(FT4) Coming within 2013: Olympus f/2.8 fast zooms similar to the Panasonic X.


Image on top: the Four Thirds Zuiko 14-35mm f/2.0. Same quality can be expected by the new f/2.8 zooms.

I am getting more and more evidence that Olympus will release a fast zoom in Spring-Summer along the new E-P5. And I now have been told that Olympus actually wants to release two f/2.8 zoom within 2013. Both will compete against the Panasonic 12-35mm and 35-100mm X lenses.
Which one is coming first I don’t know yet. I asked the sources if that wouldn’t be too redundant but they told me that Olympus zooms deliver a higher optical performance as we have on the superb Zuiko 14-35mm f/2.0 (here on eBay) and Zuiko 35-100mm f/2.0 (here on eBay) lens. Specs and Price info are yet unknown. What we can be (almost) sure of is that the constant aperture isn’t f/2.0, it will be almost certainly f/2.8 becuase of size and costs reasons.

The two superb Zuiko f/2.0 zooms:
14-35mm f/2.0 on eBay (Click here) and via Slidoo eBay.
35-100mm f/2.0 on eBay (Click here) and via Slidoo eBay.

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

  • I hope they’re lighter and less expensive than panny counterparts.

    • valia kalda

      Lighter: Yes, no built in OIS makes sure for that..unless they make it with a concrete body.
      Less expensive: Don’t hold your breath, this is Oly we’re talking about. I almost bet the prices of the hoods for these lenses will compete with gold when it comes to $/ounce.

      • I don’t know about that..

        Olympus’s macro is less expensive than PL-45, despite having weather sealing and longer reach.
        Olympus 1.8/17 and 1.8/45 are very decently priced, among other m43 lenses..

        • MikeH


          You do realize that the PL45 has OIS, as the previous poster stated, right? When Oly releases the 60mm macro with OIS then you can have more of a leg to stand on.

          • Optical1

            OIS adds to the cost to manufacture the lens, but not the cost for the end user. Even the lowly 14-42 kit lens has OIS.

          • E-1

            What do I need OIS for? Every good camera has sensor based IS.

            • Every good camera has sensor based IS?!?

              Sorry Mamiya, Leica, Hassleblad, Alpa.. Sorry Nikon, Sorry Canon. Double implication just swept.

              • Anonytrackball

                Many of your ‘sorry’ brands do not offer any form of stabilisation other than the old tripod variety. That leaves canon and nikon. So his statement seems to be correct.

            • lfflofo

              Ironically the cameras that have in body IS have never been the top sellers and all the companies selling them have imaging divisions in the shitter ( Olympus, Sony , and Pentax ) go figure .

          • There is a limit to how much OIS explains the price.
            As stated by an other poster, by extension of that logic, kit lenses would sell at ludicrous price. So far I can tell, they don’t.

          • flipinus

            @MikeH, you are right about the Oly 60 macro not having OIS but is that together with the Leica branding worth $229 more? Everyone will have their opinion on that one.

    • nomnom

      I would prefer they charge more and make a lens with great IQ and solid build.

    • Pat

      The 30-100 f/2 is one of the heaviest lenses I have used, regardless of system. If they are built like that tank…don’t count on it.

    • Tutta Fårefjes

      Me like to see the 12-120 f/2.8-5.6. Weathersealed of course. Wow! It would sell in big buckets! What a lens! When will it come?

  • emde

    Forget about less expensive. Oly lenses have been anything but cheaper than the Pany lenses, so far…

    Buit I hope for a more versatile range especially in the tele ballpark

    • Esa Tuunanen

      Expensive like 60mm macro?
      460€ here in Finland while non weather sealed Panasonic macro is 700+.

      And Panasonic is anything else than innocent in pricing.
      Their fisheye is another 700+ lens while optically fully equal and actually metal construction Samyang was 250€ year ago.

      Also Panasonic Lumix G 14-140mm was long (is still here in Finland) overly high priced considering it having so many deficiencies covered up by software which doesn’t cost any to make.

      • rpm40

        Software correction requires plenty of design, testing, programming, etc., so no, it’s not free.

        • lfflofo

          It may not be free but it will be very significantly cheaper than optical designs alone, and really why not take advantage of the processing power we have in our cameras now,

        • Anonytrackball

          Simple. Just some tables.

  • observer

    It will come in silver for sure. Hoods will be extra.

  • Yes, how about a 12-50 f/2.8 and a 50-200 f/2.8?

    • aXelpiX

      Hopefully 12-50mm, would even accept 2.8-3.5 for the extended range.

      F2.0 is not required for Zooms I guess, as long as we have good primes for that speed range.

      • Narretz

        I’d even take a stellar 12-50 2.8-4.0. Should sell like hotcakes with enthusiasts. I think that’s actually the only reason this lens doesn’t exist yet: people would hardly buy any other lenses in this range. ;)

        • peevee


      • AndrewJ

        +1 and maybe a little more affordable. I’m thinking similar price range to the fuji X kit lens.

    • Sunny

      But these optics would be at least as big as the FT 14-54 and 50-200. Why should Oly do that, while shrinking the cameras to OM-D and PEN-size?

      Better to get a little more compact 12-50 2,8-4 and a 50-150 2,8-4.

      • jimhtko

        @sunny due to the mirrorless bodies , we can have lenses significantly smaller than the FT mount look at the size and weight difference between the Olympus 7-14 and the Panny 7-14 . The OLympus is marginally better but no complaints with the mFT 7-14. I wish that Olympus would give us smaller versions of some of their zooms such as the 12-60 and 50-200.

        The 12-35 seems to perform well enough at least on Panasonic bodies and I am very pleased with the 35-100 as are the review sites. So there is not a lot OLympus can do , either their new lenses have to be faster or far better or far cheaper, and I do not see OLympus taking the cheaper option, the faster option could result in a very pricey lens , look at the costs of the SHG lenses ( they are as big and as expensive as FF ). So you are left with being far better , maybe but I don’t know , maybe they believe that there are enough diehard Olympus users who will only buy OLy gear , maybe they are right lol

        • Sunny

          Regarding the Pana 12-35 and the existing Oly 12-50, a 12-50 2,8 would have at least about 70mm diameter and 83mm length. That´s almost the same size as the old FT 14-54.

          I can´t imagine to carry such a lense with an E-PL5.

          • Optical1

            How do you calculate this?

        • Only the WA lenses can be made smaller, as they no longer need to be retrofocal w/ the shorter flange-back distance in m4/3. The tele lenses will not shrink much at the same FLs (i.e. a 50-200mm), maybe just a tad due to the physically smaller mount itself.

          But I suspect Oly can make them optically better, an thus less dependent of in-cam sw-correction (like distortion and CA), which will clearly justify lenses overlapping their Pana counterparts. If m4/3 Zuikos like 12-50/2.8-3.5 + 50-200 2.8-3.5 will be made, they will constitute a killer pair of lenses, that will sell in buckets! And please no complaints about them being to big! They have to have such a size due to sheer physics alone. Should someone need them smaller, there are plenty of smaller zooms and primes to choose from already.

          • Kenneth Hall

            @ erich
            I do not belive that would bebthe case , the Olympus 35-100 F2 , weighs in at 1.6kg, and is 213.5mm long, with a 77mm filter size. The Panasonic 35-100 F2.8 weighs in at 360g , is 100mm long and has a 58mm filter thread.

            YOu are wrong if you honestly believe that a 35-100mm mFT F2 35-100 would not be very significantly smaller than the Olympus 35-100 ( which is ridiculously sized for the sensor size) .The size of the OLympus lens has much to do with its origins . Even if you doubled the weight of the Panasonic ,and made it 50% longer it would still weigh half the weight of the Olympus , it’s not that the Panasonic is particularly small the problem is that you are comparing to an oversized , overweight lens . Do you honestly think that you couldn’t gain a single stop in an mFT lens double the weight and 50% longer than the current Panasonic option I am certain you could.

            • Reggie

              This. The SHGs were just over-sized. The 35-100 f/2 (which I have, and is a great lens, don’t get me wrong) is bigger than the new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, and that lens has optical stabilization, and has to cast light over a sensor twice the size of what the 35-100 was built for.

              • dfdgdsrty

                The FF sensor has nearly four times the area of a FT/mFT sensor

    • Tim

      If they release it with the EP5 they will likely try to keep it as compact as possible without loosing in quality. Where they can reduce the size is in the focal length. So I wouldn’t hold out any hope for a 12-50 or anything like that. 14-35 sound more likely.

    • michael

      Yes – wider than 14mm would be nice. 12mm at a minimum (and I’d love a 10mm).

  • jim

    Pitty they wont be F2….

    F3.5 – F2.8 is not enough to open up much in the way of new shooting oppotunities… F2 would be… F2 12-35mm (12 would be very nice to have) would make the OMD a very versitile camera… I know it wont be much diffrent in size to the 43 lenses (i.e. relatively big) but I don’t think that would be excessive given the versatility and quality this would bring… Still m43 lenses will be a bit smaller than 43 lenses due to the shorter lens to sensor distance.

  • Bobafett

    Yess! Make it FT5, weathersealed, same quality as 60/2.8 and NO OIS.

    And admin by the way, is there gonna be a firmware update for the e-m5 anytime soon?

  • Yun

    This is not very good .
    Again another F2.8 , why not I get the old FT lens & wait for the new FT compatible camera to mount it .
    I have F2.0 with new sensor camera .
    F2.8 is not fast enough for current mFT standard ,
    did manufacturers realize that ?

    • JF

      f2.8 is ok for me. Pana 12-35 and 35-100 offer a good aperture/size and weight ratio. f2 zooms are as big as FF zooms… It has no meaning for m43 which is a compact system. If you want very big apertures, you can use primes…I think it’s very good to have choice between pana and oly versions and not only pana. Competition is good for consumer

    • Wow, big difference between 2.0 and 2.8…

      • ken Anderson

        yes probably about a $1000 lol

      • “Wow, big difference between 2.0 and 2.8…”

        Yes, like 100% for brightness!

        • bshyg

          The difference between F2 and f2.8 is one stop that is all ,

          • Reggie

            Yes. And one stop doubles brightness. Therefore it’s literally 100% more light.

  • bonzo

    We got plenty fast & ultra-fast primes… Why do you want constant 2.0 zooms which will heavy and way too expensive for most people?

    • rrr_hhh

      I totally agree with that ! I would rather get a super sharp zoom than a fast one with soft corners. I’d like to have a 12-60mm F4. Making it longer than the Panasonic 12-35mm would give it an advantage, because it would be more versatile. I could then do without a second long zoom.

      • ProShooter

        You have no idea what you are talking about.

        You can stop a soft and fast lens down to make it sharper but you cannot go the other way with a slow sharp lens so in the end you lose out on versatility.

        Given, of course, oly quality where a soft lens is still very sharp.

        • lorenzino

          Problem here is size / weight.
          A light and good f4 lens you can always carry, a 2.8 not so

    • Do

      It’s a better choice to have a Full Frame camera with a F4 zoom than a FT camera with F2 zoom – both combinations give you roughly the same DOF and low light abilities, but the camera-lens balance is way better with the FF combination.

      • Yep, and FF has a weight that is 2, 3 times more… ;-)

        • Dave Lively

          The FT f2.0 14-35 zoom weighs about 2 pounds and costs $2300 at B&H. With a lens that fast I do not see how it would be much lighter for mFT unless they sacrifice optical quality. Add a $1000, 1 pound OMD body and you are up to 3 pounds and $3300.

          Right before Christmas a Nikon D600 with the f3.5-4.5 24-85 kit zoom was going for $2000 and weighs about 3 pounds.

          Even with just the kit zoom you would have similar DOF/low light as the OMD with the theoretical f2.0 zoom you want. Add 50mm and 85mm primes and you would have more shallow DOF capabilities than will ever be possible with m43 for less money and not that much more weight. If shallow DOF and low light capability is what you are looking for m43 is the wrong system for you.

          I do not need FF levels of DOF and low light abilities. If I did I would buy a FF SLR. But I would like a fairly light but optically excellent and weather sealed normal zoom. One pound max and as much speed and zoom range as is possible without compromising optical quality. I would expect that to be something like a f2.8-f4.0 12-50 but I am not an lens designer.

          • Optical1

            Yes, but the 24-85 Nikon is a dog compared to the Oly.

            • ,jui bb

              The 24-85 G lens is a lot better than you may imagine ( certainly not in the same league as the 14-35 lol to be fair it is a fifth the price) and it works very well as a lightweight kit lens.The older 24-85 is not so good. Anyway the 14-35 weighs the same as the FF Nikon 24-70 which is wider

              • Esa Tuunanen

                That 24-85mm G is still extremely mediocre.
                Unlike other standard wide zooms it has notable pincushion distortion when zoomed in any from widest setting. Vignetting characteristics is at usual 135 cheap lens level. Edges and corners are lot below center in sharpness regardless of stopping down. Also chromatic aberrations are steady high.

                Also that 24-70mm f/2.8G has some signs of optical undersizing and what seems to be typical for Nikon lenses when compared to also Canons, rather high CA.

                It’s easy to make lenses smaller than they should be for format size/focal length by cutting corners in optical quality.
                If you want to compare lens sizes you better demand same optical quality from all competitors!

                • 432547u

                  The 24-85g is certainly not mediocre,in its role as a cheap walkabout kit lens with VR covering a decent range.As to the 24-70 you can only be talking about the new Canon 24-70 which costs 50% more than the Nikon version, the Nikon 24-70mm is clearly better than the old Canon lens. CA is automatically corrected in several Nikon bodies including all the FF options.In fact Nikon receives the exact same rating for optical quality as the newer more expensive Canon , the Nikon also scores better for build quality.


                  Anyway Comparing mFT lenses to uncorrected lenses in other systems is rather flawed ,this includes Olympus before the true believers jump in and claim that there is no correction on Olympus lenses.Other than the 75mm and 60mm macro if you open a RAW from any other Olympus mFT lens in a RAW converter that removes the in camera corrections you will be in for a bit of a shock , same with the poor high ISO noise , NR can only hide so much

            • lorenzino

              Fun is that em5 + 35-100 f2 (43 lens) is as expensive and HEAVIER than a Nikon D600 + 70-200 f4, which gives identical results in DOF. Plus it would be very badly balanced, and the advantage in light gathering is wasted by the sensor difference.
              I seriously think Oly has to concentrate on good but portable zooms…

              • DOF here, DOF there – the 35-100 is f/2, and this is physically a stop faster than a f/2.8. If you want to compare DOFs, then µFT isn’t the right system for you. A Voigtländer f/0.95 weighs a lot more than the f/1.8 single focals for 35mm, regardless of the focal length and the MZ 75 made out of metal and with benchbark BQ weighs so much as one plasticky 85mm f/1.8 for 35mm etc.

                • lorenzino

                  Dear mr “-“,
                  I agree that the DOF matter is way overrated for many people.
                  OTOH: why on earth are you buying m43 for??? For better IQ? Nope! For better low light options? Nope!!!!!! Because the FF sensor eats all advantages you gain with a faster lens on a 43 sensor. So, why m43? For size, for Odin’s sake, for SIZE!!!
                  And what kind of size advantage you have with that ridiculously large 35-100 f2 oly lens? None! At that point you gain NOTHING compared to any FF system, as the lens alone will rise the price and weight and size bar so much that at that point even considering a Nikon D800E with a semipro lens would be a reasonable (if slightly more expensive) alternative.
                  m43 is all about portability. If the camera + lens set is not portable anymore, what’s the point? Plus: have you ever actually tried how unbalanced any m43 camera is with that f2 lens? It really defies usability…

                  • You don’t buy a f/2 Zoom for the size advantage, you buy it for the speed and BQ. The size advantage is bigger, when you look at the “dark zooms” (kits and so on). Even a 50-200 SWD has some size advantage (even if its not that big), when you consider the max. aperture and the focal range. Same with a 14-54, 12-60 etc.
                    And, size advantage: how big is the size/weight advantage when you look at the 12-35 X in comparison to, lets say, a 14-54 or a tamron 17-50. Other apertures and focal range – I know, but nevertheless comparable focal lengths and apertures.

                  • oh yes, if you buy the µFT for the size, than
                    1. leave the dos aside, since µFT will be alway worse than 35 mm
                    2. the size advantage is much more obvious when using the single focals – pancakes, 12mm, 45mm etc

                    • lorenzino

                      Sure, the FF dslr will always be more flexible, and an overall better choice for IQ.
                      Everything boils down to convenience and compromises. m43 is better than compacts, and FF cameras are better than m43. I guess the choice of m43 implies a well pondered compromise between size and quality.
                      For this very reason zooms are acceptable if not too large. When exactly “large” becomes “too large” is a subjective choice. I guess a good definition of “too large” in m43 is something that does the same things FF (or apsc) does, with the same size. For this reason I would accept gladily a not-too-big f 2.8 zoom, or a very good 2.8-4. While I think a f2 zoom would easily spoil the primary reason for selecting a “lesser” camera.
                      So, there is no reason to look at primes only: decent fast zooms are ok, while ultra-fast… well, I guess they are a waste of time and research efforts on oly part…

          • jim

            No – m43 is a reasonable low light system!… Given it has a wide range of sub F2 primes and if it was paired with F2 zooms it would be near the equal of and averagely competent FF sys… but always will be lighter and smaller… and untill FF mirrorless, m43 will be better for video.

            For DOF it is worse than FF, but still an F1.4 or even F0.95 is plenty thin DOF on m43, only in the most exceptional circumstances will FF F1.4 thin DOF be required…

          • Reggie

            The FT SHG zooms were not well designed well when it came to size and weight. They could have been f/1.4 given their size, or f/2 at a much smaller size. Because of the way that Oly designed them, perhaps in the interest of saving cash, they are larger than they need be.

            Given that they could have been SMALLER on FT, they could be significantly smaller on mFT. You can get a FF, optically stabilized 70-200 f/2.8 that is a smaller diameter, and shorter than the FT 35-100 f/2.0

            • jim

              No not saving cash – but the 43 lenses were telecentric rear elements so the light was totaly parralell to the sensor plane removing the need for micro lenses – but making the lens very expencive and complex… although with arguably the best quality results for digital sensors.

              Many (most) of the 43 lenses are exceptional quality lenses performing as well as any of the best!

              • Reggie

                It travels (more) perpendicular (parallel would be bad) to the sensor. And the whole point of the SMALLER sensor was so that you could achieve that WITHOUT increasing the size of the optics. Because you could more easily have a lens mount that was larger in diameter than the sensor below it.

                Yes, the 4/3 optics are very good.

                • jim

                  Yes easier to do than FF – but still way more complex and larger than m43 with its non telecentric requirments and digital distrotion correction… these 2 design diffrences coupled with the shorter reg. distance should enable m43 to produce a smaller lens set than 43 while maintaining the same apatures and zoom ranges.

      • Nope


        • jimhtko

          it would be wrong if you are talking about the FT range of F2 zooms which are indeed as heavy and expensive as FF alternatives . However even at the tele end mirrorless allows for a considerable reduction in size , though an F2 tele zoom would obviously be the largest and heaviest lens in the system . Though the Panasonic 35-100 at F2.8 weighs in at only 360g even doubling this to allow for a one stop quicker F2 lens would still be far lighter than the 70-200 F4 zooms from Canon or NIkon even the non IS Canon 70-200 F4 ( bargain price ) weighs in over a kilo.

          • Actually it weighs something like 700g or so, and with IS its only something like 50g heavier.

      • Ross

        You want bigger to compensate for something of yours that’s small? ;)

    • Just a thought: If you buy the new Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 OS HSM MACRO zoom and use the speed booster adapter, you’d end up with a 12-50 f/2-2.8 (with image stabilization and macro capabilities). That zoom should have pretty good IQ and a price around $600-$700. The problem is that you’d have very slow AF.

      What I wonder… if Sigma can do that zoom, why can’t Oly make one of a similar size and prize, similar optical performance, but of course NATIVE, a real 12-50mm f/2-2.8 with fast AF and no need for adapter? Yes, that zoom (the Sigma) is a bit bigger than the Pana 12-35, but not that much. And by not having macro capabilities and not needing IS, Oly could make it smaller than the Sigma.

      Just a thought…

      • jimhtko

        I wish that instead of giving us duplicate or odd focal lengths that Sigma would port some of their faster options to mFT their 50-150 F2.8 would give a nice equiv range for us of 100-300mm at a fast aperture and it weighs in at just 770g

      • hlbt

        The Sigma is a sweet lens, but it’s substantially bigger and heavier than the Pana 12-35. I use the 17-70mm on A-Mount in addition to my Pen, so I speak from experience.

        A fun idea though!

        • The new version (still not available) is a bit smaller (7mm shorter) and lighter (50g less). By removing the IS and macro capabilities, it could get close to the Pana 12-35. Obviously a 12-50 /f2-2.8 is going to be bigger than a 12-35 f/2.8, but if it’s not much and is almost half the price, it does sound good, doesn’t it?

          Physically is possible. But I doubt Oly will do it. They wouldn’t sell any other lens ;)

          • AndrewJ

            +200g for the speed booster

            • I’m talking about Oly making a NATIVE m4/3 lens, it wouldn’t need an adapter to reduce the image circle to the 4/3 sensor size.

              The option of really using the Sigma zoom + speed booster is not that attractive to me. It’s just a starting point to prove that it’s possible to make a lens with those specs at that size and price point.

              Fuji X system has the 18-55 f/2.8-4, which is also in that price range and it’s quite small and light (and optically quite good). And those specs translate to a 14-42 f/2.1-3 in m4/3 sensor size. Just another example that it should be possible.

    • Duarte Bruno

      Yup, plenty of ultra-fast primes, but neither Olympus nor Panasonic is building them. That’s why they come up with this and also because AF and Zoom still have it’s place.

    • They’re not too heavy and expensive for everyone, though. A large part of why I haven’t gone over to m4/3 is that there’s still no native lens with the quality and capability of the f/2 zooms. I shoot live stage performances, so I can’t just walk around freely, and variable-aperture lenses are a pain (and a disaster when the light levels are already low). The f/2 zooms are exactly what I need.

  • lol

    I dont think they will risk their profit by making zoom lens with aperture less or equal than f2, especially at 12mm, since they already have the prime 12mm f2. So most probably it would be around f2.8. They will make sure that these pro zoom lenses will never get a way with their precious primes.

  • pipo

    please give us a little brother of the 50/200 , and I could switch to the µ4/3

  • nobody

    Admin, can you tell us what “similar to the Panasonic” zooms means?

    Will the Oly lenses also be 12-35mm and 35-100mm? And constant f2.8?

    Or could they also be 12-50mm and 40-150mm? And f2.8-4?

  • aXelpiX

    Hopefully 12-50mm, would even accept 2.8-3.5 for the extended range.

    F2.0 is not required for Zooms I guess, as long as we have good primes for that speed range.

    • Jens

      50-200ish or 40-150ish, 2.8 – 3.5. would be great and different to Pana.

      I don’t get this constant aperture thing anyway! From a technical point of view it doesn’t make sense, and with the electronic in the camera it is not really necessary anymore. (For my understanding the advantage is, that you can keep your manual settings, if you zoom in and out. But that could be solved by a clever iso automatic, which you set into a very close range. this way you would have a constant depth of field)

  • asaf

    lens for this format should be 2.8 and cost less then 1000$ :)
    the pana 12-35 is big and need something like G5 to mach .. cant think of a larger zoom for daily use.
    Too many good m43 lenses already exists, now we need nex-6 like body.

    • JF

      12-35 fits also very well E-M5 !

    • true homer

      The 12-35 is big? What? Hav3 you even seen one up close? The 12-50 is big, just what are you people expecting?

  • The bulging behind the blue cloth of what should be the E-P5 perhaps is a fastish zoom

    Remember that the 14-54/2.8-3.5 was the kit lens on the E-1?

    Perhaps history repeats itself. If they want to keep the same price of the X-E1 kit lens, 3-400 in kit with a RF-like new cam , then they would have my attention

    • Ross

      The Mk II was also the kit lens on the E30 too. I hope for a lens that would be somewhere similar in focal length & aperture to that for my E-M5 which would be great & as well as something similar to 50-200mm.

  • While nice to have as a second option, I really don’t see the point of making such zooms unless they cover more versatile ranges than the Panasonic duo. 14-50 and 50-150 would be nice, albeit quite large.

    If the rumors about fast AF of 4/3 lenses by the end of the year turn out to be true then the 14-54 (version I) becomes an incredible bargain. You can buy it used in mint condition for $200-250. For the record, it’s a fast, sealed sharp optic.

  • I hope they have more zoom range then 12-35 and 35-100…

  • Rasmus

    I already have the 12-35, and I will likely get the 35-100 before Olympus releases their lenses. After that, Oly will have to provide something really special if they want me to get rid of the Panasonic zooms and get the Olympuses instead. Wonder how many sales they lost by coming late to that party.

    • Ross

      They will have missed out on some, but I think there will still be many that will go for them if the quality is really nice & the price acceptable. While the primes are great (especially the 75mm), there are a number like myself that would prefer to have a couple of useful zooms that are brighter & sharper than the standard kit zooms. I still have my 60mm macro lens though.

  • Good news. The system will benefit from a broader range of quality fast zooms, an area where it is currently lacking – we only have the panasonic duo so far. I hope they come up with different focal lengths to panny, hopefully more extended ones: 12-50 2.8 and 50-150 2.8. Since they do not need built in is, i suppose the size should be comparable to the panasonic offerings…

  • Burnhard

    dreaming is allowed, guys.. but also Olympus have to obey the laws of physics. I just pray the new lenses will NOT be another zoom starting 14 – it’s boring.

    • +1

    • Mr. Reeee

      Make it a 12-60 f2.8-f4 or even f3.5- 4.5. Just make i optically stellar!

  • Ming Dang

    Yes! Verry good indeedy. Accordings to my Schott glass ball it says to announcing on December 2013 and availability on July 2014. The Olympus M.Zuiko 50-150 f2.8. In silver only. Lens hood pay extra! Lens pouch? Don’t push it. Just use one side of your socks. Thank you Olympus. Very generouos.

  • How about a trio of genre-dedicated precision zooms such as:
    10-18 f/2.5
    14-25 f/2
    45-70 f/2

    They shouldn’t be too bulky and could be built to near perfection.

    • twoomy

      That would never happen, but boy, I would buy into that! 10-18 with high-quality edges would be a great landscaper lense.

      • Tim

        But would you really need the fast aparature for a landscape lens? Wouldn’t a smaller cheaper wideangle zoom with stellar optics and smaller aparature make more sense?

        • Like a Panny 7-14 maybe…? or existing Oly 9-18?

        • Like a Panny 7-14 maybe…? or existing Oly 9-18?

      • lorenzino

        panny 7-14?

    • Zeus

      How about they really get aggressive w/that trio, and add OIS that works in tandem w/ the IBIS for even better stabilization, plus giving Pana users options…

      >How about a trio of genre-dedicated precision zooms such as:
      10-18 f/2.5
      14-25 f/2
      45-70 f/2

    • W. C.

      At around $2000 each, they will be bargains, too. Great volume sellers for m4/3.

  • Sqweezy

    There needs to be some measure of differentiation between the Panasonic lenses. Cost and aperture are likely out of the picture but size, quality, and zoom range may be the deciding factors. I am guessing they’ll try to extend the zoom range by a fraction and claim to have superior image quality. Olympus is capable of doing that much but I’m not sure if it’ll be worth the premium in price. On the flip side, the best part about Olympus releasing these lenses will be that the well-received Panasonic zooms should most certainly drop in price!

  • The Olympus anwer given to Pana 20/1.7 (17/1.8) wasn’t so stellar. Wondering if these zooms would really beat their Panasonic counterparts.

    • Ming Dang

      I have inklinitation to best of best agreement with you. Ditto!

    • Another Fantard

      I wonder if this is in part due to Olympus’ dislike of software correction and attempting to do everything optically.
      Personally, I don’t mind what jiggery-pokery goes on before I see the image, and there’s nothing in the 17/1.8 that would tempt me to trade in the 20/1.7 which is both smaller and cheaper. It would be nice if the 20/1.7 focussed a little quicker but it’s nothing I can’t live with.

      • Ming Dang

        The panasonic 20mm/1.7 focusing similarly slow as old screwdriver AF Nikkor 50mm lens. Slow but not hopeless slow. Could be faster but still can live with I feel.

      • jimhtko

        I think that there are all sorts of software corrections going on ,even with OLympus lens try looking at RAW files using one of the RAW converters that doesn’t honour the in camera RAW settings and you might be surprised. Honestly, I don’t mind software correction with the proviso that it keeps the size and price down ( one out of two isn’t bad lol) . Cameras are computers nowadays why not take advantage of them .

        • Rasmus

          Yup, both brands use lots of distortion correction and possibly vignetting correction. The difference I know of is that Olympus doesn’t do CA correction, which Panasonic does. On the other hand Lightroom is very good at fixing that.

    • MarcoSartoriPhoto

      I don’t think Zuiko17mm f1.8 is an answer to Panasonic20mm f1.7. If it has to be an answer, I think it’s simply a new, better and more expensive version of Zuiko17mm f2.8. Honestly, most people here think Olympus and Panasonic are arch-enemies. They’re competitors, of course, but they’re on the same boat, offering m43 camera bodies and lenses. As someone wrote yesterday on a previous post, if Pana20mm had to be released today it would receive a colder welcome. Just to be clear: I’m not talking about what’s better than what. When a new product is released people should not look at it as if it was an “offence” toward the “old” products.

      • W. C.

        They may not be enemies but they are not exactly friends either. It is a myth that they are cooperating together in some systematic way for the benefits of m4/3. They are competitors. Lately, the competition has become more fierce. That can be a good thing, however. But at the end of the day, I think an Olympus engineer can sit down with a Panasonic engineer, and not insult or want to kill one another over cameras and lenses. Unlike some fanboys on the internet trying to justify their mere existence by their choice of cameras.

    • hlbt

      A question of priorities, perhaps? Years ago, I decided against the Pana 20mm because I simply couldn’t get myself to accept the aggressive bokeh I saw on web sample pics.

    • S_H

      I sometimes have to chuckle when reading the demands of people here that “this lens better be stellar or else…”. Have you tried the 17mm? I have, despite the lukewarm reviews so far, and I must say that I really like it. Sharpness is not everything, unless you are using your camera as a photocopier.

      I also have the 20mm and do like it for the results it delivers in such a small package, but something always felt “wrong” with it. Call me an Idiot, but now matter how much I tweaked the sliders in Lightroom, the colors sometimes just would not feel right. That is of course a matter of personal preference, but it has changed instantly with the Zuiko.

      Take the color of bricks, for example. I like a rather brownish rendering of that, but the Panasonic lens would give them a sort of purplish tint sometimes.

      This kind of thing cannot be put into numbers, and I find it sad that some people won’t even consider a lens because some internet know-it-all said that its corner to corner sharpness is not up there with the sharpest of them all. It’s funny how some people can come up with stellar pictures by using “mediocre” equipment while others keep crying for stellar equipment only to come up with mediocre results (I am not judging anybody in particular here).

  • fan_guo_lai_xiang_xiang

    I hope they keep it real with the pricing.
    The Fuji 2.8-4 zoom is approx. 600 USD (and lot cheaper in the kit) as well as stabilized.

    Plus you get decent constant 2.8 zooms for APSC for about 500 USD (e.g. Tamron 17-55), also stabilized.

    • Yep, this summer I will know if I stay with Olympus or change to Fuji or Nikon…

  • Why same focal length ?
    same spec.

    Image quality? ha.

    why doesn’t Oly release 100-300/F2.0 (or 2.8) , then every body buy because there is no correspondent to Panasonic.
    wasting development resource.
    The Enemy is NOT Panasonic, but NEX, EOS-M or Fuji X. Don’t complete with Panasonic!
    idott of the world, Olympus managers are.

    • JF

      100-300/F2.0 !!!! Man you are talking of a 15 cm diameter lens !!! That’s HUGE

    • lorenzino

      100-300 f2?????????
      Do you know what you are actually talking about???
      That lens would be a monster, and almost unusable on every current m43 body around.
      I guess you should buy a car only to transport it …

  • AMVR

    There’s physics and then there’s stubbornness. Sure, fast zooms will always be larger than slow zooms that’s a fact but I’ve been hearing this nonsense about fast zooms being FF HUGE for too long. I’ve even read people saying that native m4/3 versions of the 14-54 and 12-60 would be even bigger than the originals, WHAT!?

    Zooms have come a loooong way, Sony were able to make a collapsible kit zoom for APS-C, Pany have made a remarkably small lenses considering they have IS. Also, If fuji can make the XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 OIS for APS-C in such a small package Oly is more than able to make a smaller fast zoom for a smaller 4/3 sensor, every other excuse is just BS. If you were to remove the weather sealing and macro of the 12-50 and ignore the added bulk of IS of the Pany 12-35 you could easily get a decently small fast zoom, you need to consider that contrary to 4/3 lenses native m4/3 lenses can use software correction more effectively, that saves a lot of the bulk, also, it doesn’t need to be f2.0 nor constant, just make it 12-50mm f2.5 – 4, that’s the most reasonable middle ground.

    • jimhtko

      F4 isn’t a fast zoom and we already have a bucket full of slow zooms , some of which like the Panny 14-45 are actually pretty good performers. If the intent is to chase the aperture on FF cameras then the zooms will invariably zoom up in size ( sorry lol) , and looking at the FT SHG zooms they are huge , even allowing for a smaller lens for mFT they would still be hefty bits of kit and OLympus would charge like the light brigade

      • AMVR

        You make it sound as if I said constant F4, Who said anything about that? we’re clearly talking about fast zooms, 2.5 is by no means a slow starting point and would be more attractive than Pany’s 12-35. The only way to keep such a lens from being humongous is to trade some at the long end, and f4 at 50mm isn’t that bad, well maybe make it 3.5 but that’s about it.

        These zooms are made with light gathering in mind(compared to kit lenses at least) not for DOF, if you’re chasing FF DOF then you’re in the wrong path, there’s no way anyone is gonna make f0.95 zooms for Mft. Constant 2.0 is just ridiculous and unrealistic so if you’re going to make a variable aperture lens make it an advantage in size reduction, anything bigger than 3.5 in the long end is going to be too big for MFT (for a 12-50 lens anyway).

    • jimhtko

      F4 isn’t a fast zoom and we already have a bucket full of slow zooms , some of which like the Panny 14-45 are actually pretty good performers. If the intent is to chase the aperture on FF cameras then the zooms will invariably zoom up in size ( sorry lol) , and looking at the FT SHG zooms they are huge , even allowing for a smaller lens for mFT they would still be hefty bits of kit and OLympus would charge like the light brigade

    • simon

      +1 absolutely

      lets face it theoretically a 12-35 for mft could be approximately half as long, and half as wide in diameter than a ff 24-70/2.8 (1/8 OF THE VOLUME!). ok the problem is probably the electronics but that would only require better design/engeneering and wouldn’t require a change of the laws of physics at all.

  • simon

    finally, would love an affordable 14-50/2.8-3.5. very high optical quality and weathersealed.

    • AMVR

      Forget that, 14mm as starting point is not better than the kit zooms and boring as hell. Make it 12-50/2.5-4 non weather sealed, better focal and aperture range, smaller, probably better optically. I understand the need to differentiate such a lens as premium by including WS, but seriously, how many people really NEEED it? it only adds to the weight, bulk and price of the lens. Just give us an equivalent of the Fuji XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4, that’s all there’s is to it.

      People clamoring for these lenses are 2 different consumers, and just like with the old 4/3 lenses we need 2 different tiers. We need a 14-54 equivalent (12-50/f2.8-4) for $600 and a premium weather sealed 12-60mm 2.8 constant. That’s the only way to satisfy all users without screwing some or the other.

      • daymon

        If 14mm at the wide end is boring, then the Fuji XF 18-55 is boring…

        • AMVR

          indeed it is. The only good thing about it is the aperture range, size and price. Pany almost got it right, they just missed the long end and price.

          • Anonymous

            I don’t think Pany missed anything with the 12-35. 28 and 50 mm are the most used focal lengths for myself and many of the exceptional photographers of the past. This lens not only gives those two, but also 24, 35 and 70 mm, in one optically excellent lens. I never cared for 85mm lenses, as I found them too long, but 70 is just right for head and shoulder shots, you just get a little closer. The best part is this lens is about the size of a 85 mm lens. I don’t know what there is not to like about it. I doubt Olympus is ever going to match the quality and size of this lens, let alone best it.

  • Scott

    They need to be 2.0 or its a waste of time

  • so no GH3 for me

    instead new OMD and these boys.
    Hope they’re optically better than Panny’s.

    Bravo Olympus, just do not wait for the announcment til 42.5mm f/1.2 ;)

  • Rumormill

    Well a company choosing between making a 14-54 2.8-3.5 and a 12-60 2.8-4.0 is likely to choose a 14-54 2.8-3.5 when the 2.8 @ 12 doesnt give the owner much incentive to buy the company’s 12 2.0 prime lens.

    • lorenzino

      depends on the quality of the zoom vs fixed lens. All else equal, the prime should be better, IQ and size wise

  • daymon

    I hope it won’t be something like a 14-35 f2.8, but sadly it makes sense. If Olympus releases a 12-60mm f2.8-4 for mFT it could affect the Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 sales too much.

  • Anonymous

    I hope if these zooms are released ‘along with’ the E-P5, at least one of them will be offered as a kit zoom with that body. The new 12-50 helped push E-M5 sales. Can’t but help the E-P5 to have a decent kit zoom option instead of the boring 14-42s.

  • Hendrik Mintarno 葉俊賢

    If the compact size that they are after, i think Olympus have to resort to old focal length zoom : 17-35mm f/2.8 (Equiv. 35-70mm)

  • jap

    If the new zooms are supposed to be optically superior to the 4:3 14-35/2 and 35-100/2, then it is almost certain that the zoom ratio has to conservative. It is difficult to make a 12-60/2.8 zoom (5:1 ratio) that is optically superior to one which is 14-35/2.8 (2.5:1 ratio).

    • AMVR

      It’s very unlikely that these zooms will exceed the 4/3 lenses in terms of quality, they’ll probably be right there with the Pany’s, the only way to make these new zooms adequate for mft in terms of size is to make them variable aperture and f3.5/4 at the long end. Going for an even more limited range than the Lumix X lenses is just stupid, Oly is not in this market to be delicate with Pany’s feelings, if they can be competitive they should come out with something better, that’s how it’s been for primes at least (except the 17mm 1.8). Releasing a 14-something f4 constant lens is no better than the 12-50mm kit lens, why bother, they should at least reach 12-45 f2.8-3.5.

    • daymon

      if the zoom ratio is conservative, I hope the price is not. 2000§/€ is insane.

      • jap

        If the top aperture is, indeed, F/2.8, it should not be as expensive as the SHG lenses.

        • AMVR

          Not if variable aperture, people just WANT them to be expensive, maybe it gives them status, otherwise it’s nonsense. I don’t see fuji fast zoom costing $1400+, it’s $600 as it should be.

          • jap

            . . . or perhaps there are those who simply want a professional zoom with world class sharpness and at least an F/2.8 max aperture. I don’t want any variable aperture zoom at the high end. I don’t want to lose stops as I increase the focal length on my zooms.

  • Scott

    I had a chance to play with the gh3 and 35-100. I wouldnt mind it being a bit larger to make it 2.0, its still going to be a lot smaller than the 4/3 version

  • f/2.8 zoom? I would still prefer something like 12-50/60 f/2.8-3.5/4.0. Even if (slightly) optically compromised.

    But alas I do not think Oly would do it – because they still do not do in-camera lens correction and thus would push for good optical quality. Meaning very highly likely 12-35. As far as I can tell, we have better chances of Panny producing successor to the 12-60.

    • lfflofo

      Olympus do plenty in camera corrections ( I don’t care about it ) take a RAW photo and open it in one of the RAW converters that do not show in camera corrections and you might well be more surprised than you think.

  • Anonymous

    I wish Oly and Panny had settled on the same image stabilization approach so that lenses like these would be usable across. These won’t be for me with my Panny body, but anyway good to see m43 lens lineup continue to grow.

  • ginsbu

    Olympus, just give me a 12-60/2.8-4 for m4/3, weather sealed, equal IQ to the 4/3 version.

    (A 60-250/2.8–4.5 would be nice too.)

    • Mr. Reeee

      I’ll take one.

    • Andrew

      It would be a bit odd for a 60-250 to come out with the 75-300 II around the corner. Not saying you shouldn’t want what you want, but I’d guess it’s unlikely.

      • lfflofo

        the 75-300 is a dog slow F6.7 at the long end ,

        • Andrew

          Right. An obvious enough point. Not saying both types of lenses won’t have their uses and/or find their users, but I simply think the focal lengths are too close to be something that will likely happen soon.

      • lfflofo

        the 75-300 is a dog slow F6.7 at the long end ,

  • michael

    I heard the same story. P5 may come earlier this summer and the fast lens in autumn only. There will be a new EVF with 2.4 MP!

  • warpdrive

    I already have the 12-35, and I still feel it’s overpriced for the optical quality it gives you(no qualms about build quality). I hope Oly offers something slightly different (either more zoom range like 12-50, 12-60 etc, even with variable aperture). They already have the video focussed slow 12-50 which is slim and light so I hope they will concentrate more on giving pro level still capability

    • I would never buy the 12-35 or 35-100 from Pana for an Oly body because of the problem with CA. And these lenses are really much overpriced because they need so much software correction…

  • Alfons

    Do m4/3 system really have to have every single lens made twice? I really hope we won’t get another 12-35mm F2.8 and 35-100mm F2.8.

    • +1

    • If Olympus is going to release a ‘pro’ m4/3 body, its only logical they also provide for ‘pro’ zooms with constant aperture covering the wide to medium tele range, or at the very least a ‘pro’ constant aperture ‘standard’ zoom (ie, covering approx 12-40mm).

      The simple reason is that Panasonic isn’t going to sell a pro body with an Olympus kit lens and neither is Olympus going to sell a pro body with a Panasonic kit lens, and for a pro body, that 12-40 approx constant aperture zoom is a kit lens.

  • Anonymous

    Will the have silver rubber on them as well or will they be black and silver. Wanna bet? Watch the olympus marketing idiots limit their market share.

  • OMD user

    Does Oly just copy the Panny-lenses and then remove the OIS ?

  • Boooo!

    Why doesn’t anyone want a 10-25?

    • Es

      An 11-22 f/2.8 would be on my list

  • tomas

    i dont understand the physics but oly would never never do that mft zooms under 2.8.who would then buy mft primes?? Also canikon has not only fast/expensive 2.8 zooms but also their f4 versions which are opticaly above kit lenses. Super expensive 4/3 zooms were made for rich pro only but even that doesnt help 4/3 to compete with wiiide offer of canikons. Oly must bring wide offer of lenses in different price/quality levels to atract new users and satisfy the existing ones. Good luck OLY

  • E-1

    Hopefully in the end we get a successor to the 50-200/2.8-3.5. It’s the best zoom I ever owned (the second best lens behind the 75). It’s a sweet spot of price, size, weight, range & quality. 2.8 would be nice but heavier. Cheaper would be nice, but then it would be f4. etc. etc.

  • rpm40

    I think something between the HG and SHG zooms is the best bet for this system, since chances are that f2.0 zooms aren’t planned anytime soon, and for most users aren’t needed.

    Replacing the 12-35 f2.0 and 14-54 2.8-3.5 with a 12-50 2.8 seems to make good sense. Same with replacing the 35-100 2.0 and 50-200 2.8 with a 40-150 2.8.

    the 14-54 and 50-200 were the bread and butter of the 4/3 zooms. M4/3 needs something like that again.

    • +1000

      And lenses with *real* (Olympus quality) weather sealing, vs. Panasonic’s half-hearted attempts would be wonderful.

      • jbyjm

        Why does Olympus have magic o-rings made from unicorn horn, the Olympus cameras / lenses have the exact same set up as other makers weather resistant models , there are no weather sealed lenses from anyone.Look at the small print in the warranty if you do not believe , you Oly fanboys really are sheep.

        • jim

          Im, not saying oly seals are better – I don’t know – but even using the same gaskits they could be more water tight if the coupling mech was more secure and pressurized/seated the gasket better… a tiny amount of machining drift could account for a relativly large performance diffrance when sealing a gasket. So it could be concivable that one company could make more robust system using similar components and materials.

          It must be said if you youtube E1 in ice/rain you will somewhere see one working perfictly after being left out over night i think in a full on snow ice hail rain storm – and still working like a boss in the morning! – I would not be supprized if you could quickly and gently submurse an E1 just below the surface, for a quick underwater shot! It does look to be a very impressivly built camera.

          But that is also not to say the OMD is the same as the E1 – just that Oly does know how to make a ruff ass camera!

          • Lily

            “I would not be supprized if you could quickly and gently submurse an E1 just below the surface, for a quick underwater shot! It does look to be a very impressivly built camera.”

            I do recall seeing an example of this somewhere on the internet. I believe it may have been a E5, though.

            • trioop

              I have seen all sorts of videos of people doing extreme things to even low end gear with surprising results.The bottom line is that Olympus use the exact same technology as every other company there is no magic involved . read up on Olympus warranties and you will see that they have the same warnings and exclusions.Feel free to mess about anyway you want but you will not be covered if shit happens.

              Plus oddly enough they have a great selection of weather resistant lenses yet only the very top camera in the range gets any weather sealing , go figure

              Here are a couple of low end cameras from Canon and Nikon getting tortured ,personally I wouldn’t try this at home, with stuff I had paid for


        • W. C.

          Not all weathersealing is equal. I would say Pentax weathersealing would be the most reliable of all the mainstream camera and lens manufacturers. Effective and reliable weathersealing comes with experience and dedication in the manufacturing process to do it to a reasonable to high standard. Cameras like Pentax K-7, K-5, Olympus E-1-5 have been proven to be very reliable out in the field among the elements. Panasonic has not proven itself yet in this regard. I doubt they ever will. It’s just not a priority for them. It’s more a case of a “tick the box” specification to make the products more appealing to enthusiasts and “pro” users, without giving any guaranteee whatsoever to its effectiveness. (The same goes for Canon, Nikon and Sony.) In interviews, Panasonic management have been reluctant to give users assurance of their weatherproofing capabilities.

  • MarcoSartoriPhoto

    Zooms make me lazy..

  • fvanzela

    That is a light in the end of the tunnel!!!

    • That could be a train barreling down the tracks towards you. :-P

  • Let me insist: the the proof that it can be done is Fuj’s offering, the smallish 17-55/2.8, for some 500$

    Those who clamour for expensive lenses are the silliest of all. And I suspect they never put the money into it, once the lens is out.

    It’s just another way of trolling, based on sheer ignorance. A 2.8 kit zoom is perhaps the strongest motive for the X-E1 sales.

    As in the case of the multiple 14-42, Oly could dote on past experience, on the 14-54, or even the 12-50 and offer a sensible zoom with the new camera.

    It would promote m4/3 like nothing else. In this respect the 12-35 has been a total failure in terms of price/performance. The 17-55/2.8 Fuji a great success as a *kit* lens.

    • E-1

      Could you link to this Fuji 17-55/2.8 kit lens? I seem too stupid to google it. I only find a 17-55/F2.8-4.0. Is the constant F2.8 a new lens?

      • E-1

        Or 18-55/2.8-4 (14-42 in m43 terms)

    • true homer

      Gotta disagree with you there almaric, the 12-35 is the sharpest wide zoom ive ever used. And roger cicala from lens rentals tested it against tge 24-70 L and the panasonic ran circles around it. Both in the chart and the real world. The lens is worth every penny, I use to get the sigma wides and laugh at tge people who’d spend more for the L’s, then I realized how dog the sigma was. Yiu get what you pay for, sometimes at least.

      • OK, so let’s agree to disagree. I contend that the 12-35 won’t get any new members to the m4/3 club, except those who have a blind trust or are dentists :)

        By comparison the kit X-E1 and 17-55 are drawing customers to Fuji by the day. The difference? They do more or less the same thing but one costs twice as much.

        Don’t trust the hidden dentist lobby at m4/3, they have plenty of funds to crush you :)

        • E-1

          I still can’t find this 17-55/2.8 Fuji $500 lens, care to share a link? I only find this 18-55/2.8-4 $699 (Amazon) lens.

          Is the lens you refer to new?

          • W. C.

            You can get the Fuji X-E1 with 18-55 f/2.8-4 OIS for under $1200 now, depending which country and which retailer you get it from. That puts the lens cost when bundling with the camera at around $200, depending on the store’s body only price. Quite ridiculous, but a great bargain if you are in the market for a Fuji X-E1.

            I think the reason the price is so competitive right now is that sales of the X-E1 with the “kit zoom” has been less than expected. Fuji adopters have been willing to spend more and get the body and the 35 f/1.4 separately instead for around $1600. That, and the recent announcement of the Fuji X100S has caused many potential buyers to wait for updated models with the new sensor, new AF system and firmware features. A bad strategy because the supposed X-E2 & X-Pro2 may not be available until 2014/15.

            What has this got to do with Olympus and m4/3? Well, I think that Olympus (and Panasonic) need to reconsider some of their (greedy) pricing policies and strategies. There is more competition now and the APS-C competitors are being aggressive on pricing recently. These new Olympus fast zooms for m4/3 need to be priced reasonably. More $1200+ lenses is not reasonable.

            • E-1

              Sorry, you talk about a 18-55/2.8-4, I was asking about the “smallish” 17-55 with constant 2.8 lens that amalric mentioned.

              I was on the fence of also getting into Fuji X, such a kit lens would probably tip me over. But I can’t find that mentioned lens anywhere (?)

            • Yes, exactly my point. BTW i mentioned fuji 17-55/2.8 just because I didn’t remember the aperture at the end of the range.

              Don’t be so annoying: ask politely and you’ll get an answer. I don’t believe in this constant competition, or Inquisition ways. Perhaps you are slowing getting crazy i so that a camera becomes a substitute for happiness. But is just a piece of gear

              The X-E1 kit is appreciable because it is good quality, it is made in metal, it has fast linear motors. If it is a constant 2.8, or 2.8-4 it won’t make me die of sorrow. :)

              • E-1

                “Don’t be so annoying: ask politely and you’ll get an answer.”

                Like in

                “Could you link to this Fuji 17-55/2.8 kit lens? I seem too stupid to google it. I only find a 17-55/F2.8-4.0. Is the constant F2.8 a new lens?”

                Where W. C. and Elf were kind enough to answer.

          • Elf

            Amalric won’t admit to making a mistake and is often capable of fabricating any kind of nonsense to bash Panasonic. It seems almost a crusade with him.
            I own the 12-35 and it is a nice lens. Definitely better than my 14-45. I bet 95% of the posters here complaining about it have never used it. I know Almaric hasn’t….. He couldn’t afford it.

        • true homer

          More or less the same except being weather sealed, having a 4 stop ois and be f2.8 at the long end. Things add up

      • jSTIRBGH

        I can,t speak for the Canon but I own both the 12-35 used on my GH3 and the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and in real life use the Nikon easily outperforms it. Cross system comparisons are not advisable and most review sites specifically mention this.Not forgetting that the 12-35 has all sorts of in camera software corrections going on, which can if needed be done in post to other non corrected lenses.

        It is all about compromises ,and I am happy to accept software correction and less than perfect performance with the proviso that it keeps the size and weight down as for me that is the whole point of mFT.

  • chris

    Awesome, the 43 lenses are fantastic, m43 versions would almost make me go all-in with m43. But its going to be expensive. I’m not too impressed with the Panasonic 2.8’s IQ and don’t need the IS with the EM5, even though I hate lens changes I shoot with the 12/2, 25/1.4, 45/1.8, 75/1.8 primes instead of the zoom.

    • jim

      you seem nicly in as it stands :)

      Cool setup…

    • W. C.

      If you have those primes, don’t bother with the zoom. Or if the new Olympus zooms turn out to cover most of what you shoot with in the primes, maybe sell some of the primes to fund the new zoom. Zooms are convenient but usually involve more compromises and you give up some speed. For me, I prefer the fast primes, but a whole set of quality primes gets expensive really quickly. That’s why a lot of m4/3 users are waiting for a reasonably fast walkaround zoom that can cover most shooting situations.

      • W. C.

        Oh, and before some Panasonic fanboys come along and say “We already have the fast walkaround zoom for m4/3, it’s the Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8!”, that is not really the walkaround zoom that users are after. The 12-35 mimics the FF 24-70 “workhorse lens” which were designed to be used TOGETHER with the other workhorse, the 70-200 as A SET. Hence the 35-100 from Panasonic. The 12-35 alone is not quite enough to fulfil the role of an everyday walkaround lens for most users. (For some, it will be fine.) A 12-45 (24-90) or 12-60 (24-120) is what we’re after, even if it is variable aperture. A 3.75x to 5x zoom gives you enough range without having too many compromises and without becoming a stupid superzoom.

    • Dunne

      I have a simliar setup (12, 20, 45, 75) an I love it. But there are situation in which I feel the need for a zoom, e.g. birthday parties or weddings, when flexibility is welcome to catch all the important moments. The 12-35 is a little bit to short for me, a 12-50 2,8-4 would be perfect.

  • What a terrible shame – f2.8 is worthless to me! I bought the Panasonic 12-35mm/f2.8 for my E-M5. Returned it immediately, the low light performance not being REMOTELY adequate. Any m43 user knows indoors f1.8 or better is needed. So, f2.0 would be a compromise I might conceivably make and f2.8 is worthless. The only use for f2.8 would be for a GH3 that needs stabilization and quiet autofocus for movies, and Panny already makes it (and even then, it begs for f2.0). I’ll pay whatever price for f2.0 and I don’t give a crap about size/weight. Just make it. It is stupid to say it wouldn’t match the m43 small size/weight paradigm, because we’ve plenty of small and light weight lenses. Just not low light zooms, which you can’t say aren’t needed just because they’d be bigger and heavier and more expensive. They are still needed, and plenty of us believe low light performance trumps other concerns (and no, I don’t want to get another system just because of low light performance). Especially, duplicating what Panny is doing is ignoring the needs of many of us and not providing us a diversity of options.

    • “Any m43 user knows indoors f1.8 or better is needed.”

      What you REALLY need indoors is a good flash.

      • Pellevin

        What you really need indoors is a fast lens AND a good flash! Then you can take images that pops and blow away distracting backgrounds without using high iso and uneven light. Then again a wide f2.8 zoom on MFT is not going to accomplish this… For event photography FF really excels in every way. Now for travel MFT is great.

        • true homer

          Not true. At f2.8 iso 800 and flash I get by fine in events. It was fine in aps c and its fine in m43

      • dfdgdsrty

        A lot of people do not like flash as it often removes the intimacy and atmosphere of the setting, and not everyone likes getting flash fired in their face. The nonsense claims made about the high ISO quality of the E-M5 are pretty laughable,in low light murky conditions due to the dreadful noise I would never go above 1600ISO with my E-m5.Now someone can point to a full daylight shot that supposedly shows how “good” high ISO is lol or my favorite a NR mush shot a couple of hundred pixels across.

  • Anonymous

    here’s hoping for an EP5 with built-in viewfinder and 12-60 2.8/4 kit lens…

    • jim

      Thats the train I’m waiting for (hope it has the new IS too tho)!

  • Pellevin

    I hope they can be sensible for once and don’t release a lens with the same specs as the Panasonics. So far Olympus and Panny have been quite good at complementing each other, I hope it stays that way. The Panny 2.8 zooms are really good so to just duplicate them without OS is quite useless. Why always 70-200 and 24-70 f2.8? Dare to try something new. A 2.5 zoom? A 50-150 f2,8 (i.e. 100-300) that would bring value. 15-30 f2.8? 35-140 f 2.8-4, etc.

  • true homer

    Amen pellevin. Either make them in very different focal lengths or with variable apertures (like 2.8-4) and price them cheaper. But the same range anf aperture is a waste. I already have the panny 2.8s, if the olympuses are cheaper even with variable aperture id get them for when im going somewhere where I dont wanna have exoensive lenses on me, or for travel. B7t the exact same focal length is stupid.

  • Personally, I would prefer Olympus introduce lenses different to Panny to further complete the range such as:
    – 100-200mm f/2.8-3.5 (assuming this could be made smaller than the ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 which is a fav lens of mine but too big)
    – 100-300mm f/2.8-4
    – 100mm f/2.8 macro
    – ~120mm f/2 (wide aperture prime between the 75mm f/1.8 and 150mm f/2.8 panny)
    – 200mm f/2.8

  • newzild

    Great. When is spring and summer? It’s already summer where I live now. Does that mean the lens will be released very soon?

  • newzild

    Great. When is spring/summer? It’s already summer here. Does that mean the lens will be released very soon?

    • TRYE

      Spring is when I stop shoveling snow of my drive lol

  • Lily

    If I have to pay $1000 and lug around a huge lens in order to have a weather-sealed telephoto zoom, I’m gonna be PISSED.

  • frank

    A fast 12-60 would be most welcome. April ? please!

  • John Yu

    Sure it is a good news to MFT user !

  • Future MFT user

    12-60 f2.8-4 and 50-150 f2.8, that’s it.

    • lorenzino

      Yes, that would be a very nice combo…

      • OldAlaskan

        When/if those lenses come out I will be buying them as well as upgrading to a more recent FT body.

  • The 14-35/2 is simply in a league of its own. Because it is extremely good optically. It´s big, just as big as a Canon FF 28-70 /F4 would be if you´d want to use it at F4 with consistently outstanding results. I use my 14-35 at F2.2 95% of the time. If you are used to FT lenses, or even the humble 45/1.8, most other lenses become VERY ugly. I tried a Canon 70-200/4 IS recently, not sharp, let alone a 10-22, or a Nikon 16-35, or…

    I will vote for a 14-35/2 and 35-100/2 with optimized software correction. They will be much smaller then their predecessors and will fit on a Pro MFT body. They will cost below 2000.- because of software correction and more selling units than FT. Plus a series of F1 Oly Primes. Plus AF problems solved. Then, we are talking pro. Then, MFT will be in the professional arena. Because you do your light sunday family walk with F2 primes, and your pro shooting with F2 zooms and F1 primes. All with one system.

    But, it will be 12-50/2.8-3.5 and 50-200/2.8 or so. The F1 primes are much more likely than the F2 zooms.

    Hope dies last. A lot of Ifs. Maybe Canon 7D2 with 17-55/2.8 MK2 Double L is more likely…

    • Seems that some lost touch with reality.m4/3 is so successful not only because it is a good compromise between size and IQ, but also because of the price/performance ratio.

      One could excuse early times when a higher price was justified by R&D costs, but not anymore: we are getting in the Business as Usual frame.

      If the system must cost like a Canon 6D ore even a Leica M E, one will get those. No system is an island, and not everybody is a dentist. I love the definition for Leica’s: a dentist’s camera. :)
      I woudn’t wish m4/3 becoming dentist’s cameras.

    • tyutyu

      “The 14-35/2 is simply in a league of its own. Because it is extremely good optically. It´s big, just as big as a Canon FF 28-70 /F4 would be if you´d want to use it at F4 with consistently outstanding results. I use my 14-35 at F2.2 95% of the time. If you are used to FT lenses, or even the humble 45/1.8, most other lenses become VERY ugly. I tried a Canon 70-200/4 IS recently, not sharp, let alone a 10-22, or a Nikon 16-35,”

      The 14-35 { which starts at an equiv 28mm} is as large as the 24-70 F2.8 lenses and away from the land of the cheap it costs as much .I am not a Canon user but the 70-200f4IS is a very well rated lens , by tried I take it you mean looked at in a shop lol

      • well I put the Canon on a 60D and photographed in the shop with IS1 and 1/160 at F4, about 20 shots. Pixel peeping I was disappointed with the resolution and micro contrast. Bad sample.

  • Scott

    I do not mind software correction at all. Whats the difference of correcting it with glass in the lens or later in software? As long as it looks good who cares?

  • Cole

    Great! In camera correction for CA on the EM5…the ONLY reason I haven’t purchased the Panny 12-35 and 35-100 is the CA is so bad…

    • KennyH

      The 12-35 has some CA under 20mm but it is a one click fix in LR or ACR the 35-100 is much less affected by CA.I wonder if Olympus do not auto correct this in camera { while correcting other areas } deliberately in an attempt to make Panasonic lenses look bad. For Panasonic and Olympus are rival companies who happen to share the same mount.

  • there are two paths Olympus can take: either re-issue the big zoom (which include the f2 SHG lenses) lenses that’s designed for mFT AND discontinue the equivalent existing FT big zooms…but that would upset a lot of existing FT users.


    since Olympus is announcing a new E soon, that (most likely) means it’s continuing support for the FT lenses and maybe create a slow-ish (probably f2-3.5 or f2.8-4) zooms instead.

    take it with a grain of salt because i have a 35-100/2 SHG, which i got at less than half of price of a new one and using it on an EPL1

    • KennyH


      Though their SHG lenses are very large for the sensor size they are excellent performers and if the rumors are correct and there is a solution for using them properly on a future higher grade O-MD,it would seem to be a major waste of money to redevelop lenses which are already excellent .If compatibility with mFT worked seamlessly then just leave them as is for those users who are prepared to carry the extra load for the ultimate quality these system offers. Personally if I wanted to carry thta kind of load it would be for a D800

      • which F stop for a good 24-70 on a D800 for getting same effective resolution as 14-35 on EM-5? Which size will a future Nikon 24-70/2.8 MK2 have to reasonably use D800´s sensor?

        • turJTY

          The 24-70 on the D800 will out resolve the 14-35 at every single stop and certainly at comparable DOF,especially when you remember the 14-35mm starts at 28MM equiv.The only issue will be softer corners wide open which are at a DOF so shallow you would need an F1.4 to match on mFT anyway,It is a myth that you need some special lens to take advantage of the D800 the truth is a higher resolution sensor improves every lens you own.Just to compete an FT or mFT lens needs double the resolution of a FF lens on a FF body ,plus obviously you need the same MP count. Honestly do you guys ever read the actual data that comes from all the review sites or just make up fluff in your heads.

          Using the 50mm macro on the E-M5 an excellent lens the maximum recordable resolution is 2600 using a 50mm F1.4g a standard lens on the D800 the resolution is at 3600.The issue that you guys seem to forget is that to take an image you need a lens + sensor, a test of the lens alone tells us nothing and when the results of body plus lens are taken into account { LW/PH }the FF will win every time that is why diehard fans of mFT/FT avoid LW/PH like the plague despite it being used by all the top review sites and by far being the most reliable predictor of output detail { images} . There are no shortage of inexpensive lenses for FF many of which deliver excellent results have you seen the scores from the 85mm F1.8g on DXO

  • FTT

    14-54 f2.8-3.5, no bigger than Fuji 18-55…

  • Oz recommends to get a induce sure the surgeon has received all necessary training and
    features a Trail phonograph record of comforting patients.
    exactly Register this article of development cellulite,
    due to the way the body stores duplicate fat cells.
    This evidently leads to some stretching and job, due to the changes in and
    out of their bodies during Menopausal.

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.