For some of u who have a few prime lenses such as 14, 25, 45, would u still buy 12-35/f2.8 if it's usd 1000?
I will not buy the standard zoom, mainly because I never use them. I have owned a ton of standard zooms over the years, and I always end up not using them or selling them. I have now finally learned my lesson. I use the 7-14, Oly 17, Leica 25, Oly 45 for my mid range stuff. I absolutely will sell my Oly 40-150 (and likely my Minolta 135/2.8 and Nikon 105/2.5) if the 35-100 f/2.8 is under $1100. That range is really useful to have a zoom, IMO, and I feel that a fast-ish lens in that range is the only real weakness of m4/3 at the moment. (would be great to have a 150 f/2 or f/2.5 for a decent price too.)
Yes. I typically shoot primes for fun and zooms for profit. In a PJ/event situation, having the 12-35 on the first body and the 35-100 on the second would be a good setup.
I'm with Jman, in that I always never end up using the standard zoom for the shooting I want to do. But I'm also with Mr. Flores, in that I've been trying to shoot some pictures for my kids' school, and am getting frustrated with primes. As mostly a prime shooter, I am debating the new lenses. If they have an OIS switch on body, and no rocker zoom switch, I am even more interested. I would like a LOT less badging, though, than the very tacky PZ 14-42 and 45-175.
Btw I just bought a 45-175x n will not be buying 35-100/2.8 Up next I'm comtemplating between 20/1.7 and / or 12-35/2.8. Quite a headache given my limited resource.
I am much more interested in wide converter (GWC1) for 14mm prime making it 11mm As a proud owner of primes I don't want to waste unique moments by shooting it with zoom lens. Furthermore I don't believe that any X zoom will be comparable to primes in terms of image quality.
No. I don't like primes, but when I used primes it's because I need the speed, and f/2.8 is a lot slower than f/1.8 or f/1.4. DH
I generally don't like zooms, but that's because they generally aren't fast enough and/or are too big. This one is nicely wide and fast enough for most shooting (its not like I couldn't still switch to a prime for real low light). If its priced reasonably and not too big, I might even buy one. But my guess is that even with a small-ish m43 sensor, a quality lens with this range at f2.8 isn't gonna be small. And if it isn't small, I don't see keeping it on my camera as a day to day walk-around. In which case I wouldn't buy it. So, probably not, unless they really surprise me. -Ray
I've actually shared a lot of my thoughts on this matter in an off-topic thread about Samsung and Olympus, lol. On the one side, I do use fast zooms like these and have always wanted some for this system. The Zuiko 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 was one of my favorite lenses as the best compact standard fast zoom available for the longest time... in fact, since 2003 I haven't seen such a compact yet sharp design in the DSLR world. These new bright X zooms will FINALLY offer a replacement with real native CDAF capabilities... which are especially fast now with the new m4/3 bodies. So yes, these are lenses I would buy... in particular the 35-100mm f/2.8. However... I'm not as enthused over them anymore due to one thing - timing. At the moment, we are SO close to seeing a completion of the fast primes. I've been wanting a fast standard zoom since our prime selection only consisted of 17-25mm lenses, and one 45mm macro. Now we have fast primes ranging from 12mm to 45mm, which totally covers the "standard" zoom range. I'd like more than anything to see us expand past that standard range and start developing fast telephotos, especially since that could now happen with the addition of only about two lenses (ie, a 150mm and a 300mm). So now I see two bright zooms come out and I can't help but think, "what if those were the two telephoto primes we need to complete that lineup instead?". At the same time though, somebody had posted a link where Olympus had said something about having enough zooms and needing more single focal length lenses. If that is true, then that means we do have one company looking at more fast primes (assumably telephoto, as who would think we need more standard primes, lol?) while the other is introducing bright zooms. So we should be good in both camps soon enough! Depending on how small the 35-100mm f/2.8 is, it may actually be able to replace both the 50mm f/1.4 and 135mm f/2.8 in my "compact" carry bag... and I'll have AF back again. Very nice possibility... This could actually become a very useful commercial lens. I'm thinking fashion, but I'm sure a lot here are thinking "weddings".
To answer the original question: $1000 and f2.8 would bring with it very high expectations. I absolutely love my 16-35 f2.8L Canon lens ($1400), but found the image quality of the 17-40 f4L ($700) to be fantastic for most outdoor uses for those on a budget. My reason to move to :43: was for portability. so if one of these proposed lenses existed, was smaller than the m.Zuiko 9-18mm zoom and had an enclosed (not telescoping) zoom I would be interested. That'd be a small package and worth paying a princely sum for. Any bigger and I would just take my DSLR kit. That said, I'm good with the 14mmf2.5 at its current price. It makes me get get closer, which always makes my subjects more interesting.
I prefer zooms actually, but honestly I think the M43 sensors work better with primes since M43 is at a light gathering disadvantage. Though I have my eye on the 35-100. That's my favorite DSLR lens.
I, for one, wouldn't mind fast primes in, say, 85 and (esp) 135mm A M43 135mm 2.0? Drooooooooollllllll.
