Sick? What do you find wrong with it?

__________________
Chuck

NOTHING is in focus at f/1.2 LOL.

Having shot the 85L wide open, a) getting the damn thing to focus is hard enough b) the shallow DoF leaves only hairs in focus!

__________________
E-M5 | M. Zuiko 45mm f/1.8 | Lumix G X Vario 12-35mm f/2.8

Flickr

I am really happy with the way things are progressing on the micro four thirds front. Way to go to Panasonic and Olympus. I think both these companies realize that they have a good headstart and that other systems are still catching up in terms of lenses. And two is better than one, a healthy competition to release good lenses. I know these will be expensive, but damn, they're drool worthy for sure. Also, it's nice to see that these guys are working on real quality lenses and not trying to bring out cheaper alternatives for existing lenses. I think micro four thirds as a system will just keep getting stronger and stronger.

__________________
Veeresh

Well, you have to remember that for the smaller MFT sensor, your DoF is closer to f/2.4. While a longer focal length (e.g. 150mm) can further thin your DoF, I don't expect that to be the case at this relatively short focal length of 43mm. This is a great lens but 40-45mm (80-90mm FF equivalent) is not quite my FOV of choice. The 150mm/2.8 is great except I'm holding out for an Oly prime or zoom long telephoto; I don't need OIS and a smaller form factor from Olympus would likely handle better with my E-M5.

E-M5, P7-14, O12, PL25, O75, O75-300

__________________
Pediatric oncologist, photo enthusiast, and proud Pinoy!

E-M5, mZD 12/2, mZD 17/1.8, mZD 60/2.8, mZD 75/1.8, mZD 75-300/4.8-6.7 II (and they all fit albeit snugly in my Billingham Hadley small)

www.pixoto.com/omdem5

Yeah the focus on that Canon lens is tedious at 1.2. However we are working with a DOF here of ~f/2.5? That sounds just about right wide open. From my experience you get a decent amount in focus with f/1.8 on the Olympus 45mm. A little bit shallower would be great as long as it performs well there (I'm guessing it will!).

Did anyone notice that the image of the 42.5 (43) looks similar in design to the PL25/45?

__________________
Add me on Flickr, I'll do the same

http://www.flickr.com/photos/danska8/

My apologies. I was talking about my experience with the 85L. Of course, at similar angle of views, apertures, etc., we will get a deeper DoF.

__________________
E-M5 | M. Zuiko 45mm f/1.8 | Lumix G X Vario 12-35mm f/2.8

Flickr

I don't understand why Panny refers to this lens as a 42.5mm lens. Even the image they showed of the lens itself has "43" stenciled on it. I mean, I understand that 42.5 x 2 = 85mm, which is a "standard" 135 film (i.e. "full frame") focal length, but I would think that the manufacturers would want to avoid or minimize any "equivalency" discussion and the baggage that comes along with that. It seems to me that introducing this lens as a 42.5mm just invites that type of thinking about 4/3.

Wouldn't making this a 40mm or 45mm lens make more sense? The FOV between that and a 42.5mm (or even 43mm) lens wouldn't be that significant. Is there something "magical" about the 85mm focal length that I am missing? Or is this a sign of an inferiority complex among designers/marketers?

__________________
Sarcasm is my default tone, so please consider that before taking offense to the preceding message.

Criticism (no matter how harsh) is welcomed of ANY and ALL images I post.

Mmm... a 42.5mm f/1.2. Can a 17.5mm f/1.2 be far behind?

The 150mm f/2.8 is exciting in that the door has been opened for more large aperture tele primes and hopefully a teleconverter or two to go with them.

Very exciting stuff... I'm just amazed at how quickly the M43 system is maturing and being fleshed out.

I'm also broke as a result.

Cool. If I don't eat for a year I might be able to afford both when they come out!