I think we need another wide-normal zoom lens!!!

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Swandy, Mar 11, 2014.

  1. Swandy

    Swandy Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 15, 2009
    No - I am being serious.

    I have the EM10 and have been using (aside from a few other lenses) the Oly 14-42IIR and have been basically happy with the results. I do have on pre-order the Oly 14-42 EZ lens, just to see if I like the power zoom and how it compares IQ wise to the 14-42 that I have.

    I have thought semi-seriously about getting the Oly 12-40 lens (the shots I have seen posted are pretty impressive), but don't know if for me I want a lens that big/bulky. (I know I stopped carrying around the Samyang Fisheye because of it's size/bulk - but again that is my.) And I know that compared to the lenses I used to shoot when I started with Olympus DSLRs, the 12-40 is not large. My two favorites were the 14-54 and the 12-60 - but the bodies back then were much larger also. I just can't see having this lovely small/light body (EM10) and putting on a lens that weighs almost as much.

    What I would like is a 12-40/14-54 lens, probably 2.8-4 variable aperture. Remove the weather sealing - and if necessary the manual focus clutch (which I really like on the 17mm BTW) so that the lens can be smaller and lighter. Make the IQ good (meaning better than the kit versions) and price it around $500-650 dollars. I think that a lot of people who (1) don't want the size/weight/price of the pro lens or don't need it's "pro" specs, (2) don't want to deal with changing primes and (3) would like something with better IQ than the current crop of wide-normal zooms would jump at it.

  2. speedandstyle

    speedandstyle Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I agree with your basic idea. I love my Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-f4 for Nikon APS{$499.99!}. A similar lens for m4/3 would be a 12.75mm - 52.5mm or to round things a bit 13-52mm. I keep hoping and praying that Sigma makes such a lens as I doubt either Olympus or Panasonic would. I could live with a 14-54mm but not with a 12-40mm, to me 40mm is way too short. 12mm is very nice but I much prefer longer than wider.
  3. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Real Name:
    I don't really know that there's a lot of space between the 12-50/3.5-6.3 and the 12-40/2.8 size and bulk-wise. Honestly, I'd rather they just improved the optics on the 12-50/3.5-6.3 which is after all being marketed as a $500 lens. If they replaced it with 12-50/2.8-4.0 and raised the price to $600, I wouldn't complain though.
    • Like Like x 2
  4. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Wait you found the Samyang fish eye to be bulky? It's not a pancake but it's still pretty small! I doubt you'd be able to get a 12-X f/2.8-X zoom much smaller than the 7.5 mm fish eye...
  5. kwalsh

    kwalsh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Mar 3, 2012
    Baltimore, MD
    Yes, a very high quality F/4 zoom - nice sharp corners at F/5.6 please. If getting than means restricting zoom range to 3x then so be it. Make it small, make it light, make it expensive even, but make it corner to corner good.

    $1000 wide-normal F/4 zoom with high IQ about the same size and weight as the original 14-45.

    Not holding my breath though, that kind of thing seems to only show up in a very mature system usually.
  6. FernandoBatista

    FernandoBatista Mu-43 Regular

    Sep 3, 2012
    Absolutely. I'd love to see that in the wide range but also in the tele range, a 12-40ish F/2.8-4 and a 40-150 F/2.8-4 both for about 500-600€ or so.
    A good quality kit for those who don't need so much speed, but still want some quality.
  7. madogvelkor

    madogvelkor Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 22, 2013
    It would be nice to see smaller MFT versions of the 14-54 2.8-3.5 or 14-50 2.8-3.5 that Olympus and Panasonic put out for the 4/3 system. Or the 12-60 2.8-4 or 11-22 2.8-3.5 that Olympus had.

    I like the pancake zooms that they both put out recently -- the small size is a big feature of MFT. And the pro constant f/2.8 lenses are great too. But there is room for a fast variable standard zoom between the two.

    Though the other area that could use work is fast telephoto primes and zooms. And something really long would be nice, like the old Sigma 50-500.
  8. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    12-50 constant F4.0, slightly lighter than the 12-40, and as sharp in the corners at f5.6 would be an ideal walkaround for me. I tend to use zooms in good light anyway, and stop them down (landscape), so pure light gathering capacity isn't a huge issue.

    Having said that, I doubt the weight gains over the 12-40 would be significant enough for me to switch :)
  9. yakky

    yakky Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jul 1, 2013
    I agree, we need something small, good range and relatively fast. I don't need constant aperture but do want something fast. The traditional lens makers aren't applying themselves. All the lenses are sharp enough, we need more flexibility, not another sharper lens. Sigma has the new 1.8 zoom. And Samsung has the incredible F2-2.8!!!

  10. Yohan Pamudji

    Yohan Pamudji Mu-43 Veteran

    Jun 21, 2012
    Mississippi, USA
    A m4/3 version of the 4/3 12-60mm f/2.8-4 is needed. Something between the lightweight but mediocre 12-50mm and the heavy but excellent 12-40mm f/2.8 would be perfect.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. madogvelkor

    madogvelkor Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 22, 2013
    Even a mirrorless version of the Sigma 18-35 1.8 would be nice. A good general purpose lens, even with the 2x crop factor. Possibly better for MFT even, since at a 70mm FF equivalent it would be a decent portrait lens for us.

    I'm sure Sony, Samsung, and Fuji owners would appreciate it too.
  12. mjw

    mjw Mu-43 Regular

    Sep 23, 2013
    Seattle, WA
    Real Name:
    Isn't that lens already quite a bit larger than the 12-40/2.8? I agree that it's kind of cool and I'm intrigued by the speed booster setups involving it, but I'd really much rather see a more modest lens that is a solid step up from the kit zooms while remaining reasonably compact.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. macalterego

    macalterego Mu-43 Veteran

    Jul 10, 2012
    Lawrence, KS
    Real Name:
    Jeffrey McPheeters
    My thinking too. It's got many fine features for a kit lens, but for the slow speed zoomed in. But it might get bulky again to get to 50mm. With the 40-150, maybe they just need a 12-40 2.8-4 and lighter weight to balance well on the smaller E-M10 as well as the E-M5. I think I'd have used it more often if it had been faster even if less reach. For most travelers, a 12-40 2.8-4 and a 40-150 4-5.6 would suffice with maybe a small faster prime for night/evening events.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    The 12-35 f2.8 is notably smaller than the 12-40, has excellent IQ and is constant f2.8. Price wise, it's a little more than the $600 mark, but used it's not far off. Personally, if this sort of lens is what you need, then the 12-35 (or 12-40) is really a very good choice.
  15. Swandy

    Swandy Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 15, 2009
    The width of the lenses are almost identical. The length is just under 3" (2.8") for the Panasonic and just over (3.3") for the Olympus. Granted the weight of the Panasonic is about 25% less, but I would not consider those dimensions "notably smaller" by anyone's standards. Lighter - sure - but still quite a bit heavier than any of the standard wide-normal kit lenses.
  16. Swandy

    Swandy Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 15, 2009
    Perhaps "bulky" was the wrong word. I just found that I did not carry it around much unless I was taking a camera bag along. But you are right - compared to the 12-40 it is much smaller. So no, I am not looking for a zoom lens the size of the fisheye - just smaller/lighter than the 12-40.
  17. Reflector

    Reflector Mu-43 Veteran

    Aug 31, 2013
    They wouldn't really get much of a size shrink since the lens is already APS-C. For m43s I think it'd be comparable to a 17-55 APS-C lens in bulk and size. Currently I'd say it comes close to a 24-70 f/2.8 in bulk. Not that I mind, I'm enjoying my constant f/1.2 lens.

    Abeit I really have to wonder, why a 12-50 f/3.5-6.3. Olympus should make a f/4 or f/2.8-4 version of it. It could be 12-45 instead too, keep the weather sealing and clutch mechanism for the zoom. Add a manual focus override with a focus scale and I'd be interested if the price is reasonable*.

    *At $500 for a 12-50 f/3.5-6.3, I could just put in $139 more and get myself a refurbished 12-40 f/2.8 which does have the manual focus override.