Just read this info on FM

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by tdekany, Nov 20, 2012.

  1. tdekany

    tdekany Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 8, 2011
    Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 - FM Forums

  2. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, USA
    An Oly 40-150mm 2.8 would be a dream lens for me on M43! I'd definitely pay a premium for that.
  3. hkpzee

    hkpzee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 5, 2011
    Hong Kong
    An Oly 40-150/2.8 would be nice, but until they confirm the following questions, I'd stick with the 35-100/2.8, which you can enjoy now, rather than waiting till some time next year:
    - is it weather-sealed?
    - how big is it?
    - is it internal zooming and focusing like the 35-100?
    - are the optical qualities better than the 35-100?
    - how much does it cost?

    IMHO, Panasonic has done pretty well with the 35-100, setting the bar pretty high. If Olympus can top it (which I am really hoping, especially in terms of optical qualities), it would be one incredible zoom lens!
  4. Promit

    Promit Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 6, 2011
    Baltimore, MD
    Promit Roy
    Personally I am hoping it's actually 2.8-4.0 and compact, rather than constant and monstrous.
  5. hkpzee

    hkpzee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 5, 2011
    Hong Kong
    While we are at it, I actually would've preferred a m4/3 version of the Zuiko 50-200/2.8-3.5 SWD. Just half the size of the 4/3 version would've been great! :biggrin:
  6. cookme

    cookme Mu-43 Regular

    May 25, 2012

    Yeah... a 40-150 f/2.8 will be something to lust for, if its quality is in the ballpark as the two recent panny lenses. Weather seal should be a standard (I wish :tongue:) and internal zoom is a huge plus..
  7. toshiro

    toshiro Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 3, 2012
    a 14-40 f2.8 makes perfect sense, Olympus can't relese a 12-40 f2.8 as it would kill 12 f2 sales

    BTW, I find a 300 f4 pretty useless unless used for birding and even for birding I find the 75-300 more suitable as it has great IQ even at 250mm and is far more flexible
  8. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    I don't think the little buddy is telling the truth. Can't see how a 300mm f/4 could be that short.
  9. kinlau

    kinlau Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 29, 2012
    They didn't say if the 75-300 was extended to the 300mm length :)