Poll: Fixed Long Focal mu43 Lens? If yes ?mm/f?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by noelh, Jun 1, 2011.

  1. Maybe I'm of the fringe. Would like to have the option to purchase a mu43 with ois at 200mm or 300mm. At least f4 preferable f2.8 relatively compact.
     
  2. Luke

    Luke Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jul 30, 2010
    Milwaukee, WI
    Luke
    I'd love an affordable 300mm.
     
  3. JohnMetsn

    JohnMetsn Mu-43 Veteran

    35mm f1.4 pancake :smile:
     
  4. DrZero

    DrZero Mu-43 Rookie

    13
    May 20, 2011
    My all-time favorite focal lengths are in the 85mm to 105mm range for 35mm film cameras. AKA portrait lenses. My all time favorite lens is probably the Zeiss 100mm/f 2.0 for the Contax/Yashika mount.

    So, to duplicate this in the mu43 format you would need (as I understand it) something like a 50mm/f 1.0.

    Voightlander has released a 25mm/f 0.95 in native mu43 format, so perhaps they will step up and do something in the short tele range that is super fast. I believe the 25mm is selling quite well.

    As a workaround I'm thinking of getting either the C/Y mount or OM mount adapater for the mu43. The OM 50/1.4 would probably do pretty much what I'm hoping.

    All things equal though, I'd like to have the autofocus capability and other benefits of a native lens.
     
  5. Streetshooter

    Streetshooter Administrator Emeritus Subscribing Member

    Dec 15, 2009
    Phila, Pa USA
    John speaks for me also.
    Anything that converts to 35mm or so.
     
  6. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Gordon
    I'd love anything longer. I like to work in the 50-200 range in 35mm. So a native 50mm 1.2, 75mm 1.2 and 100mm f2. Would suit me perfectly. I can already do the first two with MF (voigtlanders with mto m43 adaptors) but I'd love an AF version.

    And the 35-100f2 that works on m4/3 would be incredible. Olympus won't do it though, because they know that would be the end of full 4/3.

    Gordon
     
  7. PeterB666

    PeterB666 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    780
    Jan 14, 2010
    Tura Beach, Australia
    Peter
    A 300mm f/2.8 would be nice even though it would be a large lens and quite heavy (the aperture opening would have to be almost 110mm). Keep it simple, forget OS, such a lens would be difficult to get successuful shots hand-held. Without OS, you will get a more compact and lighter lens with fewer optical elements. Olympus cameras have in-body OS anyway.

    I would like to see a 14-35mm f/2 zoom as a walkabout lens and a 35-100mm f/2 zoom as a portrait lens. Add to that a 12mm f/2 and I would be set (to complement my 9-18mm Olympus zoom, 20mm f/1.7 Panasonic and 25mm f/0.95 Voigtlander).
     
  8. Going through some older photos recently it occurred to me that I never felt limited by my f2.8 or f4 Canon zooms up to 200mm, and more so than any other prime lens, these are the type of m4/3 lenses I want to see next.
     
  9. Cost and size of a 300mm @ 2.8 makes it just a dream lens to own. Realistically if Pany would come out with f/4 or 5.6 @ 300mm sized (~75-85mm x ?mm, ~500gm) & priced similar to the 100-300mm I would be happy. OIS would not be necessary.

    Relatively happy with the 45-200mm. Noticed most the images I take with this lens is at 200mm. The other lens I would like would be a f3.5 or 4.0 200mm with OIS. Would be will to lug around another ~75mm x ?mm, ~400gm lens.

    Wondering if a fixed focal lens can be designed like the Oly 9-18mm. Compact when not in use & expanding to functional length when in use?