Lens poll results. Short analysis (fast zoom lens needed!)

Share

Over 6,400 unique voters selected the favorite future Micro Four Thirds lens wish list. You can see the poll and full results here: http://www.43rumors.com/poll-vote-your-future-micro-four-thirds-wish-list/.

While this doesn’t pretend to be a scientific analysis there are certainly some general tendency we can extract from the results:
1) There is a high need for high quality zooms. Currently the m43 systems offers many zoom lenses but none is really fast. And that is something our m43 readers highly do miss.
2) The most requested lens is the Micro Four Thirds version of the popular Four Thirds 12-60mm f/2.8-3.5 weather sealed. The current 12-50mm slow zoom isn’t enough for you!
3) While Panasonic is about to launch their f/2.8 X zoom lenses the 43rumors readers are still demanding faster f/2.0 zooms. Probably influenced by the superb (and expensive) Olympus 14-35mm and 35-100mm f/2.0 lenses you asked for new m43 12-35mm f/2.0, 12-50mm f/2.0 and 35-100mm f/2.0 zooms. I asked you to take into consideration that those lenses would be very expensive. I hope your emotional part of the brain didn’t fully overrun the logic :)
The Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0 costs over $2,000 at Amazon right now (Click here). So be prepared to pay a lot for these lenses if Olympus/Panasonic will ever release them for real!
4) The most requested prime lenses are the 17mm f/1.4 and 25mm f/1.2 weather sealed high quality lenses. I voted for them too ;)
5) Interesting to notice that the most requested pancakes are again having the same focal length of the top quality primes: 17mm f/2.0 and 25mm f/1.8 pancake.

 

Overall high quality and weather sealed lenses with wide up to normal focal length and fast aperture are requested. Surprisingly there is not a high demand for tele lenses. Do you found other interesting aspects from the poll results?

P.S.: Thank you all for the talking part in this. If I get soem feedback from Olympus/Panasonic soruces I will let you know what they think about it!

Share
  • nicwalmsley

    A great exercise, thanks sdmin. I guess it would help make such polls more seripus if we could somehow have a rough idea of how large and expensive a proposed lens would be. 22-50 f/2.0 would be a terrifying monster.

  • JF

    12-50 mm f2…hahahahaha !!! Do you want that:
    http://flickr.com/gp/j-f_leguen/n4gcu6
    ???

    • MJr

      Yes.

      • JF

        :o

        • P4INKiller

          Not really, but I would want a 12mm f0.95, even if it was to cover my entire palm.

    • Fan

      No. F2.8 is enough.

    • NO!

    • Twister

      No!!!! f2.8 is enough for me.

    • I want one on sold on a GF-5 bundle please!

    • Anonymous

      These results made my jaw drop! I thought that people who used m43 want small bodies and SMALL LENSES! Otherwise we’d all just have kept our APS-C dslr’s and been happy!

      Why weren’t fast pancakes all over this list? Isn’t that what makes m43 shine and is what all the other APS-C formats can’t touch??

      Or maybe people didn’t realize the size (and obvious cost) implications of their dream lenses? Maybe everyone unconsciously added ‘impossibly small, and super cheap’ to the lens descriptions?

      Admin, please don’t give your list to Panasonic/Olympus – they might actually make some of these lenses!! ;)

      • Poliester

        Absolutely agree!!

  • GreyOwl

    Price- the destroyer of fast zoom lens dreams. :-(

    • Andy Taylor

      Size and weight’s the killer for me!

  • aqasem

    how about a 12-25mm/2f lense?

    • avds

      +1

    • I don’t know about that one. Except for ultra wide, is seems like 3x Zoom is the sweet spot for high quality vs size vs versatility compromise. That 2X would be a case of thinking out side of the box. Not that there is anything wrong about that.

      The thing is, such zoom need to offer more than the (edit: a solution to) lens swapping inconvenience of the Olympus 2/12 – Summilux 1.4/25 combo.

    • aqasem

      and a 25-50mm/f2 lense istead of the coming 12-35mm/f2.8, 35-100mm/f2.8.

      what do you think which range is more suitable for a MFT system :)

  • nicwalmsley

    12-50, I meant. Edit still doesn’t work on iPhone.

  • nicwalmsley

    Yeah, I’d be interested to see size weight cost quality of something around a 15-30mm 2.0.

    • Esa Tuunanen

      With lesser degree of retrofocus design ~0.5kg weight might be possible in place of 4/3 14-35mm’s 0.9kg.

      • nicwalmsley

        seems like a good concession to me. half the weight, 70% of the focal length.

        • avds

          +1
          Except 12-25/2 would be more useful, covering focus lengths of more than a handful existing native m43 primes with just a single fast zoom.

  • Esa Tuunanen

    > Surprisingly there is not a high demand for tele lenses.
    Maybe that’s because of tiny toy obsession of bodies making them ergonomically even more horrible with big tele lenses. I doubt that even Canon could sell some Ixus class body to be used with 400mm FF tele lens.
    And long focal length lenses are even more demanding focus detection system wise so some kind of phase detection including hybrid AF would be needed in place of only trial and error focusing to make long bird/wildlife photography lenses really usefull.

    Like I’ve been saying mirrorless is seriously lacking in actually challenging hundred years old mirror design.
    But at least Canikon must be happy for that!

    • Jalo

      I miss a long tele :)

      400mm 4,5 – 5.6, largest aperture can be modest, but quality better than 75-300mm at 300mm setting. Weathersealed, if reasonable costs, tripod mount

      • 200-400 would be nice. And 50-200, 12-60 or 14-54. All 2.8-3.5/4.0 :-) And the existing 9-18 and a good macro. If I had these lenses, everything would be fine for me :-)

    • Mr. Reeee

      +1
      f2.0 zooms would be huge on M4/3 bodies. When I first saw an Olympus 35-100mm f2 lens, I was shocked at the size of the thing. Lenses like that are for a very small niche. f2.8 seems like a reasonable compromise for zoom speed vs. size/weight/cost.

      Luckily, there are plenty of full-frame, long, manual telephoto lenses that can be purchase used for great prices.

      In terms of native M4/3 lenses we have NOW, the Panasonic 100-300mm is a pretty good lens in terms of size, weight, image quality and price. When considering a Nikon 300mm, I found most weigh around 2 lbs! If I owned a car and always carried a tripod, no problem. The 100-300mm does a fine job in a very small package. Too bad it’s not weather-sealed, which would make sense for such a long lens.

      • Although the sexyness of an f/2 zoom is undeniable (particularly if it has the IQ of the Oly SHG lenses), you’re absolutely right. A reasonably sized/priced f/2.8 zoom will be much more useful for m43 as a system than a niche, big, fat, pricy f/2 zoom. After we have a couple of all around weathersealed fastish lenses, it could make sense to add some more specialized tools, but not right now.

    • avds

      Tiny bodies are not an obsession, they are a specialization.

      • Anonymous

        A specialization into being stupid.

        • Give me a break will you!

          Tiny bodies are made possible with the removal of the mirror. There are some uses for those bodies. We all know what cannot be done with these cameras, but its what you can do with them that counts.

        • Andy Taylor

          -slow clap for the anon troll-

    • Maybe there are a lot like me who use legacy glass for longer focal lengths, as the old glass works well for the very small amount of work it gets. For me the purchase of long lenses would not be economical.

      Be like Oskar Barnac. He was fed up with carting round big 12×10 plate cameras (bad arthritis, same as me). So he used 35mm film in his adapted movie preview camera. He went from plate to 35mm in one fell swoop. Bit of a difference in resolution and such. But he and others embraced the concept. If Oskar was here today he would probably embrace M43 as moving picture taking forward.

      I like your poetic license with the antiquity of the mirror.

  • d3xmeister

    Fast and high quality zooms will never balance with most 4/3 cameras. Who wants that will be limited to GH3 or OMD with grip. Gx1, EP form factor will always be prime/slow zooms system.

    • Anonymous

      i dont think the formfactor of the EP series is a problem with telelenses, but the fact you are stuck with a non stabilized evf/lcd. There are 3rd party grips available for the ones who need them.

    • Ulli

      i dont think the formfactor of the EP series is a problem with telelenses, but the fact you are stuck with a non stabilized evf/lcd. There are 3rd party grips available for the ones who need them.

  • hannes

    if you pool the votes for all options together, I still think that there is some demand for tele-lenses.

    and, people won’t buy three marginally different fast standard zooms…

    • Sure; I am quite “impressed” how many votes were placed for “non-sense” (in practical terms) lenses like 12-50/2.0 (?!) or 25/1.2 (ok, weather-sealed but nevertheless..). I mean, after all one of the reasons that lenses like most of the MFT ones are so popular is also the attractive pricing. IMHO, a lot of people would be happy enogh with 1-2 fairly fast pancakes with high IQ and weather-sealing – like a 17/2.0, 25/2.0 or something like this to name a few.

      I’d love for sure to see a high-end tele for MFT; something like a 300/4 or 400/5.6 or even a 100-300 or 200-400 f/4, but I’d not buy them at any price – and yes, I neither need all of them.
      Basically, I’d be even happy with a “faster” (even if its only 1/2 a stop faster) and weather-resistant version of the current 75-300 to compliment a 12-50/3.5 – 6.3

      • +1 on the “non-sense”. I wonder how many people would actually pay for those big fat lenses.

        • mooboy

          When I read there were so many votes for a 12-50mm f/2.0, I was also very surprised. I thought most people on this site don’t understand the basics of lenses, or I don’t.

          Still, I don’t think attractive pricing is part of the equation. For attractive pricing, I think the entry level DSLRs and 1.8 primes from Canikon are pretty damn impressive value for money.

          For me, the biggest appeal of m43s is the size. And that’s why the primes hold such appeal. I love my 70-200mm f/2.8 on full frame… but damn I hate lugging it around. But at least it balances nicely with a full size DSLR. My friend with same lens but a smaller crop camera doesn’t seem to bear with it as well due to the unbalanced nature of a big heavy lens with a small body at end.

  • Elf

    I’m still waiting cash in hand for the Panny 12-35 and 35-100 Fast Zoom problem solved.

    • MJr

      NOT if you voted 17/1.4, and hate panasonic power-zoom :P.

  • Perret cap Joe gear photo blogger

    6400 voters and 6.4 joe blogographers would actually buy one at the end

  • David

    I didn’t vote as I can’t afford to pay 1000€ for a single lense. And I doubt that everyone who voted can do so. MFT is even more expensive than DSLs, and you even don’t get a viewfinder in most models.

    • You know, interestingly, thats what I thought of the 1.4/25 a year ago…

  • Jorge

    I would bet for more inexpensive lenses (why isn’t there any 50mm equivalent for around $100, like Canon and Nikon have?). Many people still wonder why getting a m4/3 system has to be as expensive as an entry level APS-C. I think, however, that readers in this forum represent the most enthusiast (and therefore willing to pay for top quality) part of the m4/3 world, and that, had the poll been answered by all m4/3 owners, the answers would have been different.

    I don’t mean that m4/3 doesn’t need high quality lenses. It does. But it needs variety also. There must be more of both quality and budget options, and not more of the same middle products.

    • nicwalmsley

      That’s all true, but don’t we have enough low cost zooms?

    • Elf

      @Jorge Firstly the lenses you refer to from Canon, Nikon are legacy lenses from film times still in production not coated designed for digital lenses. Secondly the current micro 4/3 cameras are competitive to APSC entry level and considerably smaller. I have APSC Canon and Pentax. Good lenses aren’t cheap here either. My 17-55 f2.8 Canon EFS is not a budget lens either. We have budget lenses in zoom aplenty. And fast quality zooms are definitely required to make the m4/3 system that much more competitive. YMMV. I can’t wait to have these smaller and brighter lenses. My 17-55 is a brute of a lens…… great big heavy dust sucker, if the Panny’s are in fact weather sealed and with 58mm filters what a joy to carry

      • Gabriel

        There is a lack of third party lense makers, like sigma or tamron. The 17-50 f2.8 from tamron is good and quite cheap. There is also some great macro lenses. For pentax, my 35mm f2.4 is cheap, small and good, but all in plastics made. Samsung produce good small and not so price heavy pancake, so it’s possible ;)

    • Mr. Reeee

      +10
      Maybe Smegma and Tampon will release a pile of El-Cheapo™ lenses for the unwashed masses. ;-)

  • For what produce some very expensive lenses that would cost about $2000 if only a few freaks from photo forums would buy it? ;) The same with fast zooms, 2.8-3.5 is good enough for 98% (or 99%?) of the customers.

    • Nawaf

      You can never have enough bokeh :D

      Good quality is going to cost no matter what. Good contrast and being sharp needs good glass when talking about zooms.

      I just want a 250mm or 300mm f/4 because the 75-300mm is just too slow and not weather sealed. $900 for the 75-300 is a bit high for what it is and the only choice available.

      • Digifan

        @Nawaf
        Good Bokeh is NOT a function of F-stop!!!!!

        • Nawaf

          Yes mum, please stop yelling at me.

          I never talked about “good” bokeh. Just that you can never have enough :P

          • Digifan

            Same thing, Bokeh ≠ F-stop.
            Background seperation is probably what you want and mean. So you probably mean, you can never have enough shallow DOF, but the Bokeh with very shallow DOF can be horrible or pleasant depending on which lens.

      • Isin’t the Panasonic 100-300 a tiny notch faster, a good notch cheaper and honnestly well regarded IQ wise..?

        • Nawaf

          Yes, I’ve checked them both out. Thing is the many images I’ve seen online have showed the Panasonic a bit on the soft side.

      • Brod1er

        Just get the Panasonic 100-300. Better quality, half the price, OIS, and half a stop faster at the long end. Just make sure you upgrade the firmware.

    • Anentropic

      none of the m43 zooms are 2.8-3.5 at the moment though?

  • Alexander

    I need SMAL lenses like the 14-42 from Panasonic but with lager zoom range :-). And I woul prefer Oly lenses- why: because they are smaler in diameter ;-).

  • Ulli

    removed

  • > The most requested lens is the Micro Four Thirds version of the popular Four Thirds 12-60mm f/2.8-3.5 weather sealed. The current 12-50mm slow zoom isn’t enough for you!

    12-50 is a great kit lens.

    12-60 is the step-up lens.

    Though, with the new sensors, I’m not sure how much of speed I really need. Still: more light is better.

    f/3.5 @ 60mm would be useful too, though I’m not sure how much of bulk that would add – or how much better it would be compared to the f/4.0.

    > The most requested prime lenses are the 17mm f/1.4 and 25mm f/1.2 weather sealed high quality lenses. I voted for them too ;)

    Updated 20mm pancake didn’t make it to the top? Sad.

    I voted for 17mm f/2.0 pancake (I do not care about weather-sealing) because I do not need the bulk of f/1.4.

    • Digifan

      Well, the list didn’t offer 17mm F2.0 weathersealed, but this is exactly what I wanted. We need reasonably fast pancake lenses that are reasonably priced. A 17mm F1.4 doesn’t fit that spec. Just as a 25mm F1.2 wouldn’t either.
      A 17mm F2.0 and 25mm F2.0 weathersealed would exactly slot in for “most” users. They are fast enough for low light situations with nice shallower DOF than the current zooms, and you wouldn’t be bancrupted either.
      Further I agree with the need of a 200/300 or 400mm F4.0/F5.6 telelens.

      • Digifan

        My list would look like this:
        9/10mm F2.8 WR €600
        9/10mm F4.0 WR €300
        12mm F2.0 €650 existing right now
        14mm F2.8 PC / WR €350
        17mm F2.0 PC / WR €525
        17mm F2.8 PC / WR €350
        25mm F2.0 PC / WR €550
        25mm F2.8 PC / WR €300
        45mm F1.8 WR €350
        50mm F2.8 WR €225
        75mm F1.8 WR €750
        100mm F2.8 WR €500
        100mm F2.0 WR €750
        150mm F2.8 WR €600
        150mm F3.5 WR €400
        200mm F2.8 WR €1000
        200mm F4.0 WR €750
        300mm F2.8 WR €1400
        300mm F4.0 WR €1000
        300mm F5.6 WR €550
        PC=Pancake
        WR=Weather Resistant

        Price indication is just speculative.

    • ppp

      > Updated 20mm pancake didn’t make it to the top? Sad.

      Very, very sad indeed ;-(

    • Brod1er

      +1000000000000000000^99999(if not more)
      Panasonic would make a fortune if they just upgraded it with the latest fast focusing silent motor. I have one but would not need to think before buying the upgrade.

  • Duarte Bruno

    Intentions… That’s the issue, isn’t it?

    Every time there is a poll people ask for 12-60 F/2.8 but when the lens hits the shelves at 900$/€ because it’s water sealed, only the real Pros buy it.

    I vote for a different polling system. Lens prices are estimated and people who vote, pay 10% in advance. Those who vote/pay on a lens that doesn’t get manufactured get their money back. Those who are lucky, win a 10% discount in the lens of their choice.

    I wonder how different the poll results would look.

    • spam

      Good points IMO, many of the lenses requested here like F1.2 to F1.4 primes, fast F2.0 zooms and even a 12-60 F2.8 would be hard to sell to most mFT-users because of both size and price. Same goes for longer zoom.

      I’d actually voted for and would buy both a fast 12-60 (F2.8-F4.0 would be fine too) and long tele, but for the typical GF-, GX- or E-P-users these lenses just don’t work well with the cameras.

    • Mr. Reeee

      +111
      Sure, it’s easy to say “gimme a 25mm f1.2”, but look at the price differential between Nikon or Canon 50mm f1.8, f1.4 and f1.2 lenses at http://www.KEH.com. It’s dramatic!

      People bitch about the price of the upcoming Voigtländer Nokton 25mm and 17mm f0.95 ($1200 and $1250 in the States), the Panasonic 7-14mm ($1100), the Oly 12mm and the PL25mm, but these are exactly the types of prices we’d be looking at for such fantasy lenses, if not more!

      I’m willing to pay for very good lenses, but there’s a limit to how much I’m willing or able to pay.

      • Exactly right. Unfortunately, these polls don’t mean a thing – maybe they give some broad strokes on tendencies, but that’s it.

        • eFWee

          Actually, this kind of unmoderated poll discredits this site as a platform of serious photographers. The crazy f values mentioned in the list works contra productive. Make a poll with ‘cheap wide angle’, ‘expensive wide angle (weathersealed)’ etc, and then Olympus and Panasonic (and who knows, maybe Sigma) will be interested. With the poll as held now, this site looks like a bunch of dreamers who won’t buy what they voted for… which translates in the value of their opinion.

          • Duarte Bruno

            Exactly!
            That’s why I suggested putting their money where their mouth is!

            • Steve Jobs did not like surveys/polls and never used them.
              He maintained people only want what they already have but in a different colour or some such variation.
              Looks like he was right on the button.

              There are some fine M43 lenses available right down to f 0.95 in MF . Then there is the Leica glass and the Voigtlander glass Canon, Nikon and all the other third party digital and legacy stuff, maybe focus peaking may help after all.

              I want silver adapter rings not black ones.

  • M

    I really miss an compact and affordable ultra wide angle prime. Like 8mm f/3.5. Am I alone?

    • twoomy

      No, you are not alone! I love the 12mm, would love a 8 or 9 or 10mm as well.

    • Anand

      It would be great indeed. Or maybe 7mm f/4 would do it for me

    • M

      f/4 would be fine for me too.
      For me size and money matter.
      My personal limit for new lenses is at about 500 EUR. I am not willing to pay much more for whatever HQ.
      And I think there is a lot possible in that range. Look at the 20/1.7 or the 45/1.8. I think they are good lenses for their purpose.

  • Duke

    This survey is kind of silly without estimating the price of the lenses.

    People who want zooms are usually the same people who can’t afford to spend 1k+ on them.

    IMO, most serious enthusiasts/photographers don’t want zooms that cover a large focal range like (12-60).

    I also voted for 17mm f1.4, I’d be happy to spend about $800 assuming its the business.

    Admin you totally ignored the cry for Black lenses on the original thread. Sure it is not entirely relevant
    but its worth bringing up. Oly might very well look at these results.

  • Bob B.

    Shoot primes. We already have really good ones. Panasonic… make the sensor better…with more DR. Yeah.

    • JF

      +1, still waiting for dxo results of EM-5 to see if there is a DR improvement over GH2 (Yes I know, Dxo is bad :D)

      • Bob B.

        I am also waiting for the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 prime…I am keeping my G3 and GX1 and just shooting with all the great AF primes we already have!! The system is robust…I am thinking in a couple of years the sensor with be much better..but looks like that will take a little time!

      • Charts on a wall (screen) do not constitute photographs. The eyes tell you what you like, not a graph.

  • Ulli

    how about a voting list where you must include your signature for each lens you vote,declaring you must buy it in case it comes out.

  • The Master

    It’s funny that most people moved to M4/3, because of the size and weight savings and then they want to add lenses that weigh a pound or two. Why? The M4/3 camera size is optimized for small primes or maybe small zooms. Even 2.8 zooms are going to feel like the 14-140 or worse and that’s not something I like to carry around, even on the GH1/2.

    Smegma and Tampon, Ha Ha. Thanks for the laugh first thing in the morning, Mr. Reeee. :)

    • P_M

      f/2.0 zooms? If you want to carry 1.5 kg with you, there are Canon 5D and Nikon D700 with f/4.0 zooms which give the same overall weight, size and bokeh. It doesn’t make sense to make the sensor smaller but produce huge lenses.

      What would make a comparison more realistic is a camera+lens simulation (similar to the Four-Thirds matching simulation on http://www.four-thirds.org/en/special/matching.html) where you could type in the focal lenght(s) and aperture of an imaginary lens and it would show the approximate size of the lens and how it would look on a body. The estimate price would be calculated based on weight of the glass and some price increasing factors like “weather-sealed” or “extreme wide lens” (hard to build).

      • JF

        removed…

  • FYI, the 4/3 rds 12-60 mm zoom lens is not a 3.5 at the longest end but a 4.0

    • And its only 2.8 on 12mm if you don’t touch it, or there is no wind. But I still love mine.

  • Anonymous

    Would like a fast versatile zoom to be the kit lens with the Gh3. Maybe the new X lenses will be it, although hopefully at a reasonable price.

  • I think that if Panasonic and Olympus look at this, some precaution is needed, of course.

    Because people will always want faster lenses, but it’s whole different thing if they are really willing to pay and buy one.

  • BLI

    The list/voting probably does not reflect the sale potential. Ok — I’m an amateur, but already owning the 12/2, the 20/1.7, and the 45/1.8, I don’t need much more… If I buy the 12-50 and if it is acceptable, that will be my vacation/shitty weather/close-up lens. The only addendums would be something like the 75/1.8 and a medium fast (allowing 1.4/x/2x teleconverter lens for shooting a local eagle), weather sealed 300, or a similar 100-400. If I develop a sense for buildings, maybe a tilt/shift type, but not currently. This is what is of interest in the forseeable future *for me*.

    I understand that others may have more money/more needs. What I do not understand is some totally unrealistic wishes (12-100/2 for less than €400, at 0.2 kg and less than 5cm long, or whatever), or wishes that almost completely overlap existing lenses.

    If the 12-50 turns out to *fail* as close-up lens and even be too poor as vacation lens/shitty weather lens, then I may consider a better zoom lens. But only then.

    • Anonymous

      Now that’s the kind of lens I’m looking for! Give it top-notch image quality and you’ve got my dream lens! :D

  • redeye37

    Don’t Canon/Nikon have 35mm (50mm film equvalent) f 1.8 for around $200, and f 1.4 for around $400? I would love a m43 25mm f1.8 with reasonably good build and optics for for $300 or less.

  • ght

    If weather sealing is just one more excuse to gouge us on price I’d rather do without it. But I do like the focal lengths and apertures of those primes.

  • Zo

    I will gladly pay the price of the 14-35 and 35-100 in m43 mount provided they focus well and have the same MTF of the current big brothers.

    If they cannot offer that, give me an E-7 with all the features of M-E5 in larger 4/3 format so that those lenses really shine.

    • Brod1er

      Question is- would you prefer the Panny 35-100/f2.8 or the Oly 45/1.8 AND 75/1.8? Cost will likely be similar, although my guess is the primes will be lighter although no OIS. hmmmm

  • I think the poll is slightly flawed since I think the body owners fall into 2 camps and are broadly after 2 different sets of lenses: the GF/GX/Pen owners and the G/GH owners.

    As a member of the former group – I still have a Canon EOS system for rural/landscape/seascape days out – all I’m interested in are fast/pancakes/primes for when I’m doing street/urban stuff.

    Others who have ditched their CaNikon gear and who have opted for the G/GH bodies as their prime camera are looking for scaled down versions of their discarded systems.

  • k

    Next poll, I’d like to see options for existing Olympus lenses, but in black rather than silver.

  • Traciatim

    I have no idea how to design lenses, but I think a 14-56 f2-2.8 would be just about the perfect lens that I’d nearly never have to take off my camera. I wonder if such a thing is possible at a reasonable price.

    • Try the Oly 14-54, 2.8 it works very well. Similar results to the 12-60 but smaller. price also very reasonable $340 (oly recon) at Cameta camera right now, or 5-600 elsewhere.

      • redeye37

        I shoot with the oly 14-54 f2.8-3.5 on my e-p2. As it is 43 not m43, it requires the adaptor, and it has very slow AF. It is great for still subjects. It’s weather sealed, great optics, beautiful color and contrast. It’d be great if the 43 lenses worked with faster AF on the m43 cameras. there’s some great lenses there.

  • It strikes me that most people buying into m43 don’t actually know very much about the physics involved in photographic equipment. They think that coming up with a fast lens is just a question of cost and engineering. After all, if you can make an “SLR” camera in a tiny body, then why not the lenses ?

    Hint: If you want a fast zoom on an m43 body, go buy a fast 43 zoom and a 43/m43 adapter. What’s that you say… ? fast zoom 43 lenses are too big for you ? Well, sit down and take a deep breath, cos I’ve got some bad news for you….

    • GL

      Many M43 lenses are much smaller than the equivalents in 43. That probably is only possible for relatively wide angles.

      I think currently the optics is 3.5-5.6 and the size is small (very small for the X). But many of us can’t do much with such lenses!

      People are asking for 2.0,2.8 or some such and still *decently* sized optics. Not as small as the 3.5 stuff but still smaller than full frame DSLR. And somewhat smaller than four thirds too.

      I only have some hopes for the constant 2.8 Panasonic 12-35 mm.

      That could still enable shooting in natural light inside or in a dark forest with believable iso so you’d get something else than pure noise. Also background defocus might be possible.

      At the moment the 20 mm 1.7 is practically on all the time.

    • Anonymous

      Ok then, can you explain the physics involved? Or will you just end your claim with “bad news” and no specifics? If you feel most people are misinformed, you surely are not doing much better in explaining it.

  • Rasmus

    What most of you seem to be saying is that mft is about saving weight and size. So if I want a lens that cannot be made small, like a fast zoom or a fast birding lens I should get a APS-C or full frame camera.

    But how would getting a second camera body save me weight? I like MFT because I CAN have very small and still excellent lenses at some focal lengths. I didn’t get my Pen because I wanted to be limited to only 25mm-ish primes.

    Currently I’m seriously thinking about getting something like one of the faster OM telephotos because I’m unhappy with my 100-300. Sure it’s decently sharp, but most of the time I have to push the ISO too high to get decent image quality, general handling sucks compared to Oly lenses, autofocus is slowest of all my lenses and the lens is horrible at manual focusing. If someone made a really good and fast telephoto prime for MFT I would immediately start saving money to get it!

    • pdc

      Fast telephoto means big, whether it be m43 or FF. AF also adds bulk and mass.
      I have the Panasonic 100-300 OIS and it’s good as a walk-around lens, but you just cannot get images that will compare with a good fast FF lens, like my Nikon AF-I 300/2.8 – all 7 lbs of it, plus gimbal mount and heavy tripod. So, when it comes to serious telephoto, big heavy gear is inevitable, whether you are using m43, APS-C or FF. I just can’t see Panasonic or Olympus being bothered with such lenses as long as there is a decent supply of FF glass to re-use. Look how long it took Sony to actually start building their 500/f4 and it is priced at $14,000!

  • asasino

    M43 does not have a valid 35mm-equivalent fast prime (PC or not).
    Zuiko 17mm-F2.8 is old & sluggish, the good (old also) Panny 20mm-F1.7 is not weather-sealed and not so wide, the very good Zuiko 12mm-F2 is a bit too slow, wide and not sealed too (and a bit too expensive also).

    This let the OM-D body with no killer-combo lens (com’on, the 12-50 is awful…)

    Please, please, give us a sealed 17mm-F1.7-1.8, that’s all many of us really need (let the fast zoom to the DSLR users who cannot physically afford to bring two-three lenses along).

    Kind regards
    Asa

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