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.There's already the f/1.8 8mm Olympus. It's a fish eye that is also an UWA rectilinear ...
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):If you center the horizon in the fisheye photo distortion is minimized and you don't need to de-fish.
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.If we get a few more mp in the next generation of cameras defishing will be more attractive though.
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.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.
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.Do people usually try to avoid any overlap as much as possible?
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.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 used to. But I changed my thinking, and now I have overlap and duplicate focal length lenses.Do people usually try to avoid any overlap as much as possible?
That's an idea.And call it your GAS jar!! 150-400, perhaps?
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).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.
Thanks Dave for the reminder. I don’t recall that one for some funny reason.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.
On that basis, the 12-100 is possibly ideal for you, Dave?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.
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.On that basis, the 12-100 is possibly ideal for you, Dave?
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.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.
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.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.