Updated Olympus lens road map - 8-25mm f4, finally a pro macro, ... does it make you want to stick with Olympus?

[Kurgan]

Combine the 8-25mm f4 with the 100-400 and you have a great outdoors kit. Wide for landscapes, long for animals. And the 100-400mm can function as a macro.

 

[John King]

Add the 12-100 to that pair, and you are good to go @Kurgan .

And to the forum.

 

[Kurgan]

Add the 12-100 to that pair, and you are good to go @Kurgan .

And to the forum.

Thanks, I have been reading this form for a while, just not posting.
So much good information on here.

 

[doady]

There's already the f/1.8 8mm Olympus. It's a fish eye that is also an UWA rectilinear ...

Ha, I realized my mistake almost immediately after I posted. I've thought about the fisheye, but I don't want to rely on software corrections too much for rectilinear. 8-25mm along with 12-100mm and 100mm macro would cover all of my needs. The. fisheye or one of those upcoming telephoto zooms seem cool, but maybe 3 Pro lenses is already going way out my league.

 

[swifty]

A 25-150 or 25-200 f/4 OIS smaller than Panasonic’s 50-200 f/2.8-4 would be an extremely interesting companion to an 8-25 f/4 as a 2-lens setup.
I see the 12-100 f/4 as more of a do it all in one type of lens.

 

[RAH]

If you center the horizon in the fisheye photo distortion is minimized and you don't need to de-fish.

I agree up to a point, but as @Hypilein says, the horizon in the middle gets funky. As I mentioned in the post that is linked to, "I took a picture of a fence, so I was pretty much even to the plane of the fence. So I had a flat item going the entire width of the view." Therefore, I did exactly as you mentioned - centered the horizon. Yes, the ends are not distorted much (e.g. that lamppost on the far right is perfectly upright), as you can see in the downsized version of the actual RAW image (converted to jpg, of coures, but not defished or altered in any way):

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

But look at the bulgy middle. The defished jpg out of the camera looks like this:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

the center no longer bulges (and no finger either!!), and looks like the fence actually looks. But the ends are now blurred by the defish operation, so you take your lumps somewhere. It's just something to be aware of.

If we get a few more mp in the next generation of cameras defishing will be more attractive though.

Be careful with this kind of talk! People will yell at you that you do not need more megapixels! Also, I should have mentioned - after defishing the image (and therefore cropping off the ends), the camera upsizes the image back to 20MP. Most defishing software programs do not do this, I think.

 

[Sleepy Capybara]

8-25, 12-40, 12-45 and 12-100. Range overlap is a thing of beauty that I must resist.

 

[Dave Black]

A 25-150 or 25-200 f/4 OIS smaller than Panasonic’s 50-200 f/2.8-4 would be an extremely interesting companion to an 8-25 f/4 as a 2-lens setup.
I see the 12-100 f/4 as more of a do it all in one type of lens.

A new 40-150 is shown on the lens roadmap. It is grouped with the 8-25/4.0 and the 12-45/4 lenses. So I assume it will be a f4.0 lens and these three lenses will form a f4.0 trinity of lenses where compact size is emphasized.

 

[doady]

Do people usually try to avoid any overlap as much as possible? I've never changed lenses before so I don't even know, lol. I figure it's more important if you're prepared to carry multiple lenses all the time, but sometimes one lens is better, right?

Like, there is a 50-200mm on the map, which I assume will be f2.8, which I think would complement the 12-100mm better than f5-6.3 of 100-400mm, despite the overlap in focal lengths.

There is also a 50-230mm or something grouped with the f4 lenses so that's another possibility for someone with 12-100mm, pairing a constant f4 lens with another constant f4 or f4.5 lens.

 

[PakkyT]

Do people usually try to avoid any overlap as much as possible?

I tend to not buy redundant lenses and also do not tend to hang onto lenses I may not longer use much when I get something new. I wouldn't say I avoid ANY overlap, but two lenses with significant overlap and that do not compliment each other in some way I will own and use one or the other.

For example, I wouldn't own the 12-40 PRO + 12-45 PRO together nor the 12-45 PRO + 12-100 PRO together as I feel I would use one all the time and the other none of the time. But the flip side of that is owning, for example, the 40-150 "R" and the 40-150 PRO at the the same time would be different because the "R" is a fraction of the price, size, and weight of the other and therefore compliments the PRO lens as a "travel alternative". But easier to justify that when the "R" is only $99 usd. I don't think the same can be said for the 12-40/45 PRO lenses comparison, at least for me. Their prices are both high enough that personally I would pick one or the other and not own both as the size difference I don't feel, again for me, is significant enough if that is the compliment feature (bulk and weight) you are trying to achieve.

 

[Holoholo55]

Do people usually try to avoid any overlap as much as possible? I've never changed lenses before so I don't even know, lol. I figure it's more important if you're prepared to carry multiple lenses all the time, but sometimes one lens is better, right?

Like, there is a 50-200mm on the map, which I assume will be f2.8, which I think would complement the 12-100mm better than f5-6.3 of 100-400mm, despite the overlap in focal lengths.

There is also a 50-230mm or something grouped with the f4 lenses so that's another possibility for someone with 12-100mm, pairing a constant f4 lens with another constant f4 or f4.5 lens.

I don't view overlap as a bad thing. After all, if one has a set that exactly matches up, say 12-40 and 40-150, it means that whenever you approach that boundary, you have to decide whether to change lenses or not. If there is some overlap, you could keep on shooting even though it overlaps into the other lens' range. I think it also depends on the situation. If I'm traveling, especially with a group or on a tour, one doesn't always have time to change lenses, so a walkaround lens with a wide range is good. That's why I opted to get a 12-100, which would be my main travel lens. Also, if the weather is iffy or it's windy or dusty, you don't want to be changing lenses. If I need to switch back and forth often or don't want to change lenses, I'll have two bodies with different lenses and grab whichever one fits. Different situations, different strategies.

I have the 40-150 Pro and the MC-14 1.4x teleconverter which yields 56-210 f4 that would pair up nicely with the 12-100 f4. A bit of overlap, but a useful extension out to 210. It would substitute for the 50-200 SWD lens I recently sold to cover a very useful range. I hope Olympus makes a compact 50-200 f4 Pro because I've always found that to be a very useful range, no matter what you pair it with.

 

[ac12]

Do people usually try to avoid any overlap as much as possible?

I used to. But I changed my thinking, and now I have overlap and duplicate focal length lenses.
I built my kit like a mechanic's tool box. Each lens has a specific purpose and reason.
So when I do a shoot, I pick the best lens for the shoot.

Example the 40-150R and 40-150/2.8 are identical focal lengths.

• I carried the 40-150R on vacation simply because it was so light and about the volume of my thick socks. No way was I going to bring the 40-150/2.8 on vacation. For travel, weight and bulk are major factors.
• I use the 40-150/2.8 on the football field at night when I need the extra speed of a f/2.8 lens. I tried the 40-150R, and it was just too slow, at night. In low light, fast glass wins.

Same with the Panasonic-Lumix 12-60 and Olympus 12-40/2.8. Each lens has a purpose and strength that the other does not.
And I have the 35/1.8 for low light.

Yes, doing this costs $$$$.
I am NOT wealthy. When I was working, I saved, scrimped and sacrificed.

• Every day, put $5 for your Starbucks coffee into a jar, and in a year ($5 x 250 = $1,250), you have your new camera/lens. I drank my coffee from the office break room.
• Brown bag your lunch, and you have another camera/lens.
• Cut your beer consumption from two 6-packs a week to one, or one 6-pack for two weeks.
• Give up your vacation to Mexico for a year. This is easy to do now, cuz we can't travel, due to Covid.
• Those of you who are now working from home, how much $$$$ are you saving in just gas, vs. when driving to the office. Gas used to cost me $50+ a week x 50 weeks = $2500. Now I drive so little, that I fill the gas tank about every 5 or 6 weeks. Put that gas $$ into a jar each week.

Set your priorities.

 

[RAH]

Put that gas $$ into a jar each week.

And call it your GAS jar!! 150-400, perhaps?

 

[ac12]

And call it your GAS jar!! 150-400, perhaps?

That's an idea.
But, I reasoned that I just do not shoot long, enough to spend a ton of $$$$ on long lenses. I was tempted by the 100-400. But, for now, the 75-300 seems to be "good enough" for what little stuff I shoot long (tennis, softball and baseball).
On the other hand, I am saving my GAS money for the 8-25/4. But that depends on the final price.
I'm not an ultra-wide shooter, though it may change if I have an ultra-wide lens.

 

[RAH]

That's an idea...
On the other hand, I am saving my GAS money for the 8-25/4. But that depends on the final price.
I'm not an ultra-wide shooter, though it may change if I have an ultra-wide lens.

Yup, I just picked the most expensive splurge in m43-land I could think of. The 40-150 on the roadmap mentioned by @Dave Black above sounds really interesting too, and fits into your excellent description of the 40-150R vs 40-150Gigantis dilemma. I'd really like a relatively light-weight Pro version at that focal length (I also carry the el-cheapo on all my trips).

 

[swifty]

A new 40-150 is shown on the lens roadmap. It is grouped with the 8-25/4.0 and the 12-45/4 lenses. So I assume it will be a f4.0 lens and these three lenses will form a f4.0 trinity of lenses where compact size is emphasized.

Thanks Dave for the reminder. I don’t recall that one for some funny reason.
But I like the idea of the tele starting at 25mm since I really enjoy the normal perspective. So for me something 25-xxx would be a really great so I can have that normal perspective available whichever lens I have on.
I already have the 10-25 f/1.7 which covers me for both low light and ultrawide to normal.

 

[John King]

Thanks Dave for the reminder. I don’t recall that one for some funny reason.
But I like the idea of the tele starting at 25mm since I really enjoy the normal perspective. So for me something 25-xxx would be a really great so I can have that normal perspective available whichever lens I have on.
I already have the 10-25 f/1.7 which covers me for both low light and ultrawide to normal.

On that basis, the 12-100 is possibly ideal for you, Dave?

 

[swifty]

On that basis, the 12-100 is possibly ideal for you, Dave?

Well, I thought about it many times actually. But I think I’m just spoiled by having ultra fast and ultra wide in one in the 10-25mm. So I have to carry 2 lenses for my needs anyways.
If I got the 12-100, I’d add one fast prime to the that mix.
So, many ways of doing it but since traveling’s out of the question in the near future, I’ll just wait and see what pops up. I’m missing a tele option atm in my m43 setup.

 

[John King]

Well, I thought about it many times actually. But I think I’m just spoiled by having ultra fast and ultra wide in one in the 10-25mm. So I have to carry 2 lenses for my needs anyways.
If I got the 12-100, I’d add one fast prime to the that mix.
So, many ways of doing it but since traveling’s out of the question in the near future, I’ll just wait and see what pops up. I’m missing a tele option atm in my m43 setup.

Yes. I sometimes carry my f/1.8 25 for just that reason. My FTs f/2.8-3.5 14-54 MkII is also useful in that respect.

It's the basic reason I have 3 kits. Tiny, small and normal (E-M1 MkII + 12-100).

 

[Holoholo55]

A new 40-150 is shown on the lens roadmap. It is grouped with the 8-25/4.0 and the 12-45/4 lenses. So I assume it will be a f4.0 lens and these three lenses will form a f4.0 trinity of lenses where compact size is emphasized.

That was what Robin Wong thought as well. He saw the 12-45 f4 Pro presaging a trio of f4 compact zooms. The 8-25 would overlap the 12-45, but it'd be interesting to see what OMDS does for the telephoto zoom. I would like to see a 50-200 f4.