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

Which Olympus Four-Thirds lenses you want to see as native m4/3?

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by With_Eyes_Unclouded, Jun 23, 2012.

  1. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    Couldn't find any similar polls (any recent ones at least), so I thought of posting this poll.

    We all agree that availability of high quality native glass is imperative in the success of the :43: system. A step at that direction would be to "convert" existing succesfull FT lenses to :43:.

    If there is a lens you believe should be included please chime in, although I don't know if and how I can add poll options.
     
  2. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    The 12-60/2.8-4.0 and 50-200/2.8-3.5 are the long and the short of it for me. There's nothing remotely comparable to them either available today, or announced for the near future. Moreover unlike the exotic SHG lenses, they are actually priced at a level that could attract amateurs to the system.

    But at this point I very much doubt we will ever see any 4x or better high quality zoom lenses for m4/3.

    DH
     
  3. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    My thoughts, and choices, exactly.

    I apologize for the Canon lens analogies but I've lived in Canon world enough to consider them somewhat "standard":

    - Panasonic will, at some point, have both the 12-35 and 35-100 (24-70 f2.8L and 70-200 f2.8L analogs) available
    - Olympus should provide something similar to the 24-105 f4.0 and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L. The first is the classic walkaround "kit" lens for FF format, and the second is a very popular "portable" zoom with great reach.

    A pair of Olympus :43: lenses like their FT brothers would be actually quite faster than Canons. Not to mention in-body stabilization proving more efficient that Canons in-lens one. Thus also making them smaller.

    I agree that those two lenses would potentially bring a horde of serious enthusiasts into the format.
     
  4. 6x6

    6x6 Mu-43 Regular

    173
    Oct 12, 2011
    The 14-54!
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. Promit

    Promit Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 6, 2011
    Baltimore, MD
    Promit Roy
    Trouble is, Oly still thinks there's no point in making (S)HG zooms for the m43 system. I'm not sure how to convince them otherwise. I fear they're waiting for that "pro" body to show up before making any moves on that front at all.
     
  6. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    The reason I didn't include the 14-54 is that I believe the 12-60 is a more versatile focal length; and with the Panasonics available, there would be no practical need for something faster. Still, I could add it to the poll, if I knew how!! Can a mod help with that?
     
  7. Biro

    Biro Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 8, 2011
    Jersey Shore
    Steve
    I voted for the 14-35 and 35-100. But I would have voted for the 14-54... especially if it would be substantially less expensive than the 12-60. I'd love a premium Oly zoom for micro four thirds but I'm no longer in the market for $1,000 glass.
     
  8. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    Poll results are starting to solidify a bit.

    I think the main question, at this point in the evolution of the :43: system, is really how much we are prepared to pay for high quality lenses.

    IMO from a price/performance standpoint, :43: lenses are very well priced in general, compared to DSLR lenses at least. If you also factor in comparative build quality, very much so.

    E.g. the Panasonic Summilux 25mm is considered a rather pricey :43: lens. In fact its IQ results and performance are better than Canikon 50mm f/1.4 lenses, which cost quite less. You'll have to get to a Canon f/1.2L, in FF format and then the cost almost triples. Olympus 45mm f/1.8 is highly comparable with Canikon 85mm f/1.8, at about the same price or lower.

    But now we start to see high quality AND high price :43: lenses emerging. Olympus 75mm f/1.8, the two new Panasonic zooms, Oly macro, etc. And we are talking here about our wishlist of glass that could realistically cost $1500+.

    Is it time for :43: to "come of age" in this department? Prices of $1500 are considered "normal" for high grade DSLR lenses, would you feel the same about an equivalent :43: lens? And what about expectations about build quality and reliability? I've seen L lenses that have gone through Hell and back, and continue working flawlesly; and this is one reason Canon pros swear by them. Can we expect similar levels from future Pana/Oly lenses?
     
  9. nueces snapper

    nueces snapper Mu-43 All-Pro

    Just me

    400mm f/4 :smile:
     
  10. Biro

    Biro Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 8, 2011
    Jersey Shore
    Steve
    I think it would be great if :43: included a pro line of bodies and lenses - from both camera makers. Just as long as there continues to be an affordable line for everyone else. And by affordable, I don't mean crap. Affordable bodies like the Panny G3, GX1 and Oly E-P3 are not crap. Affordable lenses like the Panny 20mm f/1.7 and Oly 45mm f1.8 are not crap. Even zooms like the original Panny kit 14-45mm and the 100-300mm tele are quite good. The idea is to keep the price-value-quality ratio as good as - if not better than - the DSLR competition.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. nueces snapper

    nueces snapper Mu-43 All-Pro

    Shouldn't be hard to do considering CaNikon probably markets their premium lenses at a huge mark-up. :rolleyes:
     
  12. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    Great way of putting it. I guess a misconception some people have about :43: is that of a cheaper, "backup" or "second option" system. Now that we see the system reaching maturity, I guess it must be as you say. I'd say, entry level, compact camera replacements; mid and prosumer level; pro level (however you define it) cameras, a full line. After all, the original FT, esp. from Olympus, was not much different in market positioning. And lens offerings from various manufacturers must mirror this range.

    I expect we'll see the first ~$2000 :43: camera/high end "kit" lens combo by this time next year, and probably quite earlier at that.
     
  13. Biro

    Biro Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 8, 2011
    Jersey Shore
    Steve
    I wasn't even thinking about the entry-level P&S replacement level. But we have those already. So, yes, you're right: entry-level, mid-prosumer and pro. Pretty much what the CaNikon offers now - only smaller, lighter and better value.
     
  14. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Well, I look at the $900 f/6.7 zooms that don't include hoods and I'm led to believe that they're not taking the same approach as with 4/3.

    m4/3 has a large fashion/appearance appeal, and I see them banking on that much more than their traditional strength of superior optical designs.

    The advantage for them is that instead of selling you a 12-60/2.8-4.0 for $700 (as they used to), they can sell you a 12-50/3.5-6.3 for $500 and then later when you outgrow it a 45/1.8 for $400 and a 12/2 for $800.

    DH
     
  15. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    Perhaps true, albeit a bit cynical sounding, if I may say so. :smile:

    Nevertheless, IF Olympus is really interested in getting a slice of the "pro" market, they have to take care of those needs too. Even just because of "internal" competition from Panasonic. Not to mention that, if Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and others start producing more economical native lenses, they'll have to face competition there also.

    Up to now Olympus procured only prime high end lenses. I can't imagine they'll stay there. After all, there is a finite number of prime focal lengths! :tongue:
     
  16. RichA

    RichA Mu-43 Regular

    120
    Mar 28, 2012
    I don't think the 12-60mm is that good wide open

    On the m4/3rds stuff at 12mm that is. The new 12-50mm kit lens is no optical grand prize, but I'd like it compared. Aside from that, even "small" 4/3rds lenses of HG type are huge on the m4/3rds bodies so we're are kind of getting away from one of the major attributes of the system, compactness. Be careful what you wish for...I would rather have things like the 12mm f2.0 which is reasonably fast AND the size has been kept down. This is what the 35mm 4/3rds macro lens could have been, instead of a big body with tiny, little lens elements.
     
  17. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    Size-wise, judging from the photos, I initially thought the 12-50 kit lens looks goofy on the EM-5. I have it sitting next to my office now, and it still looks kinda goofy, but in a good way, if you know what I mean. :biggrin: The combination is very portable though (obviously not pocketable, but that's only relevant with a pankace lens anyway, TBH).

    I don't believe a :43: version of the FT 12-60 would look that much bigger (or goofier), or be a lot heavier. And let's be honest about it; even a big body FF DSLR looks, feels and handles ridiculus with a long zoom lens. Big zoom lenses are specialty items, IMO. If you actually need fast glass at 600mm+ then small size, comfort and looking "alright" don't really apply.
     
  18. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    You missed one of the best lenses Olympus ever made, the 50/2 macro. The same optics in a body that focuses to 1:1 without an extension tube would be nice. A three position limit switch (full range, close range, distant range) would be a nice addition.

    Fred
     
  19. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    Thought about it; the only reason I haven't included it, was that Olympus has already announced a new macro lens, and I thought it highly improbable they'd consider another one in the foreseable future... After all, dedicated macros enjoy just a fraction of the popularity of standard zooms. :frown:
     
  20. Yohan Pamudji

    Yohan Pamudji Mu-43 Veteran

    462
    Jun 21, 2012
    Mississippi, USA
    I voted for these two as well. I think both lenses would be a huge hit. There are no high quality options for tele zooms right now so the 50-200mm is self-explanatory. Regarding the 12-60mm our choices right now in this space are either mediocre lower end lenses or an expensive higher end lens (12-35mm f/2.8). Something in between with the reach of the lower end lenses and image quality of the higher end with a middling max aperture would be fantastic for m4/3.

    Why so gloomy? We're getting f/2.8 zooms this year, so why not some good mid-range zooms soon thereafter?