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
    I'd love an affordable 300mm.
  3. JohnMetsn

    JohnMetsn Mu-43 Veteran

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

    DrZero Mu-43 Rookie

    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

    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.
    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.

  7. PeterB666

    PeterB666 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jan 14, 2010
    Tura Beach, Australia
    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?