(FT5) 17mm f/1.8 is a high quality lens. Now only a prototype.

Alberto

No black!

why silver and black cameras then?

Ulli

I can feel your pain Alberto ;-)
- Jens
  
  No black? Olympus’ marketing people are strange. And it is no wonder that they were suprised of the PL3 success. Everybody likes the design, but they only love their wierd retro stuff…
  - DonTom
    
    Another lens I won’t be getting, too rich for my budget as a prime. I’ll wait for a high quality 12-something. Quite happy with my 20/1.7 and 14/2.5 in the meantime.
    Not complaining though, I think it’s great to have another HQ lens in the system, but I do think this premium glass should be weathersealed. But I’m reminded how lucky we are that the 45/1.8 is such good value!
Sunny

Who said “no black”?

At the moment it´s just a rumor.
- Klunsford
  
  Admin
BLI

With the slow production rate of m43 lenses, maybe it is good that they are silver: this way, the demand is dramatically reduced and I can get the lenses sooner :-).

Seriously: I am very happy with the Pana 20/1.7 (which according to Pekka P in reality is a 17-18 mm). What I like is:
* it is tiny, thus I can carry it under my jacket/it doesn’t protrude
* it has a decent near focus limit (not macro, of course, but still nice)
* it is relatively inexpensive
* it has decent image quality

Why would I still consider a possible new Zuiko 17/1.8?
* the Pana is somewhat noisy, although mainly at start-up
* the AF of the Pana is slow compared to the latest Olympus/Zuiko lenses
* the high ISO image noise that some report (although I have not seen it)
* the imperfect image quality reported (I’m relatively happy, though)
* it would be very nice with a weather sealed standard lens!!
* a standard lens should be less expensive than the 12/2 or the 75/1.8
* a standard lens should preferably be smaller than the 45/1.8 or the 12/1.8.

Regarding color, silver is fine with me, although weather sealed lenses so far have been mainly black (black 12-50, coming 60/2.8 macro — the non-black 12-50 isn’t really silver…)
- Anonymous
  
  @BLI, do you have the reference for that opinion from Pekka Potka? Had a quick look in his blog, couldn’t find it. Cheers.
  - BLI
    
    I’m not sure whether it was on his blog; it was possibly in this forum.
Ragnarok

Why stop the party? :)

http://i.imgur.com/mc13Q.jpg

Gorejo

You forgot to add this also means an 800$ price

Anonymous

Yes that will be a possibility, considering the disadvantage of mFT against FF for DOF control the likes of f1.8 is not really fast enough. The 75mm looks to be an excellent lens but considering that it only gives the equivelent DOF of a FF
Gabriel

And 100$ more for metal hood :)

dg

This SUCKS. Everytiing is being geared to the wealthy. 1.8 primes used to be standard in film days- now they’re suddenly something exotic.

Narretz

Maybe because high ISO is getting more and more useful, they think they can milk us with the lenses?
Duchemin

Yes, maybe standard but not cheap. Photo gear has become ever more affordable over the decades. See this link with original prices in Germany in ’84. http://www.systemkamera-forum.de/sony-nex-objektive/35281-damalige-neupreise-manueller-linsen.html

A Minolta Rokkor 50 1.7 as comparison cost 188 Deutsche Mark then. That was a lot of money in 1984.
- dg
  
  No Duchemin, CHEAP. You could get entry level cameras with standard 50mm 1.8s cheap- cheaper than slow zooms. At least in the US. I guess Europe has always been more expensive. Now they want to tell us 1.8 is something really special and we should be happy to fork over big bucks? F that. Here’s the problem. In terms of aperture lower end cameras today are complete shit. That WAS NOT the case in film days. You could get decent compacts with relatively fast lenses for a decent price. Yes, Leica has always been expensive. But this notion that photography has always been a rich man’s game is bs. But now the companies are gearing their wares to the wealthy like never before. I guess because they’re the only ones with significant disposable income.
  - Bart
    
    In the 70s and much of the 80s, a decent quality zoom was still expensive and difficult to make, much much more so then a 50/1.8
    
    But, I have tons of 50 and 55mm lenses from that time, and there are only 3 types:
    – cheap, f2 or slower and decent.
    – cheap, faster then f2 and not very good.
    – not so cheap, faster then f2 and decent.
    
    Also, you pay very little for a kit lens now, much less so then when buying it separately. That wasn’t much different back then.
  - hlbt
    
    360 yen to a dollar in the ’70s, 240 yen to a dollar up to the mid-’80s, and today, 80 yen to a dollar. Hardly a matter of corporate pricing conspiracy.
- peevee
  
  Oh come on! 188DM was about $100. Not $800 today for sure.
- Narretz
  
  If you apply the inflation rates from 1984 to 2010, you get approx 311 €. So these lenses have become much more expensive for sure.
  - peevee
    
    In the US, $100 in 1984 is $220 in 212.
    http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
- EnPassant
  
  I remember prices in 1984 as it was then I bought my first SLR, a Nikon FE2 that then cost about a half an ordinary month salary after tax. A bit more than a D7000 today, but not far from it at introduction.
  
  The Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 cost almost one third salary, while the AF-S 60/2.8 today is almost 1/4 month salary.
  
  A 50/1.8 was comparably twice expensive as todays AF-S 50/1.8 while the manual 50/1.4 Ai-S was about the same price as the Micro-Nikkor.
  
  Zoom-lenses were much more expensive then. In many cases twice or even more expensive compared to now.
  
  Comparing one should however remind the cameras and lenses today doesn’t have the solid mechanical build of yesterday when many lenses had the build of manual Zeiss lenses today. Plastic, even if good quality, is much cheaper to use.
AtlDave

Standards were a lot lower back when a 50mm f1.4 – f2.0 was the kit lens for most SLRs. SLRGear tested an Olympus lens that was pretty typical at http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1279/cat/14. It was tested on a m43 camera so when used on a full frame camera as intended the resolution in the corners would have been off the scale bad. A lens that bad would be the talk of the internet if sold today and the company that made it would take a serious blow to their reputation.

I have fond memories of taking pictures with my first real camera, a Minolta SRT-100 with a 50mm f2 lens. But even back before pixel peeping I knew to stop it down if I wanted anything close to sharp. The other lenses I had were not great either.

When it comes to moderately priced equipment that gives great results these are the “good old days”.
- dg
  
  I had a Canon 50mm 1.8 that was just fine wide open. This notion that all the lenses back then weren’t up to snuff is nonsense. What’s most infuriating is that now the companies want to make fast apertures the purview of the rich only- and tell the rest of us to settle for shit. It was not like that before.
  - optical1
    
    The reason that 50mm lenses became the standard is that they have a comparatively normal field of view, and they are simple to design. They were also resolving to film which does not show imperfections like today’s sensors do. Simple design, and less capable lenses result in a cheap lens. Even still, HQ 50mm lenses today cost more than $500 for anything brighter than 1.8, all the way up to ~$1500. While I would like this lens to cost less, it’s a high quality 17mm lens – why do you think it should be priced for less?
    - hugry
      
      The Nikon 50mm F1.4G is under $400 ,as is the Canon 50mm F1.4 , and the Pentax 50mm F1.4 , some B&W films such as technical Pan had staggering resolution .
      - Bart
        
        A (micro) fourthirds lens needs to have a substantially higher resolution then an equivalent 135 format lens, simply because the pixels are much smaller (1/4 of those of a 135 format sensor of the same pixel count). A 135 format sensor with the same pixel size as the current 16mp 4/3 sensors would be 64mp. A very good film at that same format might reach the equivalent of 24mp. Consequently, a decent m4/3 lens needs a significantly higher resolution then even the best 135 format film lens needed.
        
        And the same is still true when purely looking at digital cameras and modern lenses. Only the very best lenses provide enough resolution to make the 36mp of the D800 really useful, and that still isn’t enough for a 16mp 4/3 sensor, not by far.
        
        Is that enough to explain the price difference? Only partially, scale of economics also plays a role here.
- dg
  
  There used to be plenty of intro model SLRs that you could get for $99 with 50mm 1.8 kit lens. Now instead of a 50mm 1.8 what does Olympus offer the low end? Some nonsensical f8 lens!
- Duarte Bruno
  
  That lens can almost be picked for grabs and justice is not being made. It will trash any kit lens that costs 4x more at F/4.
  
  If you want fast and adequate glass you should look out for the latest copies of the OM Zuiko 50mm F/1.4. You are in for ~100€ but it’s a completely new league from the 1.8.
  
  Either that or try out the Konica Hexanons (ex: 50mm F/1.7). They are the sharpest legacy lenses I own. This site is a most valuable resource for Konica lenses.
  
  NOTE: I’m not saying this out of the blue. I own and tested the OM F/1.4, OM F/1.8, Konica 57mm F/1.2, Konica 50mm F/1.7, Konica 40mm F/1.8 and Konica 85mm F/1.8.
BLI

I wouldn’t say it sucks! Why?
* the inexpensive Pana 20/1.7 is still very good
* I would expect a 17/1.8 to be cheaper han the 12/2 or 75/1.8 because it is more of a standard lens that will sell more = the benefits of “mass production”
Zigi_S

Because of that i switched.

Canons 50 1.8 is 100€. And it’s not crap as some may say.
- bart
  
  Stopped down to f4 it is decent, wide open its not very decent.
  Compare to the 20/1.7 which is decent wide open and very good stopped down to f4.
  
  Obviously the different economics of scale also plzy a role, as well as the rather low build quality of the 50/1.8

BLT

Ouch.

assuming this means it will be similar cost to the 12mm and not a pancake lens, i’ll be sticking with the good old 20mm Lumix.

Zigi_S

My copy is sharp from F2.2. And crazy sharp from F4.0. Try it once for a change. These zuikos aint sharper.

Agent00soul

Hmm.. if it’s going to be THAT high quality, I suppose it should have been f/1.4.

simon

+1 if it costs 800$ then it should be 1.4

Juraj

I want one, color does not matter, but I hope price will not mind!!! hope for 500$

onlyme

Damn! My hope was that this lens would be along the same lines as the 45mm.

kesztió

+100, see my comment below.

miles

I want one too…. $500 range will be reasonable.
Hopefully its pancake in size.

Kees

I might eventually be tempted by a weather-sealed prime, as this is still a gap in the line-up. I don’t know how difficult this process is, but expect high-quality glass (including ‘limited’ 12mm) to have build quality to match the high-end models, such as E-M5 and GH3.

kesztió

Fucking bad news, going on 20/1.7!

Why the hell Olympus doesn’t prefer the 45/1.8 business model (high optical quality, cheap but decent build quality, economy bundle, really affordable price)?!!

hlbt

Well Oly priced the 45mm very low, and the 12mm very high, probabaly to investigate the pricing sweetspot. Simply put, we mFT users didn’t buy enough 45mm’s to convince Oly that aggressive pricing pays off.
- kesztió
  
  I hardly think there would be just one MFT user here (no matter Pana or Oly) who has at least one additional lens besides the kit lens and this lens is not the 45/1.8 :D
  - hlbt
    
    Exactly my point.

Per

Does this mean it will not be a pancake?

Frosti7

Sloooooooooow

Duchemin

This is excellent news for me! I prefer better build over cheaper price anytime! And better to have a tiny lens (just as the 12 2.0) with excellent glass than an even tinier pancake with lesser iq. I do not care at all whether it is silver, black, striped, checked or houndstooth…

amalric

Here we go, as expected- A lot of gnashing of teeth in Hell :)

I was already expecting to stick to my honest 17/2.8 so no harm done.

It’s a 1.8 with scales on the metal barrel. So if you *need* it you’ll have to fork the premium.

Good joke on us Oly, another lens for the banksters: they need a lot of bokeh for their below the counter operations :)

9p9p

Surely , under the counter deals would be a specialty of Olympus

TT

Horrible move, the 20mm is fast, optically excellent and reasonably priced, the 45mm is fast, optically excellent and reasonably priced – paying a huge mark-up for a distance scale and metal construction? No, thanks.

little worried

Ok, we have to wait to probably spring (or later).
Like 12/2 means expensive, but good quality.

If optical quality will be similar to 75/1.8 it good news. But if expensive, it could be faster. Maybe f/1.4 (like in Fuji system) or even f/1.2 (if it won’t be too big, but Voightlander f/0.95 isn’t as such big).

But I perfer better quality with higher price, then quality like 17/2.8.

AdventureRob

I too was hoping for a 45mm priced 17mm rather than a 12mm priced one

I think Olympus needs to cater for both ends of the market. . Focal length in f2.0 with no weather sealing, plastic lenses, or distance gauges in one colour at a good price, alongside the same focal length in f1.4/1.8 with weather sealing, glass lenses, distance gauge, choice of colour and at a premium price. Gives people the option of getting into photography and m4/3 relatively cheaply and has the option of upgrading when the time comes.

I’m not sure

17/2.8 bad quality, optically below average

20/1.7 average quality, optically very good

25/1.4 good quality, optically very good, Leica brand

17/0.95 manual, but very high quality and optically superb

Is there a place for expensive 17/1.8 ???
Will be it optically much better then 20/1.7?
f/1.8 is little slower then f/1.7…
If it will be f/1.4 or faster…

Cpt

I procrastinated over the 75mm. It took 1 photo when I got it home to ease my concerns over the mony I spent. It’s beautiful.
I’d rather have an expensive lense on an e-p3 than a cheaper lense on my E-M5. No point having a great sensor if you can’t get the most from it.
Olympus, sign me up for another.

ArKersaint

Olympus is obviously looking for differenciation… In the wrong room !!!

Bogdan

They need to make a weather sealed 25mm f1.2 built and priced like 45mm, that’s a 50mm equivalent, a basic prime. I don’t know why that wasn’t the first fast prime they made for m4/3.

bart

While at it, why not ask them to give it away for free…

nobody

I just hope it’s not a third type of silver…

Olympia

obviously you can please everybody. I personally prefer high quality built with high quality optics.

Cynops

The ‘high quality” part is actually good news. This is the kind of lens that usually serves as a workhorse in low light environments (concerts, etc) but also in tough conditions as a unique lens for reportage or such. It should be built to sustain those conditions. (see nikon 35/1.4G, etc).

I wish however that is could be a 1.4, not a 1.8, but i’m not gonna argue over half a stop difference.

Give me excellent contrast, metal build, DOF scale à la 12/2, f/1.8 or f/1.4, MSC focusing and i will be a happy camper. And don’t forget the hood this time…

Chez Wimpy

2/3rds a stop actually… but speaking of 1/2 stops, there is a certain (affordable) f1.7 lens (pancake, no less!) that is already optically excellent and somewhat of a legend. -3mm and a metal barrel isn’t much if it commands a 2~3x markup. Zero interest here, but “35mm or else!” fetishists will finally have their cake.
- Cynops
  
  Well, the 20/1.7 comes close indeed – and i’ve got it. But when you’re working with and are used to a 35mm perspective / field of view, 3mm count.
  I’m no fetichist per se, but i like to choose the gear i’ll use, upon my own criteria.
  And those criteria are those i mentionned above. You can add a bayonet-mounted lens hood. Not like the aftermarket ones that mount on the 20/1.7 barrel.
kesztió

… and the cheap, but decent build quality 45/1.8 isn’t able to face such conditions, is it?

Gimme a break… :D
- Cynops
  
  Maybe it could. It’s well built, albeit cheap. I haven’t spent a day in the dust with it to be honest ! ;-)
- bart
  
  Actually, no. It is very good at collecting junk behind its front element when used in a dusty environment.

Miroslav

Black coming in late 2013 – limited edition, as usual… Don’t like max aperture, don’t like the color, not going to buy.

Yun

That means it surely excess the price of 20mm F1.7 .
One thing I don’t understand why Oly always come out F1.8 , can’t they make it F1.4 or F1.2 if they really want to go highend .
Secondly , the 12mm consider compact but not pancake as the 20mm .
The 20mm still got it’s place if come to compactness .

Steve

Once you go below f1.8 the gains are not as great as expected due to optical limitions. That f1.2 is not 1 stop faster than f1.8 in real life, actually closer to 1/2 stop of light transmission difference. Another thing that people seem to conveniently forget.

nicwalmsley

Dudes, what is wrong with you people. If you want a budget 17mm, it’s already been released. The 2.8, for sub $400. Or get the 14mm 2.5 for $250. Fast AF, nice rendering. Bang for buck, it’s a gem.

If Oly is going to release a new 17mm, why would it be better than the current version, and yet a similar price. Get real.

I want high quality, like the 75mm. Yeah I’ve got to save for it, but so be it.

Chez Wimpy

>If Oly is going to release a new 17mm, why would it be better than the current version, and yet a similar price.

So true. It would be admitting a mistake the first time around… gotta keep that 17/2.8 in production until the last m43 body is buried in a landfill. Good thing for us Panasonic is ALSO making lenses for this mount.
- nicwalmsley
  
  Yes, good on Panasonic. The maximum bang for your buck 14mm 2.5 for $250. The maximum quality 25mm 1.4 for $600. Now Olympus will have similar, a value for money 17mm 2.8 and a high quality but expensive 1.8. What’s the problem here?
  - Mr. Reeee
    
    Supposedly, you can find 14mm lenses (unbundled from kits) on eBay for about $160.
    - Bob B.
      
      …or less! :-)
  - Bob B.
    
    I agree. This looks like a great lens. Who cares about the color…it is for taking photos not a fashion statement to match an ensemble. Also…as you say…if anyone cannot afford this lens there are plenty of other cost-effective options available, with more on the way every day!
    MFT rocks!

Daan

no black version is no buy….

vincent

silver lens on a black body is so weird, i dont care how it looks as long as it’s black
EnPassant

Agree completely! At least for M4/3.

Silver Zeiss ZMs are a completely different matter.
I would never buy them in the same black design as the cheapo Voigtländers.
Ross

So, what colour is your purse? ;)

Bob B.

I hope it comes in a silver that is different than all the other silvers! COOL!

Mr. Reeee

All those different shades of silver really helps when selecting lenses. It’s really a form of color coding. ;-)
BLI

There is room for a silver with a shade of pink :-)
- Bob B.
  
  YES! …just a glimmer…..

JF

High grade 700-900 euros primes shouls be weather sealed and include lens hood (plastic is ok)

nicwalmsley

yep agree. Petty is not classy.

Zetton

Good info. (good rumor gathering)

Ulli

will i be stoned to death here if i say i will buy one?

Alberto

Jeje, you will have to save more, but it look like a good pair for the 75mm
- Ulli
  
  Alberto you know the 75 has higher priority now, besides, I already have a 14mm, i was just checking the general mood here ;-)
Duchemin

Maybe, but let me join that club: I will certainly buy one! Probably I’ll sell my 20 1.7 afterwards because I don’t like the bokeh too much.
- Anonymous
  
  +1 bokeh is not a strength of the pana 20 mm f1.7 but for landscape with all in focus it is a good lens ! it is very resistant to flare too !
jules

If quality, reasonable price (for said quality), that its a lens you want, etc, why not?

Because its not black?
amalric

Not at all. Just give us photographic proof of the buying receipt, and we will believe you.

I invite all who talk the walk here, to walk the talk.

Then we will believe your ambitious GAS programs :)
- Ulli
  
  admin should include an option for tagging jpg files then asap!

Patboyslim

Will it be a pancake lens?

Jalo

Thank you, Olympus!!! I was afraid they would not include the manual focusing system from 12/2.

:D

Casadilla

If the construction and production are “12mm quality”, then I am intrigued. The 12mm is one of those lenses where you gasp when you see the rendering; it’s that impressive.

Regarding the cost difference compared to film equipment, I disagree today’s optics are overpriced. Simply, quality and engineering have changed. Gear today often includes programmed electronics, AF motors, OIS mechanisms, power zooms, dispersive coatings galore, etc. Additionally, raw material costs have changed. The aperture does not define the entire cost of a lens. So no, I don’t think price is a fair comparison. Technology has changed the photography paradigm.

However, the 20mm package is almost unmatched. I own one myself, like many others here. One hardly hears a complaint about it. It’s cheap, great optics, fast, compact. The 20mm will continue to be the lens of choice for most. I think it will force the Oly 17mm to competitively price it if they want a real alternative. Otherwise, it becomes the Voigtlander 17mm; a niche market lens.

Curious to see how many would have preferred to see a “12mm quality” 25mm instead?

ginsbu

Specs are great. HG pricing is not. At $400 or less, built like the 45/1.8, I buy. Much higher, I don’t think I can justify…

reggieandtfe

I’ll buy one even if it’s $800 as long as the resolution and build are top-notch and it has the cool focus-limiting stops like the 12mm.

Daniel

I do not understand. Because these primes lenses are not weather sealed?

Mike

Awesome. just what I wanted. My guess is it could be a little less expensive than the 12mm as the longer focal length might prove a bit easier to correct

Kenny

Why is there no f1.0 or f1.4 lenses from Olympus?????

eliot

SOLD!
im so glad its built like the 12 and costs more, rather than the 45!

ph

Nice, but only if it’s a pancake and it will sell for $400 or less.

jocky scot

I hope it is better than the blurry edged 12mm. I am fed up with optical correction by software.

Ryan

I’m in. I’ll assume this lens cost a little less than the 12mm (which I own and love for street shooting)since it should cost less to produce a 17 vs a 12, the fact this is a more mass market focal length and it has low price competition with the Panasonic 14 & 20s. I like metal, DoF scales, fast AF and prefer the slightly wider perspective.

I own the 20 and it is nearly worthless to me since it lacks the DoF scales to easily set up for zone focus and its motor is too slow to use AF. If the thing at least had a decent manual focus set up, I could live with its crappy AF. Right now, the only thing I see it does well is taking photos of static objects in bright daylight.

Selling my 20 should cover a sizable chunk of the new 17’s cost, so no biggie.

Dummy00001

I do not like biggish premiums 17mm.

Unless of course it is really a *pancake* premium 17mm.

P.S.:
> This means it has distance scale, metal construction and so on.

Definitely not a pancake. :(
BOOOO!!

Bart

There is a smallish pancake 17mm….

Oh wait, that one is not good enough :-)
Boooo!

You rang, m’lord?

matt

ok , I guess I´ll have to wait for sigma to bring afforable f1.4 primes because, I have enough this silver only & premium price slow lenses, yes f1.8 is not enough for m4/3

nikon fullframe G lenses f1.8 costs 100-200bucks! f1.4 costs 300-400! they are sharp and harder to made tan m4/3 lenses, hope that third party manufacturers will end this premium bullshit.. all those f1.8 lenses should be at 200€ price

mike

Please do tell where I we can buy full-fame Nikon primes f1.8 and better for the $100-400.
You can’t because they don’t exist at those prices. Premium fast Nikon glass costs close to 2 grand. I don’t know where you guys come up with some of this BS.
- Kenneth
  
  @Mike
  
  It does exist.
  
  I use both M4/3 and Nikon gears for my works. 50/1.8G (approx $150) is impressively nice and more than enough for priting on A3 paper !!
  - Mike
    
    The old 50 1.8 for $150 isn’t a G lens. It isn’t even a modern design, it’s a carry over from the 90s. The new 50 1.8 G comes in at the price point at a little over 200 price and the 50 1.4 G comes in at $400 grey market. Both are very good lenses but neither are high grade like this 17 appears to be. Also designing a good 50 is a bit easier than designing a wide angle. Once out of the normal range there really aren’t pro or high grade options in Nikon 1.8 or 1.4 glass under $400.

simon

Suspect this lens will cost as much as the Fuji 23mm f2 lens,which comes attached to a X100

amalric

Fools! You have just been screwed again…

Except if you are banksters, sirs :)

Bart

Absolutely, people got totally screwed by a product that isn’t even announced yet.
Ben

“Banksters”? You’re one weird fish, amalric. Always on about noobs and masters and money…
- SteveA
  
  …and I’m sure he was in one of the Matrix movies.
Miroslav

Occupy Photokina ;) !
- amalric
  
  Right, it’s a great idea: Oly has been screwed by baksters, and now it is trying to screw us.
  Besides you will notice that most prospective buyers are from the other side of the pond, so the downturn is hitting the Eurozone most. PK is therefore most appropriate for a demonstration against luxury prices :)

Ash

I think the lens sounds fine. Quality will probably be fantastic and thus the price is reasonable.

THe only really uncool thing is the silver color. Give us a choice, silver or black!

TheEye

“Quality will probably be fantastic”

Will this lens be software-corrected?
- amalric
  
  Yes, people are so crazy that they’ll think that software correction is a plus. Like in the 12/2 I surmise, and fork happily a thousand, despite the optics might be compromised.
  
  Ainsi va le Monde…
- Ash
  
  “Will this lens be software-corrected?”
  
  Don’t really care as long as the pictures look good…

Kenneth

I’m not sure whether I made a right decision. The cost of M4/3 lens are getting higher and higher, comparing to those of APS-C and FF lens. Lens of APS-C and FF offer a wide range of quality, allowing me to choose according to my budget.

mooboy

If you chose m43s for cost savings, then yeah you made a wrong decision. If you chose it for size etc, then congrats, you made a good choice.
Ash

” Lens of APS-C and FF offer a wide range of quality, allowing me to choose according to my budget.”

As does Olympus. The 17mm 2.8 is the inexpensive version.

Your comment smacks of ignorance.
sadwitch

Alot of people buy into a system because of lenses you can get or use. Canon’s for their 50 F1.2 and 85 F1.2 Nikon for their 14-24 F2.8 Olympus for F2 zooms and the beautiful 7-14 F4, Pentax for their limited primes. I think both olympus and panasonic are building a great line-up for the m43 system.

Just held the 75mm f1.8 and its so solid with awesome renderings. The 45 is such a great lens for its price…

Many don’t realise most 50 f1.8 is rather soft at 1.8 it defeats the purpose of having it unless the glamour effect is what you’re after whereas the m43 20,25,45,75 are all amazing wide open.

Riley

you could almost think that masked gun armed Oly representatives were dragging people into alleys and forcing them to buy a lens

Ab

So true Riley, it is like they are being robbed by a lens rumor (or announcement).

Meh, what can you do? Me, I have the 17mm f2.8 and am actually quite happy with its performance.

Ab

SteveO

It will be interesting to see Oly trying to justify a higher price than the excellent PanLeica 25mm f1.4’s $550.

They now have a whole line of premium priced primes selling for $800 and up in the 12mm, 60mm and 75mm with the 17mm f1.8 about to join the band. And they have the nerve to charge another $75+ for hoods they used to include!

Great business model, buy a $1000 body and then add $3000-4000 in primes when a $1000 zoom (12-60 f2.8-4) used to do just fine. Yet people are buying them. Hey, I have this bridge for sale in Brooklyn, a really good deal….

Ab

I get my hoods of ebay for next to nothing. My hand or cap also works.
amalric

Exactly what I meant. At those prices one might reconsider the Fuji system. Our only chance at some point for inexpensive and good in m4/3 might be third parties like Sigma.

I can’t really accept that Oly betrays its popular side, but clearly in the downturn yuppies and banksters are the only ones left with real purchasing power. So you see yuppie cameras and yuppie lenses, and people who delude themselves they are going to buy them.
Bart

For such lenses not including the hood is indeed silly.

But people have been asking for fast and high quality lenses with good build quality for quite a bit, Olympus also has a successful camera that justifies high quality lenses, so releasing such lenses is responding to something people have been asking for. The thing they are forgetting (except for the 60mm) is to make those lenses weather-sealed.

Lumix makes a nice 14/2.5 and 20/1.7 (even if it could use an update for silent and faster focus) which are both affordable, Olympus makes a nice 45/1.8 which is also quite affordable, so only a medium tele, ultra wide or macro lens is where you are ‘forced’ to buy an expensive prime (and only if you need auto-focus).

If you really want the 12mm, you could go for a more expensive setup, combining the Lumix 12-35/2.8 and the Olympus 45/1.8, or more expensive but still way below what you suggest, the 75/2.8.

Hence you don’t have to spend as much on lenses as you are suggesting and can still have a fairly complete system that is anywhere between 1/3 and 2 1/3 stop faster then the 12-60, and provides very good optical quality.

I rather think its good that we more and more get a choice between buying a cheaper but pretty good product, or a more expensive but superb product. That both Olympus and Panasonic seem to concentrate on different ‘non kit’ lenses only helps to get more choice faster. 3rd party manufacturers also help getting more choice faster, so thats all good.

Sure, most people will want the best for as little money as possible, for free if possible, well, thats not going to happen, products will cost what people are really willing to pay for them. Companies aren’t social institutions to provide you with things for as low a price as possible.

mooboy

Sorry if I missed it, but is there any suggestion if this lens is weather sealed or not?

Any reports on how good the weather sealing on the Panasonic 12-35 is? I’d like to be able to take my OM-D out in the rain with a better lens than the kit.

mooboy

Look out Ab, Olympus may make you an offer you can’t refuse!

mackie

i hope they announce this in photokina…