1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Open request to olympus: f/4 pro lenses

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by davdenic, Apr 14, 2015.

  1. davdenic

    davdenic Mu-43 Regular

    186
    Oct 14, 2014
    Switzerland
    David D.
    Sounds like a joke but if oly would produce a couple of f/4 pro lenses I will buy immediately. I mean same quality and materials of 12-40 and 40-150 pro, but half size.
    And you?
    :)
     
  2. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    I most certainly wouldn't.
     
  3. GRID

    GRID Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 22, 2011
    300mm or longer at F4, yes, shorter lenses no.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    A 300mm f4 is borderline (given a choice), a 400mm f4 is fine.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  5. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    It's quite an assumption to assume they would be half the size. The pro SLR f/4 lenses certainly are not. Are the f3.5-5.6 ones even as small as half the size?

    I would think for them to be worth making, they'd need to extend the zoom ranges. 12-70 f4 vs 12-40 f2.8 for example.
     
  6. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    well its only 1 stop ... would it really make a big difference?

    462px-Aperture_diagram.svg.

    sure my 200mm f2.8 is much bigger than my f4 ... but when dealing with wide would it make a lot of difference?

    f2.8 Pro
    c_012-040mm_f028_olympus.

    f3.5 "non Pro"
    c_012-050mm_f035-063_olympus.

    doesn't seem to be a huge difference in element sizes
     
  7. SojiOkita

    SojiOkita Mu-43 Top Veteran

    614
    Feb 23, 2014
    France
    Some size comparisons on Canon 24x36:

    Ultra wide (16-35):
    http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.425,380.20,ha,t

    Standard zooms (24-70 f/2.8 vs. 24-70 f/4 vs. 24-105 f/4):
    http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.367,380.286,380.21,ha,t

    Tele (70-200):
    http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.294,380.7,ha,t

    f/4 "pro" lenses would make sense if they were significantly smaller and cheaper than the current f/2.8 pro lenses.
    I'm not sure this is something Olympus want to / can do for now.

    I would live tinier high quality lenses, but I think f/2.8 is already a compromise for size (compared to f/2, for example).
     
  8. davdenic

    davdenic Mu-43 Regular

    186
    Oct 14, 2014
    Switzerland
    David D.
    I want to explain better:
    There is a very big difference from the pro and entry level on sharpness and built quality.
    I'd like to have something well built like the pro lens but not so big. Doesn't matter if f/4 constant or 3.5-4.5.
    Just solid and sharp. I could also appreciate a 4-5.6 like the entry level lens but again solid and sharp.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
  9. MassimoFoti

    MassimoFoti Mu-43 Regular

    127
    Mar 27, 2014
    Lugano (Switzerland)
    Yes, there is a significant gap. It's just a matter of time, somebody will try and fill it. Who and when remains to be seen.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    The 12-50 could have been this lens. But then it turned out to be mediocre optically along with slow aperture. Nice build, though.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    I'd rather have a middle tier semi-pro variable aperture range on the wide to medium telephotos, perhaps something like an 12-60/2.8-4
    If Olympus or Panasonic are not going to do it, I'd like to see Tamron or Sigma take up the mantle.
     
  12. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    If Olympus won't update their 12-60, maybe Sigma will give us a version of their 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro (OS)* HSM | C (though starting at somewhere between 10mm & 14mm)
     
  13. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Problem is that those companies like to cover multiple mounts to cover R+D for specialized lenses. So they would want it to be for Sony and Fuji, too. And then you can't make it 12mm. It's getting complicated to design multi mount lenses these days with the varying size sensor and mount depth.

    Primes seem like a safer bet for them on the wide end.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Nov 7, 2010
    I've given up on the idea of a Tamron 17-50/2.8 non VC (like I used in Canon-land) for m4/3s. Would be nice though.

    I don't care in the least about "pro" designation. Just want high value with regard to IQ per dollar. :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    I've been saying this for a while. A sharper, albeit slower, weather-sealed lens with a nice wide range that's smaller, lighter, and cheaper than the f2.8 lenses. Can be variable aperture (f2.8-4, f3.5-4.5) as well.

    The Panasonic 14-42mm II is supposed to be a very good performer, but the focal range is pretty uninteresting to me. If I'm using a slow zoom lens that starts at 14mm, I'll use a 14-140mm.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  16. b_rubenstein

    b_rubenstein Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 20, 2012
    Melbourne, FL
    If one were able to put together a business case (using numbers with more veracity than those pulled out of their belly button), showing that the company would actually make money by introducing a new lens, along with a request, maybe they would get a new lens. Olympus probably knows what it costs to develop a lens and the manufacturing start up costs involved. Probably no one here has the slightest idea what those costs are, or how long it would take to amortize those cost and actually make a profit.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Nov 7, 2010
    I think most of us are just talking about what we'd like; not suggesting it makes fiscal sense for O or P. Regardless, I don't think sending a veracious business case and a request for a lens will get you said lens. Funny to imagine though.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  18. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    there is?
     
  19. Lcrunyon

    Lcrunyon Mu-43 Top Veteran

    758
    Jun 4, 2014
    Maryland
    Loren
    The reason the Pro lenses are the speed they are is to afford maximum performance within a size that is still reasonable. We all know M4/3 can be noisier, and produce less background blur, than larger formats. Regardless of what one may think about those particular issues, faster apertures are one way to address those concerns and woo discerning amateurs and actual pros to the system. I'm not a professional and I don't pretend to speak for them, but I would be willing to posit that the majority of pros care more about these issues than they do about portability. They have to as their livelihood depends on it, whereas weight and bulk are issues they can just learn to accept as necessary evils of the job.

    I also think there are plenty of sharp, non-pro lenses, especially (but not only) among the primes, so that really only leaves weather sealing. Is that one difference enough to make a new lens?
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  20. dornblaser

    dornblaser Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 13, 2012
    Chicago-area
    David Dornblaser
    I would not be interested in a "pro" f/4 lens. Although, I can't speak to the long end of the spectrum: 300 - 400mm.