Olympus lens roadmap updated 2019-11-27

n3eg

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
162
Location
Somewhere west of where you are
12-45 f/4 when there's already a 12-40 f/2.8 just over $500 used? My opinion: Since they promised 3 lenses a year, it's now lenses for lenses' sake. Nothing new and affordable forthcoming.
 

sgt08

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 12, 2011
Messages
1,197
Location
Hong Kong
Real Name
Scott
12-45 f/4 when there's already a 12-40 f/2.8 just over $500 used?
Not to pick on you, just as another perspective - I think it could be a really compelling alternative if they can keep the same level of quality from the f/2.8 zoom in a smaller package. There's value in being lightweight. I haven't tried it myself but lots of people report that the 12-40/2.8 feels unwieldy to them on smaller bodies (other people feel it's fine).

Personally, I already have great primes for most of this range so for a standard zoom to complement them I want something that balances weight and edge sharpness for landscapes/hiking/travel. I was close to getting the 12-40/2.8 but decided it's kind of overkill regardless of the price - great IQ but I don't need the f/2.8 speed and associated weight. For now I'm sticking with my plain-jane Lumix 12-60, but could certainly see upgrading to the Oly f/4 pro.
 

saladin

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
May 29, 2015
Messages
1,715
Location
Melbourne
Real Name
jason
For goodness sake, Oly! Smallish pro zooms are fine and all, but how about just weather-sealing the 17/25/45 1.8's !!? Three generations of Em5's and we still don't have an equivalent to the 'fujicrons' to suit the small weatherproof bodies? The ruggedness and size of the 5 has always been a key promotion, yet a decade later there's no matching primes. Bizarre. (Rant over) .

The 12-45 will need to be very compact to justify the f/4 limitations (for me). And it'll probably need good close focus distance for versatility. It'd then be a very good ( mainly outdoor ) travel lens with the 5 series.
 

JonSnih

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
154
Location
CZE
For goodness sake, Oly! Smallish pro zooms are fine and all, but how about just weather-sealing the 17/25/45 1.8's !!? Three generations of Em5's and we still don't have an equivalent to the 'fujicrons' to suit the small weatherproof bodies? The ruggedness and size of the 5 has always been a key promotion, yet a decade later there's no matching primes. Bizarre. (Rant over) .
We have to wait few more years. As we had to wait for a proper 12-50mm replacement. I hope that they will redesign the 17mm f1.8 lens, it is the weakest one in the premium line-up.

The 12-45 will need to be very compact to justify the f/4 limitations (for me). And it'll probably need good close focus distance for versatility. It'd then be a very good ( mainly outdoor ) travel lens with the 5 series.
The original 12-50mm f3.5-6.3 was quite long (8,3 cm). I would be happy even with 60 mm long lens, that would fit a small bag nicely, unlike the 12-40mm f2.8 I have now, because of smaller diameter (only a 52mm filter thread?) High IQ would justify slightly bigger size - for me. F4 is fine for general shooting. And when the light is lousy I opt for a f1.8 prime.
 

Eirik

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
104
Location
Oslo, Norway
Real Name
Eirik
I also think that the 12-45/4 Pro makes sense, especially if it is small and compact with excellent image quality, in therms of size I hope they manage to keep it about the same size or a tiny bit smaller than the 12-50. However, I would most likely not buy it on it's own, but it would be very nice in a kit with a new camera body, or even sold in kit with a potential Pro f4 super wide zoom, and Pro f4 telephoto zoom.

As for weather sealing for the 12/17/25/45 f1.8 primes, I think those are coming, just look at the lens roadmap, they may just take the current optical formulas for those and just give them the "Pro" treatment.
 

davidzvi

Super Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
3,769
Location
Outside Boston MA
Real Name
David
First, yes a nice set of WR f/1.8 primes would be great. But I'll take the 12-45 and something in 50/70-200/250 range first.

Although a nice set of WR primes would also be a good reason for them to produce a WR rangefinder. That would REALLY be nice. :thumbsup:
 

Snapshooter

Mu-43 Rookie
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
17
12-45 f/4 when there's already a 12-40 f/2.8 just over $500 used? My opinion: Since they promised 3 lenses a year, it's now lenses for lenses' sake. Nothing new and affordable forthcoming.
I think giving up some speed of the 12-40 f/2.8 for a smaller and lighter package of the 12-45 f/4 is a great idea and plays to the strengths of M43, if other aspects of the lens quality (color, contrast, sharpness, handling of fringe, etc.) are retained. These two lenses may even be complimentary to each other, rather than duplicative.
 

hazwing

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 25, 2012
Messages
2,136
Location
Australia
I'd be interested in a 12-45 f4 if it is significantly smaller than the 12-40 f2.8 . The f2.8 does feel a bit unwieldy on the smaller bodies, and most of the times I'm using it at f4+ as a general outdoor zoom. If I need a faster lens for low light, most of the time I'll go to my primes f1.7/f1.8 primes as 2.8 usually isn't fast enough for low light. The problem is going to be the value proposition, the 12-40 f2.8 has devalued quite a lot on the second hand market... which makes it a cost to "upgrade" 12-45 f4
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
2,006
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
I think giving up some speed of the 12-40 f/2.8 for a smaller and lighter package of the 12-45 f/4 is a great idea and plays to the strengths of M43, if other aspects of the lens quality (color, contrast, sharpness, handling of fringe, etc.) are retained. These two lenses may even be complimentary to each other, rather than duplicative.
A basic problem is that the PRO series lenses are made HEAVY. Maybe that is part marketing, to make it look expensive. But I would think that with some good materials engineering, they can lighten the lens a bit. The obvious comparison is the Panasonic 12-35/2.8 at 20% lighter than the Olympus 12-40/2.8.
 

Growltiger

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
1,959
Location
UK
I would like the 12-45 Pro as an upgrade to the Panasonic 12-32 I have on my Pen-F. This is assuming it is clearly a better lens, and the tiny 12-32 is a good lens.

But it all depends on the exact size. It has to fit in the traditional leather camera case I use on that camera. With the 12-32 fitted there is quite a bit of spare space both in diameter and the length, but the 12-40 does not fit, the diameter just fits but it is far too long.

I just measured roughly with a ruler. The 12-32 is only 25mm long, the 12-40 is about 85mm, and it needs to be about 40mm shorter. So I would need the 12-45 to be no longer than about 45mm long. To check this I tried with the 9-18, which is about 48mm long, and that just fits, but not easily, and not at all with the lens cap on. So the test for me on buying the 12-45 is whether it is less than 45mm long.
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
2,006
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
Not to pick on you, just as another perspective - I think it could be a really compelling alternative if they can keep the same level of quality from the f/2.8 zoom in a smaller package. There's value in being lightweight. I haven't tried it myself but lots of people report that the 12-40/2.8 feels unwieldy to them on smaller bodies (other people feel it's fine).
I just tried the 12-40/2.8 on my EM10, and it works just fine.
To me, the reason is, I have to work the zoom with my left hand palm forward under the lens, rather than palm back under the body.
This is because the zoom ring requires enough force to turn, that I have to use my arm and wrist to turn. vs. just my fingers. And that is my issue with the Olympus pro lenses, the zoom ring is TOO STIFF.​
When I hold the lens in that manner, my hands do not feel cramped.

Having said that, I think there is a market for a smaller lighter pro quality lens.
I will use my P-Lumix 12-60 rather than the Olympus 12-40/2.8, when I want a smaller/lighter kit to carry. And the P-Lumix 12-60 is often on my EM10.
But they have to design for light, and not use so much metal that it is HEAVY, like the 12-40/2.8.
Two of the value propositions of the FF f/4 zooms, is a size and weight reduction vs the f/2.8 zooms.
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2019
Messages
386
Location
Tasmania
@ac12 And that is my issue with the Olympus pro lenses, the zoom ring is TOO STIFF.
Interesting comment as my 40-150 2.8 is so silky and smooth and a delight.
Compared to the Panasonic 100-400 they are miles apart.
The latter is extremely stiff and not easy to use.
That really came home today when I tried my 40-150 on my new EM1 2, then changed to the Panasonic.
I'm looking forward to the Olympus 100-400 with interest.
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
2,006
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
@ac12 And that is my issue with the Olympus pro lenses, the zoom ring is TOO STIFF.
Interesting comment as my 40-150 2.8 is so silky and smooth and a delight.
Compared to the Panasonic 100-400 they are miles apart.
The latter is extremely stiff and not easy to use.
That really came home today when I tried my 40-150 on my new EM1 2, then changed to the Panasonic.
I'm looking forward to the Olympus 100-400 with interest.
hmmm maybe the internal zoom of the 40-150/2.8 makes a difference. The 12-40/2.8 and 12-100/4 are extending zooms.
My point of reference is the Nikon 70-200/4, which I can and do zoom with my fingers. It is an internal zoom.
But the P-Lumix 12-60 is an easy finger light zoom, and it is an extending zoom.

When I shoot sports, I am constantly turning the zoom ring. Two sequential field sports (football/soccer/lacrosse) games, is 4-5 hours of shooting. And a quad basketball game is 5-6 hours. So what seems fine for 5 minutes can be quite tiring after 2 hours, with another 2+ hours to go.

The new Olympus 100-400 sounds tempting.
The big question is the price.
I sure hope the zoom ring is smoother than the 75-300. The 75-300 has a plastic on plastic feel, where it feels like it is sometimes sticking.
 

Dogbert62

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Sep 24, 2014
Messages
39
Location
Austin, TX
Real Name
Patrick
I was watching Robin Wong’s video on the 12-45mm. He thinks a trinity of small and light f/4 lenses are on the horizon.. so.. I am hoping the undefined wide angle will be a ultra light f/4 replacement for the 9-18mm with weather sealing...
 

davidzvi

Super Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
3,769
Location
Outside Boston MA
Real Name
David
I was watching Robin Wong’s video on the 12-45mm. He thinks a trinity of small and light f/4 lenses are on the horizon.. so.. I am hoping the undefined wide angle will be a ultra light f/4 replacement for the 9-18mm with weather sealing...
Would be nice, even better if it's a little longer.

The only issue I see with the map and the implied f/4 trinity is the telephoto will be too shot for my needs/wants.
 

Dogbert62

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Sep 24, 2014
Messages
39
Location
Austin, TX
Real Name
Patrick
In Robin’s video, he guessed it to be an 8-18mm f/4... he updated his guess to be a 8-25mm f/4 in the comment section.. I’d be stoked either way...

Dogbert62
 
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
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom