1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Would you consider a 12-25 F2 zoom lens a good idea for Oly or Panny to make?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by bhima, May 14, 2014.

  1. bhima

    bhima Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 25, 2014
    Just tossing it out there, though I'm sure someone already thought about something like this. Sure, its only a 2x zoom... but really, what this lens could be (barring physics making it too large... though maybe it wouldn't be THAT bad since it's only a 2x zoom) is a true alternative to owning all of the most popular focal length primes. The f2 is close enough to being the standard f1.8 of most of the primes which would allow for a lower ISO and better DOF than the Oly 12-40 2.8 today, and if the IQ could be, lets say close to the Panny 20 at f2, it could be a really interesting lens. I'd be pretty happy to have one lens that could basically replace an Oly 12 F2, Panny 14 2.5, Leica 15 1.7, Oly 17 1.8, Panny 20 1.7, Panny and oly 25mm. True, the IQ would likely not be as good as the Panny 25mm 1.4, but if it was in the ballpark, would you consider it?

    Anyone here who has a better understanding of lens physics, please go ahead and bring me back to reality and give me an idea of how ridiculous this lens would be in terms of size. If it could be no bigger/heavier than the Oly 12-40, that would be sweet... but again, I have no idea if this is even physically possible.
    • Like Like x 3
  2. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    I would prefer an 8-300 f1.4, to be honest.
    • Like Like x 4
    • Funny Funny x 3
  3. bhima

    bhima Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 25, 2014
    Indeed. But I am trying to keep it within some semblance of reality ;) 
  4. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Honestly, if it was as big as the 12-40, I wouldn't. Then I'd just get a 12-40, and happily take the extra range. Even the 12-40 I can't convince myself to buy...too big for me.
  5. bhima

    bhima Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 25, 2014
    I can definitely see people agreeing with you on that. I think there could be a market though, for those that want to squeeze out just a bit more DOF and slightly lower ISO's in low light situations that they may sacrifice the range for.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. DynaSport

    DynaSport Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jan 5, 2013
    It'd likely be smaller than the combined 12 2.0, 17 1.8, and 25 1.8 wouldn't it? If the quality was there and the price wasn't too bad, I might be interested. I came from a zoom background, although I've gotten pretty used to using my primes. And I don't know that I'd want to give up the 1.4 of my PL25.
  7. T N Args

    T N Args Agent Photocateur

    Dec 3, 2013
    Adelaide, Australia
    call me Arg
    Basically, the question is does µ4/3 need an equivalent of the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 zoom for APS-C? It won the dpreview Reader's Choice Award for Best Lens of 2013.

    If the Sigma is that popular with readers, why not us too? Mind you, the Sigma weighs 810g.
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Boneyard

    Boneyard Mu-43 Regular

    Oct 5, 2012
    Iowa, USA
    I would be willing to give up the 12 on the short end if it kept it smaller/easier to produce given :43:'s short flange distance. 14-29 f/2 sounds about right to me.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. tosvus

    tosvus Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jan 4, 2014
    If it was weather sealed and had ois, yes!!

    I would sell my o17 1.8 maybe, but definitely keep the pl25.

    I'd rather buy "your" lens than the p12-35 for sure.
  10. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 30, 2013
    a 12-25/2 + my 42.5/1.2 would be the perfect kit for me.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Truth is that this thing would weigh a ton (by M4/3 standards) and be rather large.

    There are plenty of people like me, who got into M4/3 for the size advantage. Sure the Sigma 18-35 is a great piece of glass. It's also massive and it weighs *TWICE* as much as my 9-18, 45, 20 and 14 put together - a combination that has me covered from 18 to 90mm -, and would take up twice as much room in my bag.

    You also have to remember that Sigma's sales numbers on that lens are huge - thanks to them being able to sell it for multiple mounts - compared to anything M4/3 would be able to do.

    I would be quite happy with an 8-16 f4 or f2.8.
  12. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    Not for me. For a range that limited I'll take a pair of primes. Which would be smaller on the camera, and only marginally larger in the bag, and likely faster to boot.

    I wouldn't be bothered by the size - even with the 12-40 (which is not big, just feels a little front heavy), I still consider the kit to be very compact for the light gathering capacity I get.
  13. barry13

    barry13 Mu-43.com Editor Subscribing Member

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    My wishlist is the 12-40mm F2.8 + 1 fast prime, probably the 17mm F1.8.

  14. Reflector

    Reflector Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 31, 2013
    I'll leave this photo of the Sigma 18-35 on my E-M5 here. I don't consider this a massive combo, it doesn't even approach the massiveness of a 70-200 on a pro body, but what do I know? I'm treated as a mutant freak (With targeted group mobbings from respectable members of the community too) for even taking a photo of this combination and suggesting that m43 could have a lens like this for under $1.5k.

    If you're clever with the optical design then you could probably make a 13-35 f/1.2-1.8 thing by negating the telecompression elements.

    Is it awesome to use? Yes
    Is it optically excellent? Yes
    Is it capable of taking shots in moonlit conditions hand held? Yes
    Is it small and light? No, but that wasn't why I bought mine, I bought mine for other reasons and I'd still would like to own some m43 primes but the price makes that hard. In all honesty it is still smaller than the D200 with my Tamron 28-75, which is one of the lighter "2x-7x" f/2.8 constant zooms out there.

    See why I own mine: (Copy and pasted from another topic of mine. No discounts or sales on the prices, Feb 2014)
    Olympus 12mm f/2.0:	130g	$800 / $1,100(!) to buy in black
    Panasonic 14mm f/2.5:	55g	$320
    Olympus 17mm f/1.8:	120g	$500
    Panasonic 20mm f/1.7:	87g	$385 (II version)
    Panasonic 25mm f/1.4:	200g	$530
    			592g	$2,535 / $2,835 to buy the black 12mm f/2.0
    Sigma 18-35 f/1.8A:	811g	$800
    Metabones Speedbooster:<180g	$430
    		       <991g	$1,230
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. Whtrbt7

    Whtrbt7 Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 7, 2014
    I would prefer faster high quality primes or a single faster high quality prime over a 12-25/2 zoom. The issue for me is normally barrel and pincushion distortion out of zooms. I have the 12-40/2.8 and it is larger than I would like but I use it for general reportage over primes for weather sealing and flexible range. The IQ from the 12-40 is also excellent for a zoom. That Sigma 18-35/1.8 with speedbooster is a pretty cool combo but it is heavier than native lenses. If you want to talk about awkward combos, I had an EOS-M with 70-200LII , flash, and accessories mounted and it was like holding a drain pipe with a point and shoot at the end of it.
  16. bhima

    bhima Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 25, 2014
    So getting to some lenses that are similar:
    Oly 14-35mm (28-70mm) f2

    Sigma 18-35mm (28.8-56mm) f2

    I am under the impression that both aperture and going to extremes to either the wide or tele range will make the lens significantly larger, hence why the Oly is bigger than the Sigma (even though you would think it would be smaller since it is made for a sensor smaller than the Sigma) because its effective focal length has more zoom. Still would like to see if my hypothetical lens could be (and, I think it should be) smaller than these 2 options here.
  17. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    I don't see why it would have to be. Take a Tamron 17-50/2.8 (or similar design). Add a 0.71x focal reducer. You wind up with a lens that's ~600g and is around 100mm long. That's smaller than the Panasonic 100-300 and only a bit heavier. And that's for a 12-35/2. A 12-25/2 would be substantially smaller.

    I'd rather have a larger 12-35/2 than a smaller 12-25/2 though. 35 is almost useful for portraits (though 45 is even better), whereas 25 is just too wide. But until we see another 1-stop improvement in high ISOs, f/2.0 still isn't enough for me to replace my primes.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    For me, there's more to consider than simply focal range and max aperture range....
  19. rklepper

    rklepper Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Dec 19, 2012
    Iowa, USA
    The only lens I want either one of them to make is 300 F4. First one in gets my money.
  20. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Absolutely. Need more telephoto primes native to micro 4/3rds.
    • Like Like x 1
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.