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.
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.
A 50-200/2.8 would be considerably larger than the 40-150/2.8 PRO.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:
It would be really cool if OMDS pulled a page out of the old Olympus book and made a 50-200/2
- 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.
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.
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.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 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.50-200/2.8 with Sync-IS. To upgrade/replace the 40-150/2.8
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.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.
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.
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.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
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 50-200/2.8 would be considerably larger than the 40-150/2.8 PRO.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
It can depend some on the business model. For example, Panasonic hasIt seems like too many options than it would be necessary.
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 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.