Micro Four Thirds lens poll evaluation
A few weeks ago I collected your lens suggestions and put them on a poll. That poll neither pretends to be very detailed nor scientific. It should only help to give Panasonic /Olympus/Voigtländer a global idea of what 43rumors reader are looking for. I analyzed the results and those are this is my very personal (and limited) evaluation. Feel free to add your considerations to make that evaluation more detailed and correct. Thanks! (Click here if you like to see the full poll results)
1) The most requested single lens is the 25mm f/1.2. I confess that’s a bit of surprise for me. I didn’t include the 25mm f/1.4 lens option because that lens is already coming from Panasonic (and I told you that, but probably only a minority read it). 23% of you kept voting the faster option f/1.2! Very interesting indeed.
2) There is a general need for zooms that do start with a 12mm focal length. There were many 12mm zooms option and almost any of them made it into the top.
3) The most requested compact prime is the 12mm f/2.0 (18%). After that we have the 50mm f/1.8 (11%) and the first compact zoom is the 12-75mm f/2.8-4.5 (10%). Although I think such a “real” zoom lens would be likely to start with a much less brighter aperture.
4) There is a general “perception” that zoom lens should have a constant and as fast as possible aperture. Those lenses are expected to be big and heavy. Honestly I don’t know if you would really buy a big lens like that! Maybe the results are influenced by the need of video lenses (they are by far more interested in having a constant aperture).
5) Wide angle fast primes are the most requested. 12mm, 14mm and 17mm f/1.4 are on top of the list.
6) No real BIG need for normal-tele lenses. Someone told me that there were only a few normal-tele lens options inside the poll and that this is the reason why there are no tele-lenses on top. Honestly I would have expected the quite opposite! Having a less wider lens range option would have made it easier to bring the long-focal-length lenses on top of the list. That didn’t happen!
7) The exotic focal lengths (like the 42mm and 76mm lenses) didn’t get a lot of attention.
8 ) There is a need for high quality tele converters. 9% voted for the 1.4 TC and 8% for the 2.o TC.
9) There is almost no need for Tilt-shift lenses. Only 5% voted for the 10mm and 4% for the 12mm Tilt-shift lens.
POLL info:
- We had 4,322 unique voters (IP-address and browser type have been stored). 27% of the voters are coming from North America, 30% from Europe, 22% from Japan.
- The percentage explanation: Every voter had a maximum of 10 votes so when you read “23%” than it means that 23% of you voted that lens.
- The lens options have been submitted by our readers.
Via Micro Four Thirds lens poll results
Share
Recent comments
Comment from Garland: I think Olympus produces a 35-100mm f2.0...
Comment from Michael: I'm still waiting to get a GH2 in my han...
Comment from Stupig: It's also 25mm however you slice it. I ...
Comment from Voldenuit: There's already the Voigtlaender 25/0.95...
NativeFloridian
2 years ago |A noob question:
What do people want to do with all those fast wide prime lenses? It seems to me (admittedly a novice) that wide lenses would be best for landscapes and architecture… both places where it would likely be preferable to shoot with a smaller aperture to retain DOF. What am I missing… what kind of shooting would require regular use of a fast and wide prime?
Steve
2 years ago |+1
David
2 years ago |I use wide angles to get close to my subject. Shallow DOF is important here. The types of portraits or other shots you can get with a wide angle is different than with a traditional portrait lens.
BFD
2 years ago |+1
pisto
2 years ago |I do not think wideangles are your best option for most landscaping. Distant objects typically are shown too small if you use wideangles for that.
A fast wideangle is most useful for social photograph, specially indoors, and for street photography. That’s how I use them, and a 12mm (24 equivalent) is just perfect for both purposes.
NativeFloridian
2 years ago |I do mostly social photography… shooting friends and family indoors. I find the Panasonic 20mm to more than adequate to fit that need. ‘Street Photography’ seems like somewhat of a niche to me. So really, I still don’t understand why the “majority” of people are requesting a fast wide-angle. Any other input?
cL
2 years ago |Wide angle is terrible for social scenes…. Normal lens like 42mm or 50mm (in 35mm terms) put your viewers into the scene, because it shows what you see with your naked eyes. Wide angle gives a distortion if your subject is very close to you. If you like that distortion, get a fish eye.
By the way, just remember something to add to my other posts. f16 is important to landscape not only it gives the depth of field grand landscaper uses, but because it’s what Sunny 16 rule is based on (Shoot something on a sunny day with f16 @ 1/125 and ISO 100 for the best exposure. If you need to alter any one of the variables, use the inverse relation rule. That is, if you need one stop larger in aperture, change shutter one stop faster. That’s where people get the term fast aperture from. Larger the aperture, faster the shutter speed you can use, though in fact, aperture has nothing to do with speed, but the size of that hole). Sunny 16 is most useful for landscapers who traditionally use medium format and many of which has no metering or you need to do manual metering.
Just some photography lesson, so you know the origin of traditional photographic convention, why people use wide angle and small aperture for landscape, etc.. Doesn’t mean you can’t do it otherwise, especially everything is done automatic for you with digital, but there is a reason why people shoot it that way. Knowing this makes you a better photographer (doesn’t mean you must be confined to the rule though).
By the way, Olympus’s exposure metering seems to follow Zone System, that’s why it’s a bit darker than contemporary photographers like. I tried to use manual Zone system on my Olympus and found out it’s exactly the same exposure as you would if you shot with Center Average metering most of the time….
cL
2 years ago |24mm (in 35mm term) is of the most important focal length for landscape. You probably don’t shoot grand landscape (Yosemite, Grand Canyon or similar grand scenes).
Landscape is a very broad term. Some people may shoot small little wonder of nature, and that’s landscape too, and for that, I use my Zuiko 50-200mm, and definitely use 200mm end, and quite a bit, too. For moon shots, I seriously need a 500mm…. Just to demonstrate landscape do use a wide range of lenses.
If I were to use only primes for landscapes, the most important lenses are (all in 35mm terms), 24mm (grand landscape), 50mm (normal), 100mm (macro) and something extremely long (like 500mm, for moon or distant objects). I omitted 35mm on purpose, because “personally” I find it either too narrow for grand landscape, but too wide for a small scene. 35mm is good, however, if it’s your only focal length, if you are willing to crop for small scene and move your legs for grand landscape. If your camera can do only one aperture (like a Holga), the aperture of choice for landscape is f16.
Eric
2 years ago |What do you mean by wide? Are you referring to the the 25mm f/1.2, or the the 12mm f/2? Obviously the 25mm/1.2 isn’t a wide angle with a m4/3′s sensor. Most all photographers cut their teeth on nifty fifty’s in college (50mm lenses in full frame terms). I still use one for most all of my photography. So to me it is the single most important focal length; and the depth of field control a fast aperture gives me is critical. I can’t have enough standard primes to chose from.
As far as the 12mm, Pisto summed up the use for that kind of lens perfectly.
Ben
2 years ago |Probably to get a wider angle of view at night and in video.
NativeFloridian
2 years ago |I do not consider 25mm wide. In fact, I consider 25mm as an “all purpose” kind of lens that would see regular daily use if I had one for all types of photographs.
What I am referring to is the vocal demand seen in this poll and others for fast wide lenses (10-14mm 43 lenses with f-values of less than 2). And while I understand there may be rare circumstances where a wide fast lens would be the best choice it still seems to me that the demand is in EXCESS of its utility. I mean, who wouldn’t like a wider aperture for every lens… but it just seems like that a wide lens is the LEAST likely to benefit from having a low f-value.
For example, when photographing individual people a wide lens results in an unusual perspective skewing. For large inanimate objects (statues, artwork) it would be unlikely that someone would need or desire such a thin DOF.
In all sincerity, I am just hoping for examples of situations in which a fast wide lens would be used wide-open on a regular basis. Without any sarcasm, I feel like I might be missing out on a whole realm of photography.
cL
2 years ago |I also shoot landscape, so I don’t shoot large aperture either (the important apertures are f8 and smaller for “grand” landscape which needs detail and DOF). I think those who want large aperture wide angle people are traveler. Night scene and indoor do use that combination. In other words, not landscapers.
blastingmill
2 years ago |I would love a fast wide prime lens for shooting concerts at night. f4 is pretty much un-usable. f2.8 is as slow as I like to go, with concerts. The Olympus 50f2 works great for concerts, it would be nice to have an ultra wide angle lens that’s equally fast.
Bob
2 years ago |Fast lens to nice “DOF” and a wide lens is not so wide on m4/3.
elliot
2 years ago |I think the results show that people generally aren’t aware of the costs (and difficulties, and compromises) of making fast wide angle lenses, and based on the availability (and prices) of equivalent lenses for full-frame it’s clear that most people who voted for the fastest lenses in this survey would never buy them when the real-life prices were disclosed.
I’m not surprised that people would vote for a 25/1.2 (it’s ‘free’ right now, so why not?) but were one to come out for $1,000 most people would shy away … and complain about the price.
DonTom
2 years ago |Shy away? Maybe at $1000, but then the CV Nokton 25mm F.95 is a runaway success at about $1000. Without AF. So maybe not.
Certainly I’ll look hard at the 25mm F1.4, and weigh up the AF bonus versus the speed of the Nokton. If the Panny has OIS it will no doubt get my money. A classic “fast 50″ sure is an essential prime lens, and soon having a choice between a manual .95 and an AF 1.4 is way cool.
That said, an E-PL1 with a focus assist light would get my money first!
TheVoiceoverman
2 years ago |So right about that light! I was at a fancy dress ball on Saturday that was very dark indeed. I have very few photos. The E-PL1 (with 20mm 1.7) struggled badly. Meanwhile, my friend using her little Fuji compact took tons. They aren’t great but they are fine mementos. And at least they’re in focus.
The weakness of the m4/3 system is low light. People also want shallow DOF. It should be absolutely no surprise to anyone that the fast apertures across the board dominate the poll. But of course, that’s before we know what they cost.
Ulli
2 years ago |hmmmm, i think if one struggles in low light having the 20mm 1.7 with an olympus body, it surely can’t be blamed on the gear.
Tobias W.
2 years ago |+1
David
2 years ago |Agreed. I’ve taken tons of very nice photos in basically unlit bars and alleys.
Kevin
2 years ago |I don’t think it’s low light problem, but rather, the lack of an AF assist lamp! a compact with one would have an easier time taking pictures than the Pen cameras, regardless of lens
Ulli
2 years ago |if the low light prevents reliable af, then i switch to mf. i am not saying that i find the system perfect, but i chose it with a reason and never regretted it.
Seika
2 years ago |That’s for problem like camera shake and focus, or freezing subject movement ?
Dummy00001
2 years ago |> The E-PL1 (with 20mm 1.7) struggled badly. Meanwhile, my friend using her little Fuji compact took tons.
Silly question: have you read the manual for your camera???
Reading through the E-520 manual (my first dSLR) proved to be very very helpful, since Oly also included general shooting tips.
Otherwise, one can always set camera to P(rogram) (or even Auto) mode and try to learn later from what camera does: many cameras are smarter than they owners. (And I’m telling that from my personal experience.)
P.S. I have recently made /similar/ experience. I came over to my friends with my E-620. He owns Canon G10. He asked me to try my E-620 so I ended up using his G10 the evening. Guess who made more successful shots? Good dSLR experience helps tremendously even when operating a compact. Without experience my friend struggled with E-620 – not much differently of how he usually struggles with his G10. After looking at my shots, after trying to operate my E-620, he actually decided to post-pone buying a dSLR for he understood that his problem isn’t in the camera. (And he too hasn’t read the G10′s manual…)
TheVoiceoverman
2 years ago |Strange how some people feel able to comment on a situation in which they weren’t even present. Presumably this is why you chose the name Dummy?
And please explain how you manage accurate manual focus at F1.7 when the room is dark enough for the camera to be unable to focus? What are you? An owl? Are you a Navy Seal with cybernetic night vision eyes?
The E-PL1 would be improved with a focus lamp. Does anyone seriously disagree?
And yes. I have read the manual.
Jules
2 years ago |OIS on a F1.4 lens is extremely unlikely.
Eric
2 years ago |Speaking of the need for video lenses, does anyone else think the whole importance of video specific features has been completely blown out of proportion by a very vocal minority? DPR has a poll on their site asking “how often do you use video on your camera?”. With over 26,000 votes the results are:
37.7% – My DSLR can’t shoot video
22.3% – Rarely
19.3% – Never (even though my camera has the feature)
11.5% – Sometimes (more than once a month)
7.1% – Very often (more than once a week)
2.1% – All the time (daily)
So only 20% of DSLR owners use video period, and only 9% are frequent users. The point of this? Oly/Panny should focus on photographic lenses first, video lenses second. If a lens like a 25mm f/1.4 can do both, then great, but don’t delay the production of a lens or add cost to a lens that photographers really need for the sake of a video.
Paulus
2 years ago |There is simple reason why only 20% of DSLR use video period. It’s the inability of their DSLRs (37, 7%) or the poor video-performance of the current DSLR-lines. I do stills and video 60% to 40%. At present I have to carry photo and video equipment (two kinds of battery packs, battery chargers, incompatible lenses …). The frequency of situations where I have to decide in favor of stills and video within seconds or even taking both is increasing.
In my opinion Olympus-CEO Akira Watanabe is hitting the mark in one of his recent interviews “…to the future of photography: ” “… The day will come in which the differentiation between still and moving images disappears, but it will not be for a while”
http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/e5/special/story/page04.html
Eric
2 years ago |I’m still not sold on the merger of the two. Perhaps for wedding photographers the photo/video line has blurred, but will it for other types of photography? I’m basically a street photographer that occasionally takes studio pics upon request. I’ve owned an E-P1 and Sony NEX-3; both of which shoot video more than adequately for most people, and I shot exactly one video between the two of them. Even that was just a tripod video that could have been done with an iPhone. I simply have no desire at all to ever edit video. It is hair-pulling task IMO. Based on the opinions of my photographer friends I’m not alone in this opinion. Some of them view the lack of video on their DSLR’s as a bonus. One guy chose a D700 over a 5D Mk II in part for that reason alone.
Paulus
2 years ago |I agree with you – there should be individual products for different needs.
Paulus
2 years ago |Dear Admin!
Congratulations to your lens poll!
Great poll – great analysis too!
I fully agree with your conclusions!
Thank you very much for your hint to the new “Olympus Cafe” (www.olympuscafe.com)!
In my opinion this could be an additional “LINK TO FRIENDS” on 43rumors.com. I see no competition between those outstanding websites – just enrichment and cooperation. That’s why I became a member of both!
The Master
2 years ago |The only lens that keeps M4/3 from being an actual complete system, with a wide, standard and portrait prime, is a portrait lens, with at least a 1.8 aperture (something like a 37-42mm). This has gone on since the format was invented and is a huge mistake. It really makes Oly and Pany look like incompetent fools and keeps the system in the realm of noobies and amateurs. It’s obvious by looking at the poll results that this is mostly who is using this system.
video guys
2 years ago |the video guys (af100, gh2) need a good speedy zoom, something like the oly 12-60 2.8-4.0… 500g that’s not so big and heavy. The af100 would be a perfect doc camera, if you had a zoom lens that shot less than 5.6!
Tobias W.
2 years ago |The good people at Olympus and Panasonic probably laughed when they saw the result. If they saw the results that is.
I don’t think the results are relevant. A 25mm f/1.2? And people already knew a f/1.4 is coming? Sure, the Voightlaender is successful – on its own terms. Of course it’s hard to get and sells well! Only a handful got made!!
If Panasonic brings a 25mm f/1.4, then it’s pretty certain there won’t be another 25mm that’s faster.
I own the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 for Four Thirds. It’s a fine lens. It’s also HUGE and HEAVY. And if you take pictures with an open aperture the depth of field is so narrow, that it’s easy to take crappy pictures. f/1.2 is going to be worse.
I also use Minolta manual focus lenses on my E-PL1. Among many others, I own both the MD 50mm f/1.2 and MC 58mm f/1.2. Both lenses are really nice, images at f/1.2 can be sharp enough. But most of the times, I stop them down to f/2 so I can have enough depth of field for a decent picture.
What MFT really needs is a decent Macro lens that can double as a portrait lens, such as the Zuiko 50mm f/2 and a reasonably fast standard zoom that doesn’t suck, for example the Zuiko 12-60mm f/2.8-4. Those MFT lenses would sell. They don’t even have to be sealed. If they are small enough and provide the optical quality and decent AF that will work well on the market. No matter what 43rumors readers say here.
Dummy00001
2 years ago |> 9) There is almost no need for Tilt-shift lenses. Only 5% voted for the 10mm and 4% for the 12mm Tilt-shift lens.
TS is an interesting idea and I’d love to try it once. But with general price tag attached to the lenses…
llamas4u
2 years ago |Pick up the lensbaby tilt transformer and buy a cheap (or even used) Nikon lens if you’d like to try Tilt. It doesn’t Shift, so it’s more for effects than architectural straightness*
= though software does the straightening thing just fine.
AlexV
2 years ago |Interesting result, but I see some weird thing as about 10% would like Teleconverter (1.4x or 2x) while these TC work correctly only with bright lenses (f/2.8 – 4 max). The TC will be without any help if we don’t have brighter long lenses which have been marginal in the pool, I think the people should consider longer zoom/prime rather TC even this option cost less, we will lost a lot of quality and light, which will be useless.
I’m a wide and long tele shooter, and I can understand that long lenses are not very appealing in the moment, since we don’t have enought reactive M4/3 body for focusing in the moment, maybe a GP1 from Pan/Oly as report in the rumors could change the thing but this is not mainstream of M4/3 channel in the moment. If PRO/semi-PRO material emerge, this could change in the futur.
Do
2 years ago |16% voted for 12-50 f2? The Zuiko 14-35 f2 weighs 900 gramm and is 123cm long. I guess there are reasons why it has this small zoom range, and i guess there are reasons why manufacturers don’t listen too much to such polls and forums.
Alfons
2 years ago |Laughed at that too!
Yes, 7-300mm F1.4 would be a damn cool thing too! But I wan’t it to have no distortion, work flawlessly wide open and fit into my pocket.
I voted for 12-60mm F2.8-4.0. It’s a good compromise for a general purpose lens.
bilgy_no1
2 years ago |Although it’s a nice initiative and many people voted, you would have helped Olympus and Panasonic more with a proper poll. E.g. why put in all those varieties of the fast standard zoom? In the top 10 you have 12-50, 12-60 and 12-75, but we already knew the general direction of that. I think there are more sophisticated market research tools that Olympus and Panasonic are using.
One very interesting result at least is the fact that there is only 1 fast bright lens in the portrait range in the top 10. Ever since introduction people have called for it (including me) and called the manufacturers all kinds of names (not including me). But apparently there really isn’t such a large market for such a lens? And the upcoming 50mm f/2 macro by Olympus will serve the purpose well enough.
admin
2 years ago |Hi Bilgy!
I will ask Olympus and Panasonic to send me their own polls (don’t know if they will do it).
Alfons
2 years ago |12-50, 12-60 and 12-75 beeing there tells me people really want a lens that goes from really wide to short tele photo. Different choices are just telling more specific information of people’s hopes on new lenses.
This poll wasn’t that serious, but I think one can really read what people want on the results (even though many of the desires of people are in conflict with their real needs and budget!).
Olympius
2 years ago |I’ve never commented on this site before, but the results of the micro 4/3 lens poll are absolutely ridiculous.
Listen, anyone who wants a bunch of HUGE, LARGE, HEAVY fast primes for a “micro” system are out of their mind. The Voightlander 25mm f.0.95 is as big as a regular 4/3 14-54mm f.2.8 Mk II zoom!
The only reason I can think that everyone wants these type of lenses for micro 4/3 is that there are a bunch of film school students reading this site, who want those lenses for their AF100.
The ONLY lens I want for micro 4/3, that isn’t already in available or in the pipeline is a pancake 25mm prime. Preferably f.2.0, but I’d settle for f.2.8. I’d also like a 9mm or 10mm f.3.5 prime ultra-wide. And that’s about it.
Otherwise, the Oly 9-18, 14-42, and 40-150 are all the lenses I need, and the Panny 20mm f.1.7 for it’s speed and tiny size. If I could get the 25mm and 9mm primes, I wouldn’t even bother with the 9-18 and 14-42 zooms.
Voldenuit
2 years ago |The results of this poll are not realistic, as the respondents don’t have to worry about real world performance and pricing in their fantasy stable.
Want a f/1.2 lens that is sharp corner to corner? Very few have managed that.
Want a 12-50/2 lens? Oly’s 12-35/2 (a much shorter zoom range and 30% smaller absolute aperture) costs $2.2k. How many users will pay that for a m43 lens?
The real test at the end of the day is when people put their money where their mouth is. Most non-professional photographers don’t spend $1-10k on ultra fast primes and zooms. And won’t.
I recommend 43rumors post another poll asking people how much they would spend on a camera lens, as well as how much they have already spent on their most expensive lens/43/m43 lens. That should tell us which lenses will really sell.
I’m definitely an outlier because I’ve got the 7-14/4 and 45/2.8, two of the most expensive lenses in the format, and even I wouldn’t want to spend the money that some of the poll winners would cost in the real world.
admin
2 years ago |I agree with you that the poll is not realistic (and it would have been almost impossible to make a realistic poll…believe me). The real question is: What hits the mind of the people? Answer: Fast primes and 12mm zooms. The REAL aperture and price can change. The 12mm can be f/1.7 instead of f/1.4. It doesn’t make a big difference and the price will be more affordable.
If I would be Panasonic/olympus I would make more lenses like the 20mm f/1.7. My relaistic suggestion:
12mm f/1.7 (or 2.0)
14mm f/1.7 (or 2.0)
50mm f/1.7 (or 2.0)
and a
12-42mm f/3.5-4.8
What do you think?
cL
2 years ago |I can understand the reason behind the poll, too. It’s by no mean a scientific research, given this is not a random selected group. I just hope people could understand that. If I took this poll that seriously, I wouldn’t even voted. But I did, for entertainment purpose and want to know what people really think, too.
Realistically, more plausible lens selection that actually can make into production would be: (keep in mind I’m a landscape photographer, so I can be biased toward that need)
12mm f4. Probably the size of Zuiko 50mm f2.0. I would pay up to $500-800 for it depends on the quality of lens.
14-54mm f2.8-3.5. The current 4/3 version of this lens is very nice. I believe having a pro lens of this range for m4/3 would convince people there is a future in this format for serious photographer. 12-60mm would be nice too, but I don’t like how quickly the aperture drops as you zoom in. I would pay about $500-800 for either one of these two ranges of standard zoom. Size can be slightly larger than the current 14-42mm, but much larger, then there is no reason why one shouldn’t get a regular 4/3.
40-150mm f4-5.6 is already in production. Very little people mentioned about this existing lens for m4/3. The focal length range nor its aperture range is very exciting, but if you see its MFT chart, it’s an everyday purpose lens done right. It’s as sharp as a standard grade zoom of this range can offer.
Of course, I’d rather have the m4/3 version of 50-200mm f2.8-3.5! That lens is very useful. If they made it into 50-300mm f2.8-4, that’s even better! Given it’s m4/3 with size advantage, I believe this thing will be more expensive to build so it’ll have a higher street cost than its 4/3 counterpart. $1,200-$1,500 is acceptable. Size should be around regular 4/3′s 40-150mm. If 50-300mm is made, $2,000 is acceptable.
50mm f2.0. There is no excuse for Oly to not build this one for m4/3. $500. Size should be twice the thickness of Panny 20mm f1.4 to accommodate the extra lens elements, but I expect the diameter would be about the same, given the aperture is smaller and it’s not a wide angle. I’d prefer f1.4, but f2.0 is realistic.
51mm-299mm is what I call a prime dead zone. Zoom is so much versatile for this range. I’d rather buy a 50mm plus a 300mm than something that’s half decent 150mm. 150mm is too wide for wildlife and insect macro, and too narrow for portrait and flower macro. Aforementioned 50-200mm will fill in this gap nicely. If they built anything within this range, it’ll be my last pick….
300mm f2.8. Super long telephoto is very useful for wildlife and smaller scenes like wildflowers on the other side of the chasm…. This won’t be a small lens…. Most likely it’ll cost $5,000, but if they build one around $3,000, it’s a steal.
If people realize how expensive these lenses can be and realize the simple rule of larger the aperture, larger the barrel (hence larger the glasses and therefore more expensive), they’d not be choosing their wild picks…. In fact, the price we see in our regular 4/3 lenses is already 1/2 to 1/3 of the equivalent Nikon lens…. Nikon 24mm f1.4 costs $2,200, you know….
Voldenuit
2 years ago |>What do you think?
My personal opinion: a fast wide prime is of limited use. It will have terrible vignetting and edge performance. Most people who use wide angle primes use them stopped down, and often on a tripod. They are not generally useful for people or moving subjects, so a relatively slow shutter speed is acceptable. m43 sensors have comparatively poor DR and noise characteristics, so correcting vignetting can lead to IQ loss in the corners. Canon’s 24/1.4L and 35/1.4L are only sharp in the edges, and in fact outperformed optically by their cheaper, older f/1.8 brethren. These two canon lenses “don’t make sense” to me, but then I’m not a pro shooter so maybe someone can inform me otherwise.
I’m also not looking forward to ‘yet another standard zoom’ in the m43 camp (we already have 4) unless it can do something to differentiate itself. Although I’m pessimistic about the price of a constant aperture standard zoom, it’s the one thing that’s been missing for videographers. Then again, the 1:1 digital zoom video on the GH2 might make this obsolete (what we need then is a video-optimised fast prime… also missing in m43 other than the ME45/2.8 which has recently been taking a beating in discussions). The sadly neglected tilt-shift lens option would also have been more interesting, as it could have provided more DOF control than a standard lens (something m43 lacks), both for more and for less DOF as required.
I do agree that the poll has painted in broad strokes what people want, but it’s something of a ‘fantasy football’ scenario. With your goal of forwarding the results to Panasonic and Olympus, I was hoping for answers that could be directly translated into real, shipping products that are appropriate for the market. Then again, maybe P&O can surprise us.
yosemite
2 years ago |Thanks for the poll, admin. I think it shows in broad strokes what people want, and that’s the whole point because those companies are certainly not going to produce exactly what people want, but maybe move in that direction.
It baffles me beyond belief that they missed to build a decent standard zoom to this point, i.e. one starting at FF equivalents 24 mm and ending at around 100 mm. This is by far the most used range in standard consumer cameras, and there are many prosumers/professionals that only like to carry one lens. Starting at 28 mm is not good enough, as Panasonic themselves made clear when they stood out from the competition building lenses starting at 24 mm equivalent on the LX and other consumer series. This poll reflects this perfectly. The LX-5 has the perfect zoom range for every day usage from landscapes to portraints, perhaps only missing a tad on the tele end.
Secondly, the need for speed is obvious if you compare to what most cameras with much smaller sensor can do now. The LX-5 starts at f/2.0, and take more clean indoor shots in many situations than even a camera with a bigger sensor but aperture starting at 4.0 or even higher. In that case there is no reason to carry around the bigger camera, and this is the situation I’m in with my LX-5 versus upcoming GH-2, which is why I’ll be selling the 14-42 lens it comes with as soon as one of those three companies offers a realistic allrounder.
admin
2 years ago |+1
cL
2 years ago |Yosemite, LX5′s lens is not the same size as DSLR lenses…. Aperture is a ratio. To demonstrate the point, 4/3 sensor has a 2x crop factor compared to a FF, therefore the area to cover by light is half of it. That’s why a 4/3 lens’s f2 is NOT the same as f2 of a FF. It’s smaller, since it doesn’t need to be as large to cover the sensor area. LX5′s sensor is something like 1/1.65? That’s a fraction of 4/3′s sensor size, so the aperture of that lens, though f2, is a fraction of the size of a f2 lens of 4/3 (even smaller if you’re compare it to a FF).
What what does that really mean in real world? Well, smaller the hole is, deeper the depth of field. F2 on 4/3 is not as shallow a FF’s f2. LX5′s F2 is even less shallow. You can’t achieve the same super thin DoF if that’s what you want to do. That makes smaller sensor cameras good for details, but not good for DoF. Have you ever seen a photo people took while they’re travel, using a P&S camera with puny sensor, and you are suspicious whether they Photoshopped their photos because it looks like they pasted themselves onto a background? That’s the result of super deep DoF in combination of small sensor…. It’s flat, in other words, not three dimensional.
And because the hole of LX5′s f2 is smaller than the f2 of a DSLR, the glasses in that lens can be made much smaller. That’s why it’s cheaper to make.
4/3 lenses, theoretically speaking, should be cheaper than APS-C and FF, just because glass elements are smaller. Though realistic speaking, lens to sensor size ratio isn’t that drastic (i.e., 4/3′s lens isn’t 1/2 the size of a FF lens), that’s why the price isn’t that different and the weight of Olympus regular 4/3 lens definitely tells you there are a lot of metal and glasses inside….
I have a LX3, by the way. I used to think my LX3 is really sharp if you shot RAW. That’s true if you compared it with other point and shoot, but once you’re used to the output of a DSLR, it’s not that sharp anymore….
YeahYeah
2 years ago |Ok, one sentence only : WE NEED FAST LENSES.
Ben
2 years ago |After the fact I realize what I really want. I want the 9-18mm or the 7-14mm but they’re too expensive and I would only really be buying them for the wide end.
A 7 or 9mm f/4 prime for under $500 would be great…if they can make it f/2.8 that would be even better.
cL
2 years ago |Second that. 8mm non-fish eye type lens would be really nice. More realistically it’ll be a 10mm f4 for under $1,000 (if they’re being very nice). It’s very expensive to build an ultra wide angle, that’s why lens makers like to build a fish eye first to cover that focal length (distortion correction is very expensive to achieve, that’s why Panny cheated, using software instead of raw optic perfection Oly tries to do).
If they made it into f2.8…, I expect it’ll cost $3,000+ easily. It’s not just the production cost, but also because it’s such a niche market, they can’t achieve economy of scale. I’m okay with 12mm f4, not because I don’t want a 10mm but because it’ll be too expensive for my blood.
Anyways, Oly m4/3 9-18mm is only $535 on Amazon now…. That’s probably one of the cheapest wide angle of that range you could ever get…. Just look at competitors’ offerings. Yes, photography is a very darn expensive hobby.
steve
2 years ago |Looking at the list and there are basically only 2 lenses in the top ten. A fast-wide prime and a fast wide to normal zoom. I am still suprised with the fast wide prime as fast primes are usually required in the 40-50mm equiv. range, not at the wide end where the shallow DOF would play havic with too many subjects in the frame.
Maybe people are trying to find one lense to do it all with stopping down for wide angle shots or cropping for the traditianal 50mm shallow DOF shot. The problem with this is that the lens will be much larger and more expensive than 2 specialized lenses or else there will be sacrifices in IQ. I really wonder if people know what they are asking for?
Arkersaint
2 years ago |Please do us a favor :
- Select your top ten winners, without redundancy
- Add your own estimation of price (I know it will be wrong, but not that much
- Propose a new poll, one with the question “would you buy this lens ? Yes / No” or similar poll with same purpose !
I think that result should be very very interestig.
With best regards and congratulations for your site !
admin
2 years ago |I will think about that…
Thanks!
canard
2 years ago |Been teaching photography and working in the sales part industry for nearly 2 decades, and I can tell you this: people new to photography fixate on fast lenses, but end up buying moderately priced ones. Of your so-called “top ten” there’s not one lens that would retail for less than $1000, and the fact is nobody really buys lenses that expensive. A poll such as this captures nothing but the aspirations of a bunch of people who, I can guarantee you from my experience in camera retail, will absolutely positively NOT put their money where their mouths are.
Oly need to produce a 14-54 f/2.8-3.5 and a version of the 50mm f/2.0 for the micro format – all indicators are that they will do this in the next year or so. When my store carried Oly 4/3 gear (we stopped about a year ago…) we sold more of those lenses than all the other HG/SHG lenses combined, so if they can scale them down to a size that works on the micro platform they’ll be in business.
steve
2 years ago |So true. Most of the people voting for these fast lenses are hoping they will sell for less than $500. In the end very few will end up buying them.
Ulli
2 years ago |be it naive or not but i do believe that a few of the top ten lenses can be below the 1000 usd mark (or 1200-1300 euros equiv…)and most people know that certain types of lenses will be very expensive if the speed rises.
admin
2 years ago |Do agree with you canard!
frosti7
2 years ago |Canard you basically right, but dont forge that the “minority” of the people who actually buy the SHG lens are the one’s that give the whole system a very good reputation! and that tickles down to the cheaper lens sales as well,
A system with f/2 or f/2.8 zooms will be a very strong system and it would be very hard for competitors to compete with panny/oly if they will indeed produce such lens,
Btw, i dont see a need for a tad faster 14-42 kit lens, but perhaps 12-60 f/2.8-4 (along with the f2 zooms)
Tobias W.
2 years ago |So true.
I am no professional photographer but I have amassed quite a bit of gear in the recent years. I’m still doing Four Thirds with the 12-60mm and the Panasonic 25mm being my most expensive lenses. I would love to have a smaller version of the 12-60mm for my E-PL1. I don’t mind about the 25mm though. I will probably get the Panasonic 20mm which will be more than suitable for what I do.
Daemonius
2 years ago |Odd lengths..
68mm = 135mm
44mm = 85mm
Not that much odd.. m4/3s dont have x2 crop, its bit less (around 1.93x at least for G1).
Well, I think that 68mm/f1.4 (or 1.2) would be perfect for portraits.. Though, fast zooms can do same, and Olympus already has 35-100mm/f2.
What we in fact need, is “old” 4/3s lens in m4/3s package and speed.
Sylvain
2 years ago |Admin,
Compile your data, and send them by mail to Panasonic & Olympus regional headquarters (America, Europe, Asia).
Greetings,
S.
admin
2 years ago |Already sent
panka
2 years ago |people wants prime … but buy zoom
Wt21
2 years ago |The biggest leader by far is a fast 50mm. You have four categories of nearly the same lens. 50 1.2, 50 1.4, 50 2.0 and 50 1.8
All are fast 50s, and the 50 2.0 is popular, because it’s a real lense, and likely to be what we see. Combined, they make up the biggest count of votes from that I see.
pdc
2 years ago |These polls may be misleading unless the polling is qualified. It would be useful to know what user groups are interested in what lens development.
For example, the following user groups would have much different views:
Studio/portrait
Cityscape/street/video
Landscape/wildlife/sports
Macro(micro)/copywork
Haralampi
2 years ago |I would suggest to include the expected price for each lens (at least assign some range, i.e. below $300, $300-$500, $500-$1000, etc.)
People may “want” all kinds of lenses but once they see the price, they usually start changing their minds… unless your audience is the type that buys Leica and money is not an issue for them.
I for example “want” a full-frame pocketable camera weighing not more than 0.5 kilos, with a fixed stabilized lens 1-1000mm, constant f1.0 with built-in polarizing and gradient filters. But I am sure I will not want it when I see the price
Maley
2 years ago |The poll is kinda useless imho. U should have made a poll: Which lens would u most likely buy when it comes to stores.
Nearly none would buy the 12-50 F2.0. The FT 14-35 btw costs over 2k €, so what would this lens with Video optimization and IS cost. 4K ? And it would be the most oversiced piece ever.
ChrisG1Pro
2 years ago |Dear Admin,
Very interesting read indeed! I too voted for a fast fifty (25mm f1.4 or faster) any idea when this lens is coming as I really need one and don’t want the hassle of the adaptor plus Leica 4/3 25mm! Also wish a f2.8 or f2.8-3.5 (like the 4/3 Leica) standard zoom was in the pipeline! Any ideas?
Great Work BTW
Stupig
2 years ago |25/1.2 isn’t that fast after all. 25/0.7 merely matches 50/1.4 on 35mm. Are we going to see something like that?
Voldenuit
2 years ago |There’s already the Voigtlaender 25/0.95 in m43 mount. And while you are right about equivalent DOF, the light gathering area is unchanged. So in low light, that f/0.95 is still an f/0.95 lens however you slice it.
Stupig
2 years ago |It’s also 25mm however you slice it. I was talking about photographic equivalences: m43 25mm/0.95 ISO100 ~ 35mm 50mm/1.9 ISO400. I won’t hesitate to buy GH1+25/0.7 for the price of D700+50/1.4.
Michael
2 years ago |I’m still waiting to get a GH2 in my hands, but I am already thinking about lenses, compact lenses to be exact. I’d like to take a small travel bag with me, so compact lenses would be fine.
During my first investigations I found a nice web site which contains tests of some M4/3 lenses, e.g. the Olympus 14-42mm: http://www.photozone.de/olympus–four-thirds-lens-tests/452-oly_m1442_3556
The Panasonic lense needs dramatically more space. I don’t know, if this collapsing system means automatically worse quality, but if not: Panasonic, please create some lenses (10-40, 40-150 and 150-250) like that!
Garland
2 years ago |I think Olympus produces a 35-100mm f2.0 lens for Four Third format a few years back. This translates into 70-200mm f2.0 equivalent !!! They could re-produce that in a smaller lighter Micro version. What I really want is a 150mm f2.0 prime tele, super fast focusing! This is a 300mm f2.0 lens you can brag to your Full Frame fanatic friends