A 25mm won't need any retro-focusing, theoretically, on , unlike the 17, so it has that going for it. That means a less complex optical design (maybe) which translates to less expense (hopefully).

Personally, I want the 25/1.8 before a redux of the 17. I like the 17/2.8 quite a bit, and would be more willing to spend $300-$400 on the 25, than on another 17.

__________________
E-M5 -- E-PL1 -- PL-25 -- m.12-50 -- m.17 -- m.45 f/1.8 -- m.14-42 (non-MSC) -- m.40-150

Okay, you have my vote, if you can convince Panasonic to update the 20/1.7. Love that little guy, but it feels kinda dinosaur-like on focus after using any of the other primes.

__________________
Kyle / E-M5 and E-PM2
Flickr Photostream

My sentiments exactly!

__________________
C&C welcomed and encouraged!
PicasaWeb | Flickr | My Ebay FB: twokatmew

If rumors about those two lenses prove to be accurate, then the next logical step would be a fast long telephoto. It's true that a faster 17mm would be a great addition to the system but:

1. Competition is already stiff at about this focal length
2. A lot of existing (or potential) users of the existing f/2.8 have no need for something faster/sharper

Olympus could just introduce a generous price drop on the existing 17mm. OTOH, 25mm is a more "crucial" focal length and a fast, inexpenssive lens is missing there.

It also seems that Olympus isn't afraid to introduce lenses that could be considered somewhat niche. The 75mm would be considered such, as well as the planned macro. There were also rumors about a fisheye lens, no more data on that lately.

Right now there is gamble going on, concerning the upper segment of the market. If more pros and semi-pros trust in the next year or so, Olympus would be in the position to offer their pro camera (which is already officially promised: (UPDATED_2) Olympus will focus on mirrorless camera development. (Panasonic denies investment in Olympus) | 43 Rumors). Pressure from the, by then released, GH3 would play a role. At that point, perhaps it will be time to see the equivalents of the FT 12-35 and 35-100 f/2.0. In other words, for the first time will have lenses available costing at or over $2000. But it has to be done if the system is to go on; offerings in all segments of the market spectrum.

__________________
http://500px.com/Eyes_Unclouded_Photography
http://eyesunclouded-photography.blogspot.gr/
http://www.facebook.com/eyesunclouded

If Oly does come out with that 25... I will buy for sure!!! I need a 50 equivalent and 1.8 is good enough for me!

__________________
Nikon: FM-10/D80/MB-D80/SB-800/AF-S Nikkor DX 18-200 3.5-5.6 G VR/AF Nikkor 50 1.8 D/ Nikkor 35-70 3.5/Tamron 28 2.5/Vivitar 28 2.8 1:6 Macro/Vivitar 80-200 4.5 Macro/Vivitar Automatic Tele Converter 2x-3/RMC Tokina Doubler

Olympus: Pen EES-2/EP-1/E-P3/14-42 3.5-5.6/14-42 3.5-5.6IIR/17 2.8/40-150R/45 1.8/Rokinon 7.5 3.5 Fisheye/Nissin Di-466/Hexanon 57 f1.4/Hexanon 40 f1.8/VF-3

C-Mount: 25 1.2/25 1.4/35 1.7

Pentax: Q/01/02/03

Am I the only one that can not stand variable aperture zooms and that thinks micro four thirds zooms need to be f/2 or faster?

It's a matter of total exposure and depth of field controls. Even the non variable aperture Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 will provide a field of view and depth of field equivalent when zoomed in of a 70mm f/5.6 on a full frame (if I am not mistaken) which might be too deep of a depth of field as a minumum. Let alone the rumored 12-60mm which will provide an equivalent of 120mm at f/8. Come on. This is close to point and shoot territory. I am not going to even mention the 75-300 or the current 12-50 (which I own). Those apertures are killing me.

This system badly needs imho f/2 or faster professional grade zooms. That'll get me excited despite the expected price.

Look, m43 is what it is. If you really need ultra shallow DOF, you should be looking at FF cameras (or MF if you have really deep pockets). Would a 12-35 f/2 be nice? Yes, but....

It would be larger, heavier, and more expensive. Demand for such a large, pricey lens would probably be very low, which would make it even more expensive. And it STILL wouldn't provide the same DOF as FF f/2.8 zooms. If you really need faster than f2.8, you have multiple choices: 12 f/2, 20 f/1.7, 25 f/1.4, 45 f/1.8, 75 f/1.8. And if you're OK with manual focus, there are several f/0.95 lenses. No, they're not zooms, but that's part of the compromise of m43. (There aren't a lot of faster than f/2.8 lenses for FF, either.)

But no, it's NOT close to P&S territory. That comparison ignores that P&S cameras have even smaller sensors, and shorter focal length lenses, and ever more DOF.

Every system entails certain compromises. The compromises of m43 favor small size and more DOF. The compromises of FF do not favor small size, but do favor shallow DOF. And high price.

Finally, I have to question the constant comparison of m43 to FF. Very, very few m43 shooters, I suspect, have ever shot with FF. Most are downsizing from APS-C or upgrading from P&S. The difference in DOF between m43 and APS-C is less than one stop, which is hardly earth shattering. Why wasn't this such a big deal when people started using APS-C digital sensor. I don't remember very many people up in arms about the "lack of DOF control" in APS compared to 35mm, but the much smaller difference between APS and m43 for some reason becomes a crisis.

Use m43 for what it offers, and recognize that, just like a Nikon D4, it might not be perfect for every subject and every use.

__________________
I'm not lazy. I'm energy efficient.

I'm probably one of the few that switched from a FF setup to M4/3. Having owned several different APS-C DSLRs, I "thought" FF would drastically improve my results. Little did I realize to get the most out of FF, you really have be at a level I'll never be at. I had some good lenses including Nikon 24/1.4G, 85/1.4D, etc. The DOF was really nice, but for me not worth the extra weight lugging all that gear around.

I'm finding my OM-D with the PanaLeica 25/1.4 and CV 17/0.95 fills the void left by my FF Nikon D700 and lenses. Even better is the fact I can carry it all around at less than half the weight of my previous kit.

__________________
Olympus OM-D EM-5
CV 17/0.95
PanaLeica 25/1.4
SMC Takumar 50/1.4
Tele-Lentar 135/2.8

I think so, or at least close to it.

Most of us can stand it, even have fun with it. is what it is - one of its strength is its size, and I believe zooms that fast = bigger (!) lens.

Sorry - don't mean to be rude or nasty or anything negative. It's just all this comparison to this or that gets tiring quickly. There's FF, if you need it. There's APS-C, which we thought was the compromise between size and FF. Now the're , which amazingly (to me) is hard to differentiate from APS-C results but with a big diff in size and weight.

And statements like these to me personally sounds snobbish - "can't stand jpg", "can stand zooms", "can't stand that it can't get small enough to f22", etc. Most of us consumers really are fine with it. We are happy with it. We'd be happy if more improvements come, but yes, we can happily stand it.

*End of rant. Bow.*

__________________
Olympus PEN -=- Fujifilm X-E1
Flickr

I think the evidence is mounting that there IS a market for hi end m43 lenses, and the better the 25/.95, 12/2, 12-35/2.8, etc do the more likely we are to see more.

As for constant aperture, I don't agree ... If they would do variable the "right" way instead of the "easy" way. Brighten the short end instead of choking down the long end. Imagine if the 12-35 was f/1.4-2.8 - which it could be based on the diameter of the aperture opening!

__________________
Comments and criticism welcome! It's how we get better!

White G3:P20/1.7:P45-200:PL45/2.8:P8FE:P12-35/2.8

Pictures here: http://troyandmollyalloverthemap.shutterfly.com/

http://500px.com/TroyGorrell