(FT5) More details about the new Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens.

Share

Our Japanese friends at Digicaminfo got some details about the new Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens:

  • The name of the lens is “Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 12-40mm F2.8 PRO
  • Filter diameter of 62mm
  • Has the L-Fn (Lens Function) button.
  • The color of the lens barrel is Black

As you know the Panasonic 12-35mm X lens has a 58mm filter size. This will definitely be a bigger lens! Let’s hope the price ins’t “bigger” too :)

For sources: Sources can send me anonymous info at 43rumors@gmail.com (create a fake Gmail account) or via contact form you see on the right sidebar. Thanks!
For readers: Don’t miss any news. Join our group on facebook and follow our tweets.

Rumors classification explained (FT= FourThirds):
FT1=1-20% chance the rumor is correct
FT2=21-40% chance the rumor is correct
FT3=41-60% chance the rumor is correct
FT4=61-80% chance the rumor is correct
FT5=81-99% chance the rumor is correct

Share
  • Narretz

    Let’s get crazy, the lens barrel is black!!!!

    • Pharque Moi

      But I want another shade of silver :-)

      • Phred

        LOL! By all means……

    • Rick

      Black is fine, size is fine, price maybe bearable, if it really has stellar IQ and clearly better than the Panasonic zoom (an excellent one already).

      Good to have a choice. If you don’t like the size or want to pay the higher price for higher quality, just choose the Panasonic. This is better better than if Olympus just releases a similar lens to Panasonic’s.

  • Junius

    …and will cost way too much.

    • Value depends on several variables, a few among which are individual : capability to stomach the price, capability to tell the difference, the finesse, the nuance, desire for the extra it (the lens) brings on the table.

  • Borbarad

    Sounds goood!

    my guess would be around 1400,- Euros and that’s fair and reasonable!

    Now we would need a 300mm F4 and a EC14

    B

    • Vlad

      Why would 1400 euros be fair and reasonable?

    • “FAIR AND REASONABLE”??

      More like crazy and insane!! And it seems large. I thought the whole purpose was to be smaller than the rest??

      Mr ALLCAPS

      • You can have small and light AND have quality optics at wide open apertures. This annoying thing called The Physical Universe get’s in the way. So when you’ve got your small, light camera and then start whinging that you want bright zooms you can’t complain when they turn out to be quite big.

        This is something that a lot of MFT fanatics tend to overlook. The lenses they want typically won’t appeal to the vast majority of people to whom MFT itself appeals.

        If this lens is as big as the filter size would suggest (only 5mm less than the 43 14-54 mk II) I don’t expect it will sell very well at all to the small and light obsessed MFT crowd.

      • Gabriel

        It’s always a compromise. If you want bright optics they have to be large compared to the sensor, but think how much bigger it would be of it went on an aps-c or full frame sensor. Look at the canon 24-70 2.8 for example.

  • JimMM

    You know it will be too expensive. Olympus continues to list their products too expensively, and then they wonder why their product doesn’t sell in the volumes they expected.

    • Anonymous

      Panasonic does exactly the same!

      • So, I dare ask, especially the FF fans who frequent here, which company has a “fair” pricing policy?

        • DrThrash

          Nikon. Lens hood and pouch always included.

          • The 12-60 comes with lens shade and pouch. I would expect the same in case of the 12-40.

            • Oilymouse

              Indeed, this is not some fancy wancy software-corrected quasi retro prime for amateurs, but a professional’s workhorse.

              The package *must* include everything. Secondly, it should come very close to aforementioned hoodless primes IQ wise.

              I’ve spent enough time defending Oly against crazy trolls to make such demands without blinking. I don’t care about the price, just make it a serious product (black barrel color is a good start, btw).

              • Anonymous

                “fancy wancy software-corrected quasi retro prime for amateurs”

                Troll detector just went out of its scale.

              • true homer

                You sure are gonna look cool with the biggest lens ever made for m43s (bigger than the 100-300)on your epm2…
                I expect an insult instead of any resemblance of an intellectual comment as usual…

                • John

                  Why would anyone want to put a lens of that size on an E-PM2?

                  • Anonymous

                    Don’t worry, its not as big as true loser is claiming at all.

                    • John

                      Well, I guess I should just take up selective reading when browsing the 43rumours forum. :D

          • Anonymous

            Neither the 50/1.8 or the 85/1.8 nikors that I bought new came with hood or pouch. The $2000 70-200/2.8 surely does however, but to call that one ‘fairly priced’…

            • FredG

              All current generation Nikon lenses except the $99 18-55mm kit lens come with zooms,you obviously bought the older D version of the lenses. Problem is that Olympus are pulling this stunt with $1000 lenses

              • FredG

                that should read come with hoods lol

      • Anonymous

        “panasonic does the same” … except at a far more reasonable price. I mean, really?

    • bousozoku

      It’s odd how Olympus went from budget-priced HG Four-Thirds lenses, all with weather-sealing and great image quality to micro Four-Thirds, charging a lot for what are basically Standard grade lenses, most of which aren’t very good, especially the zooms.

      Panasonic’s most expensive zooms are only so-so but carry prices that seem double what the lenses are worth. How is it that my 35-100mm f/2.8 is less of everything compared to my 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5? The difference in aperture is negated by the plastic and the so-so image quality but certainly shows up in the price.

  • CaverDave

    Lens hood will be extra option! I was kind if getting use to Olympus silver, kind of like Canon’s white lenses. Everyone does black. :-)

    • Caver Dave

      Which silver are you talking about?
      The silver tone on the 45mm f/1.8? Or
      The silver tone on the 12mm f/2.0? Or
      the siver tone on the 75mm f/1.8?
      LOL!

  • Anonymous

    How come it’s bigger than the Pana 12-35 even thought it doesn’t have stabilization?

    • CaverDave

      The 40mm @ f2.8 pushes the diameter above 58mm.

      • Chatokun

        I don’t know how zoom ratios work, but the 35, at the far end was 58/35=1.66 while the 62/40=1.55. Since I don’t know what this actually means, I can’t draw any definitive conclusions, though it seems the Oly actually has a smaller ratio there. The 5mm extra just needs to have a larger element to the same aperture.

        • Anonymous

          That last line shows you understand a lot more about this then many of thosecwho complain about size.

          • true homer

            What he said was true but it still doesnt justify being 5.6 inches long for a 12-40 external zoom lens. Now if it were f2…

            • Anonymous

              Length and aperture have pretty much zero to do with eachother. Focal length and physical length on the other hand do have to do with eachother, so your ‘if it were f2’ is just ridiculous and demonstrates again how totally clueless you are.

              It has been pointed out, but ignored by most, that the size given is actually from front element to focal plane, and not the actual length of the lens, this will be in the order of 25mm less.

    • MarcoSartoriPhoto

      Perhaps better build quality and better image quality.

    • narutogrey

      There are a couple reasons. The range of 12-40mm means it’ll be bigger. If it was 14-40mm, it probably could have been much smaller. This design has more groups and more aspherical elements. If the image quality is better than the 12-35mm, that can increase the size too. Either larger aspherical lens to better correct distortion or larger diameter glass to get better wide open aperture sharpness.

  • Matt

    Pro….add $600 to the price tag.

  • Hubertus Bigend

    Fine, but is really 13 centimeters long, as the last post suggested? On the E-M1, I’d rather use a 12-60 or 14-54, then.

  • kiki

    Olympus doesn’t know how to make zooms. Biiger than 12-35 which have already stab?

    • kiki

      bigger

    • ATTN idiots

      “Olympus doesn’t know how to make zooms” – said no one in the world, ever, up to this minute. Congratulations, you set new record of extreme ignorance.

      • kiki

        In M43? bests zooms are from Panasonic and bests primes are from Olympus.

        • Oilymouse

          Please stop now and educate yourself – it’s embarassing (especially in the context of the E-M1 and OBS).

          • Anonymous

            And you’re not embarrassed that you failed at reading? m43 is not the same as 43

            • Oilymouse

              For my E-M1, it’s all the same. So no embarassments here, really.

              • The will be funny the two first hours, but after the day tree you will see the realy ting why lens so is right or not, for E-M1.

              • Anonymous

                You really think so? And why so sure, that on sensor pdaf will work good enough? I’m quite skeptical about this, on sensor pdaf in nex cameras doesn’t really help much. Most likely it will work quite good, better than current adapters, but will it be at least same as 4/3 bodies?

            • MAFAvr

              His comment was not, ‘don’t know how to make m43 zooms’, his comment was ‘doesn’t know how to make zooms’. So he does not know the history or ability of Olympus.

              • kiki

                i’m talking about m43 lens zooms by Olympus…

                • Anonymous

                  Your statement was: “Olympus doesn’t know how to make zooms. ”

                  That is unqualified, and not limited to m4/3 zooms.

                  Since Olympus has a very long history making excellent lenses, including very good zooms, it is totally ridiculous to say they don’t know how to make zooms. No, not having made any fast m4/3 zooms so far does in no way say they can’t or don’t know how to.

                  • kiki

                    i know Olympus has a very long history making excellent lenses especially in 43. But i’m sorry, this M.zuiko 12-40/2.8 is too big like a 100-300, too large also and pricey. Panasonic 12-35mm is smaller and has IS.

                    Hope IQ will be amazing like my 75/1.8.

                    For new buyers of EM-1, better you buy an old 12-60/2.8 if you think 40 is too short (but one stop less lighter at 40mm). And it’s less expensive atleast Olympus make good kit price with 12-40 and EM-1 both.

                    • Anonymous

                      Too big.. the length is image plane to front element, which is approx 25mm more then the actual length of the lens will be, you may have to keep that in mind before judging size.

                      Also with regards to size, as was pointed out elsewhere, going from 35 to 40mm at f/2.8 will make the front element larger, that is a simple matter of physics, making it smaller will do one or more of the following 3:
                      – reduce the widest aperture
                      – cause vignetting
                      – cause lower image quality especially towards the corners

                      The lens isn’t even announced yet, we do not know a price, so claiming it is too expensive is just ridiculous.

                      And none of this has anything whatsoever to do with your original claim about Olympus not being able to make zoom lenses, that claim is even more ridiculous then claiming a price you don’t know for an item where you don’t know the actual build and optical quality is ‘too high’.

                    • ATTN idiots

                      “Olympus doesn’t know how to make zooms.”
                      “i know Olympus has a very long history making excellent lenses ”

                      What a difference little pause for thinking makes, eh? Try to make that pause BEFORE first post next time, you may find it beneficial to average IQ of your posts. As for the rest of your musings, here is something to think about: since perfect lens will be infinitely large, infinitely expensive and take infinite time to build, ANY lens is a compromise and is build with tradeoffs – some optical quality for size, for weight, for cost. Depending on particular lens’s place in the lineup, intended audience and use, the point of this compromise is moving – to one side for cheap plastic kit lens, to another for high end items. On this one Olympus have chosen certain point of compromise, and for you to complain about this choice (or to claim Olympus doesn’t know how to build zooms) is purely stupid. All it means this is not a lens for you; move on as no lens is intended to satisfy each and every user. Some were happy with 4/3 SG lenses, some decided to move up to HG and yet some to SHG – the difference between those 3 grades was in the location of the point of compromise. Got it now? You are welcome for a little education, now shut up, will ya?

    • Robbie

      LMFAO It’s like saying Pentax doesn’t know how to make pancake lenses…

  • Jón

    I would be surprised if the price would be under $1800

    • The Real Stig

      Me too.

    • You are being on the pessimistic side, I would say. The direct rival, the Panasonic X 2.8/12-35 is about $1000 and has OIS.

      Some of Olympus’s pricing may have been strange. I can think of their 75-300 which is surprisingly expensive and then their 45mm and their 60mm macro which are surprisingly affordable. That being said, over $800 difference for an extra 5mm on the tele end? That would be challenging on brand fidelity…

      • robin

        strangely any came out from their japan factory add 300 dollars to the price tag =]

  • Riki

    Hopefully this means we are getting closer to a 40-100, I have been waiting, SO long for that!

    • Paul Latouche

      Lumix 35-100mm f2.8
      And no more waiting!

    • Tron

      Olympus revealed a patent back in June for a 40-200mm F4 lens. I would assume that is going to be the one that compliments this premium kit lens.
      http://www.dailycameranews.com/2013/06/olympus-m-zuiko-40-200mm-f4-lens-patent/

      • Anonymous

        well spotted!!!

      • Tim F

        I would love a 40-200 f4. That way it can be a bit smaller then the 2.8 zooms, and still fast enough for a 400mm lens.

        that lens, and my prime trinity 12-17-45 would be a perfect set for me :-)

        • Ragnarok

          Well, considering is a f/8 400mm lens… Because you can not convert one unit (focal length) and not convert the other (aperture) because the F stop is the relation between the focal length and the aperture (F/number). See: 200/4 = 400/8.

          • Daav

            You’re not changing the focal length. It is always 40-200. You are figuratively converting to an effective focal length, (actually meaning angle of view) relative to a full frame sensor. The actual focal length never changes, so therefore the F-stop never changes.

            The whole idea of effective focal lengths is just an easy “visual relationship” for most people to understand the angle of view relative to different formats. The more correct way would be to say that the m43 40-200 has an angle of view equal to a FF 80-400. F4 rated lens is always F4 unless you physically alter the focal length somehow.

            Another way to say it is that an F4 40-200 on an m43 sensor has an angle of view equal to an 80-400 on a full frame sensor. But the actual focal length does not change so the aperture does not change.

            • Ragnarok

              But people like to fantasize that their lenses magically double in focal length… while conveniently keeping the aperture the same. Sorry, but if you convert one, you should convert the other too. Or you can keep fooling yourself. Just don’t try to fool the rest of us please.

              • Anonymous

                No, people note that you get a different field of view, and like to refer to numbers that have been in use for decades as an alternative for field of view.

          • Tim F

            Hey rag, have you ever used a 400/4 lens on ff? You would be happy if you have the extra dof of the f8, with the shutter speed from f4…

            Don’t care for equivalent, it’s the lens I would need-and shallow dof isn’t the thing you always need ;-)

            • Ragnarok

              It’s not only the DOF, you also lose two stops of light, so you can use a two stops slower FF lens (this is an f/8 lens) or just stop down the f/4 FF lens by two stops to get the same result. What you can’t do is open two stops a f/4 M43 lens.

              BTW, for all those of you that just can’t get it, look at this picture:

              http://i.imgur.com/FP1nFy9.png

              On the left you have, say, a f/4 FF lens (blue vertical) projecting all the light it can get (the yellow circle) onto a M43 sensor. Since the image circle (the projected light) is for a larger sensor (4 times the area) the sensor is only getting a small part of the image circle. This has two effects: one is that the image is cropped (the 2x crop factor), the other that much of the light the lens can gather is wasted away.

              On the right we have the same lens mounted on a speed booster / focal reducer (lighter blue) which what does is exactly the opposite of a teleconverter, concentrating the light into a smaller area so now all the light / image circle falls directly onto the sensor, eliminating the crop and… giving you two extra stops of light??? Of course not! The lens can not get more light than what it already does (remember that the booster is placed behind the lens, not it from, so it can only work on the light the lens can gather by itself), what it does is stop wasting the light. You can only claim to win two stops because those two stops were there to begin with, this is, a FF lens is by nature brighter by two stops than a so called M43 lens.

              If you have two sensors, one FF and the other M43, both with 16MP, as you can see by the image cirlces the FF one’s pixels are getting 4 times the light, what equals to two stops of light. So when comparing M43 to FF lenses is not only DOF what changes, is image brightness too, so for all intent and purposes a f/4 M43 lens is equivalent to a f/8 FF lens.

              If english were my native english I’m sure I could express all this better, but anyway it is easy enough to understand for any adult.

              If you want to prove me wrong, please provide some kind of data not just personal opinions and popular misconceptions.

              • Anonymous

                “On the left you have, say, a f/4 FF lens (blue vertical) projecting all the light it can get (the yellow circle) onto a M43 sensor. Since the image circle (the projected light) is for a larger sensor (4 times the area) the sensor is only getting a small part of the image circle. This has two effects: one is that the image is cropped ”

                Funny how you quote that and yet totally fail to understand it.

                The sensor makes no difference whatsoever for the amount of light gathered by the lens, it matters for how much of that light you actually use.

                If you don’t believe a 25/2.8 and a 50/2.8 gather the same amount of light, try the following very simple test:

                Get your favorite full frame camera with your favorite 24-70/2.8, point it at a large evenly lit square, and set the lens to 25mm. Note the shutter speed you get at a given iso level (say 200). Now, change focal length to 50mm and check again.

                If your ‘gathers 4x the amount of light’ myth was true, the second should get you a 2 stop faster shutter speed.

                So, again, this has to do with the actual amount of light used by the sensor, and nothing whatsoever with ‘total light gathered’ by the lens. All that is required is an image circle large enough to cover the sensor, but that has nothing to do with either aperture or focal length.

              • Bob

                Ragnarok – the aperture of an MFT (or APCS) lens does not change just because the sensor size has changed. Imagine opening a digital photograph on a computer, selecting a smaller rectangle inside it, and then blowing that smaller rectangle out to full size. The new picture will look more “zoomed in” (greater equivalent focus length), it will have some loss of resolution / focus blur, but the exposure (brightness) will be identical to the original. This process is similar to what happens when you use a smaller sensor to crop a lens projection.

                Your own example on the left demonstrates the concept perfectly.

      • Jono

        No way! The lens that was slated to pair with the 12-40/2.8 was a 40-150/2.8 short-to-super tele zoom.

  • If it is really going to be 1400 euros it is no bargain at all in my opinion. I would never spend that money for those small plastic-like lenses. With almost the same price you can get a used Oly-Zuiko 14-35 f2… which will allow you to focus manually also in the middle of the night or in dark environments, and namely – if really true – it will perform virtually as dedicated lenses on the forthcoming camera. If you add some money you get it new also! And with the in-camera stabilization it is likely to donate you probably one stop more. It is an heresy that those majestic SHG lenses have been condemned to be used only with the MMF3 prosthetics on m43. You will never get anything that fast and solid for the m43.

    • Jono

      Who told you the barrel is plastic? I saw no information regarding that issue.

      If it is truly a professional Oly ZD lens, wouldn’t manual focusing and weather-sealing be givens?

      And to your comment regarding not ever getting fast lenses in the µ4:3 platform, may I remind you they have already released a 75/1.8 prime? So why would a 28-40/2 be undoable?

    • Oilymouse

      Exactly.

      This is why PDAF support for 4/3 lenses is so wonderful: all new m43 lenses will be compared against THOSE LENSES.

      So, yes, it could be expensive. But it will support video without noise (unclear yet with 4/3 lenses). And it should be really good :-)

  • Junius

    Sigma is selling the fastest, sharpest zoom lens in the world, with 4-year warranty and mount changing service for $700, and Olympus and Panasonic still want a lot more for their slower zoom lenses. This is why MFT will fail -and this is coming from an MFT fan (GH3)!

    • Chance

      I dont know if MFT will fail, as opposed to petering out like a candle, but in the end, I think you are right. The price comparisons and benefits ratio are just not there and getting harder to justify.

      • MJr

        Agreed. Agreed.

    • Anonymous

      The sigma 70-200/2.8 can be bought for a mere $1000, the nikon 70-200/2.8 goes for more then twice that price!!!!! Nikon must be nuts and set for total failure!!!!!!!!!!

    • disso

      Sigma is “only” 18-35mm lens(27-52mm ff eq) but Olys zoom is 24-80mm ff eq. 30mm difference in the tele end is a LOT.
      I bet sigmas lens would be double the price and weight if they made it cover 24-70mm’ish stuff.

      • Daav

        “Sigma is “only” 18-35mm lens(27-52mm ff eq) but Olys zoom is 24-80mm ff eq. 30mm difference in the tele end is a LOT.”

        That 27-52 equivalent is for APSc sensors. That same lens if made for m43 would be 36mm-70mm equivalent as opposed to the Oly 12-40 which is 24-80 equivalent. The sigma is a very good lens, but people are comparing apples and oranges.

    • Oilymouse

      I’m waiting for my 18-35 for Nikon as we speak. I think it’s a miracle for the price, but consider that Sigma expects to sell a lot of Canon/Sony/Nikon/Sigma versions of it. In total, the opportunity is huge: no other firm has this reach.

      Also, remember that a) Sigma’s offering is unique in lens-making history, b) the range is really limited (28-50 vs 24-80 = huge difference) and c) it’s NOT a pro-grade lens.

      Latest headline: “World not as simple as sometimes believed” :-)

      Anyway, since I obviously appreciate both, I will definitely consider the 12-40 (should it compare well against the very affordable, weather-sealed, fast focusing 14-54 mkII, of course).

  • 12-40 is too short to me (though the wide 12mm is appreciated).

    On 12-60, my most used lengths were: 12mm, 16-20mm and around 45-50mm. (I rarely needed the 60mm – except for the close-ups. But the 12mm was precisely why I decided back then against the 14-54.)

    • Oilymouse

      Didn’t have no 12mm f/2 back then… :-)

  • Svenlovesflo

    Olympus and MFT are niche cameras…I love them…but with the speculation that this will be a 1500 USD lens…the niche gets smaller

    • CaverDave

      The scope of mfg is actually widening from the E-M2 with the 14-42 kit lens to the E-M1 with the 12-40 f2.8 kit lens, What a great range in choices.

      Dave

    • Why? I don’t get it. You don’t have to buy it. The 14-45 is a better lens than most give it credit for, and very cheap. The 12-50 too. So now you get even more choice, if you think your skill stretches to a more expensive 12-40.

      But just because Olympus may offer a high end zoom lens, suddenly the sky is falling?

      • Oilymouse

        One acronym: O.B.S.

        On the E-M1, please consider the 14-54 mkII, $599 and in stock:
        http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/590390-REG/Olympus_261060_14_54mm_f_2_8_3_5_II_Zuiko.html

        Life is simple:

        Buy gear.

        Go out.

        Shoot wonderful pictures.

        Get back home.

        Read whining forum posts in amazement.

        • MarcoSartoriPhoto

          +1 exactly: I just came back home from a shooting at a concert and now here I am, reading whinings and complaints about a lens that none of us has tried yet. In two words: nothing new. :)

    • “Olympus and MFT are niche cameras”

      Totally disagree. mFT are arguably the better system for the typical DSLRs user. You know the type: kit lens only, uses camera for both photos and videos, and composes with the LCD at arms length.

      Most mFT cameras have a touchscreen, and all have very fast live view and silent focusing kit lenses that are also fairly sharp; great for those moving up from a Smartphone / P&S and likes to take photos and videos. The lower/older mFT models are very affordable (GX1, E-PM2, E-PL5, etc.) and current models have comparable IQ to APS-C (the Olympus body with Sony sensors having better IQ than all Canon APS-C except for the new 70D). Obviously, same can be said for other mirrorless systems (like the NEX), but body/lens mFT combo are typically smaller still and the mFT lens selection is greater than the others.

      That said, $1500 does seem high. But if you go to the Nikon site, their 17-55/2.8 is listed as $1848 – much higher than actual street price. I obviously hope that the 12-40/2.8 would be cheaper, but I’d still consider it at $1500 and having the option is great.

      • ever hopeful

        ““Olympus and MFT are niche cameras”

        Totally disagree. mFT are arguably the better system for the typical DSLRs user.”

        Just because the mFTs are the more sensible option does not stop them being ‘niche cameras’ in marketing terms. Purchasing is rarely linked to logic.

  • Anonymous

    So buy 14-54mk2 and solve your problem like i did ;)
    It have 68mm front element, superb iq, and cost about 300-500$ and it works with mucro 4/3 perfectly and will work even better with new pdaf support ;)

    • That was exactly what I did! ;)

      • Oilymouse

        Three cheers for the wonderful 14-54! Good to have you back, old friend!

        • Ross

          I’m glad I still have mine & it’s works reasonably well with AF (on the E-M5) although it’s slower to reach focus at close range because it cycles from infinity (which isn’t so great for kids & animals indoors when they keep moving), but is faster at further distances. E-M1 will make this lens even more usable with PD-AF. That’s when the 12-50 lens is used (for now).

          • I sold off all my 4/3 kit and kept the 14-54mk2…. looks like its going to have a new home soon

    • Cpt

      And that’s exactly what I did. I have most of the primes but the 14-54ii lives on my E-M5!
      The focus us a little slow, but I’m now in the habit of fine-tuning the framing while it focuses, and I’m completely used to it. In fact some if the primes are a little fast for me because I find myself ‘not ready’ for the shot because the focus too fast!
      Horses for coarses – just what in used to now, but the 12-40 would have to be magnificent (like the 75mm) for me to drop what is already a workable (for me) solution.

  • Mr µ43 sucks

    So what’s new?
    overpriced…
    equivalent to f5.6 full frame
    nasty Bokeh
    crazy vignetting
    nasty chromatic aberrations
    unreliable
    cheap build
    poor autofocus
    the usual crap from µolympusµ

    • Anonymous

      welcome back, paid troll! :)

      oh no, now I fed it..

      • Trolls make my world go ’round.
        Every time they shill for full frame,
        I cannot not help my small-sensor shame,
        And beg for more like a hungry hound.

        I know well that depth of field,
        And massive posture with seventeen mirrors,
        As much as they fill my wrists with horrors,
        Make an image fully revealed.

        And, yet, I respond with ill-formed verse,
        Despite all the negative talk,
        From those who do not walk the walk,
        I do like my inadequate sensors.

        They do not make the passers-by gawk,
        Or get two-thousand pluses or faves or likes,
        But they please me well, like pickled pikes,
        and fit my hands like windows on caulk.

        • Tron

          ‘Windows on caulk’… You should work in their marketing dept!!

        • Oilymouse

          Beautiful, true art indeed. What a wonderful forum this is: rabiate trolls get poetry in respsonse. A nice alternative on painfully confronting them with their personal issues and immense lack of knowledge.

        • MarcoSartoriPhoto

          Shin, congrats. I have no words.. For the first time I hope some troll will write some silly comment just to read another poetic reply like this from you. Amazing! I do write haikus sometimes, in English also, but this was awesome. :)

        • Thanks, everyeone! :-) Slow day at work… Maybe this could be a trend?

          Oilymouse: :-) I’ll work on it. I’m not sure if it will come, tho’, unless some troll truly inspires me. It’s really hard to rhyme well with “yakuza”.

    • Oilymouse

      Can you do something with “Yakuza” in it? Thank you!

  • Andrei

    If it’s sharper than the (12/f2, 17/f1.8, 20/f1.7 and 25/f1.4) @ 2.8 and beyond, it’s ok if it will cost 1400-1500$/euros because one can have a better walk around lens that can replace all four and it will be more polyvalent. Add the 45/f1.8 and the 60/f2.8 macro and you can shoot almost every genre of photography!

    • Daav

      I wouldn’t expect it to be sharper then the primes you list, but if it is close and of a quality equal to the old 4/3 zooms it would be fine. Add weather sealing, and the versatility of it becomes a major value factor. I won’t address price because that is all “wild conjecture” at present. My preference for primes though to supplement it, would probably be the 75 f1.8 instead of the 45 which is nearly covered. But to each their own. I think the lens holds promise given oly’s history, but until it is produced and seen, I’ll not worry about the details.

      • Oilymouse

        Ye older 4/3 zooms eat m4/3 primes for breakfast. LLoyd Chambers uses those zooms to compare the primes against. I don’t recall they were ever beaten (as in: clearly superior in just about every way except size). It’s scary to see what an E-M5 can do with such glass.

        Example (paid subscription):
        http://diglloyd.com/prem/prot/ALLVIEW/FourThirdsLenses_OlympusMicro/lenses-Olympus-17f1_8-compare-dolls.html

        If Oly gets started on serious m43 zooms, the world will never be the same again. With f/2.8 and some software correction here and there, Oly quality zooms will now also be affordable and portable.

  • MarioZ

    My guess, it is going to cost $1799. So you can dream about that big pro black lens!

  • µ43 Mediocre

    So what’s new?
    overpriced…
    equivalent to f5.6 full frame
    nasty Bokeh
    crazy vignetting
    nasty chromatic aberrations
    unreliable
    cheap build
    poor autofocus
    the usual garbage from µolympusµ
    Yawn…..

    • Andrei

      It will be like a Canon L grade lens. Great build and excelent optic quality. f2.8 it’s great because m43 it’s excelent for landscape and architecture. If you want to shoot architecture or landscape with a ff camera you have to use f11 where difraction will introduce its shortcomings. ff it’s great for portrait and aps-c it’s the jack of all trades.

      • Fab

        Huh? Why is m43 better for landscape? You have more depth of field at a given f-stop, but diffraction kicks in at a lower f-stop-number…

        • Yeah. Win on the swings, lose on the roundabouts. Damned laws of physics, eh! :-)

          (The irony of the average troll meaningless whine that m43 “has bad DOF” is that actually, thanks to diffaction, it has too little….)

          • Oilymouse

            This is why Olympus has said earlier that 12mp is enough. Now we all get 16mp (because Sony is caught up in a marketing war between Canon and Nikon). It is enough. And if we ever get a m43 body with a 16mp Foveon sensor, we’ll be laughing at 36mp Nikon D800 files.

            I’d like to say that one more time: if we ever get a m43 body with a 16mp Foveon sensor, we’ll be laughing at 36mp Nikon D800 files.

            There will be no more arguments about 35mm equivalence, DoF, photons, photosites and so on. It will be over. I’ll have a bottle of your finest champagne, thank you.

            Of course, we’d really like PDAF on the Foveon sensor…

        • JimD

          “but diffraction kicks in at a lower f-stop-number…”
          Yes…………. For everybody………….

    • Anonymous

      1/5 troll. F* off.

    • Damn Oly

      What’ new?
      Is the equvalent of 24-80 with F2.8 that is new kind rather than mediocre 24-70
      About the nasty boke,crazy vigneting ,.lol,.you just dont know the History of the 43 lens from Olympus as A glass maker,.awwh you probably still a babies now with pacifier in your mouth
      Here’s a list;
      12-60 f2.8-4
      14-54 f2.8-3.5 II
      14-35 F2 SHG
      35-100 F2 SHG
      7-14 F4
      90-250 F2.8
      And primes
      F2/50mm
      F2/150 mm Little Tuna
      F2.8 /300mm
      Thats among the best optical in the world
      Or just google it on SLR GEAR about
      F1.8/75mm
      , it said the SHARPEST LENS THEY EVER TESTED.,.its more sharp than Canon L F2.8/400mm worth $13000.
      Or have you ever a Term about olympus optic, thay called LEICA OF THE EAST

      i dont mean to bashing of an FF cameraas i still using my D700 & D600 , but its because the optical quality that made me fall in love with this system,.
      I also have Fuji XE-1 and its system,.but right is still not efective as M43 in term of performace,.because the AF is not as good as M43

      • Ragnarok

        It’s the equivalent of a 24-80 f/5.6 You just can not convert one unit (focal length) and then not convert the other (aperture) because the F stop is the relation between the focal length and the aperture (F/number). For example: 40/2.8 = 14.28, 40/5.6 = 14.28. Simple as that.

        • Rchard

          No it’s still a 12-40/2.8 and will never be anything else. The FOV is like 24-80/2,8 just because the object you shoot covers a bigger area of the 4/3 sensor than it do a FF sensor. If you take a 4/3 300/2.8 and a FF 300/2.8 and put an adapter on them and use them as a spotting scope they both will be equal. The 4/3 will not suddenly become a 600/5.6 or a 300/5.6 or anything else.

          • Ragnarok

            Maths are maths, physics are physics. Your reality may vary though.

            You just can’t say that you M43 f/4 200mm lens is the equivalent of a FF f/4 400mm lens. The trick of using an equivalent focal length (doubling it) but leaving the aperture the same, only works in the imagination of fanboys. The trick of using an equivalent focal length (doubling it) but leaving the aperture the same, only works in the imagination of fanboys.

            First the maths: F number is the relation between the focal length (what the F stands for) and the lens aperture, so F/number is the focal length by that number, for example a FF f/8 400mm has a lens aperture of 50mm (400/8) and a M43 f/4 200mm has an aperture of, wait, 50mm (200/4). There you have your equivalent lenses. Simple as that. If you like to double the focal length for bragging rights you must double the aperture just to keep the ratio. Otherwise you are fooling yourself.

            Now the physics. Look at this picture:

            http://i.imgur.com/FP1nFy9.png

            On the left you have, say, a f/4 FF lens (blue vertical) projecting all the light it can get (the yellow circle) onto a M43 sensor. Since the image circle (the projected light) is for a larger sensor (4 times the area) the sensor is only getting a small part of the image circle. This has two effects: one is that the image is cropped (the 2x crop factor), the other that much of the light the lens can gather is wasted away.

            On the right we have the same lens mounted on a speed booster / focal reducer (lighter blue) which what does is exactly the opposite of a teleconverter, concentrating the light into a smaller area so now all the light / image circle falls directly onto the sensor, eliminating the crop and… giving you two extra stops of light??? Of course not! The lens can not get more light than what it already does (remember that the booster is placed behind the lens, not it from, so it can only work on the light the lens can gather by itself), what it does is stop wasting the light. You can only claim to win two stops because those two stops were there to begin with, this is, a FF lens is by nature brighter by two stops than a so called M43 lens.

            If you have two sensors, one FF and the other M43, both with 16MP, as you can see by the image cirlces the FF one’s pixels are getting 4 times the light, what equals to two stops of light. So when comparing M43 to FF lenses is not only DOF what changes, is image brightness too, so for all intent and purposes a f/4 M43 lens is equivalent to a f/8 FF lens.

            If english were my native english I’m sure I could express all this better, but anyway it is easy enough to understand for any adult.

            If you want to prove me wrong, please provide some kind of data not just personal opinions and popular misconceptions.

            • Anonymous

              “You just can’t say that you M43 f/4 200mm lens is the equivalent of a FF f/4 400mm lens”

              Yes you totally can say that when field of view and exposure are your main concerns.

              You simply fail to understand WHY people use equivalent focal length and how that has totally zero to do with the extremely lengthy posts you make, nothing whatsoever with ‘math’, and everything with simply using ‘focal length’ as an alternative word for ‘field of view’. Nothing more nothing less. No, DOF doesn’t come into the picture there yet, not because dof is not important, but because of the why of ‘equivalent focal length’.

              See, when you go buy a lens, are you first of all looking at the relative aperture? or are you first of all looking at the field of view you’ll get from it?

              I’ll tell you how that works for almost everyone: they go look at a lens covering the desired field of view, and then, AND ONLY THEN go look at what the fastest aperture is they can afford.

              There is a reason why even at f/4, a 85mm lens will still be regarded a portrait lens on a 135 format camera by many people, despite its DOF being a lot less shallow (many would argue a lot more usable actually) then that of a 85/1.4 wide open.

              THAT is why equivalent focal length matters whereas equivalent dof is only seen as an afterthought. Its only people who either are totally obsessed by shallow DOF, or who insist on 135 format advocacy who care about your math and equivalence argument, the rest of us, we know the math and we know why we don’t care at all in the very large majority of cases.

  • without doubt a high quality zoom. Too bad zooms dont open aperture wider at the long end only (12-40mm f/2.8-f/2.0) ;-)

    • Yap F2.0 on 40mm will be nice, and the will be popular for protrete lens too. :-P

  • SLOtographer

    It’s going to be more expensive, because Oly will add “soul” and “magic” to the lens. That stuff isn’t cheap.

    • Well, they did add “Pro” to the name. There’s 20% premium right there. :-)

  • hullyjr

    $1999 alone but comes with lens hood & case! $3000 with the EM-1. And thanks Olympus for yet another new filter size for m43.

    • Darryl

      Same filter size as the j’adore Panasonic 14-140mm (62mm)

  • Dave

    So much whining and hand-wringing. None of you have to buy it, so go cry elsewhere.

  • true homer

    This proves it all. You people will defend anything oly.
    -62mm filter means its as wide as the 10x zoom 14-140
    -according to the patent the lens is HALF AN INCH LONGER than the panasonic 100-300, a lens that has been called stupid big on THIS forum. And thats without a lens hood. Heck, wasnt the 35-100 described as a joke here for being too big?

    And whats the excuse? “Its 5mm longer reach, so it has to be bigger”
    THIS is why oly does the things they do, because you people give them a pass at every turn.

    • The Real Stig

      Learn to read EXIF data before venturing opinions on more complicated matters.

    • Anonymous

      Yep, we are all here to praise the gods at Olympus and bash Panasonic, and your sole purpose in life is trying to make up for that. True loser

      • YET HE HAPPENS TO BE RIGHT

        And you’re further proving so.. So, who’s the real loser?

    • The only one who is proving something here on the forum is you. Maybe if you put all your comments together and check for similarities, you might realise what I mean. If not, by al means go ahead with posting predictable replies.

    • Oilymouse

      true homer + all-caps = always the same, them against the world! :-)

      Just because somebody mentions something not to your liking once, doesn’t mean you two can happily Don-Quixote-and-Sancho your way around here, you silly forum warriors!

      Personally, I have to admit you often make me laugh, but just know that by insisting on your simpleminded world views, you two are probably offensive to many of the people here using both Pany AND Oly (and maybe a few others here and there).

      Champions of free speech you are not. Instead of arguing at the right moment, there’s always a “on this very forum, people said BAD things about Pany before, so now I will take revenge on THIS thread, ha!”.

      Anyway, have fun with your self-fulfilling prophecies (except the demise of Olympus, which even you two cannot control). Just consider that your on-line characters could use a little development.

      • SORRY, I JUST CAN’T JUST READ THE PRO OLY CRAP/PANNY HATE

        And you can spin it any way you want, it doesn’t matter, I as well as a few others, like I said, A FEW others, know of the Bias here.
        I mean, I didn’t know it was THAT BAD until I frequented here more often. SO bad in fact, I SOLD my Olympus lenses!
        I refuse to be associated with such a blind (not everyone, mind you) Fanbase. It’s pathetic, really. Kinda pathetic on my half as well for letting a forum get rid of gear. But I’m not ashamed of it, I’m quite pleased to be done with them.

        So, you can continue hating panasonic and praising Olympus. I’ll be here, Laughing at the Blind fanboys. I’ll be here when some Olyfanboy hates on a panasonic kit for no good reason whatsoever.

        Waiting for the demise/takeover of Olympus,

        Mr ALL CAPS

        • MAFAv8r

          “I SOLD my Olympus lenses!
          I refuse to be associated with such a blind (not everyone, mind you) Fanbase. ”
          Looks more emotive than sound reasoning there chum.

          • SOUND REASONING WAS EBAY TELLING ME “ITEM SOLD”

            Like I said, being totally honest, I was relived selling the remnants of anything Olympus out of my house. If I ever run into my 35mm film Olympus, I’m going to chuck it out of one of my windows..
            I even tell my photog-friends in the fashion industry (99% DSLR users), when they see me with my small MFT camera, I tell them get anything BUT Olympus. Them I tell them to come here for the laughs.

            Seriously. It’s that bad here. The Bias here is beyond belief.

            But hey, taunt away, if that’s what makes your day/night. Just proves my point.

            Mr ALLCAPS

            • Anonymous

              So lets see…

              You pick a camera and lenses based on association?

              Not based on usability and results it can produce?

              And we should somehow care about your ‘informed’ opinion?

  • QQ

    I pray it’s no more expensive than 650 euros in Europe. That’s max my brain let’s to spend for such a thing.

    • Anonymous

      We’ll be lucky if it will cost double this price.

    • MJr

      Panasonic 12-35/2.8 is €999, so do the math.

  • SteveO

    14-54 MkII f2.8-3.5 $599 and 12-60 f2.8-4 SWD $999, both weathersealed and with exceptional optics. With the E-M1 purportedly (believe it when I see it) offering fast AF with 4/3’s lenses, why pay a fortune for a more limited range lens?

    Constant f2.8 is nice, but at what price? And how could they justify a higher price than Panny’s 12-35mm f2.8 which includes OIS?

    • Anonymous

      Do we know if it uses internal zoom?

      • The Real Stig

        We know it doesn’t.

        • Anonymous

          Thanks. Thats too bad, guess I’ll just keep the 12-35 then.

  • JF

    I’m very happy to have bought the pany 12-35 ! This new olympus pro is too big and too eexpensive for me…I can live with the chromatic aberration (which i correct in two clics with lightroom) and distorsion of the pany at 12 mm elsewhere it’s just flawless, sharp, colorfull !

  • Markthetog

    Complaining about the price of quality optics seems to be the full time business of the hobbyists here. Everyone wants pro this and pro that yet whines when pro gear actually shows up and costs what real pro gear needs to cost. Endless armchair economists here claim super sales if only the thick headed manufacturers would understand that they need to lower the price by half.
    The total market for any lens other than the kit lens is very small. It is further impacted by the competition by various makers for this tiny segment. You cannot pay for R&D with tiny volumes and low prices no matter how good the product is.

    • disso

      +1

      If the name says “PRO” in it, I assume that this will be similar than SHG lenses from Oly in terms of IQ and mechanics. And it is also going to be oly-grade waterproof.

    • TrueTrue

      Yep… true, super high sophisticated technology is expensive….. like lens hood.. for 80$

      • Markthetog

        True because they will only sell a few even if they sold one for every lens. IMO the hood should be included on any premium lens. Also it should be a proper hood that actually shades decently as opposed to just looking swoopy.

    • +10!!

    • Oilymouse

      “Endless armchair economists here claim super sales if only the thick headed manufacturers would understand that they need to lower the price by half.”

      Beautiful. Having witnesses really helps.

  • Ranger 9

    “Let’s hope the price isn’t bigger…” Dream on. This will be another “super high grade” lens aimed at the super-deep-pocketed Zuiko zealot.

    My prediction is $1500 street. And another $100 for the lens hood.

    • Anonymoose

      And then it’s going to be useless when Nano Four Thirds becomes the new black, with cameras the size of matchboxes!

    • Markthetog

      The irony is that they have realized (along with Canon, Nikon, Fuji etc) that hobbyists ARE willing to raid their children’s college money to buy their toys.

  • Steven

    It sounds pretty cool with this new Olympus lens. But as I’m a GH3 owner. I’ll still pick the Panasonic 12-35mm one. Because the Olympus 12-40mm lens use build-in camera stabilizer. So it won’t work on my GH3!! :(

    • Anonymous

      It will work quite fine on your gh3, you just won’t have IS. Luckily there is the 12-35/2.8 with ois.

  • OMD owner

    Too big. Sorry, but it is micro43 lens, not 4/3 lens.
    130mm long, filter size 62mm ???
    It is not much smaller then 14-54/2.8-3.5 which was big with E400 or E500.

    Sorry, but I prefer Panasonic 12-35/2.8 OIS.
    It is small, sharp, IQ very good, only 305g, filter size 58mm.

    • The new lens is smaller and undoubtedly lighter than the 14-54mm FT lens. And optically it may well be even better.

      See below. I provide actual size/weight measurements of the 14-54mm for your viewing pleasure and enlightenment.

      • JBL

        sure ,this is m4/3 mirroless concept lens so big and bigger
        compare to others mirrorless is disadvantage .

  • Anonymous

    I can’t afford it but I won’t bitch about it!

    • Kabe

      …which makes you really stand out on this site ;-)

      • AMVR

        Well, I CAN afford it (if $1500 + – is the real price) BUT I’m going to bitch about it anyway. Why ? because this kind of prices don’t help the system at all. It’s unjustifiable, for starters, it’s too big for m4/3, oh yes, you all forgot this fits into a lens system ? yeah, a system, as in, it should work with other cameras besides the E-M1. This lens is not an E-M1 exclusive, it should adapt to other bodies too. This thing is Mega 4/3 not micro, what’s the point of this system if we suddenly start accepting close-to-DSLR sized lenses, bodies and prices? what happened to less glass + SW correction = cheaper lenses ? Oly could’ve made this lens smaller with SW correction AND keep the same final output IQ.

        Besides that, closing the price gap with FF is not gonna validate this (or other) m4/3 products in the eye of pros. If a pro is gonna jump into m4/3 they’ll expect to get something smaller and hopefully cheaper than their FF or MF setup. Oly is cornering the system into a niche when it should turn it into a mass market system first AND THEN reach for the pros.

        • Anonymous

          For $%^&#%&@# sake go buy a gf or e-pm or e-pl or g5 or g6 or whatever with some of the affordable primes, those make an excellent and quite affordable setup. Oh, and don’t come back until you understand that widening the scope of the system includes much higher grade stuff then you are willing to buy obviously.

          Yes, it should also include more affordable primes and zooms in between the rather high grade and the kit zooms.

          You know, asking for things you’d buy is totally fine, whining about stuff because it happens to not be what you’d buy is just plain stupid.

          • AND YOUR’E WHINING AFTER SOMEONE STATING HIS OPINION

            Just goes to show I’m right.

            Olympus fanboys are a cancer to any camera forum. Just see DPR.

        • Anonymous

          There are many other lens choice.
          If this lens does not fit your need, it is ok for the many rest of us.

        • Markthetog

          Well……you’re saying you want a small lens. That’s good but the physics won’t let you get a fast zoom of exceptional quality without some bulk no matter the ingenuity of the engineers.

          • AMVR

            So you’re going to counterargument with the old and tired ¨if you don’t like it, don’t buy it¨ line ? isn’t that a little childish at this point ? I’m very well aware of the alternatives and the freedom of choice we have, this lens does suit my needs and I could buy it (I’ve been saving for this for 3 years so no worries there) but, are the trade off worth it ? Oly has all the resources available to make this lens both cheaper AND smaller at little IQ cost. I understand and even appreciate the presence of high lenses in the line up, it makes the system stronger, I can easily accept their higher price too but this lens unnecessarily crosses a line, that’s what bothers me, not the price or size themselves, it’s the fact that oly can do better but they chose not to because they’re on a crusade to turn m4/3 into legacy 4/3 again, with bigger lenses and bodies, and that road only leads to failure, as it did before. When I buy this monstrosity of a lens all I’ll think of is how oly could’ve done better for the price they’re asking, we know that for a fact because of the design behind the 14-54 and the pany 12-35. How can this lens be as big as a 4/3 lens WITH adapter and just as expensive when m4/3 was designed to include SW correction into the design from the start? When I eventually pay for this lens (and I will, cause Pany is just too short), all I’ll think is that I could’ve gotten a smaller lens if Oly was just willing to stick to m4/3 original philosophy instead of going after DSLR users.

            Case in point, look at the pany 12-35mm, it may have some flaws but no one can argue that it’s a bad lens, and that lens was made by Pany, a company with little lens history, Oly in the other hand is an experienced lens manufacturer, one of the best, I’m sure Oly could pull off a better optical formula with software correction in mind and end up with a better proposal. Even APS-C has achieved the unthinkable with Fuji’s fast kit zoom and Sony collapsible kit lens, how could Oly not achieve something smaller for this price ? People speak of optical correction like it’s the holy grail but they seldom take advantage of that 3% extra quality, and the costs of going that route (for which m4/3 has no need by its very nature) are huge, both in size and price.

            M4/3 was designed to achieve smaller and cheaper lenses at little to no IQ cost, releasing a lens that’s not smaller (one could say it’s even bigger taking SW & flange distance into account) than regular 4/3 lenses at this point in the game is just dumb, no matter how awesome the lens is. If physics were such a roadblock there wouldn’t be any m4/3 to begin with. The way this lens was intentionally designed means it’ll only balance well with higher end bodies and that’s a very bad move from Oly, some people have more than one body, what’s the point of having a single common mount if the lens is inadequate for most bodies? I know they’re trying to make us buy higher end bodies but this isn’t the way to do it.

            • Anonymous

              Which line exactly did Olympus cross?

              The line of what you are willing to pay? or the line of whatever weight or size you prefer? You realize those ‘lines’ are between your ears and have nothing whatsoever to do with logic and don’t apply in general?

              Sorry but if you don’t like it for the size, price, weight or such, then don’t buy it . There is nothing childish about it, but everything childish about going all nuts because Olympus is said to announce a lens soonish that won’t fit your specific ‘lines’.

              Again, it would be a really good idea to have a ‘mid range’ of lenses such that in price, weight, performance, size can be within this magical ‘line’ of yours, and many enthusiasts would be served by such a lens, but this rumored 12-40 lens is simply a step up from that.

  • J.

    Question from a newbie here…how long would/will it normally take for this lens to be released after announcing? I’m upgrading from the EP3 to the EM5 in a couple of weeks (hooray! …and anyone in the market for a rarely used, mint condition silver EP3 with a bunch of extras?) and am not sure what to do about lenses.

    • Anonymous

      the 10th of Sept. will be announced officially. When you can actually buy it and hold it in your hands, paying full price it depends on where you are based (Japan, then Asia/Europe then last US, etc.) but ultimately it’s a matter of a month or less, if you have the hard cash ready..

  • Anonymous

    With a “Pro” label and a price tag to match this lens better be optically as close to flawless as it can be and not rely on software correction.

  • Let’s get real about the size/weight of the new lens.

    It’s been pointed out that the 140mm max length is from the front element to the focal plane. So the flange to front distance is ~25mm shorter, or max ~115mm, as mounted on the camera.

    The weight wasn’t given, but it’s probably ~100g heavier than the 12-35mm, which is ~305g, meaning the 12-40mm will likely weigh roughly 400g.

    To give some perspective, my treasured 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 extends from 108 to 132mm, flange to front element (INCLUDING the necessary mmf3 adapter).

    It weighs (with adapter) 497.39 grams. The filter size is 67mm.

    And, by the way, I bought it with the E-1 (as a “kit”) in Jan 2004 for ~$2000 (USD). Lord knows what the equivalent cost would be today, no doubt a few hundred more…

    All told the 12-40mm f/2.8 appears to measures up pretty well.

    • Anonymous

      Great post! But they will complain anyway. This is going to be a fabulous lens. And probably won’t even cost that much at the end of the day.. But the average poster here has no clue, sadly..

      • Thanks. I’d agree chances are the new lens will be sensational!

        Thing is, I hold to the idea that if given actual facts, people will absorb the information and as a result we’ll have a more fulfilling conversation.

        The outcome varies, but the optimist in me thinks if it happens once in a hundred tries, that’s a success…

    • MarcoSartoriPhoto

      Jrapdx: good post. I use Voigtländer 17.5mm on E-m5 + grip and I have no problem at all: I think this zoom will be even lighter. I own also the M mount Voigtlander 50mm T1.5: it’s made of brass, it’s smaller than 17.5mm but weights even more.
      I’m expecting a high quality product from Olympus.

  • Bobafett

    A black lens?? No, gimme a silver barrel to match my silver e-m5!! Thus I can win a beauty cam contest! :)

    A zuiko zoom w/ constant aperture at last :)

  • BLI

    Silver Pro zoom?? All the weather sealed m43 Oly zoom lenses are black. If weather sealed, don’t expect a silver lens! (The 12-50 is black or grey.)

  • Ridiculous

    Why don’t they make a compact with M43 sensor and a non-removable zoom? Those can be made smaller than cams with interchangeable lenses, so they can give those puny sensors a reason to exist.
    These big things are inevitably compared to Canon and Nikon, and obviously lose big way, starting from the price. Yes folks, someone has to tell the truth, with all the marketing people abusing this forum.

    • Volker

      I have tested µFT against Nikon and Canon FF systems, using brand prime lenses, and was surprised to find that the FFs are NOT A BIT better in image resolution than the E-M5 is. Yes, I was REALLY surprised. Thats optical quality. The M.Zuiko 45 mm f/1.8 is considerably better and sharper than the Nikon and Canon 85 mm f/1.8 lenses, and it’s cheaper and third the size.

      • Oilymouse

        Shut him up! Take him away! He actually found out things for himself!

        Spreading these crazy ideas will mark the end of our lively and sparkling discussions around here. Before you know it, people will be educating themselves and therefore start thinking for themselves. The simple world where fanboys, anti-fanboys, and trolls are easily identified by their predictable comments will come to an end.

        FF and m43 cameras alike will be seen as wonderful tools. Each will recognized as capable extensions of the mind-body continuum that is the True Photographer.

        Suddenly, the bickering will stop. The whining will end. Only the sound of thousands of clicking shutters, great and small, is now heard.

        This magical noise rises and then slowly fades away as we all enter the Great Outside, catching photons without thought. Ah, it is good to shoot!

        Thank you and good night.

    • JimD

      The canon APSC sensor is 1.8mm taller than the m43. The Foveon sensor is 1mm taller than the m43.

      That is no advantage whatsoever. But neither can take the zuiko glass.

      So we see that Olympus has a very clear advantage here in quality for cost that really equals value.

  • nebben00

    “The best camera is the one you have in your hands when shit happens”

    • Anonymous

      When shit happens, I don’t need a camera.

  • The Real Stig

    In the previous thread I mentioned my OM Zuiko 35-80mm f2.8 zoom.

    It happens to take a 62mm filter. When mounted on a M4/3 adapter, it’s 125mm from flange to barrel end. Add the 4mm or so of the 12-40mm f2.8 likely to protrude past the lens flange and you have 129mm. These specs say it is 131mm at it’s shortest – so the 35-80/f2.8 mounted on my E-M5 is going to be a very close approximation for the 12-40/f2.8 I suspect.

    Here is what the 35-80 looks like on E-M5 if you are interested:

    http://i1351.photobucket.com/albums/p794/An0nemu5/Forum/E-M5OM35-80f2_8_zpsafd91a47.jpg

    • Anonymous

      That 35-80 is a truly wonderful lens, I have used one a few times, and its still on my wanted list for use on my OM film bodies as well as on the E-M5.

      • The Real Stig

        It is a bit idiosyncratic on the E-M5. It turns into a varifocal and is no longer a zoom. To get the best out of the IBIS, you have to either set the IBIS focal length to 50mm and get less than optimum performance out of it the ends of the range or reset to 35 and 80 for optimum IBIS at those lengths. Still, the IQ is great.

        You would be way better off with the 12-40 for M4/3.

        • Anonymous

          I have the 12-35/2.8, 14/2.5, 20/1.7, 25/1.4 and 45/1.8 primes, so am not really in the market for that 12-40. If I do get an E-M1 (likely if it can deliver on the promise of focusing 4/3 lenses properly) I also have an 11-22, 14-54mk2 and 50-200 lying around, either way, the 12-40 seems not for me, independent of how good it may turn out to be.

          The 35-80 would first of all be for use on my film OM bodies, using it on the E-M5 would be for the fun of being able to do so. Usually adapted zooms don’t work as well, especially not when wanting to use ibis.

    • Paul Latouche

      About as big as Lumix 35-100mm f2.8.
      http://www.passione-foto.com/2013/05/prime-impressioni-olympus-omd-em5.html

      I understand that it is wider than the Lumix (40mm vs 35mm at the long end, and supposedly better optical quality), but why is it so long? Internal zoom would be an explanation, as 12-35mm is about the same lenght as 35-100mm while zoomed in. Sadly, we already know that 12-40mm doesn’t zoom internally.

      • true homer

        its actually 2 mm bigger than the 100-300 when its NOT zoomed out. Itll be a huge lens

        • Anonymous

          Nice speculation, proven wrong by now by pictures.. but hey, who cares, you can shit on Olympus so why wait on an announcement and real specs. True loser you are.

          • Richard

            I ask for evidence, you result to name calling. You are a troll

            • Anonymous

              Hi Richard, that wasn’t in reply to any of your posts or questions so wasn’t directed at you at all, and its not really name calling either, its playing on a somewhat silly name, making it match better the behavior of the person behind that name. I don’t know about you, but this true homer dude making claims about something being the largest m4/3 lens ever while not having any solid specs about the lens at all since that lens isn’t announced yet, is in my world just ridiculous and actually, a case of the trolling you were accusing me of (and yes, I’m the same anonymous as the one you just replied to)

              • Richard

                Apologies. The way it came through on my phone confused me

                • Anonymous

                  No problem at all, rather, you are one of those posting actual questions and reasoned responses, much appreciated.

    • Rick

      Thanks for the photo of the 35-80 on the E-M5. It’s not too bad for a super high grade lens.

      Now, with the size issue out of the way, for me at least, it is down to the price. I think Olympus should sell it cheap and do something to grab market share through volume sales. Otherwise, people will ignore it or just buy the Panasonic zoom instead. There are larger and longer term benefits from a higher volume. A good quality zoom (at reasonable price) can help sell its bodies, and that can in turn lead to more lens sales, i.e. better overall business than trying to profit from very expensive low-volume products (why 43 failed).

      • AMVR

        THIS !!! +1000

        This has nothing to do with wants and needs, this lens (and any lens like it) should benefit the whole system, not just a few E-M1 and GH3 users. This lens should be more affordable than the competition, it should draw consumers into the system. Pricing it the way it’s rumored to be will only guarantee that most of the stock sits on shelves.

        • Anonymous

          The typical consumer doesn’t buy extra lenses anyway, so this lens is not going to draw them into the system.

          But enthusiasts and pros will buy extra lenses, but tend to have different considerations with regards to acceptable price. Trying to make a lens satisfy both at the same time will end up not really satisfying either. Additionally, having a high spec’d but consequently more expensive lens leaves room for more reasonably priced alternatives from the likes of Sigma, Tamron at all, usually with a quality penalty but with a very good price/performance. It also leaves room for higher quality but slightly less bright (or non constant aperture) lenses to fill the gap. That makes for a much more complete system with a better selection of lenses, and benefits the system much more then trying to cater to both with a single lens.

  • Shenkie

    Lol…. big ass expensive lenses and tiny sensor. Why o why would enybody go for the (m) 4/3 system.

    • Hegel

      Could it be that zoom lenses with the same aperture, range, and quality would be bigger and more expensive for APS-C?

      • true homer

        at 5.5 inches with no hood, this is no longer so

      • It could be… but if you checked rather than assuming, you will find that in fact no, they aren’t.

        The “smaller and lighter” advantages of 43 and MFT is not an unqualified benefit. The unspoken qualification is “compared to 35mm equiv reach’. That is, a 70-300 43 with 140-600 equiv reach is smaller and lighter than an actual 35mm 140-600.

        The reason being this annoying thing call “physics”.

        Don’t believe me? Just compare the physical specs of various 75-300 lenses:

        Lens Zoom Max Ap. D mm L mm Weight gm
        Oly MFT 75-300 f4.8-6.7 69 117 423
        Tamron 75-300 f4.0-5.6 76 119 435
        Canon 75-300 f4.0-5.6 71 122 476
        Sony 75-300 f4.5-5.6 71 122 460
        Oly 43 70-300 f4.0-5.6 80 127 620

        Yes the MFT is the smallest and lightest but not exactly by a country mile, and worth noting is that it is also the least bright by quite some margin, and it is probably this compromise more than anything intrinsically about MFT that explains it’s slightly smaller dimensions.

        The only real outlier in this list is the 43 70-300. Which I can’t explain except perhaps as a result of it also having the greatest focal length range, although if that is the case then that extra 5mm came at a big cost. Certainly it’s not a function of the sensor size or the lack of mirror in that system since the other lenses, with the exception of the MFT, are also for mirror systems with larger sensors.

        • MAFAvr

          But you are forgetting the equivalence of 43rds where 75-300 is 150-600. That is of huge importance to many, including myself.

          • Forgetting the 35mm equivalence ? You mean “forgetting” in the sense where it means “is mentioned specifically” ?

        • Darryl

          4/3s lenses are telecentric (light rays inpinging on sensor are parallel). While this had some advantages image edge sharpness and vignetting, it also means typically another glass element and group in the optical formula over m43 lenses which relax this requirement.

          • All interesting theoretical points, but then there is the real world and the question then has to be asked, if this difference in MFT is so significant, why isn’t the MFT more significantly smaller and lighter than the APS-C mount lenses on that list ?

      • Boooe

        on APS-C system, 16-53/3.7 is equivalent to this 12-40/2.8
        Sony’s upcoming 16-70/4 is noticeably smaller that the oly’s 12-40/2.8

    • Anonymous

      Many have in fact selected m43 as their main or backup system, for very good reasons that are beyond your understanding, I am afraid.

    • Anonymous

      Are you still here, idiot. Why don’t you return to your FF la la land?

    • ATTN idiots

      Shenkie is one of you.

      • Oilymouse

        Another alter ego keeping things lively? Can’t believe it!

    • Volker

      Anybody who wants a small, lightweight, decent camera the image quality of which does not considerably stand back against full frame systems, thanks to excellent primes. I earn a living by taking photographs, using mainly the E-M5 and the M.Zuiko 12/45/75 mm primes, and (so far) none of my customers has complained about my images being too bad. In fact, one of the art directors I supply is really impressed by them :-)

  • paulus

    I am looking forward to the “Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 12-40mm F2.8 PRO“!

    Weather sealed, constant aperture f 2.8, with the HD-VIDEO power function of the slower 12-50mm m.Zuiko Kit lens and the image quality of the famous 14-35mm SHG Zuiko it could be a top seller.
    I would accept a price of Euro 1.400 for such a high quality lens and bundled with the new E-M1 a market penetration with Euro 2.600 might be fair.

    • Paul Latouche

      Hey, don’t ask for high prices! Olympus might as well listen to you!
      Fine for you if you’d pay 1400 euro for that, but I think that publicly, it would be wiser to ask for 500$ as everybody else. Wishful thinking sometimes work. Remember we got IBIS on the GX7!

    • You’re going to have a pleasent surprise…
      -p-

      • Ross

        That comment sounds reassuring. :)

        I’m looking forward to seeing what this lens will bring. I may not be able to afford it (or justify the expense to my wife), but it would be something to aim at adding to the kit.

      • MAFAvr

        Priced as a kit lens on the EM1, that would be nice!!!

  • Damn Oly
  • paulus

    On my additional wish list: a“Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 40-150mm F2.8 PRO“!

  • If the lens is 1500, I see little reason to get it. Just get the Zuiko 14-35 F2 instead, works perfectly on the EM1 too.

    Or settle for the cheaper Pany.

    • Oly-SHG-fan

      The 14-35mm is about Euro 2.700 – 3.000!

  • Oly-SHG-fan

    I hope that the “Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 12-40mm F2.8 PRO“ will be MSC-HD-Video-optimized.

  • I see only a few potential advantages of the m4/3 12-40 over the 4/3 12-60, but none that will make me buy the 12-40 in addition to the 12-60 I already own:

    – At 40 mm the 12-40 is close to one stop faster than the 12-60 is at 40mm, so the 12-40 is more suitable for headshots.
    – Slightly better low light capability
    – Faster AF
    – Most likely the 12-40 is optimized for video and has a more quiet AF motor

    • Markthetog

      I would differ and say the 12-60 would be better for portraits as it has the greater reach. The stop advantage is only useful if indulging in the current fashion of super thin DOF. This can be effected just fine with f4 and appropriate technique.

      Another thing to consider is that portraiture often includes groups (and thus makes way more money for the photographer). A shallow DOF will ruin the image and thus your payday.

      • Anonymous

        f/2.8 on micro 4/3s is hardly “ultra thin” DOF.

        • true homer

          thats what hes saying

      • Anonymous

        Oh and even “ultra fast” lenses can be stopped down for more DOF when necessary. You don’t HAVE to shoot an f/2.8 lens at f/2.8, even if there is no aperture ring on the lens. :)

      • FredG

        Unless you are planning on 24mm equiv AOV portraits the 12-60 quickly drops down to a an f3.5-f4 lens with equiv DOF as an F7 TO f8 FF lens

  • Will wait for some technical reviews first and if they all come out well, I’ll most probably get it, if it’s sealed and somewhere below $1500.

    Hope to see the tele zoom as well soon and even more looking forward to a 300/4. Who cares if it doesn’t go well with the Pen concept of everything small, as it would still be a lot smaller and lighter than Canon / Nikon super tele lenses.

  • David B

    Concerned about the size. The beauty of m43 is small cameras and small lenses. A big-ass long and heavy lens defeats the purpose of m43, you might as well use APS-C or a Full Frame camera at this point. In terms of DOF this lens equals to 24-80 F/5.6 Full Frame lens. This has always been a problem of Sony NEX where their lenses are huge and defeat the purpose of mirrorless. I’d rather Olympus concentrate on making more very fast primes then useless F/2.8 zooms. AT least make a F/2.0 zoom, you did it for 43 system!

  • On a related news, Steve Huff just posted a pre-review of the Voigtlander 42.5/0.95.

    http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/08/23/the-voigtlander-42-5-f0-95-lens-for-micro-43-is-here-review-soon/

  • Oly

    13 cm long.. like Panasonic 14-45 on top of the 12-35 X lens.. a true definition of micro.. it’s has to be a joke, right ?

  • ckmaui

    now we wait to see how it performs :)

    till then who knows ?

    will I sell my 12-35 panny ? it is going to have to be blow away better and that is going to be hard to do IMHO
    no doubt it can be nicer but I am very happy with the panny and comparing it to my canon and nikon 2.8 equiv setups the oly is going to have to pull out some magic and make it like the 75 1.8 in quality

  • cosinaphile

    with the quality of the exquisite slr 4\3 lenses specifically the high end and super high end ones , there is every possibility this will be a superb piece of glass.

    and this being Olympus it is assuredly overpriced , black barrel is standard , so look for it in silver for 200 dollars more , need a lens hood ? 75 bucks please

    olympus , ka -ching [ cash register sounds]

  • Anonymous

    So how will all the Oly fans who complain the 12-35 is “too big” now justify the size of this lens, since it says Olympus on the barrel?

    And how will all the FF fanboys complain this lens is “too big” for m43, when it’s still half the size of a 24-70 f/2.8?

  • Just check out the dc.watch site and there’s a skyscraper banner advertising Zuiko Digital Lens (4/3) Guess it’s the taste of things to come.

  • Big expensive m43 is dead join the ff

    • MAFAv8r

      LOL the word ‘join’ is a give away. Must be some kind of exclusive club. To be a member you need a massive backpack, although I suppose the bulging biceps must have some advantages.

      • Anonymous

        Not forgetting the old men with Zimmer Frames.

    • The Real Stig

      Your insecurity is showing – forum after forum, post after post, users who have FF systems and who get an E-M5 report leaving the FF stuff in a cupboard for when the next blue moon appears.

      You come across as a teenager who’s daddy has FF gear he lets you fondle once in a while.

      One day you might achieve a level of maturity where you will look back and be embarrassed.

    • Oly-SHG-fan

      Bodybuilding is not the most important special competition in PRO-Fotografy.
      Try to be more brain-skilled.

  • Kevin Sutton

    Sorry, but this sounds like 4/3 all over again. Olympus’s current darling format gets uber expensive quality lenses that everyone loves but don’t sell well enough. Olympus then changes to a new mount and reinvents the lenses again, with owners of the previous mount wondering what to do with their highly devalued lenses…

  • Is dead is dead small sensor cameras like never get the performance of bigger sensor cameras m43 is for Facebook users tablet etc …..+ is getting really expensive why to pay for less performance quality just check people shooting sports paparazzi modeling who use? Gulio hahahha ……..really mediocre

  • LARGER LENSES, HUH?

    Olympus must be trying to trick everybody into thinking bigger is better after all. Tricking you into buying their FT lenses, by making MFT just as large.

    Guess what, won’t sell… Just like the EP-5, and the EM-1… Over priced for what it is.
    If anything, more people will leave MFT and join Fuji or Sony. I would leave for Fuji, but the GX7 will suffice.
    I see MFT losing market share because of high prices, mostly from Olympus.

  • Mattphoto

    12-60mm has a filter size of 72mm
    the much larger 50-200mm has a filter size of 67mm

    Not safe to assume a larger filter size = larger lens

  • There are some very interesting stats about 43rumors here:

    http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52033769

    Since the 21% of the readership is young americans (which presumably make also most of the trolls) My advice to them is not to get in a frenzy everytime a new lens is introduced. They simply won’t have the money to buy everything :)

    Much better is they plan their own roadmap and start with a couple of accessible lenses. Then what they *need* will become increasingly clear.

    Just draw a development path, according to your projects.

    Interestingly the readership here is getting stronger by the day, while DPR’s is quickly declining.

    Admin wouldn’t it be time for proper Forums, where one can post a thread too? This place is getting very big indeed. Congrats!

  • QQ

    It’s about 2 months since I bought Olympus E-PL5 with 14-42mm II, as well as 17mm 1.8 and moved from point-and-shoot. Everything would be quite fine if not kit lense. It produces dull colors, not sharp enough for me. And I am looking for some similar lense to swap it. This one would be promising if the price is right. But >1000 euros is something my mind can’t accept. If the price would be this big, I don’t see bright future for m43.

    • Rchard

      Do you use an UV filter on the 14-42? I hade problems with my 40-150 II. Pictures were soft and dull. When I removed the UV filter it was much better. Seems like some of the lower end OLY lenses don’t work well with filters. A friend of , who is a proffesional wildlife photographer have heard from some of his colleagues, that they have had similar problems with other brands of lenses.

      • QQ

        Sorry, I am still new to photography and m43. If “filter” means some detachable add-on to lense, which must be bought in addition, I don’t use it as I haven’t bought anything called “filter”.

        • M

          Make some pics using a tripod to compare if the pics are sharper then handheld made. go to a friend with more experince in photography or to your camera shop that they make some test pics. for me, it sounds that the lens is not ok, you could also send it to Olympus for a check. dull colours could be because of wrong camera settings, but if it’s only with this lens…

      • Tropical Yeti

        I had problems with filters on many lenses (Canon and Olympus). What came out on the end was – the problem are cheap filters. You can have many problems, like poor autofocus, stripes all over the picture (orientation of stripes depends on orientation of filter…)

        I often hear people complaining about such problems, and I guess many times cheap filters are the problem.

        With quality (expensive) filters I have never had such problems…

        • In the past, following conventional advice, I always bought UV “protection” filters for my lenses. Seemed a wise idea considering the extravagent cost of high-end optics.

          Of course really good filters were themselves hardly cheap, and as everyone finds out, cheap ones are disastrous to IQ.

          But after a lot of years it became so obvious that *all* filters, even the super-duper-252-layer-extra-precision-coated-and-cost-a-fortune kind of filter, inevitably degrade lens performance, and not just a little bit.

          So I don’t use “UV” or any filter unless there’s a really good and specific reason for it. And you know, none of my “good” lenses has suffered damage bacause of it.

          Bottom line: routinely using filters offers little if any benefit and more likely than not, decrements results we paid a healthy premium to get.

          • Robert Crawford

            I don’t bother with filters either. The main reason for a filter is to protect the lens from damage, including scratches. I spend lots of time in the rough using a spotting scope. Never once have I damaged my spotting scope, despite rough use. I’ll take my chances on my lenses in favor or purer light transmission sans lens filters.

    • MAFAvr

      Have a look at DPR and Pekka’s site, make sure you have them set up like they recommend

  • M43 pro hahahahahah m43 is used by asian girls ,old ppl, and hipsters with any photographic. Talent

  • Shenkie

    The pro name is indeed strange for a camera system which will not be used by real pro’s. Oly get real and target the point and shoot people who would like a little bit more. So no big expensive lens and body’s please. Its just pathetic.

  • Brigitte Zaczek

    Looks like this is going to be a nice lens, but too big for me and others who already own high quality FT lenses of the same size. What I am waiting for impatiently would be a super tele lens of reasonable size and pro quality (200-300, or 300), better but not much bigger than the no longer produced 75-300.
    Interested in nature and bird photography my main reason to choose the FT system when it was first introduced was a reasonably sized super tele produced by Olympus. I am working with the fabulous but heavy 300/2.8. Although this is supposed to work on the EM1, AF and all, I would gladly buy a smaller, lighter native micro FT lens producing similar IQ.
    An unrealizable wish, Olympus?

    • Anonymous

      Brigitte, the 75-300 has been replaced by a nearly identical one but for a more reasonable price.

      A ‘pro quality’ one in the same size and weight would be unreasonable to ask for unless you’d be willing to accept the same slow aperture at the long end and don’t want an increase in build and optical quality. Improve any of those 3 and the lens will become bigger.

  • Cyril

    Real soldier use medium format ,and don’t waste their time on m4/3 forum.

  • Hans

    You don’t need to be a pro (and neither old, a hipster or an Asian girl) to want a fast zoom for the OM-D (either the ‘old’ one or the new one). When will the 40-100mm/F2.8 be announced?

    • Richard

      we have two utterly beautiful primes at 45mm and 75mm, so how about a new 90-250 f2.8-f4?

  • Richard

    I find it very curious so many FF fanboys on this site!?
    I wonder if it is a bit like the fact that most homophobes are homosexual, but ashamed of their sexuality.
    Its ok FF fanboys, you can come out of the closet, we know that you are on 4/3rds blog site becuse you like the small stuff, but are afraid of being made fun of. Its ok! join the fun with pride!

    • EL Aura

      Am I a FF fanboy if I say that my Nikon D800 + 85 mm f/1.8 can get me a shutter speed that is two stops faster than I could get my E-M5 + 45 mm f/1.8 for roughly the same amount of noise? And ditto for my 180 mm f/2.8 on FF and a 35-100 mm f/2.8 on m43.

      What matters in the end is how much noise (or how much motion blur) there is, not the numerical value of the f-number. My iPhone also has f/2.4 lens, pretty much the same as my 14 mm f/2.5 lens on m43. Am I a m43 fanboy if I call that that an f/9 m43-equivalent lens?

      • Richard

        El Aura
        If you actually have a m43 camera of any kind, then you are not the troll I was referring too.
        Having said that, what you wrote is confusing!
        for the light hitting each part of a sensor the f stop is the f stop no matter what the size of the sensor is. for noise and motion blur f1.8 is f1.8 no matter what size the sensor is – this is the whole point of m43.
        The trade off is in depth of field mainly, with a tiny drop in IQ over an FF (its the glass that matters!). the bokeh from f1.8 on m43 is certainly not the same as on ff. If you want bokeh for portraits, that is a bad thing. If you want larger depth of field, because you do macro, or do wedding photography or landscapes in low light, then it is a good thing.
        there is no such thing as a universal ideal solution. We all have different needs so are happy with different trade offs.
        I sold all my Canon gear because it was just too big to carry around. Now I love my omd and lenses, and even have a couple of big 4/3rds lenses for sports and wildlife – where I do not mind the increased size.

        • EL Aura

          I have really have a GF-1 and an E-M5 (plus 7-14 mm, 14 mm, 20 mm, and 45 mm lenses). The key point is that the amount of noise in an image is over a very wide range is inversely proportional to the number of photons being ‘counted’; ie, the smaller the number of photons, the larger the fluctuations of the photon measured. It’s much like measuring rainfall with buckets. If you have a funnel (‘lens’, aperture opening in mm, to be precise the entrance pupil) of a given size collecting rain, it doesn’t matter if that funnel has a small outlet (‘small sensor’) or a larger outlet (‘large sensor’), the number of raindrops it collects is the same and thus fluctuations in measuring the rainfall depend only on how many raindrops enter the funnel, not on the rate per area the leave the outlet of the funnel.

          The f-stop gives you the amount of light per area, if that area is larger you’ll be collecting the same amount of photons with smaller f-stop than you would do with a larger f-stop over a smaller area.

          • Richard

            Yes! But it’s the number of photons per unit area of the sensor! Ff is more photons, but more area to be lit up. I have never ever heard anybody day f2 means less light in m43 than f2 in ff it is exactly the same ratio always!
            Point to one photo blog or review that agrees with you!

            • HF

              Correct, number photons/unit area, so equal amount of light/area.
              A FF sensor, however, has larger area and could have a larger pixel size (both, e.g. could have 16MP),
              resulting in higher signal to noise ratio.
              Look at those links, too:
              http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/
              http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm.

              An advantage of m43 is the frequency of sensor updates. Each new sensor improves data readout, noise, etc. My impression is, these updates come much faster than those seen for FF.

              As many professional do now, imho the way to go (although expensive) is to have a FF along with a m43 kit to get the best of both worlds. An important thing to consider is the lens prize, however. To really be on par with DSLR m43 needs good lenses, which are expensive. See the excellent review of
              http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/olympus_om_d_e_m5_review.shtml,
              for example, to get an idea of the lens prizes.

              Many friends of mine opt for APS-C mirror-less (like the fuji xe-1), to get the advantages of mirror-less cameras and decent DOF.

              • Richard

                yes it is all about what you need!
                I thought about getting a Sony RX1R to compliment my OMD specially for low light work, then I read the decidedly lacklustre af of the Sony, and ditched that idea.
                I considered getting a Nikon for sport and wildlife photography, but the lens size problem becomes even more phohibitive (I am a wheelchair user, and a diver, and always have to carry my gear myself – and dive camera gear is bulky an heavy!)
                The OMD has a massive advantage in anything macro – the DOF increase is a godsend. this is even more important underwater. being smaller also means all of the underwater housings and ports are smaller….
                Back to my desire for wildlife and sport – well the lumix 100-300 is a great lens for the price. but simply is soft :( when I was taking pictures of jaguars in mexico, I resorted to using my 35-100mm f2.8 lumix and cropping – produced much sharper results, but still not really saleable.
                So I have been waiting for the EM-1 wiht bated breath, and managed to get great deals on 4/3rds glass, the 150mm, the 50-200m and a 1.4 and 2x extenders (waiting on arrival!) with these lenses and the EM-1 I believe I will have the reach and quality that would take at least $5000 and triple the weight of the canon or nikon equivalent..
                So i am still to find the circs that for me, I would benefit from a FF..
                horses for courses!
                I think it is a bit like laptops; if you need a mac pro, then you need a mac pro, but if the latest macair will do what you want, why would you be crazy enough to buy and lug a mac-pro around?
                For general enthusiasts and anyone shooting for fun (even if selling sometimes) the rule is simply this; the best camera is the one you have with you when you see something great – and everyone I know with big gear tend to leave it at home unless they are specifically going out to shoot something…
                roll on the EM-1!!!!!

            • EL Aura

              No, its the number of photons per sensor area that gets mapped to one output pixel (eg, screen pixel). Think of it like this, if you had a plain photovoltaic cell where at the moment the sensor is, would you produce the same amount of electricity, using f/2, with a m43-sized photovoltaic cell or a FF-sized PV cell?

              Take a 12 MP m43 sensor and a 3 MP monitor, the area of four sensor pixels gets mapped to one screen pixel. Now, let’s take lighting and where f/2.8 results in X photons per μm^2 per second. The pixel is 4.2 μm, thus we have 4.2^2 *X photons/(s pixel) or 4*4.2^2*X photons/s per screen pixel, ie, 70.6 photons/s per screen pixel.

              Switch to a 12 MP FF sensor, with 8.4 μm pixels, again four sensor pixels getting mapped to one screen pixel. But now let’s take f/5.6 instead of f/2.8 but keeping the lighting the same. We get X/4 photons per μm^2 per second and thus 4*8.4^2*X/4 photons/s per screen pixel, or 70.6 photons/s per screen area.

              • HF

                As far as I know it’s per UNIT area. That’s different and may be the cause of our misunderstanding. A FF-sensor gathers four times the same light as an m4/3 sensor.
                Similarly, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on APS-C puts as much light on any given UNIT area of the sensor, for example, as
                the 16-35mm f/2.8 on FF, given the same f-stop on either lens.
                Of course, as you indirectly pointed out, you have a different angle of view and DOF when using a lens with equal focal length
                on FF or m43. Since f-stop is a dimensionless number, sensor size drops out (light meters, for example, let you read out an aperture independent of sensor size).
                If you want the same DOF and view angle the f-stop needs to change, as you indicated.

                • EL Aura

                  Why do we want fast lenses? To have less noise or a faster shutter speed OR to have shallow DOF. A lens with a given f-stop, eg, f/2.8, on m43 collects only a quarter of the light a lens with the same f-stop. And thus receives only a quarter of the photon on the sensor area that is mapped to an output (eg, screen) pixel. And therefore has noise two stops worse (for the same shutter speed), or a two stops slower shutter speed for the same noise since equal number of photons = equal amount of noise.

            • EL Aura

              And here is a quite exhaustive (in all meanings of that word) blog post: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

  • Pingback: Poetry for Trolls – Leica Apostate()

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The 43rumors website, 43rumors.com, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/partners/
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/analyticsjs/cookie-usage?csw=1#cookiesSet Addthis cookies: http://www.addthis.com/privacy.
Disqus cookies: https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466235-use-of-cookies.
Vimeo cookies: http://vimeo.com/privacy.
Youtube cookies: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/171780?hl=en-GB

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.

Close