(FT4) Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8 to be announced soon? Priced at around $1,799.



A source just told me that Olympus is likely going to announced the new 7-14mm f/2.8 Zuiko MFT lens very soon! He also sent me the price in non $ currency. I made a rough conversion and the lens should cost  $1,799 which is also the price of the Four Thirds version (here on Amazon). But the FT version is one stop slower. I have been told the lens has an extremely high quality.

Will you buy the $1799 high quality Zuiko 7-14mm f/2.8 MFT lens?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Many Thanks to the source for sending me this!!!

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

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

  • Anonymouse

    Thank you Olympus …for making FF look better and better as you increase size and price of the half sensor
    Nikon and Canon

  • Wee Kling

    my 26-ounce full frame dslr is too heavy , i need something small but yet still not pocketable , and i would like lots of noise in my photos at iso 800. so would m43 be good for me???

  • Horaciux

    this place used to be nice.

    • Uberprutser

      People used to be nice. These days they are all just a bunch of self absorbed smartphone zombies infected with the fanboyism virus fighting in a world wide flame war.

    • jonsen

      The internet is a haven for trolls. They just can’t imagine anyone thinking differently or having different needs than themselves. Not to mention, it’s their only form of entertainment. I imagine their skills in photography or videography are limited at best.

  • Jón Ingólfur Hermannsson

    The lens is a bit to pricey – I rather go for the Panasonic 42.5mm F1.2 – so for wide angle I will just have to do panos with my Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 or dig up my Sigma 10-20mm on my FF –
    If the lens was about 800-1000 then a different story

    • Arumes

      For 800-1000, you can get the Panasonic 7-14mm. That would be my choice anyway. I usually shoot around F/5.6-8.0 with wide angles, so I don’t have any need for F/2.8.

  • Jerry

    Why don’t we wait for the reviews – maybe they will provide an answer. I have no paying photo job to justify the cost but for a pro this is not a lot of money. Olympus has vast imaging expertise from the medical side of their business to bring to their cameras. To have brought m43 this far this quickly is no small achievement. I wouldn’t count them out yet.

    • AMVR

      You say it like they’re a medical company just joining the photography industry…Olympus have been around since the beginning, they’ve had an impressive reputation as a lens maker for decades, they don’t need this lens to prove anything, as far a lens makers go Olympus is up there in the top 5 (3 IMO). Now, in terms of marketing decisions…yeah, they might as well have appeared last year.

      • Quangzizi

        But you have to remember that price can change quickly, quality can’t.

  • Von Diesel

    Yet another mft lens that is way overpriced! No wonder i keep buying legacy glass instead. Silly comparison but for that i can get a Canon FD 85 1.2L, Canon FD 24mm 1.4, Canon FD 135mm + focal reducer.

    • Bhima

      Um… the Canon 85 1.2 is $2,200 by itself. Try again.

      • Cupid Stunt

        He is referring to the older FD version. Try reading again.

        • Bhima

          Yes, buying a used lens will be cheaper than buying a brand new one. We know this already. I’m comparing it to what you can actually get at a camera store, and that 1.2 is $2,200.

          • Cupid Stunt

            Again, the original poster is talking about buying LEGACY glass so why do you insist on talking about non-legacy glass?

    • Quangzizi

      You know, they invented a thing called AF…

  • JD

    Based upon what I have read in the comments section lately, I think comments should just be disabled. The ratio of rational and topical comments to trolls, off-topic comments, sarcasm and meaningless bickering is about one to twenty.

    • henk

      Well I would not go that far, free speech and such.
      But I must say that there are a lot of stupid, useless and misinformed comments below.
      I suspect that the evolution of men peaked in the previous century and it’s all downhill from here :)

      • Except for the Arts, I’d say mankind peaked in the 18th century.

        • deadlock

          Victorian era + WW1 was probably the last time men had any dignity :)

          • Yum

            I disagree, spandex didn’t exist

        • Pink

          Man, You said it!! Finally a smart guy on the internet!! The 18th century!! Widespread slavery, Napoleon ravaging Europe, Genocide in the Americas, good old filth and poverty… not to mention the plagues that spread like wildfire because of the filth and poverty….

          I’d gladly trade our internet trolls, Obamacare and overpriced cable service for that!

          • Tron

            Slavery is still around, it morphed into the plantation voters of the Democrat party. Zero political and economic expectations in exchange for an entitlement check and free smartphone. The future is bright, America!

        • Bhima

          I’d add Science to that as well.

      • Arumes

        I think you’re mistaken. There were a lot of bad and dumb people back then, but they were off the radar. Gradually more people got access to basic education (read and write), and later on more people got access to publication media like the internet. So now they’re everywhere…

      • Sakaphoto Graphics

        What free speech? This is a privately-owned web site.

    • Dummy00001

      Past some threshold, simply disable comments by guests. Like me and you.

    • El Aura

      Well, so far 90% of the comments I’ve read have been about trolls and no on topic. In fact, the ratio between post complaining about trolls and actual trollish posts has at least been 10 to 1.

  • an_explorer

    Admin, is there any information to indicate whether this lens may be able to accept filters? Some owners of the Panasonic 7-14mm have been able to perform “after market” work to allow filters to be interposed between the back of the lens and the sensor. Is there any indication that the forthcoming Olympus may allow a more engineered approach to using filters?

    • David Dornblaser

      Boy, it does not look like it will be able to accept a filter.

      • Jan

        The wider the angle the more filters vignette because the light has to travel trough more glass. So filters are not that great on ultra wide angle lenses.

        • David Dornblaser

          True, it does not look it will be an option.

          • AMVR

            thankfuly there’s the wonderpana filter adapter for wide angles

  • I hope the price is an overestimate.. $1800 is really pretty damn expensive.. but, if it’s a superbly built lens with excellent sharpness and excellent correction for distortion and other potential lens issues, I suppose a high quality fast zoom for MFT is going to cost a lot.

    I don’t want to open a can of worms here, but want to chime in on something off of youtube, that video (or two) about crop factor and how it applies to lenses and the quality of images you can get out of them that Tony Northrup did.. specifically, I think he may be right about cropped cameras like MFT format.. they should be able to achieve IQ and keep noise down as well as larger sensor cameras, BUT you need quality glass as well as fast glass to level the playing field.

    4 times more light is needed to get to a MFT sensor that is 4 times smaller in surface area, right?… to get a clean image at ISO 400 on FF, you should ideally have ISO 100 on MFT to match the amount of light needed to make it “less noisy”.. since ISO 100 is either not possible or you lose a bit of DR if you can get to ISO 100 (generally LOW setting on a lot of cropped mirrorless cameras), your best option is ISO 200 on MFT and thus it should, in theory, equal what you would get on FF at ISO 800… that’s exactly the best lowest FF equivalent ISO setting for clean images off of a MFT camera.. light is very important and will make a world of difference if you can get more to feed the hungry/starving smaller MFT sensor that can’t get enough.

    Fast MFT lenses are the key to getting the best out of the MFT format. Voigtlander’s Nokton series is probably the fastest at f/0.95, and Oly and Panasonic have a number of fast primes ranging from f1.2-1.8. I think ideally, if manufacturers of MFT lenses could keep the max apertures as low as possible, that will really help clean up MFT sensor performance and give it a better chance of coming closer to matching FF performance. To engineer a fast lens, and one that’s constant aperture, and of course high quality, it won’t be cheap, and science dictates it’ll have to be within a certain size and dimension.. larger than most people would want for a “compact” system such as MFT.

    That being said, modern cameras these days have powerful image processors these days to make the best of cropped sensors and whatever available lenses are available.. add to that, post processing in Lightroom, ACR and other post processing apps have relatively simple ways to address noise with a simple slider.. except for the most extreme cases, I find that noise is easily cancelled to recover a clean and sharp image from my E-M1… I don’t think you really have to be that anal and get the fastest most expensive lens to get great quality images out of MFT cameras, but it certainly can help make them that much better. Sure, out of camera with cleanest images to start with is always better, but not entirely necessary. Jpegs out of camera are excellent these days and clean up and correct a lot of imaging problems right off the bat. And if you’re a RAW shooter, going into post and tweaking images is going to happen regardless and you’ll end up with a really nice quality image in the end.

    FF offers ultimate IQ and have a number of advantages, but cropped sensor cameras are far from inferior or incapable of doing a professional level of work.

    Although you have FF power in a compact package such as the Sony A7’s, the glass is not the fastest to keep closer to the compact form factor which they are trying to sell.. look at their zeiss zooms with f/4.. i have no doubt they are still nice lenses despite the conservative f#, but if you wanted the same focal range at f/2.8 (or even faster), you’re back to what you get from FF DSLR’s… highly unbalanced, definitely far from compact, but you give and take where you feel you need to.

    There’s no way around it… high quality glass & fast glass = larger size & higher price, no matter what format you are using.

    Where was I going with this?… sure, this new wide fast zoom from Oly seems expensive.. I had a sticker shock when I first read it (hopefully it will be significantly less than reported here), but it’s metal build, weather sealed, probably the best that Oly will have to offer for such a lens type, and fills in that pro level focal range with fast aperture that they should cover.. looking forward to the pro 40-150mm f/2.8 when it comes out.. should be really nice, hopefully not as expensive as what this 7-14mm f/2.8 has initially been listed at.

    Would I pay $1800 for this 7-14?… not at this time… I think I would spend less on the Pany-Leica Nocticron since I do more portrait work anyways.. or, I may switch to another system depending on what is available later this year… X-Pro2? That and I’m sure a lot more camera news should be announced in about 3 months when Photokina happens.

  • Quangzizi

    Please Admin, can you implement a report system or sth? The trolls are totally out of control now. I am a long-time member since 2010 and I can’t recognize the old site anymore.

    • Arumes

      But we’re on Disqus now, right? You can flag messages as inappropriate then.

      • Quangzizi

        Yes but I believe we are dealing with trolls with multiple accounts. You can’t report all of them. Stricter measures should be applied.

        • AMVR

          Finally someone with some sense in this place. I’ve sent Admin countless tutorials on how to ban trolls on disqus and he’s done nothing, I’m guessing he prefers the trafic that trolls produce rather than saving this site from ruin. I’ve been a member since 2009 and I agree wholeheartedly, this site is a disgraceful shadow of itself because of all the trolling nowadays

    • David Dornblaser

      Yes, Admin, please take control of your site. It is becoming not worth visiting.

    • Pro Photographer Girl

      lol , wahhh

    • Sakaphoto Graphics

      Flag the posts from the right-hand side of the header for each post.

    • The Real Stig

      I think Admin should institute a system whereby if a troll gets their post reported 4 times, then Admin should reply to the post and reveal the trolls IP address.

      • Arumes

        That would’ve been a good idea 15 years ago. Nowadays, ISP’s don’t care very much, and it’s too easy to set a proxy server in your browser.

    • Ziziquang

      Because people like you write so much rubbish, and we have a laugh.

  • man

    It looks quite nice by the aperture, but the cost is hard to justify.

    • Sebastian

      Maybe the aperture is in fact what justifies the price?

  • man

    Wow I’m surprised at all the fud on the comments from so called FF owners.
    It’s the person behind the gear, not the gear that is essential. To each his own.
    For me, m4/3 is the perfect parallel system to a FF. Half the sensor-twice the fun.

    • hobart

      Half the sensor requires a lens with half the iris opening. We all know what happens to light when you make the hole that it has to pass through smaller.

      • Arumes

        Yes. More noise and more DOF. But my Olympus E-PL5 is less noisy than my Canon EOS 40D. MFT performs good enough for most people with the later 16MP sensors.

        • Bhima

          My EM-10 performs as well as my D7000 I shoot at work. I could honestly care less for more IQ than that. I’d rather they continue to push the bar on tracking AF and other features that make the camera more responsive and more reliable in getting the shot.

          • D7000

            Then you need to learn to use that D7000.

    • Sebastian

      A lot of trolling these days is by bots. Wouldn’t take it too serious.
      Kinda makes the comments hard to read, though.

      • AMVR

        Nah, bots aren’t this annoying, it’s actual people on the pay roll of some company. I don’t want to be harsh but Admin should do something about it and yet we haven’t seen him in a long time.

        • Sebastian

          Yes, some are real. And you can kinda guess where they’re from from these strange ” , ” punctuation mistakes combined with otherwise reasonable English.
          But what would admin do about it? Difficult, I’d say.

    • Zesty

      Good professionals would not do such a thing. It’s bad professionals that do such a thing. Tons of people claim to be pros. Doesn’t mean their work is worthy. Can you imagine if Sebastian Salgado or similar came on here and made fun of someone for stupid shit like this.lol.

  • dasitmane

    Pay more for half as much , the m43 fanboy motto

    • AMVR

      Half the weight, half the size for just 0.7 less exposure capability, why not ? why would you pay the same or more for twice the camera size and weight of a DSLR ? If I’m an ACTUAL Pro, who, like any other respectable professional, doesn’t just shoot brick walls and cats, but also needs to travel outside his town or city for jobs, why would I spend the same or more to be limited by weight restrictions at an airport ? Why would I intentionally limit myself on the amount of gear I carry ? why would I burden myself with more weight for less gear ? Why would I sacrifice a perfectly rounded camera+lens set up for .7 more DOF of APS-C when I can simply slap a speedbooster and be done ?

      Prices are going up and I don’t like it but the value proposition of m43 is still sound and advantageous compared to DSLRs and other systems.

      • CN

        Not a bit, this lens is an example of crappy value. However, Canon and Nikon haven’t come out with a 14-28 F5.6 yet, they should. We’ll see the “value” then…

    • If ignorance is bliss, you must be on cloud nine.

  • Nate Burr

    This is not a new thing… The prototypes for this lens (and another) were on show at CP+ … I saw them with my own eyes (about 53 seconds into my CP+ video here);


    And I even spoke with Olympus’ Toshiyuki Terada, Deputy General Manager; Product Marketing & design at Olympus Imaging at the same event about this lens///
    (about 3:23 in);

    • Jezz

      shut up you effing t*rd lol

  • Junkyardwillie

    If it’s too expensive for you right now then just wait 3-4 years and buy it used for $1,000 or so. You should be happy that they are producing some quality glass for the format. Its better than if they just said, nope that is going to cost too much so lets just make low quality products instead.

    • kodachromeguy

      You mean like the kit zooms from the big two manufacturers?

      • My Panasonic 14-45 kit zoom is as good as my Canon L zooms. Get a clue, troll.

  • Sebastian

    Given that the 12-40 is 1000, 1700 doesn’t sound unreasonable. That doesnt mean it’s not worth it. And my guess is the 300/4 will be 2.3k at least. Prepare for 300+ troll comments! And that’s not counting the equivalence discussion.

    The price of the 7-14 zoom also shows that we still need a UW prime in m43.

    • R

      When using utra wide lenses, many uses apertures around f/4-5.6. UW lenses are not for everybody. I’am not sure that $1700 will make the lens attractive. Even at the same price as the 12-40, the 7-14 lens will have hard time attracting customers.

    • Von Diesel

      12-40 is also way overpriced. F2.8 7-14 should be 1199.- tops and 12-40 799.-

      • peevee

        12-40 IS $799 with any camera, or about $850 without. Still too expensive, Sony DT 16-50/2.8 is about $600-$650, that is more like it (even less). Canon 24-105/4L is $600!

        • Arumes

          Canon 24-105 is F/4 and old. Canon 24-70/2.8 is $2300.

          • peevee

            f/4 is almost like f/2 on m43 (f/2 in term of DoF but about f/2.2-2.4 in terms of noise due to lower efficiency of current FF sensors).
            Besides, it is easier to make wide end for short flange and no mirror to avoid.

      • Sebastian

        Would be nice, wouldn’t it?
        But not realistic. What would make a m43 f/2.8 UW cheaper than a Nikon F mount one? Less material in each element and a bit less extreme retrofocus. Resolution requirements are similar, f-stop is the same, so the design will be equally complex. And the production run will be smaller.

    • Thermostat9

      Yep, why is a 8, 9 or 10mm UW prime so conspicious by their absence?

      • Sebastian

        Good question. Canikon also have not introduced a new UW prime in a long time. It might be that, apart from weight, UW zooms now can be designed to be as good as primed. Witness the Nikon 14-24.

  • R

    This is going to compete with Pana 7-14, f/4. The price increase is a bit too steep.

    • Sakaphoto Graphics

      For a lens you can use in the rain, it doesn’t seem that expensive, especially when it’s the same price as the Four-Thirds version, but with a larger maximum aperture.

  • Pro Photographer Girl

    I’m sure some excellent cat photos will be coming from you guys thanks to this lens!! They will be even sharper than your previous cat photos!!

    • AMVR

      Why would you use an ultra wide angle zoom for intimate pet photography ? Have you EVER used a camera in your life ? even a smartphone for that matter? Stop coming here you lifeless trolls, at least stop cross-dressing and use your original account. ADMIN, JUST WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO PUT A STOP TO THIS CIRCUS ? your site has turned into a troll’s nest, if you don’t care abour your site just go and close it or at the very lest close the comment section, nothing good is coming from it.

      • James Russell


        • AMVR

          Why don’t you decide on a f´ing account already ? Is lol all your argument ? you’re a pos and a waste of oxygen on this planet, i hope your family despises you as much as everyone here.

      • tom

        I agree 100%. I’ve about had it with this site. I’ll check the front page now and then but wont bother going into the detail pages…

      • Jv

        I have a great picture of my cat with an ultrawide. She had a lion cut and was tangled up in yarn. The perspective distortion of the ultrawide made the shot – big head small body with a funky haircut.

      • amam

        It’s called freedom of speech, your rants are neither fun nor useful, either. American huh?

    • TimtheBrit

      Ha Ha Ha .
      If I were to buy this lens I’d make damn sure I knew how to use it.
      People honestly shock me when they post up their shite with equipment that can do so much more. And they all talk big like the dollars entitle them.

    • Richard Saunders

      I’m surprised how upset people are about this post… I thought it was funny :)

  • I’ll stick with the Panasonic. At half the cost, it’s sharp in the corners wide open (much better than my Canon 17-40 f4L on FF), and at these focal lengths shallow DoF is irrelevant and IBIS lets me shoot in low light at f4. F2.8 doesn’t really do anything for me on an ultra-wide. Nice to see more pro-oriented lenses being developed, though. Now, could we please see a 50-200 or 100-300 f4?

    • Mk.28

      F/2.8 gives change to use higher shutter speed to stop motion in lower light in golden hour period, like water on beach or water hitting rocks at incoming storm or shooting those nightskies etc.

      But with that price, I don’t touch it until below 1199 dollars.

  • David

    Definitely too expensive. At that price it’s too close to the full frame offering from Nikon… and they’re definitely using less materials for this smaller lense

    Do you ever feel like Companies release these rumors out just so that they can gauge the reaction of the fan base? Like how the Sony A7s was rumored to be super expensive and we found out that it was only standard expensive?

    I dont know, I feel like I would be more comfortable at 1200 to 1400 range if I save up

    • AMVR

      I hope they do read this page so they can see the reaction this ridiculous price is creating among users

  • DouglasGottlieb

    Wow. This sets a new high price for M43 glass, right? Definitely edging closer to Canikon prices (though still a relative bargain.

    But Fuji’s excellent glass is starting to look much more competitive as the line fills out, the optical and build quality both seem high, and prices are often less than their M43 counterparts. M43 still has an edge in size, which does matter to me, as does M43’s superior focusing speed on the high end. But I hope that the forthcoming Olympus 40-150 does not continue to push the price ceiling up. And BTW, when is that lens supposed to finally ship?

  • bdale

    If the f4.0 version is around $1,000 then it’s common sense that an f2.8 zoom would be a fair bit more.

    In any case the current lens options are the same as they ever were so no needs to throw a tantrum just because a new option is available.

    And who would bother to have a strong opinion about the value of a product that does’t exist yet? Maybe you could wait until it exists to share your incredible insight about the value of it?

    The Canon 16-35mm f2.8L is $1,700 and the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 is $2,000 and based on how much better the MFT Panasonic Nocticron 42.5mm f1.2 is compared to the Canon L Primes it’s reasonable to assume the Olympus may be similar in quality.

    It’s great to have more top notch lens choices for the best camera system in the world.

    • peevee

      f4 version is Panasonic. They are crazy, they priced 12-35/2.8 at $1300, while Olympus has better 12-40/2.8 at $1000. Pana priced 45/2.8 macro at $950 while Oly priced better 60/2.8 at $600 ($400 on sales).

  • Jezz


  • ageha

    Not at that price! I rather buy the full-frame version.

  • Onsen

    This price is all marketing. This lens will sell for 1000$ before tax in US and will sell like hot cakes. It’s not going to cost 1800$ or anywhere near that much because it’s a made in China lens, made with inner plastic, and plastic mount, and the quality level is calibrated to cost just 100$ to manufacture.

    • BlueSky

      I suspect it will be more than 1000. But I agreed it will be a huge success. I am glad to see m43 lenses of this caliber. I just bought the Noctricron 42.5, f/1.2. It’s amazing.

    • peevee

      Olympus does not make plastic mount lenses.

  • If there are users here who wouldn’t buy the Canon or Nikon comparable lenses anyways, then why are you complaining? It’s like the people who buy $10-20k cars, but then would never buy the latest Ferrari and complains about how it fails. Just makes no sense.

    I can’t remember the last time I complained about a lens being expensive. If I think it’s too much money I just move on.

  • Mike

    This is ridiculous. The whole point of going M43 is that the smaller sensor allows for smaller lenses. Smaller = cheaper. This is the same price as the Canon 16-35 f2.8L and almost the same as Nikon 14-24 f2.8. I understand that its top notch glass but M43 glass should NEVER be the same cost as FF. They are losing their entire value proposition at this point. This should be $1000 glass. I use m43 for underwater photography and as a second system to my Canon 6D. For this price I’ll stick with my FF 6D and get the 16-35L.

    • Arumes

      The 16-35L F/2.8 lenses (both versions) have a bad reputation when it comes to sharpness. I’d suggest you get the 17-40 F/4 then, it’s much better.

      • …But the 14-24mm F2.8 is a stellar performer and is also cheaper… .

      • In the corners, my 17-40 f4L on 1Ds Mark III didn’t hold a candle to my Panasonic 7-14 f4 on GX1.

    • bdale

      A 7-14mm f2.8 lens is 7-14mm f2.8 lens regardless of system. There are other variables than size that dictate the price of a lens. That’s why there are different price points and feature sets for different uses.

      For example the Panasonic 42.5mm f1.2 lens is a much better lens than either the Canon 50mm f1.2 or the 85mm f1.2 and it’s image stabilized. So why in the world should it be cheaper?

    • This is not entirely true. It’s possible that they can jam pack more lens technology to make the lenses far superior. For example, if a m4/3rds 70-200mm f/2.8 was as large as a FF lens then it might be 98% perfect. Not that they would ever do that but the possibility is there.

  • Well, if that price is right, it is expensive. Think I will wait to see what it can actually produce before I judge it. At that price it needs to be very sharp center to corner, low distortion and very low CA.

  • Mark Davidson

    I am not at all surprised at the complaints about price. However this lens is a direct result of public clamor for exotic, fast lenses. As for size, it is a lot smaller than it would be on FF. The notion that m43 should be inexpensive on all fronts is ludicrous. There ARE cheap lenses for those with a budget but the idea that a 7-14 mm lens like the current Panasonic or the rumored Olympus should be cheap is foolish.
    Neither Olympus nor Panasonic can survive by seeking the cheap customer. The price conscious customer is fickle and demands margin-killing products that few manufacturers can afford in these days of shrinking volumes.

  • peevee

    Too expensive :(

  • Rob Fyfield
  • Douglas Green

    I’m happy with my Panasonic 7-14mm f4 lens, that I paid $700 for mint used.

  • speltrong

    I love my Panasonic 7-14… it’s hard for me to imagine the Olympus being able to justify 2x the price unless it just does not flare or it’s half the size and still better quality.

  • Arumes

    Not neccessarily. It’s easier for certain focal lengths, but for the 12-40mm you still need a retrofocus design. And F/4 is easier than F/2.8. And besides, as I said, the 24-105 is old. Canon got their R&D costs out of that lens a long time ago. If you want a more realistic comparison, use the new Canon 24-70 F/4L IS.

    • peevee

      It is still easier with short FL.

  • LOL

    What a joke…

    • Pro

      It’s probably going to have “pro” written on LOL.

  • Sebastian

    This thread is the most insane one this forum has ever produced.

  • Augustus

    OUCH! Thats a steep price if true. I was willing to part with the price they asked for the E-M1 and 12-40 2.8, but $1800 for an ultrawide zoom on M43? I think I’d have to pick the Panasonic over it, even though it is one stop slower, and doesn’t look nearly as good, and has some flare issues sometimes. But alas, as a hobbyist, I am not someone who makes money off of photography, so I am probably not the target market.

    If I found myself in need of an ultrawide, I’d probably shell out $1200 for it, at most, but I need to stock up on primes first.

  • Mergullo.net

    The price is an excess. I was waiting for this lens but for a price around 1000 dollars, like 12-40 pro. I own the 12-40 and it performs OK, but not much better than the 14-54 4/3 in image quality. Of course it’s far quicker.
    I’ll buy the 300 pro lens too, but will not pay more than 2000 dollars.
    I’m a great fan for OLY, but i think If OLY wants to get a market segment just under professionals, they will have to be in the exact price too, not only the quality.

  • Neurad1

    I wanted it until I heard that price. Geez.

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.