Bargain lenses m4/3 is missing

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by dhazeghi, Mar 20, 2013.

  1. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Real Name:
    In spite of the decent number of inexpensive m4/3 lenses currently available, there are a number of lenses that other systems possess that add to the overall attractiveness of the system which we lack equivalents for. Particularly for attracting users from APS-C DSLRs, it seems to me that we'd benefit from filling these holes.

    Here's my list:

    • 25/1.8 - $200. Fast normal to replace Nikon and Sony's 35/1.8
    • 30/2.8 macro - $250. Wide macro to replace Nikon's 40/2.8 and Sony's 30/2.8.
    • 40/1.8 - $150. Fast mid-telephoto to replace Canon and Nikon's 50/1.8.
    • 14-50/2.8-4.0 - $400. Fast(er) kit zoom to replace Sigma's 17-70/2.8-4.0.
    • 14-35/2.8 - $550. Fast normal zoom to replace Sigma/Tamron's 17-50/2.8.

    I guess we don't have a very good chance of seeing any of these, given the current Olympus and Panasonic pricing strategies, but one can always hope. Any thoughts, or recommendations for bargain lenses missing above?
    • Like Like x 1
  2. mh2000

    mh2000 Mu-43 Veteran

    Jul 3, 2010
    Think a 25/1.8 for $200 is wishful think, but a small 25/2.8 for $200 is very realistic and the lens I want NOW!!!
  3. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Real Name:
    I agree it doesn't appear that Olympus or Panasonic have immediate plans to fill any of these gaps. These seem like fantastic opportunities for some of the non-OEM manufacturers like Tamron and Sigma. Unfortunately all we've gotten so far from Sigma are basically adapted APS-C designs and the only lens Tamron has announced is a superzoom similar to those already offered by both Panasonic and Olympus, which is puzzling to me.
  4. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Nov 6, 2012
    I would definitely want to see a 25/1.8 for $200 or less.
  5. DeoreDX

    DeoreDX Mu-43 Veteran

    Mar 13, 2013
    I always liked my Nikon DX 18-105, it covered a good range (27-160 equivalent) which was a good wide angle and covered the portrait range with a bit to spare. It as a good size and didn't break the bank (Eas to find less than $250). I always liked the tradeoff's Nikon made with their cheaper consumer kit zoom, trading really high edge to edge sharpness at the expense of distortion. Distortion is easy to fix in post processing (or in camera with the right body).
  6. madogvelkor

    madogvelkor Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 22, 2013
    Yeah, it really would be nice to see some more designs from 3rd party manufacturers. Hopefully as the format is adopted by even more people, there will be more lenses put out. It's also unfortunate that we don't have a deep catalog of used lenses for the past 10-20 years to draw on like Canon, Sony, and Nikon users do.

    This is the main reason that I'm glad that there will be a Kodak branded camera coming out this year. Even if the camera itself is bottom market, it makes the format more attractive for 3rd party manufactures. And there will probably also be a number of Kodak branded lenses coming out too.

  7. chasm

    chasm Mu-43 Veteran

    Mar 2, 2010
    30mm f2.8 macro

    Stick a Raynox DCR-250 on your Sigma 30mm and away you go!
  8. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Real Name:
    I don't think f/2.8 primes are in any shortage - there's the 14/2.5, 17/2.8, 19/2.8 and 30/2.8 and all of them are available for $200 or less. The point is that Nikon and Sony offer f/1.8 primes for that price.

    I suppose they could be nervous about spending resources on designs that will only work on m4/3, except that the Tamron 14-150 is exactly that. And for the non-zooms, they could easily use the same designs for APS-C (in fact Sony already has a 30/3.5 macro for NEX).

    Closest thing is the Olympus 12-50, but you're certainly giving up a lot on the long end (100 vs. 160mm EFL).

    True, but it is a bit more cumbersome. And I'm not sure the Raynox will mount in this case (46mm threads on the Sigma 30/2.8).
  9. mh2000

    mh2000 Mu-43 Veteran

    Jul 3, 2010
    >>I don't think f/2.8 primes are in any shortage - there's the 14/2.5, 17/2.8, 19/2.8 and 30/2.8 and all of them are available for $200 or less. The point is that Nikon and Sony offer f/1.8 primes for that price.

    The shortage is in the small AND normal range. Yes, the Sigma 30 is pretty close to normal, but it isn't small and it isn't OEM, so you'd think Olympus could justify offering a 25/2.8 like they did for 4/3's. The P/L is even really large.

    Anyway, I'm not complaining too much, but I would really love to trade my S30 for an Olympus pancake that was designed like the little 17/2.8.

    I guess a lot comes down to how wedded to a normal prime you are as well.
  10. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    I'm not feeling negative at all. I think the lens selection is pretty good.

    The last two you listed are from 3rd parties, not Canon or Nikon, so I'm not sure it's a good comparison.
  11. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Nov 6, 2012
  12. PaulGiz

    PaulGiz Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 3, 2013
    Rhode Island, USA
    25 mm f2.0 @ $250 would be very, very appreciated by me. 50 mm f2.5 would also be very nice.

    Still saving up for PL25, but f2 would be plenty fast enough (2 full stops faster than the kit at this focal length). For indoor work, this is what I need most.

  13. amalric


    Jul 24, 2012
    Rome. Italy
    I feel much the same, although I am getting used to the 30mm AOV myself.

    Speaking of Sigmas the main difference in respect to other native mirrorless lenses is that they are telecentric - and therefore they are no pancakes.

    I think that short distance to flange requires that and slow apertures, if you want to keep an even resolution across the frame.

    The opposite solution for faster lenses is heavier SW correction and complex groups, or special glass - therefore there is a reason why those native lenses are expensive.

    In conclusion because of the short distance to flange one will never get the Canons or Nikons f/1.8 for the same low price.

    There's also economies of scale - m4/3 lenses have been selling for a much shorter time. Sigma shows that it can achieve a good price/performance by distributing the cost across multiple mirrorless systems.

    it can be done but only with slower, bigger, more telecentric lenses. In a way IBIS compensates for that, and AF is blazing fast, so it's not a bad bargain at all.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Real Name:
    Mike Aubrey
    The only reason you can get a 50mm f/1.8 so cheap is that they're made in mass first and foremost for 135mm format rather than APS-C. Perhaps they could make a 40mm f/1.8 for $200 or $250. $150 is too low...maybe in ten or fifteen years down the road when they've made thousands upon thousands of them. Maybe wait until the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 is a decade old and see how much it costs then. Or who knows, perhaps the up and coming Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.2 will push the price of the Olympus down a bit...
  15. mftlandscaper

    mftlandscaper Mu-43 Regular

    Feb 6, 2013
    Agree with your list, especially the 25mm (although I would be happy with an f/2.8). I don't think there's much need for a 40/1.8 though - we already have the Oly 45/1.8.

    I'm hoping Oly will come up with a nice 25mm to fill that gap in their lineup. I have the PL25, but it's really too big for my GX1 and suits my GH2 much better.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Real Name:
    Of the 5 low-priced lens categories I mentioned, just one is more than 3 years old. And if the m4/3 versions end up 15 or 20mm longer to accommodate the shorter flange, I doubt anybody will mind too terribly. It's not as if the present alternatives (25/1.4, 45/1.8, 60/2.8, 14-54/2.8-3.5 or 12-35/2.8) are pancakes. As to the price, Canon and Nikon may have an advantage in scale over Olympus or Panasonic, but Sigma, Tamron and Sony most certainly do not.

    It's true that the lower-priced 50/1.8s are older designs, but there are also 50/1.8 designs that were released in the last 2 yeas, and they are still $200 or less. Not $400.

    There's also very little market advantage to making FF lenses over APS-C lenses at this point. 90%+ of Canon and Nikon bodies sold are APS-C.
  17. alsoLuke

    alsoLuke New to Mu-43

    Mar 15, 2013
    I definitely would like to see some options like this. I've got a D5000 and the two lenses I use the most are the 35mm f/1.8g and the 50mm f/1.8g, in that order. That is a relatively inexpensive kit that can produce some very nice results (limited by my abilities, not the gear). When I recently bought my E-PL2, I also picked up the Sigma pair. The AF speed and sharpness seem very good to me so for $100 each I can't really complain. However, for the "around the house" type of shooting that I do a lot of, an extra stop or so would be REALLY nice. I'd rather have a $200 25mm f/2 than the 19 and 30 f/2.8 at $100 each.
  18. shizlefonizle

    shizlefonizle Mu-43 Veteran

    Apr 21, 2012
    Just give it another 5 years.....
  19. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Real Name:
    Mike Aubrey
    Agreed. And that's why I didn't say $400. I said: $200 or $250. The most recent 50mm f/1.8, I think, is Nikon's which goes for about $200 and its original MSRP was $220.

    On the normal lens front, I do think that a 25mm f/1.8 priced at $200 is a really necessary addition. I'm definitely with you on that. The 20mm f/1.7 is close, but still too high priced.
  20. neon123

    neon123 Mu-43 Rookie

    Jul 2, 2012
    I think a 25mm 1.8 would be a huge seller if they kept pricing in line with the 45mm 1.8 . If I would "trade down" my 25 1.4.. not so sure about that!:smile: