skip to Main Content

(FT2) New Olympus 25mm f/1.8 and 12-60mm lens coming at Photokina?


Image on top: The popular Four Thirds 12-60mm lens which so many wish to see in a native m43 version.

Mu-43 reports that Olympus may introduce a new 25mm f/1.8 and 12-60mm zoom lens.
The 25mm f/1.8 lens is a bit larger than the 17mm pancake and built like the 45mm lens. Price is very low and between $200 and $250 like the Four Thirds 25mm lens (here at Amazon).
The 12-60mm f/ lens is weather sealed and a bit larger than the 12-50mm lens. Price will be around $800-$900. A bit less than the popular Four Thirds version.

The rumor hasn’t been confirmed by my trusted sources yet and even mu-43 doesn’t know the source. I hope it’s not a wishful thinking of someone so I posted it with a low FT2 rating (and probably I was too generous). Anyway, let’s imagine for a moment that this is a real thing:

Select the lens you would love to own:

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

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

  • JF

    Yes please the 12-60 !! IQ like the 43 version, no compromise !

  • Anonymous

    12-60 after the 12-50? I cant believe that, so I guess the whole rumor is fake.

    • admin

      Yes, too good to be true???

      • JF

        IMHO the 12-50 is more video optimized with power zoom and internal zooming (which increase the size ?). Moreover, the 12-50 IQ is average. The 12-60 f2.8-4 would be a stills lens without power zoom, really better IQ and higher price in addition to be faster. That’s make sens no ?

        • zooming in video is truly a niche. Its an effect you want to use with moderation, you ought to know why and when to incorporate zooming in a footage . You have some parafocal cine zooms. Angenieux and Canon comes to mind. Brace yourself, not exactly a budget thing! Such zooms are typically used the same way manual focus is : with marking, by the focus puller, following a planned scenario.

          So called video optimized zoom costing $600 are not made to show smooth zooming in videos. The zooming part are best trimmed away during the edit. Its not to say they are not convenient, au contraire. When execution time is of essence, you can’t swap between primes. Animal documentary is a good example, try filming a frozen thud feeding of a baby python, see if it waits for the camera…

          Anyhow, I might be wrong, but to me power zoom is a kit lens thing. It helps keeping things compact.

          • bart

            the 12-50 isn’t very compact thanks to its internal zoom mechanism. Additionally, it can be switched between manual and power zoom.

            So, compactness cannot be the reason in case of the 12-50mm.

            • I guess its a matter of how you look at it. Except for the Panasonic X 14-42, the 12-50 is shorter than any other standard kit zoom fully extended to their tele end, ironically, this is specifically due to the internal zoom. However, unlike the X14-42, it just doesn’t fold.

              But I’ll rephrase my thoughts. Internal zooms’s mechanism are probably greatly simplified if the zoom mechanism powered. So far I can tell, those zooms are all kit lenses.

              • bart

                The 12-50 has both manual and power zoom, so in this case compactness is not the argument for power zoom.

                • Call it manual if you like, that zoom ring is by wire.

                  • Bart

                    I wonder, have you ever used it?

                  • Bart

                    Oh… I just took my 12-50mm, looked through the rear element, and turned the zoom ring, and guess what, it changed the focal length of the lens!

                    This must be magic, free power!!!

                    Or maybe you are just wrong and it really IS mechanical?

                    • ok, my mistake ;)

                    • Bart

                      n.p. :)

                      I initially got the 12-50 with the E-M5 as a kit with the intent to sell it off and use the money for an mmf-3, but after trying it out for a little bit, I decided to keep it because of the rather ingenious power/manual zoom system and overall build quality combined with good enough image quality upto around 40mm at least.

                      The zoom ring lacks focal length markings, and the mechanism is different from the classic mechanical zoom design. When in manual mode, you manually turn the motor that normally drives the zoom mechanism. When switching to power zoom mode, you move the ring forward, which disengages the mechanical link, and it becomes a fly-by-wire operation.

    • Frakatchoo

      The 12-50 have f3.5-6.3 ! The “4/3” 12-60 have a f2.8-4 ! So that make a big difference…

      • avds

        Big difference in size too, making the 12-60 totally unsuitable for m43 system.

        • Fish

          Not at all. We already have tiny or folding lenses for the format. I would still be using the 4/3 12-60mm, even on my E-PM1, if only it focused better… And I would still consider myself lucky to have such a great lens! A native version, even if there is no other size reduction, would still forego the size of the adapter.

          It may not be suitable for your needs, but this is exactly what I want.

          • avds

            Okay, that was an exaggeration :) But I just don’t think designing big lenses for m43 bodies can be anywhere on Olympus roadmap. They keep E-system for a reason.

            The 14-54mkII with an adapter reportedly focusses fast, on par with native m43 lenses, albeit the slowest ones perhaps.

            • jim

              To be fair – I think it focuses the same speed as the EP1 kit lens… (0.5sec ish).

              Mind you the 12-60mm 4/3 lens is not too bad… prob a shave less than 1 sec to focus… (on EP3)

        • Spunjji

          Yeah, just like that horribly oversized 12-35mm f2.8!

          …oh, wait. It’s the smallest lens of its type.

          There are more users than just you for this system. ;)

          • avds

            How is the 12-35 is relevant in this discussion?

            Though I don’t get it, take a notice that the 12-35 is smaller and lighter than the 12-60 in direct proportion to its zoom range reduction. It’s kind of the same lens (in terms of specs), only chopped by half.

        • We get it! Only SLR’s are allowed to have both kit lenses and bigger higher grades lenses. Never mind relative comparison. Its beaten to death, but its no good, it will never make sense.

          Insert DoF argument here.


        • I use the 12-60 on my E-M5 with an MMF-3 adapter. It is a big lens but it has such great IQ that I put up with the size (and the slow auto-focus). I would love a micro 4/3 version as long as the optics were the same. I use some OM prime lenses with the MF-2 adapter. I haven’t really seen a micro 4/3 lens that interests me, aside from the Panasonic 20mm.

    • “12-60 after the 12-50? I cant believe that, so I guess the whole rumor is fake.”


      Why? We’ve got a 14-54 and a 12-60 in FT – and they are far closer quality and IQ wise. So, there is no reason why there shouldn’t be a top-class zoom as alternative to the kit zoom.
      And don’t forget: the ZD 12-60 is one of the best – if not the best – standard-range zoom lens ever made. So, if they can transfer this quality to µFT, this lens should give most of the primes a really hard time, when it comes to IQ.

    • Mr. Reeee

      C’mon Oly likes multiples of exactly the same product available simultaneously… It’s a defining charateristic.

      SEVEN PEN bodies. THREE 14-42s, TWO 40-150mms… and a Yakuza in a pear tree! ;-)

      The 12-50mm is another slow, middling zoom. There were howls when it was released… f6.3?!?!?!?!!!!! So a HIGH quality 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 would be fantastic, especially if it equalled the 4/3 version. I could see buying one to replace my 14-140mm. Of course, if it were SILVER, no sale! ;-)

    • Pasukun

      One is about twice as expensive with aperture variation of 2.8 to 4.0 wide open.

      It is on totally different level.

  • thephotoshoe

    Make the 25mm weathersealed and I will buy the E-M5!

    • Why would you need that lens for the e-m5?

      • TheEye

        Simply put, without a relatively fast 12-60 (or preferably a 10-50) available, I won’t buy an E-M5. While the few primes are nice, I have no intention to constantly swap lenses or to carry a second body.

        If there is indeed a 12-60 m4/3 lens coming, I suppose this means I can give up the unrealistic hope of my 12-6- 4/3 lens ever AF-ing decently on an m4/3 body.

        • SteveO

          +100. I have little use for going back to swapping lenses after being spoiled by Olympus’ excellent 4/3’s zooms. A pocketful of primes – great way to sell multiple lenses if you’re Olympus and can find a crowd willing to pay the freight and put up with the inconvenience.

          The only prime I have an interest in is either the Pan 14mm or 20mm as a compact walking around lens for occasional use.

          mFT 12-60 f2.8-4: bring it on, Olympus!

        • jim

          The E-M5 with kit 12-50 3.5-6.5 can work in about the same light as the E5 with 14-35 F2!

          With a 12-60 F2.8-4 it will take it to a new level… With an F2… well, Ide like to see that :) – but I doubt my bank would!

      • The small size. + there are virtually no sealed lenses for he system.

      • bart

        Because people rather like having a compact but fast normal prime?

        And no, the higher usable iso levels do not automatically mean you do not need a fast lens.

        Obviously, if the price is close to the pl 25/1.4 then it won’t be that interesting.

    • Yes +1

    • The summilux is excellent, by the way ;)

  • i would love a 25 1.8…. but weather sealed :) that would be a really good news :)

  • ght

    I would be all over that 25mm! Now just add a 17.5mm 1.8 and I can’t think of another m4/3 lens I’d want.

    • confused

      17.5 f1.4, or even better 1.2, weather sealed. I could not care less is it is big and expensive, my other option is a 1300$ lens (nokton) and I am ready to pay for it, I would pay the same price for a slower lens as long as it has autofocus, 1.8 is great but as long as it’s cheap (45mm-like cheap).

      • SLOtographer

        I’d like to see Oly make two 17mm lenses. An updated version of the current one with better optics, and a premium 17/1.4 or 17/1.2 version that is weather sealed and optimized for IQ (not small size). Would work well the with M43 ecosystem.

  • OnlyMe

    An inexpensive 25mm would make me very happy.

  • CuriousBenjamin

    I’m surprised to see that so many prefer the 25 over 12-60. Isn’t Panasonic 25 doing a good job already? It’s faster too. Honestly, I would like to see a standard zoom like 12-60 with the same quality as the 4/3 version and priced around $600-$700.

    • ght

      The Panasonic is expensive. If this rumor is true, and I doubt it is, the Olympus would be far more affordable. Plus I prefer the Oly silver lenses.

    • Duarte Bruno

      The Panasonic is more expensive and wider (20mm). You’ll have noticeably thinner DOF on the 25mm which is also a “normal” lens. The 20mm is also reported to be of relatively slow focus when compared to other m43 glass. It’s IQ however has been praised everywhere.

      If this is true and the IQ is similar to the 45mm F1.8 I don’t have a doubt it will hit the Panny’s 20mm sales like a rocket. I only wonder what took them so long…

      • Amadeo

        There already IS a 25mm Panny lens. It’s the f1.4 Summilux. So, not really a hypothetical. I doubt an Oly version would be HALF the cost of the Panny version. Seems very unlikely to me.

        • Brian

          Unlikely, but it doesn’t have the Leica label attached to it either.

        • Duarte Bruno

          Thanks. I had completely forgot about that one since it’s a completely different price range. See? The instinctive reflex is to compare with the 20mm f/1.7 which is still more expensive than the expected price for this Oly.

        • Even if isn’t half the cost, it will probably be half the weight and size, and that matters more for m4/3 IMO.

    • littorio

      Answer is simple – PanaLeicas aren’t supplied with Olympus bodies as kits ;)

      What Olympus REALLY lacks is a good inexpensive kit prime. 45mm is too narrow to be a kit lens… 17mm is slow AF and poor IQ.

      • ght

        Oh Littorio, from your lips to the people who make these decisions at Olympus! 50mm 1.8 was always the standard (cheap) kit lens when I was a kid. It would be awesome if Olympus had a 25mm f1.8 kit lens!

  • Would LOVE both of these, esp weather sealed.

  • ArtP

    Would love a 12-60, but at the expected price, I wouldn’t be buying it anytime soon. A 25mm 1.8 at around $200 I could swing. The Panny lens at $600? If the Oly version had good IQ, fast AF and silent aperture, it will have a lot going for it even if it does have a slower aperture.

  • Lily

    The 25/2.8 was my most-used lens on my E-520. I’ve been using it on my GF3, and would LOVE to replace it with a native version! (And yes, another vote here for weather-sealed, as I have an EM5 as well.)

  • Cedric Leveille

    I would prefer a 25mm @ 300-400$ with an IQ like the famous 45mm!

  • MikeS

    I’d rather see a redesign of the 17mm pancake.

    • awaler

      17 mm pancake redesign (f 2.0) 250$
      25 mm f1.8 250$

      My name is not Freddie Mercury, but still …
      I want it all, and I want it now

      • Joe A.

        That would complete my holy trinity.

        17/2 (or 1.8)

    • pfeddeh

      for a redesigned 17mm pancake. F1.8 would be nice.

  • emde

    1.8/25 could replace my 1.7/20 for the PL3. I like 25mm angle of view better.
    12-60 would be an option if IQ would be on par with FT 12-60

  • ex

    A 12-60mm f/2.8-4.0 slightly larger than the 12-50mm and cheaper than the Four Thirds version seems too good to be true.

    I wouldn’t mind if it’s the 14-54mm they’re releasing, though.

    • avds

      Since the current 12-60 is almost 3 times as large as the 12-50, producing the same optical formula in just “slightly
      larger” case instead would truly pass for a miracle.

      • Hifinut

        the 12-60 is definitely not 3 times larger the 12-50. If you want to carry a small camera on a particular day, you could put on a pancake lens/small lens, but if you want to take a ultimate photos on another day you could put on the 12-60. that is the beauty of m43 systems. Look like you are the minority here.

        • JF


        • avds

          Sorry, but the 12-60 is “definitely” 2.8 times larger than the 12-50 in both volume and weight.

      • TheEye

        How did you measure?

        • avds

          By volume and weight.

          • TheEye

            And what’s your definition of “almost”?

            • avds

              Similar to yours, I believe.

      • Mr. Reeee

        Olympus 12-60mm Dimensions:
        Filter Thread: 72 mm
        Dimensions: 3.13 x 3.88″ (79.5 x 98.5 mm)
        Weight: 1.27 lb (575 g)

        Yeah, it’s big, the diameter is the killer, really. By comparison, a Voigtländer 17.5mm is only a bit smaller: 64mm x 90mm long, 540g. A 14-140mm: 70mm x 84mm / 2.76 ” x 3.31″ – Weight: 460g

        Oly is quite good at making compact lenses, so. It would be interesting to see what they could conjure up with a M4/3 version of the 12-60mm.

        • konikonaku

          i’ll take the original size as long it got mFT mount & CDAF speed…

    • TheEye

      Not sure about “cheaper.” The 12-60 4/3 lens is already a bit cheaply made. The front element may fall out if the (every shrinking with age) lens hood is removed.

      I’m also not too keen on extending outer lens barrels. I hope the 12-60 m4/3 lens will be an IF and internal zoom design, which would make it actually a lens that is at least longer than the 12-60 4/3 lens at its shortest focal lenght setting.

      • What is the relationship of the front lens and the lens hood?

        • TheEye

          The front element is held in place by a plastic ring and three small screws. If little more than marginal force is exerted on the lens hood bayonet mount, the plastic posts into which the screws are screwed, may break off, resulting in the front element falling out. This has happedned frequently. Search the dpreview 4/3 SLR Talk forum.

          • Nico

            Glue !
            Glue Everywhere. (as the 3rd repair)

            (first mis-posted below, sorry DonParrot)

  • Assumed it delivers on the same level as the ZD 12-60 SWD, I’d purchase the 12-60 as soon as it hits the market. But I’d love it even more as it would mean – as I see it – that we also may hope for an µFT version of the ZD 50-200 (SWD). And hey – that’s the lens I love more than any other of my FT lenses. ( Have to admit that, being just an amateur, I never was ready to spend the money for one of the SHG lenses although I’d love to shoot with the 150 2.0).

  • Miroslav

    Panasonic 25mm F1.4 in 2011, Olympus 25mm F1.8 in 2012…
    I expect Sigma 25mm F1.5 in 2013, Tamron 25mm F1.6 in 2014 and Schneider 25mm F1.7 in 2015. Oh, and manual focus 25mm F1.3 from SLR Magic and 25mm F1.1 from Samyang by 2015 as well.

  • You know what Olympus should really do – revamp their entire 43 lineup to be fully compatible with m43 (talking about autofocus speed). Or release them with the same optical formulas in m43 mounts. Instantly they have a full range of truly pro lenses…

  • Tim

    that rumor is to good to be true :-D

    I would buy the 25mm the day it hits the stores… -> I dont like the Panny version: its too big and (for me-) its too expensive-as i dont need that extra fast arperture
    The 12-60mm would mostlikly stay a dream, but you never know-maybe as a Kit with the OM-D6 ;-)

  • Anonymous

    Oh please, oh please, oh please let it be true!!! I really, really want a 25mm and I’ve been thinking of going for the PL25/1.4, but I just have a hard time shelling out over $500 for it. I would sell my left reproductive organ for a halfway decent 25mm f/1.8, especially if it is going to be a small lens (even if it isn’t a pancake). I have no issues with 2/3rds of a stop slower, I just want something f/2 or faster.


    • Steven Trillberg

      the 25mm Panasonic has been $450 for a while at the Panasonic EPP site. I bought one back in january for that price, and it’s still the same.

  • avds

    12-60/2.8-4 on m43? Not going to happen. Too big. Not just too big for most m43 bodies, especially Olympus PEN’s, but perhaps too big for CDAF drive to work fast enough.

    • TheEye

      I’m pretty sure that there will be a m4/3 cameras that is designed for adult man-hands. Even Olympus noticed they were catering too much to the “camera joshi” [sic]!

      • avds

        The only benefit of removing the mirror is making the cameras small, isn’t it? Olympus already produces larger cameras and that is where those larger lenses seem to naturally belong. To each their own I believe, unless Olympus decides to stop the development of FT cameras altogether.

        • TheEye

          Naw, supposedly the lack of a complicated (Bah!) mirror box will also result in a less expensive product (Right…).

          I see no reason to carry a 4/3 DSLR that is as big and heavy as the competition, especially if the competition has a larger sensor.

          I am interested in a m4/3 camera, if it has a decent OFV or excellent EVF, and if it has a reasonable (E-620) size. That product does not exist at this time.

          • avds

            But a mirrorless camera of the same size as a E-620 would be exactly as big and heavy as competition (e.g. D-3200, if my data is correct). It escapes me why you would be interested in such a mirrorless design if you find carrying the DSLR of the same size unreasonable.

        • bart

          No, removing the mirror reduces mechanical complexity and reduces vibration. It also happens to allow for smaller cameras, but that has never been the only or primary motivation.

          • TheEye

            The mechanical complexity of a SLR (since 1933 – a mature and reliable technology!) is replaced with an electronic marvel of much greater complexity.

            • Lil Jerk Kid

              An item may be more complex, yet more reliable.

            • Esa Tuunanen

              While there might be more electronic components integrated circuits are very reliable.

              Their transistors can do even billions of state switching operations in second and single chip can have billions of them.
              Now how many operations that mechanical shutter and mirror mechanism of SLR can do before being completely worn out?
              You should thank god cameras can record video without using mechanical shutter!

            • Bart

              Uh no, 1933 SLRs did not have quick return mirrors, auto aperture that is often linked to the mirror mechanism etc.

              And eh, the reflex mechanism predates the first photographic camera, by quite some time actually, a reflex mechanism was first used in a camera obscura like device.

              So no, its not ‘mature technology since 1933’, 1933 saw the coming together of various technologies making the first somewhat practical SLR, but it was far from mature.

          • avds

            Sorry, but you seem to bend the argumentation here quite beyond reason. It’s obvious that the paramount driving force behind mirrorless camera sales is their reduced size, and even the Micro Four Thirds consortium directly state (and reiterate) on their official site that camera size is the primary benefit of MFT. With due respect, other concerns might be kind of important but still quite secondary.

            • Esa Tuunanen

              You’re the one doing bending here to fit everything into your narrow minded view.

              Besides brand problem (not Canikon) there’s major reason why mirrorless hasn’t been able to challenge DSLR in Europe and North America:
              Current mirrorless cameras have obsession to go straight off the charts on other end of size scale and have lots of ergonomical issues.
              While roughly GH2 size would be enough for good compromise between ergonomics and smaller than DSLR size fashion gimmicks keeps preventing that.

              But maybe you’re just Canikon fan and want to keep their domination alive long to the future by keeping around need for SLR design for another century.

              • Boooo!

                Chill out. You two (and me three) are on the same side, and he’s just being tongue in cheek.

            • Bart

              Not at all. The major motivation for manufacturers to want to remove the mirror is cost reduction.

              It happens to also allow for other desirable things.

              • avds

                You may be right in terms of historical perspective, but what really matters now is how they sell the product to consumers. Consumers don’t care about hidden manufacturers motivations, they decide the fate of the product based on real world benefits, and so far any costs cutting has hardly translated into one of them, unlike compact size, which sells big time.

                • Bart

                  You are absolutely right that what actually drives a certain development for manufacturers is not how it is being sold to consumers.

                  But mirrorless cameras are just the next step, reduction of the number and complexity of moving parts has been going on for a long time, and the resulting cost reduction has directly benefited consumers, its how (D)SLRs and similar cameras became affordable to begin with.

                  We moved from mechanical, spring driven mechanics to electro-magnetic ones for mirrors and aperture in the 70s and 80s already, have seen a variety of experiments at a non moving mirror (Sony’s SLT just being the latest incarnation of that direction), and attempts to avoid having a mirror alltogether as soon as that became practical. Reducing the number of moving parts has always been and still is the primary reason, with reduced cost and increased reliability as the first benefits when it is done properly.

                  On the larger scale, the size reduction is one of the resulting benefits, and as you point out, one that sells really well, but its not what drove removal of the mirror, neither is it the only benefit.

                  Compactness is of course something that appeals to consumers, me included. No doubt it is also the most obvious advantage to consumers, most other benefits are far less easy to explain, especially to a larger public.

                  Mirror lockup on many (D)SLRs exists with a reason, and a mirrorless design just removes that reason completely. For those of us who do for example macro or astro photography, that is a very significant benefit that is not related to size at all. This is easily understood by those with the proper experience and knowledge, but far less easy by the general public.

            • Ok, what was the objective of the SLR? It was to enable the photographer to see what the lens saw and to see exactly what was going to be captured on film. And. If the mechanicals of the mirror to focal plane measurements were correct it enabled very accurate focus.
              All the rest is modification, add on and improvement that does not change the reason behind the SLR.
              We now have electronic sensors to replace film. So with the dSLR nothing much changes, just more updating and improvements.
              BUT! We now have the ability to see the same image that the sensor sees without all the mirrors and glass prism and the possibility it goes out of mechanical calibration.

              The objectives and reason for the SLR can be better met by the mirrorless camera. A blanket statement, yes, but true. The SLR as it is today is like comparing the CRT TV with the plasma/LCD panel TV, they both work but events have overtaken one of them.
              The digital Single Lens Imager camera is here now and like the old SLR is being modified and having addons and improvements.
              The improvement of OVF will see the end of the dSLR as it is today. All manufacturers will go mirrorless for all their products. They will maintain a dSLR line as a niche product but it will be very very expensive.

  • To all those who say that a 12/60/2.8-4 would be too big: not all m43 bodies are Pens or GF series… you also got the GH range and, mor importantly, the EM-5 with its grip extensions…

  • Tripp

    I have the 4/3 version of the 12-60. It has no equal across systems. If the m4/3 version will be of the same quality I will definitely buy one.

    • Ringo


  • chronocommando

    I am done with Olympus if they are starting to “migrate” their 4/3 lenses to m4/3-mount instead of enabling the full functionality on a m4/3 body. So I hope for all of you that you will get a new 12-60. But it will be no good news for me then.

    • TheEye

      I feel similarly about it. However, sadly, and in contrast to my “old” 35 mm gear, I do consider cameras and even lenses now pretty much disposable. There’s just so much that can and eventually will go wrong with electronic-ridden modern lenses. My 12-60 is now 3 years old. Not sure how much I’ll trust this lens in another 12 months, because that lens already has a lot of mileage on it.

    • Christian

      Couldn’t agree more. I do not mind Oly producing good lenses for mFT, but if they fail to enable the use of FT-lenses on future cameras, I will never buy any of their stuff again.

  • Beanie and me

    I don’t see why I would buy a 25/1.8 as Panny already got the 20/1.7 and 25/1.4 and both with good quality.

    • sight

      The 25/1.8 will be focusing faster than the 20/1.7; lighter, smaller and cheaper than the 25/1.4. I don’t see why it will not sell.

  • Frode

    I already have the 12-35/2.8, so getting a hypothetical 12-60/2.8-4 at $900 wouldn’t make much sense for me. If I’m going to spend that much cash on another lens, I might as well fork over the extra needed for the 35-100 when that finally arrives.

  • Death knell for 4/3? That I think would be the main consequence of the new 12-60, especially if it was that ‘cheap’.

    Would the last of the purist justify a v. expensive modular camera?
    Or is Oly heading towards a purely m4/3 pro camera?

    That is worth investigating IMHO.

    • TheEye

      Your penchant for cheapness is amusing.

      • OTH I have not seen your photography yet.

        For amateurs investment in gear and good images are usually in inverse proportion. They are poor chattering souls, with nothing to show.

        • TheEye

          I hear you chattering!

    • Bart

      “Or is Oly heading towards a purely m4/3 pro camera?”

      On the slightly longer term? most definitely. There are some technical obstacles for that still that make for the need to keep a ‘flagship’ FT camera, but that is a stopgap measure. That ‘death knelt’ for ft has been dealt slowly, by Olympus persistently being vague about the future of ft ever since the e-5. There is a market still for the lenses and a new body for existing users, but as a system, it is a dead end, and any development it will see is (and for the e-5 mostly was) a spin-off of technology from the mirrorless offerings.

      Since not everything is in place yet for a ‘pro’ mft camera from Olympus, I’d also expect to see a lower end OM-D model before seeing one that is a ‘pro’ model.

      Also, I’d rather expect that if Olympus releases a mft 12-60 that matches the ft version, its price would be quite similar to the ft version.

  • i like primes very much

    25mm f/1.8 cheap and good will be very nice

    but, please make also:
    17mm f/1.4 (or better 17mm f/1.2)
    10mm f/2.8 or f/2
    150mm f/2.8
    7mm f/4 or f/2.8
    100mm f/3.5 macro

  • Tom

    Compared to the 12-35, the rumored 12-60 would trade reach for a little less than a stop in the mid range. If they could get it to 300g, it would be very attractive, but 400g is too big for the design intent of this system, at least from my perspective of using the 45-200 on GH1.

    For those put off by the high cost and limited availability of the panny 25, and the reported slow focusing of the panny 20, a 25 f1.8 would be a no brainer.

    • TheEye

      How is 400 grams “too big”? Too heavy maybe? How so? The 12-60 replaces these traditional equivalent focal lenghts: 24, 28, 35, 50, 85, 105. How much would six prime lenses weigh, if Olympus even had all those focal lenghts available as prime lenses? Surely more than 400 grams!

      • pfeddeh

        I would never carry all those primes. Just pick three, 24-35-85 or 24-50-105.

        • TheEye

          Neither would I, because I can get away with usually away with a wide and light tele.

          The point was however that the 12-60 does de facto replace a bag full of lenses. Then there remains the issue that swapping primes constantly is less than ideal. A second body would be more convenient, but then one might as well use one body and the “too-big” 12-60.

      • maybe some people think the m43’s lens mount will break off when using heavy lenses.

        • Mr. Reeee

          They may not realize that you’re supposed to support the lens with your left hand and not just let it dangle off the front of the camera.

          There are quite a few native M4/3 lenses that top out at over 400g. What’s the problem?

          • Anonymous

            And you are going to walk around holding your camera with both hands? Or will you immediately store it in a very tight bag after taking a shot, like it’s some kind of precious gem?

    • Hifinut

      I wouldn’t want oly to change anything to the 12-60 if it compromises the edge to edge sharpness the the 43 design. Oly should realize that we do not wish to buy the lens only for the zoom range but also the resolution of the 43 12-60 lens.

    • avds

      300 grams?

      That’s Panasonic 12-35 territory. Two times less volume and weight at the cost of two times shorter zoom range, compared to Oly 12-60.

    • Rasmus

      The Voigtländer 25/0.95 is 410 grams, the Panasonic 100-300 is 520 grams. I have both and none of them feel uncomfortable to handle om my E-M5. If anything I wish the 100-300 wasn’t so slow.

      The Voigtländer 17/0.95 is even heavier at 540 grams. People seem to like them anyway.

  • E

    I bought the E-M5 w/12-50mm specifically for use in dusty, damp and sometimes wet environments. Personally, I’d like to see another weather-sealed zoom in the 50mm+ range. Although, weather-sealed primes (wide, normal, or tele)would be welcome in my kit as well. So as far as I’m concerned no weather-sealing equals no sale, nearly identical focal length zooms equal no sale. For the 12-60mm to have an advantage of a little less than one stop on the wide end and a little over one stop on the tele end isn’t an enticement for me at all.

    • Lily


  • Joe A.

    I find it hard to believe that the 25mm would cost less than $400 US. It would be great if it did, but then Olympus should lower the MSRP of the 17mm, which I don’t believe they’ll do. Maybe they’ll discontinue the 17, and offer a newer version @ f/1.8 and internal focusing.

    Either way, I’ll buy the 25mm if it ever comes out.

  • Beefcake

    25mm f 1.8 !?!? BEEFCAKE WANT PANCAKE. also, weather seal that badboy for $250 and I’ll pre-order that sucka

  • Nando

    stop saying pana leica 25mm, the fact it exist or if you already have it, does not mean one can buy it now – for the regular price, not those inflated ones – there are not in stock anywhere, so bring it on olympus.

    • dau

      Look on ebay, the 25mm 1.4 is readily available for round the 600 (aussie) dollar mark.

  • Frye

    25mm sounds good. This system needs some more affordable lenses of the wide and fast variety. Key word here is “affordable.”

    • Hifinut

      if the 25mm performs like the 45mm, Yes!!! But if it performs like the forgetable 17mm, Nooooo!!!!!!

      • i think too many people bash the current 17mm only by what they have heard about it, not by actual experience. And its prob started with the dpreview test of that lens.

    • Lots of “affordable” lenses may not be as good for the format as it might sound. Most people who buy a body plus kit zoom combo never buy another lens. Most of the rest buy just another kit level zoom, mostly a longer one to be able to shoot from further away. We at these forums are a small minority. Now, as the selection of camera bodies eventually widens into pro segment, I think there should be two lens lines. There should be a few affordable zoom lenses, like there already are, and some affordable primes between 12mm and 150mm. Sigma, Tamron and others will be active there. What Olympus really needs is a working interim solution for SWD lenses ( I would licence it from Sony) and a series of native UHG and HG quality lenses, both primes and zooms. For me m4/3 is not about microscopic size, it is about the best compromize of all aspects, including no compromize lenses.

      • Frye

        There needs to be a more affordable fast 25mm option. Because there currently isn’t one from Sigma or Tamron or whoever. I don’t really care who does it.

  • If Olympus could port over the 12-60mm AND the 50-200mm to m4/3, I would buy them both, no questions asked, and be perfectly content with lenses (already have the 14mm, 20mm, and 45mm and the Panny 7-14mm).

    I don’t care about the size, they won’t be any larger than the 4/3 versions and that’s good enough for me, so anything smaller is just a bonus.

  • shep

    Yea for the 25mm f1.8!! This was the basic staple lens in SLR’s (50mm f1.8) for decades. I have long proposed exactly this lens in other comments on this site. If this FT2 becomes an FT5 I am confident that it’ll sell like hot cakes.

    Three cheers for some bokeh, plus ultra-compactness, the raison d’être of m4/3.

  • Paul

    The 12-60 would be very nice for people who don’t have the 4/3rds version but for me I want an adapter or a solution so that my HG glass will focus on my OMD like the m4/3rds equivalents. I’ve a fair amount of this glass, not all of it needs to be fast focussing but the 12-60 does, cmon Oly the technology is there for an adapter, it may not be your ideal solution but it is a workable one.

  • > Select the lens you would love to own:

    I answered 12-60.

    Though strictly speaking, I have to point that I would *hate* to own it: it’s huge, it’s heavy, it’s expensive and also it’s huge and it’s heavy. But I still love it. And I also hate it. That’s the thing about the 12-60.

    Wrt 25mm – if not pancake, I’m not really interested. And 25mm is bit longish for me. 2.0/20mm or 2.0/17mm (or brighter) pancake with fast AF would be a different story.

  • I tihink you are just a bit unhinged about the 17/2.8. Its’ not an extraordinary lens, being a pancake, but a v. good one which contrary to 20mm stood the test of time, and is probably Oly’s bestseller.

    The 25/2.8 for 4/3 had a similar bad rep by the clueless, only to be loved by practical owners.

    A 25/1.8 might be similar: good across the range of features.

    • I’ll stick to Michael Reichmann’s opinion who favors the 20mm in that FoV range for his EM5…

    • MichaelKJ

      “I tihink you are just a bit unhinged about the 17/2.8. Its’ not an extraordinary lens, being a pancake, but a v. good one which contrary to 20mm stood the test of time, and is probably Oly’s bestseller.”

      Bizarre comment. I suggest you start a thread on DPR asking for opinions of the 17 vs the 20.

      • bart

        Maybe look a bit beyond dpreview? Like… using both lenses and see how they compare?

        Much of the dislike of the 17mm stems from it having lateral chromatic aberration which is quite noyiceable but very easy to correct (much more so then the less noticeable but difficult to correct axial chromatic aberration of the 20/1.7)

        The 17mm isn’t excelent, but by far not as bad as the dpreview kabal claims.

  • Dave

    Make the 12-60 with same optics as it’s bigger brother, keep weather sealing, and you can have one of my kidneys for it.

  • MikeH

    These rumors should be FT0 as they are that likely to be true.

  • Never mind. At least now we know that they are the most desired lenses.

    The matter of price is also becoming paramount, which is good, We are past the experimental, pioneering phase. So why pay more than other systems?

    • avds

      Panasonic might think quite differently, as their 12-35 ($1300) suggests.

      • Spunjji

        That’s a professional-grade lens with a professional-grade price. Nobody is going to make you buy it. :)

  • A true replica of the excellent 12-60mm for Micro Four Thirds including weather sealing will be awesome. I would not hesitate to buy that lens in an instance.

    I really hope Olympus does not release a 25mm lens. I just bought the Panasonic Leica 25mm, I even still own the Panasonic 20mm lens. I will part from the 20mm lens if Olympus releases a FAST, BLACK, COMPACT (not necessarily pancake) and SEALED 17mm lens. Since the existing 17mm lens sucks in all respects, I think Olympus has reason enough to renew this.

  • BillM

    The 12-60 f/2.8 – 4 would be ideal for m43

    • That is only because you rely in prejudice. In fact I have both the old 9-18, the better one and the 17mm, and while the former has better resolution at 18, the 17 is not very far, if stopped down at the same aperture.

      So it’s the difference between knowing the facts and smearing. That is also the reason why Olympus has not yet revised the lens. Customers buy and use it, knowing that it is a pancake. And contrary to the 20mm it still has quick AF with *any* Olympus camera.

      • Bart

        “And contrary to the 20mm it still has quick AF with *any* Olympus camera.”

        I own both the m.zuiko 17/2.8 and the Lumix 20/1.7. There may well be a measurable difference in focus speed between the 2, but they are close enough in this that it has no relevance in real world usage. Neither lens can hold a candle to the ‘fast AF’ compatible lenses such as the 12-50 or 45/1.8 lenses when it comes to focus speed.

        It seems it is first of all you who relies on prejudice, against the 20mm. You know it is a pancake as well? Why apply different standards?

      • Mathias

        > In fact I have both the old 9-18, the better
        > one and the 17mm, and while the former has
        > better resolution at 18, the 17 is not very far

        Primes are supposed to be *better* than zooms, and noticably so. A prime which doesn’t clearly beat a comparable zoom is a lemon, pancake or not. Every in depth review of the 17 shows that it has inferior resolution compared to every other m43 prime. I don’t think there’s any way to defend the 17, considering how much better resolution the Panasonic pancakes have. Have a look for yourself:

        This is from the best lens review site. And all other review sites more or less confirm these results. The 17 clearly sucks in the resolution department. Big time.

        • Anonymous

          The 17mm was tested on the E-P1, which was the only m4/3 camera with a strong AA filter. The results are not comparable.

        • The problem is the photographer not the lens, that is why it keeps selling. I can put my Pen in my pocket and therefore I am ready for interesting thinsg happening all the time.

          In street shooting content reigns, and the 17mm AF is fast enough. Besides I shoot in hyhperfocal, and so need a good f/8 which the 17t does sharp from edge to edge.

          In almost every site there are 17mm threads showing excellent images but gearheads go propagating their tiny views without ever showing an image, They have no content, just figures.

  • TomR

    It’s hard to know how to vote. I would like to see Olympus make a 25mm and/or 17mm, but would be happy to pay more for it and have a weather sealed lens that was a bit faster.
    I’ve been holding out on the pan/leica hoping for a weather sealed lense. If there was a 25mm 1.8 for $25O I think it would be good for some but personally I would rather pay the extra.

  • An M.Zuiko 12-60mm that’s F2.8-4.0 would complement Panasonic’s X12-35mm F2.8. That would give Micro Four Thirds users a choice between having a constant aperture or longer reach. Of course there’s always the issue of an Olympus lens not being stabilized on a Panasonic body.

    An M.Zuiko 25mm F1.8 is less compelling. Those on a budget could opt for the somewhat wider Lumix 20mm F1.7 while those with more money to spend have the choice of the faster Leica 25mm F1.4. So I suspect that the new Olympus 25/1.8 will mainly be sold as a kit option for upcoming PEN models, replacing the less than stellar 18/2.8.

    • bart

      Focus speed and noise may be very good ressons to not want the 20/1.7, as in thatt aspect it is no better then the 17/2.8

      • I wonder how many that raises the issue of focus speed and noise really had the 20mm.

        • Bart

          I do own it, I use it, and I don’t regard either focus speed or noise as a major issue for many cases, but it definitely is for some cases.

          For example, I do take pictures of the cats from one of my friends (he participates in all kinds of competitions with them). The noise instantly triggers a response from those, which makes this lens unusable for that particular application.

          For example, the 45/1.8 is fast enough with AF to stand a very good chance on focusing on a relatively fast moving object, and get a nicely in-focus picture, whereas the 20/1.7 is usually not able to pull this off. This makes it unusable for such applications.

          Judging how this applies to someone elses photography is totally beyond my or your capability, as we don’t know the circumstances of those other photographers.

  • Gekopaca

    @ Olympus and other poor lens makers :
    Please stop producing unnecessary poor lenses and let us take pictures quietly!

    • The 20mm is a very special case, and even then must have distortion. These pancakes live by firmware correction.

      A good beginning would be to have as little as possible, as the 25/1.4. I am told that the Sigmas 19 and 30mm have none, bur then they are a bit bigger. It all depends on what you want.

      If the 25/1.8 is no pancake but is smaller, and with little correction, then I’ll probably get one, if the price is right.

      We all have different equations, and makers know it, it’s only gearheads who would have everybody think the same thing.

      Yhe same bad rep is now hovering over the 12-50, despite Robin Wong showing it very good *in the field* but he is a good photog, while gearheads are just collectors.

      • Bart

        “Yhe same bad rep is now hovering over the 12-50, despite Robin Wong showing it very good *in the field* but he is a good photog, while gearheads are just collectors.”

        I have both the 12-50mm and the fourthirds 14-54 II. There is a rather substantial difference in image quality at the longer end especially. That is the same camera, same photographer, same subject.

        The 12-50 is a very versatile and useful lens of sufficient quality for many uses, but, it is not ‘very good’. This is something that you can easily demonstrate to yourself by comparing it to other lenses.

        You are of course right that it is the photographer that takes good pictures, and a crappy photographer will likely take crappy pictures regardless of the lens. Good pictures do not really depend on very good equipment, rather, they depend on the photographer and how well that photographer can exploit the available tools and conditions.

        But, comparing lens quality does not require a good photographer, it requires controlled testing where the ONLY variation is the lens being used.

  • simon

    both you forgot the both option in your survey.

    i think the 12-60/2.8-4 is a better deal than a 12-35/2.8 what is the 12-60 at 35? 3.2? not that much less than 2.8

    • SteveO

      The 14-54 is 3.2 at 35, the 12-60 is 3.7. The 14-54 is significantly faster through-out its range than the 12-60, weighs 16 oz vs. 20 oz., and focuses faster as well, being CDAF enabled.

      Add in its $600 cost new and its no wonder used copies of the Mk II have become scarce, likely scooped up by mFT users who find the 12-50 of unacceptable optical quality and the Pan 12-35 over-priced.

  • Michael

    Am I the only one who is completely satisfied with the performance of the 17mm pancake?

  • OldAlaskan

    Not only would I buy the 12-60mm (and if the quality is close to the four thirds version I’d pay more than $900), I would buy an E-M5 on which to mount it!

  • Interesting poll, choose one or the other? I WANT BOTH!

Back To Top

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,, 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:
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: Addthis cookies:
Disqus cookies:
Vimeo cookies:
Youtube cookies:

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.