
If you really need that ZD 150mm f/2.0 and need AF tracking then its better to use it on the E-M1. PLus the GX-7 does not have IS for video as we all know. Whats about this 2.8 you mentioned?? it does not change, dont worry.
I Want : 17.5mm f1.2, 25mm f1,2, 300mm f4.0 and i don’t care about the price or the size !
+1000!
Why all this damn mid range primes! We have the gorgeous 60mm macro, the 75 1.8 and the 25 1.4……. We need a 17 faster than the 1.8 and we need decent long primes 300 f4 would be an amazing addition!
Weirdly enough, no mid range primes from Olympus. I’m counting the 17 as wide.
Nothing in the 40-60mm effective range.
Poopy cakes Oly! Poopy cakes!
And given what exists, I’m also looking for UWA prime that doesn’t break the bank.
Erm 60mm macro and 45mm 1.8….?? What other primes in that range do you want, and what for? Totally with you and everyone else wanting a fast ultra wide, I love the 12mm f2, something wider and as fast or faster would be awesome for landscape and sky stuff!
We?
We= the large number of people on is page who are wanting exactly the same thing as me! scan up and down, it is very clear what the most popular lenses would be!
300 2.8 for me. hehe
haha of course well there is the 300mm 2.8 if you have a spare $4k and a tank to transport it in! no other equiv 600mm 2.8 even exist and for good reason! a m43 200mm 2.8 would be utterly awesome, specially if they makea tc2x otherwise I will be sticking with the 150mm f2 and the tc2x – its big and heavy (for m43) but it is beautiful!
300mm f4 please!
+1
+1
I use a FD 300mm f4L for birding and photographing the moon. At dawn it’s very difficult to keep ISO’s down. I would personally prefer f2.8 even if it brings the price up to crazy levels.
Anyone would prefer a 2.8, but I doubt many would be willing to pay 5000€ or so for a 300mm F2.8 in m4/3 format.
A 300 F/4 or 400 F/5.6 shouldn’t cost more than 2000€, if it would cost that much and many would be willing to pay for it.
How would a speedbooster with a decent 400mm f4 perform? You would gain a stop here for the ones who need it.
+1
Absolutely agree, the mft-system has no good long bright lenses, we need this! At least I do!
+1. This would be a great addition to m43.
Don’t know that I need a 300, but definitely something longer than 100. A nice reasonably compact 50-150 f/2.8 would do me nicely, especially if Panasonic also offered a 2x TC to go with it.
And yes, I know about Oly’s 40-150. If it had OIS, it might be just fine.
+1. And not shorter! The point is to have a reasonably lightweight wildlife lens. Sure, f4 isn’t very bright, but that could keep the weight to less than 1000 g and the price below 2 k.
Still no bright UWA?!
+1.
I have thought about adapting a Samsung-mount samyang 7.5 fisheye to m43, which is physically possible and would result in fixable amounts of barrel distortion. But there is no adapter. May try to make one. Anyone tried this?
Why not just buy a Samyang 7.5 fisheye with m43 mount?
Sorry I meant the Samyang 8/2.8 fisheye, which is for APS miorrorless system. The point is, I DON’T want a fisheye. I think on m43, the APS fisheye will be like a UWA with the remaining heavy barrel fixable in post.
I want a sealed version of the new 14-140mm. (I had dust in my lens after only TWO weeks of usage!)
Or a sealed fixed aperture zoom (f4 would be enough) from 14 to 100mm or so ^^.
12-120mm 😉
How did you manage that? I use my 14-140 (new ver) every day in a dirty small town of south india
Normal usage. Maybe i had a monday model with faulty seag.
But its annoying after such a short time =/
The 25 1.4 is a different formula with OIS support, there’s a vertical movable lens element inside the focus section.
I vote none of them .
After the Nocticron , I’ll go for long tele prime lens .
The 42mm F1.4 doesn’t make sense since the Nocticron already took it’s place at this FL , maybe this is the low version type & the 100mm F2.0 not desiring as we already got 75mm F1.8 . Make it 120 to 130mm F2.0 would be more attractive .
Not sure about your West-European salaries, guys, but the price of at least 1500 EUR of the upcoming Nocticron would make 42.5/F1.4 a more viable solution for many of us.
And the background blurring ability is not really much-much different between these lenses.
just make a nice set of the following 10 primes 🙂
8mm F2.8
12mm F2
14mm F1.7
17mm F1.4
25mm F1.4
45mm F1.4
60mm F2 macro
75mm F1.8
100mm F2 macro
150mm F2.8
and sell it for £100 😀 please
I also voted none of them.
I want
1. 17.5mm f1.2 or f1.4
2. Ultra Wide Angle zoom similar to 9-18mm or 7-14mm but weather sealed and can take filter (prefer constant f4 and 58mm filter size to match the existing f2.8 X zoom).
3. 100-200mm high quality zoom constant f4. Size does not matter.
4. 1.4 Tele converter
Sounds a pretty good call, I’d certainly go for 1, 2 and 4, although perhaps a 250mm f3.2 instead of 2 as it would be sharper (hopefully, needs to be sharp by f4). Also a 17.5mm f1.2 needs to be sharp wide-open.
None of those! We need f/1,2 primes acceptably priced, not expensive/uninteresting f/1,8 primes. If not, we will use Speed Booster with other brand lenses 🙂
The 100m f2 looks fab. Now if they’d only also add a non-fisheye ultra wide 9mm f2.0 even better 🙂
After the Nocticron I would like to see:
1. A fast UWA prime 7-9 mm
2. A fast Tele prime 150-200mm
3. 1.4x tele converter (high quality)
I do not understand any of the lenses in the list at the top of the page? (Except maybe the 100mm f/2)
I voted for the 100mm, but a wide prime: yes. 9mm would be just fine and 2.8 would be fast enough.
Its funny…it seem like even the 3rd party suppliers even are making odd focal length lenses or lenses that we already have 3 choices on. There are some very obvious hole in the MFT system….its kindof funny.
Don’t remember exactly that Konica Minolta rumor some time ago, but I was hoping for something to fill those holes. I informed and they politely answered:
Thank you for your interest in Konica Minolta products. If you
would like to learn about a current line of Konica Minolta products,
the information is available on the Internet.
We are afraid that we are unable to comment on the future plans of
our products. We greatly appreciate your comments and would like to
transfer them to a proper section in our company so that we make
every effort to reflect your precious opinions on our future products
and service. We are always glad to hear from our customers.
Thank you for taking time to write to us. We look forward to your
continued support for Konica Minolta products.
LOL!….with a response like that …I hope that they are not making any lenses for MFT!!!!!
A form letter written by a committee!
I want a 67.5mm f/1.2 or 0.95, I know it can be done and refuse to buy into m4/3 primes until someone makes one! I also what f/2.0 zooms, i thought micro 4/3 was Panasonic’s/Olympus’s chance to make a proper system from the ground up so wtf is with these 35mm style 3.5 and 5.8 wide open apertures?! Greed over quality boo, at least they’re starting to get it together.
I find these threads pretty amusing. Half the people think m43 should be all about small size, and think the GX7 is too big, (but the GM1 too small–go figure). The other half want fast f/2.0 and f/2.8 tele lenses, which are going to be big even for m43.
PanOly can’t win…..
A long tele lens will always be long (unless it’s a mirror lens)
Are you implying that PanOly must be forbidden to make tele lenses?
Yup cause half are DSLRs users looking for the same quality in a lighter setup and the rest are point and shooters wanting better quality in their pockets. Myself coming from both sides saw m43 as an opportunity to only need one camera but so far the lens choices have been a bit boring; they need a set of 2.8 pancake primes and compact zooms for the point and shooties as well as a set of primes faster than 1.4 and zooms faster than 2.0 for the quality nuts. So far I see very few that fit that bill.
It would be nice if …
1. 17.5mm f/1.4 or even 1.2
2. 300mm f/4.0 or a little shorter with zoom ability
3. tele-converter … can be x1.4 or x2.0
Finally, if you make really fast prime lens, you can make electronic shutter 1/16,000+ so your fanboys no need to your filter in the daylight
one more 300 F4 here please!!!!
yes, to billy’s 300mm f4 prime. have it weathersealed as well. yes too to bob and ginny on a 1.4x teleconverter. weathersealed too, please.
.
I don’t understand how a patent can be granted for every new lens. Patents are for new inventions, not newly calculated lenses. There is not a new invention in every lens.
Legally, a patent is not a certification or recognition of a new invention. It is a legal protection against another party copying a design, process or method. Photographic lens designs have been patented since nearly the beginning of photography; telescope designs for hundreds of years.
One could possibly argue that lens patents are less protective today. Before computers, it was a very difficult process of hand calculation and/or experimantation to arrive at a top-notch design formula. Today it is possible to disassemble and digitize the exact shapes and analyze the glass, then run available computer software to tweak the design without getting hopelessly off track, even if one is not an expert. So it is easier than ever to copy exactly (clearly protected by patent) or to copy with modifications (grey area and probably unlikely to be worth an expensive legal battle).
Finally, realize that modern patents (especially in Japan, but really everywhere) are less about protecting the individual inventor and more about protecting and providing business value for companies. Having a large patent portfolio is a deterrent to individual lawsuits and a valuable tool in business negotiations.
Legally, inventions are supposed to involve a non-obvious improvement or alternative to the current state of the art (what that is supposed to mean depends on whether you litigate in Germany or East Texas!). Notice, also, that you cannot combine more than one invention in the same patent (the exception, in Europe is that you are allowed to combine a product with a process claim). What you see in the designs is not several inventions, but several embodiments of a single invention (most of which will never see the light of day either because they are suboptimal and have been included only in order to expand the scope of protection, or because they cannot be manufactured and marketed at a profit). Unfortunately, unless we read the description and the claims, we cannot know what the invention is supposed to be. Remember, also, that, precisely because the basic formulas have not changed for ages, it might be extremely hard to hit upon even miniscule improvements or alternatives; in fact,improvements in optical formulas may well be contingent upon advances in material science and production methods (i.e. upon the ability to manufacture complex aspherical or ed elements, with fewer optical imperfections).
Whats so fast about a F3.6 and F4.0?
You are hopelessly confused between the DOF and light gathering ability of a lens….
No wonder Panasonic are turning out mainly primes. The same with Olympus. m43 zooms have so far been much less successful than primes, being generally bulkier and heavier than was to be expected. m43 is mainly for primes. Olympus could not make a zoom of the 12-60 type. Seems that many 43 zooms, and perhaps also some primes, are either impossible or impractical to make. There is a clear need for a DSLR body of the E-520/E-620 type with the new sensor and stabilization. But Olympus continue to ignore the thousands and thousands of appeals for this from all over the world. I myself, owner of ten 43 lenses, am going to migrate to Pentax K3 or Sony FF – should Olympus continue their inadequate behavior. Apropos, this appears to be already happening. A comment in the same vein from a Pentax K3 discussion (in dpreview): “This [K3] is awesome. Pentax really builds a solid system with APS-C collecting unhappy former Olympus E and Nikon D300x user…The “true E7 and D400″ 🙂 Well done!” Otherwise, kudos to Panasonic for these primes!
Sorry, but this makes nonsense.
4/3 DSLR bodies have currently absolutely no advantages over m43 ones, no wondering why Olympus has given up E-7. The only issue here is the better compatibility with legacy 4/3 lenses but you’ll lose them anyway if migrating on Pentax or Sony.
So still don’t understand what do you mean here.
“4/3 DSLR bodies have currently absolutely no advantages over m43 ones”
If this were true, it would be impossible to explain why Canon, Nikon and Pentax DSLRs continue to be sold in much greater quantities than mirrorless around the world. There is currently absolutely no indication of a DSLR-less future! I have 5 cameras of both systems, 3 Olympus DSLR and 2 m43, and in all-round terms I will NEVER for a second prefer a PEN to the E-520. The E-520 is a pleasure to use with the grip, the optical viewfinder, the solid handling of the bulkier primes and zooms, etc. I use the E-PM2 with the Leica 25mm alongside the DSLRs – a killer combination. And will continue to use the E-520 and the E-600 until either Oly sober up and make a DSLR with the new sensor and stabilization and a better optical viewfinder or, if they don’t, migrate to Pentax or Sony.
Canon, Nikon and Pentax continue to sell because they have extensive camera and lens lineups, paired with excellent sensor technology.
Why use the smaller 4/3 sensor? The only real advantage is SIZE. m4/3 delivers on that. 4/3 did not, which is why it DIED.
Olympus didn’t kill 4/3, the DSLR lineup was out-gunned from every possible angle by precisely canon, nikon and especially pentax, who delivered an APS-C sized sensor with a fully weather sealed rugged body in a package smaller than Olympus could with its smaller sensor.
The explanation above makes sense only to a certain extent. First, it is widely recognized that Olympus 43 lenses are in general terms technologically superior to Nicanon, Pentax and Sony, precisely due to the smaller sensor and the lower loss of quality in the corners. Second, because of the smaller sensor, Olympus lenses especially tele-zooms, are much less bulkier and especially less heavy than their Nicanon etc. alternatives. Third, apart from having big and heavy lenses, Canon are now much behind in sensor power but they continue to sell well. And now that Olympus have a powerful sensor (from Sony), they are imposing on themselves – and on us, Olympus 43 owners, a loss of the advantage of the good sensor and better glass, including the clear bulk & weight advantage. Fourth, m43 cannot make up for the loss of good handling, except when …. they make a large and heavy DSLR-like body (E-M1). Fifth, m43 zooms are unreasonably bulky and heavy compared to the m43 primes and at the same time they lack the speed and quality of the 43 analogues and are uncomfortable to hold. Size and weight matter when it comes to good handling. The advantage of m43 is mainly or only with primes, and not all focus lengths. The 75mm is not small. Sixth, there is no logical or common-sense reason NOT to make at least one DSLR. Pentax, Canon and Nikon launched mirrorless cameras without much success; Olympus didn’t launch a DSLR although it would have been a hit (at least IMO).
They can design very, very small zooms on the short end if they want to – i.e. the new Lumix 12-32mm – it is hardly any larger than the 14mm pancake…which has long been praised for its small size. A tiny zoom cannot be be very fast thought – but as we know, everything with photo gear is a compromise, or a cumulation of compromises.
Reality check #1: Canon, Nikon and Pentax lenses are not bad or in any way worse than Olympus. In fact, they are quite good, and millions of pro photographers use them every single day producing everything from wedding photos to full page spreads in the National Geographic. All while Olympus DSLR with its “OMG we have the best lenses!!” is a dead system.
Reality check #2: Olympus DSLR lenses are not really much lighter. The 35-100 f/2 is the same size, weight and price as the Canikon 70-200 f/2.8 yet offers less DOF control. Same with the 14-35 f/2 vs 24-70 f/2.8
Reality check #3: While the Olympus lenses offer some advantages vs full frame on the telephoto end, most people who use these lenses find that the C-AF with its ability to track objects and clean high ISO are more important.
Reality check #4: The Olympus DSLR lineup is grossly incomplete. There is no 35mm equiv. lens. There is no 85mm equiv. lens. There are no fast wide angle primes. The only “normal” 50mm equiv. lenses either cost $899 or have an f/2.8 aperture. There are no macro lenses with a focus limiter. At this point m4/3 actually has far more options than 4/3 ever did
re: #1, 50-200 SWD, equivalent in other systems? Canon 100-400L/4.0-5.6 comes closest, but isn’t entirely there. Nikon 70-400? Not really. The Canon 100-400L/4 surpasses it, but at an insane price.
re: #2, there exist more lenses then the 14-35 or 35-100, especially if you want to take better advantage of the size/performance compromise possible with 4/3
re: #3, matter of priorities
re: #4, indeed there are a number of relevant lenses missing
I used to own the 50-200, and that is the most difficult to replace 4/3 lens, and while it is good, somehow, magically, thousands upon thousands of wildlife photographers every single day manage to make do without it. I guess they must all be stupid. Or blinded by the apparently incredible Canikon marketing machine. If only they all knew about this incredible lens in a system that doesn’t even have a 35mm prime lens AT ALL.
“somehow, magically, thousands upon thousands of wildlife photographers every single day manage to make do without it.”
And your point being?
Thousands and thousands of them did every day without AF, without auto exposure even. That something can be done and is being done does in no way say its a good way or the best way.
“I guess they must all be stupid.”
Well no, your argument is kinda stupid because you set out to argue against something, and aren’t looking at things in an open way at all.
The 50-200 may be the most difficult to replace lens, but its not the only one that is both quite good, affordable and reasonable in size. There is a nice and very affordable 11-22, actually good luck finding an equivalent for that one in any system, and see below re: 35mm.
There is a very nice 12-60, which has no real equivalent in other systems either when considering the range, quality and size.
Now, alternatives do exist, those aren’t exact equivalents, but alternatives, and yes, people quite make do with those.
“Or blinded by the apparently incredible Canikon marketing machine.”
This is a very big part of the story indeed. Funny detail is that many that got caught up by that did admire the images I was getting from my E-3 with 50-200, despite all the theoretical advantages they were having with their then 5Dmk2 and D3 with regards to noise. The funniest comment I ever got was someone with a 5Dmk2 and a 24-70/2.8 at a concert, who after seeing my pictures commented that he wasn’t as well prepared as I was, and after seeing what camera I was using was commenting that couldn’t be true. Well, whatever.
“If only they all knew about this incredible lens in a system that doesn’t even have a 35mm prime lens AT ALL.”
Nope, it doesn’t, but note that 11-22 above, which centers around 17mm, which is pretty much a 35mm equivalent. Nope, no prime, but a very nice zoom instead.
Its an alternative, and not an equivalent, but one that does very well for event photography where you want to work at approx 1 body length distance. Also, its distortion correction is very good.
A 35mm prime? Certainly you can put one on your large DSLR, and you gain some aperture range, but I’d rather put one on an M9 or similar more compact system camera. Matter of choices.
But you know what, the discussion is rather pointless, as Lumix no longer produces 4/3 cameras, and neither does Olympus, so we aren’t going to see an E-7 or anything like that, all we’ll see are m4/3 cameras that can also do proper AF with 4/3 lenses. Works totally fine for me as owner of 4/3 and m4/3 lenses, and as an added bonus, unlike the E-3, the continuous focus actually works quite well without needing a lot of practice and obscure config changes.
Just a short note on the above observations on the complexity of the lens-body world – that otherwise I subscribe to. Yes, Canikon offers better DOF control, but for those who need/want it. As a hobby tourist photographer I do not need shallow DOF. So for me Olympus is a better tool – and I would prefer Olympus 35-100 f/2 to Canikon 70-200 f/2.8. In cases when I need shallow DOF, eg for a portrait, I easily get it from Olympus too (Leica 25mm 1.4, Olympus 45mm, 1.8, 43 Samyang 85mm 1.4.
Since the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 is a m4/3 lens I am glad you agree that merging of the lens lineups was the correct decision, as there is no way to use excellent primes like this on a 4/3 camera
Do you really need razor-thin DOF @ 200m? Why? So that you cannot get both nostrils of the same nose in focus? Purleaaaaase!
Hrm, I wonder, did you ever put the lumix 35-100 next to the 4/3 35-100?
The m4/3 one is a stop slower indeed, but much more portable and easy to use handheld, unlike its 4/3 equivalent.
Also, primes are smaller for a good reason, please go learn a thing or 2 about designing optics.
An E-M1 with 12-35/2.8 is a fraction of the size and weight of an E-3 with 14-35. You again lose 1 stop in aperture, but gain more then that in high iso performance, so its a net gain.
There is more wrong about your post, and just like Es is having an unrealistic anti-4/3 rant, you are having an unrealistic anti-m4/3 rant. Open your eyes.
“Unrealistic anti-m4/3 rant”? As I said, I have both 43 and m43 bodies and lenses and I do like my E-PM2 with the Leica 25mm – a killer combination. But I would also like to have a 43 DSLR with the new technology at a decent price. It’s as simple as that.
Unrealistic because its not going to happen, the ‘best’ you’ll get is an m4/3 body capable of good AF with your 4/3 lenses, hopefully one below the E-M1 also for people like you.
Could Olympus have released a DSLR with more updated tech? Yes, but they do not want to, and that decision makes sense both for them and for users.
People looking for a new 4/3 camera get something that allows them to also benefit from all the m4/3 lenses while keeping their current 4/3 lenses. Releasing a DSLR instead would just postpone that decision, and result in a less capable camera because it can only use 4/3 lenses, which most 3rd party manufacturers stopped supporting by now.
Olympus gets to develop and market one system instead of 2, reducing cost and allowing them to concentrate on what they think is their future.
And that is the ‘best’ you are going to get, no matter how much you jump, grumble, or complain.
The funny thing is that most people who actually tried that route so far seem quite happy with the results, ymmv.
A very large review in Russian of the E-M1 that I just came upon (hi-tech dot mail dot ru) praises the camera but notes that 43 owners would actually prefer a real DSLR, the unreasonably high price of the machine and, most importantly, that auto-focusing with 43 lenses is far from satisfactory. I wouldn’t mind the price of the E-M1 if it had been a weather-sealed DSLR – with all the rest. But I refuse to pay an unreasonable price for something that pretends to give you the best of two worlds while in reality it gives you one, is a step backwards in terms of ISO sensor capacity (ought to be otherwise), doesn’t work well exactly where it is supposed to (auto-focusing 43 lenses) and, on top of it all, it doesn’t auto-focus well precisely the 12-60. A Pentax K-30 body for 500 euro or a Pentax K-01 with a 40mm 2.8 lens for the same price will blow the E-M1 out of the water. No, no, the way it is now, it is simply not fair.
Hmm yes, you found a review somewhere confirming your preconceptions, which is fine, but doesn’t exactly match up with the experience of actually using one.
And eh, we’ve been to the ‘high ISO performance’ thing in the past, you base yourself on DXO’s single camera testing and keep bringing up a difference that:
1. is invisible in any real-world usage
2. is well within the typical sample variation one would expect for such devices
So no, it is not a step backward in practical terms, and compared to the E-M5 it isn’t a step forward either, but compared to any Olympus DSLR, its a major step up in IQ, from base ISO all the way up to the highest ISO levels supported by those cameras, and then some.
And eh, for any E-xxx owners, its a major step up, especially with regards to AF. For E-3/5/30 owners its a bit different when looking at AF, and depends a bit on where your priorities lie, but its most certainly very usable.
Is it perfect? hell no, but eh, no camera is anyway, but ‘pretends to give you 2 worlds but only gives you one’ ? That is just bullshit.
But you know what, you’ve set your mind on something, and will stubbornly stick to it, quite fine, just keep in mind that it is not going to happen. What may happen is that with time, a more affordable OM-D appears that incorporates similar technology.
Deal with it, Olympus isn’t going to make a new 4/3 DSLR, with the actual market potential for a 4/3 DSLR today, it would be unreasonably expensive to release one because of not being able to achieve any kind of economy of scale, and that is simply the end of that story, regardless of how much you may dislike it.
Unfortunately, a large portion of the Canon and Nikon market is driven by amateurs (or even beginners) who choose a camera based on what it looks like, and whether or not it will make them look “professional” when using it. Those consumers probably could not name more than 3 or 4 camera brands if you asked them…but they will always be able to name Canon and Nikon.
Yes, the extensive lens lineups along with a global force of salespeople who immediately steer prospective customers to the Nikon and Canon counters. I’ve even heard the Panasonic and Olympus M4/3 counter guys at B&H do it.
M4/3 lacks marketing savvy and clout.
But they don’t sell 4/3 DSLR, so whats the point?
Just two words: ‘conservatism’ and ‘snobbery’. If professional photographers hadn’t believed in the bigger, the better and had been a bit more open-minded the mirrorless technology would have already surpassed DSLRs in every aspect for a long time ago.
And there was absolutely no indication of a digital future 20 years ago. 😀
I would not so easily accuse professionals of snobbery, and they are conservative only in one sense: having already heavily invested in a system, they are not easily going to throw away their canikon lenses and start from scratch, certainly not with brands without a long term track record of proven top notch technical support for professional customers. Bear also in mind that photojournalists working for news agencies use standard equipment chosen by the agency, on the basis of long term, long standing purchasing agreements. And then, you have amateurs who assume that if a brand is good enough for professionals, it’s good enough for them. Of course, the same people would never buy hi-fi equipment on the basis that the same stuff is used by their local disco, and would certainly never buy an overpriced, overweight underpowered mil-spec laptop, which was built with suitability for battlefield conditions, rather than performance or weight in mind, but that’s marketing for you…
“I would not so easily accuse professionals of snobbery,”
I would.
35mm is an amateur format!!! was what many of them were saying upto late in the 1990s, despite decades of proof that it was quite upto the job.
Its not full frame, so it can’t be ‘professional’ is todays equivalent.
Initially valid for technical reasons? Probably, but sticking to it is most certainly snobbery, especially when reality simply shows the technical argument to be outdated.
“and they are conservative only in one sense: having already heavily invested in a system, ”
That is certainly a part of it, but wasn’t part of the argument for those systems the very good resale value, especially for lenses? If so, then the argument that they are already heavily invested doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, and lo and behold, quite a few of the not so conservative ones have changed systems more then once over time.
A much bigger part of the story, and one that is reflected by many decades of professional photography, is photographers not wanting to change their workflow, and resisting anything that would force them to change their workflow. That is obviously conservatism, but it has a reason, changing their workflow is time consuming, and that is time not spent on production work, and hence loss of income.
The flipside of that is that many of them also fail to take advantage of emerging technologies.
Good thing it doesn’t apply to all of them.
I don’t agree. There are many zooms in the system, of various levels of quality and features, size etc. Really a lot of choice IMO!
The reason Panasonic is turning out primes is because they already have excellent 7-14mm f/4
12-35mm f/2.8
35-100mm f/2.8
As well as an assortment of slower zooms including a 100-300mm.
The Panasonic zoom lineup is, for the most part, complete. The only thing that’s missing is a bright telephoto zoom, but its unlikely they’ll make one soon as it doesn’t make much sense on m4/3
7-14 f/4 is too big and a bit slow
like to see a smaller 7-14 f/4 with OIS
AND a
8mm or 9mm f/4 pancake
Hmm a smaller yet faster 7-14? Seeing the design compromises they made to scale it down to its current size, I don’t want to think about what it would take to make it smaller and faster.
The 7-14 is TINY for what it does. IS is going to make it bigger not smaller,
Also even on mirrorless systems UWA cannot be made pancakes bc they need a retrofocal design.
I would likely buy none of them. We need fast wides. 15mm F1.7 and 12mm T1.6 are not enough.
18/1.2 or 18/1.4 (smaller or the size of the 25\1.4)
a 100mm f2 would be interesting for super background blur.though 100mm times 2x crop makes is a rather long tele lens. not so good for general shooting.
M4/3 teleprime lineup is quite small, a >75mm prime would be interesting to fill up the gap.
its also nice to see that panasonic wants to apply stabilisation in their prime lenses
Please make something outside the 12-75mm range.
A 6mm or 7mm f2.8 or f3.5 non fisheye would be great! Also I would like to see a 25mm f1.2 with minimal distortions and great optical quality. From either Oly or Pana!
Hopefully Oly will stick to their 2013 lenses roadmap and will provide in the near future (I guess no sooner than 2015) a wide zoom like 6-12mm f4 (PRO line).
if such 100mm f/2 would render the same as the excellent ZD 35-100 f/2 at max tele, I would buy it, no doubt.
Since there is already a bright 300/2.8 for a couple of thousand €/$ in the 4/3rds lineup and if i recall correctly Oly dont want to double a lens, there will be no 300/4 ? ;(
I would really like to see a 300 f4 a 1.4 TC and a 200 f4 as a native MFT lens….
Nikon and Canon have both the 300mm f2.8 and 300mm f4. The Olympus 300mm f2.8 is not hand holdable and m43 needs a high quality handheld long lens.
A couple of thousand? Rather, 3 to 5 depending on condition. And heavy as a brick.
I’d certainly like something in the (super)tele range, that would still be reasonably compact in size. Maybe 200mm or 250mm preferably somewhere between f2.8-f4.0.
from the above 100mm is mildly interesting, but it’s still too close to 75mm for me to really consider it.
Olympus, Panasonic, make a 200mm f2.8 please!
“We need” is semantic equivalent to “I want.”
10.5 f3.4 Super-Elmar, anyone?
Make it super sharp wide open and relatively affordable, that’s all I’d ask.
We want more lenses similar to 14/20/12-32 pancakes!
including their pricing…
looks like the new 35-100 will be much smaller
really like to see 7-9 pancake or 8/9mm pancake
An ultra-wide non-fisheye please. It seems Panasonic and Olympus don’t step on each other’s toes when it comes to primes; they don’t make the same focal lengths overall. But I sure would like to also see Panasonic take on the 12mm Olympus. Something a little faster like a 1.4 or 1.8.
10mm 2.8
17mm 1.4
25mm 1.8
These “classics” (not sure about 10mm) are still missing. 35mm (=60) seems odd. For 60mm there’s the two macros and Oly’s 75mm which is not too far off. 100mm, don’t know, don’t shoot tele.
I would love a super sharp 10mm, even if its slower than 2.8. A 25mm 1.8 would be awesome if it would cost significantly less than the 25mm 1.4 and be sharp wide open. I’ve read that the 20mm 1.7 has soft corners and heavy vignetting. Has anyone had an issue with that?
No problems with that lens so far – and I’ve shot literally thousands of images with it.
Agreed. The Panasonic/Leica 1.4 25mm is a dream. Have lots of other lenses including the 12-35mm 2.8 from Panasonic. Nothing compares to that lens. The 45mm 1.8 from Olympus is optically very sharp and great as well but still can’t compare to the 25mm 1.4. Don’t know if it’s a Leica thing. If you have the money buy that lens!
well there is more difference between 60,75 mm vs 100 mm then the lenses you wish for; i mean you want a 17mm 1.4 while we already have the 17mm 1.8, and the wish for a 25mm 1.5 while the summilux 1.4 is here. What is the motivation for your choices? I am curious.
5-500mm f/0.60 constant aperture pancake zoom internal zooming fully optically corrected 1:1 macro weathersealed metal construction all black no text markings aperture ring metal lens hood genuine leather case lifetime warranty $399.00.
very funny… not.
Reading all those complains I wonder what lenses do readers use. It seems both Oly and Pana won’t ever produce the right lens for most of people here.. (I voted the 100 f2, btw)
Agreed. M4/3 is a haven for complainers. 😉
There are lots of great M4/3 lenses available today. Granted there are lots of holes in the lens ecosystem and it’s just a matter of time before a few are filled.
If people are willing to adapt manual lenses and shoot manually, many holes, especially at the long end, can be filled immediately AND at MUCH lower cost than many of the native M4/3 lenses. Sure, a lot of lenses are a bit big and heavy, but that’s what IBIS, tripods and monopods are for, right?
I bought 3 excellent Nikon macros (60mm f2.8D, 105mm f2.8 AI-S and 200mm f4 IF AI-S) for about the same cost as the Oly 75mm, for instance, and they all double as very sharp telephotos.
Pesonally love the system as it is, my complaints come where money and time is spent developing lenses that few people seem to want, and not spending that time and money on what many people clearly do want eg quality zoom or prime at the long end (though there is one oly long prime in the offing to be announced late 2014 if the leaked lens roadmap is stuck too) or fast ultra wide prime (oly clearly has a wide zoom pro lens coming too)
Even after considering the 40-150mm lens, there is nothing above 150mm of high quality. I would prefer a 300mm f4 prime but even a high quality zoom in this range would at least give us one solution.
9 0r 10 2.8
Make better some x1.7 or x2.2 tele converter for mFT
Give me 35mm! Very convenient focal distance. (Old lenses not so good and not so cheap).
10mm f/2.8, please.
I would like 1.8 or faster for concerts and night architecture. Though you could use tripod for latter.
cant say that any of those lens intrests me. disapointed that there will be no
150mm f2.8
300mm f4 would be nice 250mm f2.8 would be great 400mm f4 would be the awsome
Agreed!
What happened to the Panasonic 150/2.8???
“Fill in the gaps Telephoto and UWA”
I’m afraid they’ll only make on of those, and that one needs to be long enough for wildlife, including at least medium size birds. But I can already see the story, we’ll get a zoom or a somewhat-too-short prime.
7mm f/2.8
17.5mm 2.8F compact for gm2 which we hope will be with OIS
Come on Panny, make a 7mm f2.8 already.
+1!
7-14mm f2.8, filter thread, weather sealed, OIS, 1300$. Would buy in a heartbeat!
Me too. I prefer a zoom instead of prime for ultra wide angles. They can make it 8-15mm if that’s what it takes to have filter thread.
Yeah, they were just lazy with the original 7-14. I mean Sony makes the 10-18 UWA, f4 constant, ois and a filter thread, it’s light, small, sharp, 800$. Why can’t Panny do the same ?
A 100mm fast prime makes for a very small tele and any focal length longer would be substantially bigger. I for one would be very interested in a 100mm/f2 for m4/3 if the size and price are reasonable. Such a lens would be even better for portraits than a 45mm and excellent as a tele when coupled with a high grade telextendar or to 4x when used in video. This 100mm/f2 would be a good match for the smaller cameras Pany is building and likely replace the bulky 150mm/f2.8 previously planned.
That 100mm sounds great. I’m still using the Nikon 105 2.5 AIS for tele. The result is acceptable but nothing to write home about. But oh well, this is just patent, long time before anything can roll out.
Which lenses are still missing from the extensive m43 line up? Easy. In the old days camera makers had two lines of lenses, slow ones for consumers (f2.8) and fast ones for professionals (f1.4). Now that Oly and Pana have the consumer speeds covered pretty well, it’s time to bring out the fast AF lenses – f1.4 or bigger, complete set from 24mm to 90mm or even 135mm.
And we need more weathersealed lenses, too. Start with the zooms.
M4/3 is in need of the following lenses:
-6mm/7mm f2.8
-17/18mm f1.4
-67mm f1.4
-100mm f1.4
-200mm f2.8
-300mm f4
-12-100mm f2.8-4
-14-70mm f2.8-3.5
-75-300mm f3.5-4.5
-150-450mm f4-5.6
Top of my want list would be a full set of Leica branded AF lenses along the lines of the old R system:
11mm Super-Elmar f3.4
14mm Summicron f2.0
17mm Summilux f1.4
25mm Summilux f1.4 – got it, nice!
40mm Summilux f1.4 – already coming soon, and f1.2!
45mm Macro-Elmarit f2.8 – got it, also very good!
50mm Macro-Elmarit f2.8 (to replace the 45mm)
67.5mm Summicron f2.0
Maybe also a Tri-Elmar 11-17-25mm f4.0.
I can fill in the spaces in-between with my M lenses: 28-35-50-75-90.