New LENSES coming! - [Olympus Lens Roadmap 2021!]

saladin

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 29, 2015
Messages
2,290
Location
Melbourne
Real Name
jason
Well, depending on how small they've actually managed to to make it, the 20mm may finally answer my desire for a small, weather sealed prime to match the Em5iii . Though I suspect a 1.8 is more the aperture they'd have needed for really compact.
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
3,589
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
They look to me like digital mockups. There's no branding on the top side, etc. My guess is the relative size is correct and they used the "standard shell" of their F/4 pro lenses. We should bang the "MF Clutch" pot loudly all around the forums, as I agree with you 100%. That clutch would be great.

I just thought of something.
If it is a rough digital mockup, primarily for size, it could leave a lot of non-relevant details off. Such as a clutch focus ring, etc.
Even if it is internal or extending zoom. Though I still think it will be an extending zoom.
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
3,589
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
What's interesting is there's still 2 M. Zuiko Pro telephoto zooms on their roadmap to come.

View attachment 906962

Those two lenses are really curious, because they overlap so much.
Because they overlap so much, I think they are very different lenses.

I think the pair will be:
  • 50-200/2.8 with Sync-IS. To upgrade/replace the 40-150/2.8
  • 50-250/4 with Sync-IS. Longer reach than the 40-150/4, and with Sync-IS.
It would be really cool if OMDS pulled a page out of the old Olympus book and made a 50-200/2 :biggrin:
But the lens will be HUGE. The filter would have to be larger than 100mm.​
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
1,445
Location
Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
Those two lenses are really curious, because they overlap so much.
Because they overlap so much, I think they are very different lenses.

I think the pair will be:
  • 50-200/2.8 with Sync-IS. To upgrade/replace the 40-150/2.8
  • 50-250/4 with Sync-IS. Longer reach than the 40-150/4, and with Sync-IS.
It would be really cool if OMDS pulled a page out of the old Olympus book and made a 50-200/2 :biggrin:
But the lens will be HUGE. The filter would have to be larger than 100mm.​
A 50-200/2.8 would be considerably larger than the 40-150/2.8 PRO.
 
Last edited:

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
3,589
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
A 50-200/2.8 would be considerably larger than the 40 150/2.8.

And HEAVIER

And that would expose a gap.
If it replaced the 40-150/2.8, then there would not be a lighter f/2.8 lens to compete with the Panasonic 35-100/2.8. As it is, the 40-150/2.8 really can't compete for size/lightness with the P 35-100/2.8.
For light it would be the 40-150/4, but that is a stop slower than the P 35-100/2.8. And if you need the lens speed, for low light, f/2.8 wins.
 
Last edited:

JonSnih

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
314
Location
CZE
If it is a rough digital mockup, primarily for size, it could leave a lot of non-relevant details off. Such as a clutch focus ring, etc.
The O17mm F1.8 is only 38 mm long and it features a MF clutch. It would be odd to leave it on a PRO product/prime.
50-200/2.8 with Sync-IS. To upgrade/replace the 40-150/2.8
The 40-150mm F2.8 zoom is very popular and very likely R&D costs have been already covered. This is a profitable item which has to stay in Zuiko/OM lens catalogue to keep the business going.
If it replaced the 40-150/2.8, then there would not be a lighter f/2.8 lens to compete with the Panasonic 35-100/2.8. As it is, the 40-150/2.8 really can't compete for size/lightness with the P 35-100/2.8.
Maybe there will never be a direct competitor to the PL35-100mm F2.8. Oly has been reluctant to release any zoom bellow F2.8 so far. That is why they came with the idea of F1.2 primes. On the other hand I would like to see something like a 25-100mm F2.5.
 

doady

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
601
Location
Canada
50-200mm F2.8 IS also would not complement the 12-40mm F2.8 well compared to the 40-150 F2.8, with the gap in focal lengths, and probably much bigger and more expensive too. Likewise, 50-250mm F4 IS won't replace the 40-150mm F4.

I'm probably the only person in the world who got into Micro Four Thirds without any intention to get a telephoto lens, but after using 12-100mm for almost two years, I am starting to enjoy telephoto more and more. If I ever decide to get a telephoto lens, 50-250mm F4 would be appealing.
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
3,589
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
50-200mm F2.8 IS also would not complement the 12-40mm F2.8 well compared to the 40-150 F2.8, with the gap in focal lengths, and probably much bigger and more expensive too. Likewise, 50-250mm F4 IS won't replace the 40-150mm F4.

I'm probably the only person in the world who got into Micro Four Thirds without any intention to get a telephoto lens, but after using 12-100mm for almost two years, I am starting to enjoy telephoto more and more. If I ever decide to get a telephoto lens, 50-250mm F4 would be appealing.

I had thought that the 40-150 would be a Sync-IS version of the 40-150/2.8.
But now that the 40-150 is an f/4 lens, the only spot left is the 50-200.
With the announced 40-150/4, a 50-200/4 does not make sense.
Yes, a 50-200/2.8 Sync-IS, would be bigger, heavier and more expensive than the 40-150/2.8. And the 40-150/2.8 is not exactly a light lens.

I'm thinking the 40-150/4 does not have IS, so it's big brother would be a 50-250/4 with Sync-IS.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,579
Location
Massachusetts, USA
I had thought that the 40-150 would be a Sync-IS version of the 40-150/2.8.
But now that the 40-150 is an f/4 lens
The 12-100 PRO is sync IS and is f4 so there is nothing inherent to f4 that would prevent a lens not having Sync IS. So a 50-200/250 f4 could indeed be a Sync IS lens as well as a f2.8 version of either.

It does seem odd to have basically three new PRO level zooms all of roughly the same focal length according to the roadmap. I mean releasing a 50-200 or 75-250 or something like that is a little different than the just announced 40-150 F4 PRO, but TWO more lenses that are in nearly the same as each other? What can it be that they have up their sleeve to make each of these three new lenses stand out from one another rather than just confusing customers with very subtle difference?
 

doady

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
601
Location
Canada
50-200mm F2.8 and 50-250mm F4 will have IS, according to the recent OM survey, while the 40-150mm F4 will not have IS, according to the recent road map. These must be "big brother" options, as ac12 suggests.

Small 40-150mm F4 vs. big 40-150mm F2.8.
Small 40-150mm F4 vs. big 50-250mm F4 IS.
Big 40-150mm F2.8 vs. even bigger 50-200mm F2.8 IS.
Big 50-250mm F4 IS vs. even bigger 50-200mm F2.8 IS.

People would be able to prioritize IS or F2.8 or both, depending on how much they are willing to carry (and pay). A choice for everyone.
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2019
Messages
288
Been reading with high interest this thread -- it definitely looks like there's some good stuff happening.

For the telephoto, I'm basically with what I think is the consensus -- all depends on the details. I have the 12-40mm and 40-150mm f/2.8 Pros (the latter with the MC-20), as well as 10mm, 17mm, 45mm primes and the el cheapola 40-150mm 4-5.6.

Lately, the 40-150mm f/2.8 "beast" has stayed at home. Awesome lens, but with the required tripod it is very heavy and bulky. Flying in Europe with just a carry on is very convenient, and that's hard to do with the "heavy kit" - plus reach - 150mm is OK, but I'd like to reach out a little more. With the MC-20 I already lose two stops, and 5.6 is a little soft - I generally shoot 8.

The el cheapola is OK. To be honest, I frequently miss the beast. I like birding, but it's a bit too slow in autofocus. It's OK for stationary objects, and of course super small, so there's little cost in bringing it. So this new f/4 is attractive. Doesn't help me with reach, but f/4 and weather sealing seems like it'd be a significant upgrade.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
4,266
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
A 50-200/2.8 would be considerably larger than the 40-150/2.8 PRO.
That's true. Here's an interesting comparison. 40-150 f2.8 Pro vs. PL 50-200 f2.8-4. Panasonic can make a 50-200 lens that's smaller and lighter than the 40-150 Pro. I'm sure Olympus could make a 50-200 f4 that's smaller than the 40-150 Pro. Maybe smaller than the PL. That's what I'd want to see.

Screen Shot 2021-09-12 at 10.48.38 PM.png
 
Last edited:

JonSnih

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
314
Location
CZE
Small 40-150mm F4 vs. big 40-150mm F2.8.
Small 40-150mm F4 vs. big 50-250mm F4 IS.
Big 40-150mm F2.8 vs. even bigger 50-200mm F2.8 IS.
Big 50-250mm F4 IS vs. even bigger 50-200mm F2.8 IS.

People would be able to prioritize IS or F2.8 or both, depending on how much they are willing to carry (and pay). A choice for everyone.

There will be 4 PRO mid-tele zooms one day. 3 of them will be top tier glass. It seems like too many options than it would be neccessary. I would alter your F stop suggestions. I still think that a 50-200mm will be an F3.2 with IS, a bold version of the old Zuiko 50-200mm F2.8-3.5. That would be different enough from the 50-250mm F4 IS/ or a 70-250mm F3.5 IS which will be the only heavy duty (77mm filter).

That's true. Here's an interesting comparison. 40-150 f2.8 Pro vs. PL 50-200 f2.8-4. Panasonic can make a 50-200 lens that's smaller and lighter than the 40-150 Pro. I'm sure Olympus could make a 50-200 f4 that's smaller than the 40-150 Pro. Maybe smaller than the PL. That's what I'd want to see.
A PL50-200 is a Sigma design. Only a 40-150mm F4 will be small. Everything else will be "generous" in size. A presence of a 40-150mm F4 negates a possible 50-200mm F4.
 
Last edited:

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,579
Location
Massachusetts, USA
I find it interesting that everyone just assumes all the new PRO lenses must feature constant aperture through the range, but why not something like the old 4/3rds 50-200 with variable aperture. Just make that lens for m43. This allows them to offer something that is a sort of in-between the constant f2.8 and f4 lenses for aperture as well as longer on the zoom end without having it require a 72mm or larger filter thread.
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2019
Messages
288
I find it interesting that everyone just assumes all the new PRO lenses must feature constant aperture through the range, but why not something like the old 4/3rds 50-200 with variable aperture. Just make that lens for m43. This allows them to offer something that is a sort of in-between the constant f2.8 and f4 lenses for aperture as well as longer on the zoom end without having it require a 72mm or larger filter thread.
Yeah, that's a good point. At least with a 40-150mm it's just a visual comparing it to what I call the el cheapola. f/4 to f/5.6 on the far end. To me, the same apertures in a weather sealed lens would be a non-starter.

Now bringing it out to 300mm -- there's room there, since 300mm equivalency with my MC-20 is effectively a drop to f/8. A 40-250 f/4-5.6 would be tempting to me at least...
 

archaeopteryx

Gambian sidling bush
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
1,697
It seems like too many options than it would be necessary.
It can depend some on the business model. For example, Panasonic has
  • 45-150 f/4-5.6: smallest, lightest
  • 45-175 f/4-5.6: power, internal zoom
  • 45-200 f/4-5.6: default
  • 50-200 f/2.8-4: higher end
My personal interpretation of what Panasonic's doing is the 45-150 and 45-175 are legacy lenses they'll keep selling because there's stock and their R&D is fully amortized. There's more emphasis on the 45-200 II and 50-200, those two lenses being a typical high/low telezoom offering.

OMD could be thinking to do something similar by putting the 40-150 R and 40-150 2.8 into legacy. Updating both of those lenses into Sync IS and wider focal length ranges would make sense, both with respect to Panasonic and lineup technology updating. There's also other companies moving towards dual IS offerings.
 

DeeJayK

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
3,926
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Real Name
Keith
I find it interesting that everyone just assumes all the new PRO lenses must feature constant aperture through the range, but why not something like the old 4/3rds 50-200 with variable aperture. Just make that lens for m43. This allows them to offer something that is a sort of in-between the constant f2.8 and f4 lenses for aperture as well as longer on the zoom end without having it require a 72mm or larger filter thread.
I think that the market has concluded (incorrectly, IMO) that such designs are unsuitable for video applications. And so in an increasingly competitive environment where manufacturers cannot afford to bypass any potential segment they are hesitant to produce such lenses, particularly at the "professional" end of the spectrum.

I would love to be proven wrong in this speculation, as I'd like to see more competitors in this segment, but I fear that a constant maximum aperture is seen as a badge of a "quality" lens.

- K
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom