skip to Main Content

(UPDATED) POLL started! What new MFT lenses do you need?


UPDATE: Last chance to vote your preferred leses. Tomorrow I will close the poll.

Almost 250 43rumors readers sent me a wishlist of future Micro Four Thirds lenses. I grouped them and now you can vote the lens you like!

A few rules:
1) You can vote a maximum of 10 lenses. You can vote one time only (your IP-address will be stored).
2) Don’t be worried if you can’t find the exact lens you were looking for. This is a pure indicative poll.
3) OIS = Image stabilization
4) I didn’t add the 25mm f/1.4 lens because it is already coming from Panasonic
5) Feel free to contact me at any time if you want me to remove or change your vote.

IMPORTANT: I will send the poll results to Panasonic and Olympus. So your vote matters!

Select your favorite future Micro Four Thirds lenses (choose a maximum of 10 lenses!)

  • 25mm f/1.2 (4%, 973 Votes)
  • 12mm f/2.0 (Compact) (3%, 772 Votes)
  • 12-50mm, f/2.0 (Video optimized, OIS) (3%, 691 Votes)
  • 12-60mm f/2.8-4.0 (like the Four Thirds Zuiko) (3%, 663 Votes)
  • 12mm f/1.4 (3%, 605 Votes)
  • 14mm f/1.4 (2%, 517 Votes)
  • 17mm f/1.4 (2%, 509 Votes)
  • 50mm f/1.4 (with OIS and Macro) (2%, 503 Votes)
  • 12-75mm f/2.8 (Video optimized, OIS, for $1.000-$1.500) (2%, 500 Votes)
  • 50mm f/1.8 (Pancake) (2%, 477 Votes)
  • 50mm f/2.0 (Macro) (2%, 445 Votes)
  • 50-200mm f/2.8 (Video optimized, OIS) (2%, 439 Votes)
  • 14-50mm f/2.0 (Weather sealed pro lens optimized for video with OIS) (2%, 430 Votes)
  • 12-75mm f/2.8-4.5 (Compact version) (2%, 416 Votes)
  • 50mm f/1.2 (2%, 416 Votes)
  • 40mm f/2.0 (Pancake, Cheap) (2%, 388 Votes)
  • 100-300mm f/2.8 (Video optimized, OIS) (2%, 384 Votes)
  • high quality 1.4x tele-converter (2%, 371 Votes)
  • 20mm f/1.2 (2%, 368 Votes)
  • 7-12mm f/2.5 (2%, 367 Votes)
  • high quality 2x tele-converter (2%, 358 Votes)
  • 90mm f/2.5 (Macro) (2%, 357 Votes)
  • 7mm f/3.5 (Compact, 400$) (1%, 328 Votes)
  • 12-45mm f/2.8 (OIS) (1%, 327 Votes)
  • 300mm f/2.8 (600$) (1%, 321 Votes)
  • 10mm f/2.0 (1%, 319 Votes)
  • 17mm f/2.0 (Pancake) (1%, 312 Votes)
  • 35mm f/1.2 (1%, 308 Votes)
  • 11-44mm f/2.0 (OIS) (1%, 293 Votes)
  • 9mm f/4.0 (Super wide-non fisheye, compact, $400) (1%, 291 Votes)
  • 35-100mm f/2 (Video optimized, OIS) (1%, 279 Votes)
  • 7mm f/2.0 (1%, 274 Votes)
  • 35-100mm f/2.8 (Compact) (1%, 273 Votes)
  • 12-60mm f/4.0 (Compact) (1%, 259 Votes)
  • 14-100mm f/2.8-4.0 (OIS) (1%, 250 Votes)
  • 45mm f/1.2 (1%, 250 Votes)
  • 10-20mm f/2.8 (Video optimized, OIS) (1%, 246 Votes)
  • 40mm f/1.2 (1%, 240 Votes)
  • 150mm f/2.0 (1%, 233 Votes)
  • 100mm f/2.0 (1%, 226 Votes)
  • 12-35mm f/2.8-3.5 (Compact) (1%, 225 Votes)
  • 70mm f/1.4 (OIS) (1%, 221 Votes)
  • 30mm f/1.7 (Pancake) (1%, 211 Votes)
  • 42mm f/1.4 (1%, 210 Votes)
  • 200-600mm (pro lens for sport and wildlife $3.500-$4.500) (1%, 206 Votes)
  • 35mm f/2.0 (Macro) (1%, 205 Votes)
  • 85mm f/2.8 (Pancake) (1%, 204 Votes)
  • 10mm f/4.0 (Tilt/shift) (1%, 203 Votes)
  • 14-45mm f/2.8 ($500) (1%, 200 Votes)
  • 14-35mm f/2 (Video optimized, OIS) (1%, 197 Votes)
  • 30mm f/0.95 (with AF, 1400$) (1%, 196 Votes)
  • 10mm f/4.0 (Compact) (1%, 188 Votes)
  • 45mm f/1.8 (1%, 186 Votes)
  • 12mm f/4.0 (Tilt/shift) (1%, 184 Votes)
  • 85mm f/1.8 (1%, 183 Votes)
  • 14-85mm f/2.8-3.5 (1%, 183 Votes)
  • 100mm f/2.8 (Compact) (1%, 180 Votes)
  • 25mm f/2.0 (leaf shutter to give flash synchronisation to 1/500 or 1/1000 sec) (1%, 178 Votes)
  • 42mm f/1.2 (1%, 168 Votes)
  • 14-75mm (Compact all-around lens) (1%, 162 Votes)
  • 15mm f/1.4 (1%, 160 Votes)
  • 10-20mm f/4 (Compact and cheap) (1%, 159 Votes)
  • 5.5mm (Super Fisheye) (1%, 155 Votes)
  • 70-300mm (with tripod mount) (1%, 149 Votes)
  • 11-22/2.8-3.5 (Compact) (1%, 144 Votes)
  • 9mm f/2.8 (1%, 142 Votes)
  • 400mm f/5.6 (under $1.500) (1%, 139 Votes)
  • 45-100mm f/2.8 (Video optimized, OIS) (1%, 136 Votes)
  • 200mm f/2.8 (1%, 133 Votes)
  • 180mm f/2.8 (Compact) (1%, 131 Votes)
  • 135mm f/2.8 (Compact) (1%, 115 Votes)
  • 18-60mm f/2.5 (Video optimized, OIS) (0%, 113 Votes)
  • 14-35mm f/2.8-3.5 (Compact) (0%, 112 Votes)
  • 58mm f/1.2 (0%, 103 Votes)
  • 1000mm f/5.6 (mirror lens) (0%, 101 Votes)
  • 10-30mm f/2.8 (0%, 100 Votes)
  • 100-400mm f/5.6 ($1.500-$2.000) (0%, 97 Votes)
  • 10-25mm f/2.8 (0%, 90 Votes)
  • 14mm f/2.8 (Zuiko version of the Panasonic lens) (0%, 86 Votes)
  • 15-200mm f/4.5-6.0 (collapsible MSC) (0%, 81 Votes)
  • 20mm f/2.8 (pancake) (0%, 77 Votes)
  • 35-75mm f/2 (Video optimized, OIS) (0%, 73 Votes)
  • 20-60mm f/2.8 (Video optimized, OIS) (0%, 72 Votes)
  • 55mm f/1.4 (0%, 68 Votes)
  • 67mm f/1.8 (0%, 67 Votes)
  • 150mm f/3.5 (0%, 36 Votes)

Total Voters: 4,322

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Philip

    Oh! Too many choices. I think you should do this in two parts and make a new poll with the top 16 from this poll. I think many would be happy with either 40mm 42mm 45mm or 50mm. Personally I find a bit wider (40mm) more useful since 50mm (=100mm) is almost to long indoors. But for me it’s more interesting whether one wants IS, macro, large aperture et.c.

    • Yep. Actually can’t you withdraw this poll first and propose a simpler one a bit later? Or tomorrow…

    • Agreed


    I really like the format ’10 votes’ against sooooo many options
    Gonna sit back and have a think about what m43 lenses would make me sell every other bit of camera kit I own and have just an m43 outfit … well if we’re gonna do this, lets do it right

    Hope Olympus and Panasonic enjoy reading through this research too. A fine job and I’m sure you’ve covered everything!!!

  • “Great” poll :)
    Please group similar lenses next time to avoid too many options. Many users have the same idea in mind but by chance they just choose slightly different specs. It makes it impossible to draw firm conclusions for you (and for the manufacturers).
    I’ve proposed a lens twice with slightly different specs and they’re both there :|
    Please refine the poll after the first round.

    • hmmm…if the admin would send the full selection of the lens then Panasonic/Olympus would be able to combine similar lens and votes together and then (hopefully) produce the lens thats easier for them to design and manufacture, so i believe the many options+10 votes is a good idea

  • P_Ohf

    Looking at the vote results I think not all people realize how heavy and huge lenses with low apertures are. Are you sure you would like to put a 35-100 f/2.0 on your camera and carry it? Such a lens weighs 1650g as a 4/3 version, that’s hardly less than 1300g for m4/3.

    • Agreed, Admin i belive that in extreme examples like 35-100 f2.0 you should add the text “Big and heavy lens, expensive” so it would be clearer and less dream-specd for a casual voter

      • admin

        I guess most people already know that such a lens will be very heavy. Or am I wrong?

        • P_Ohf

          I hope they do. :)

        • Writing such note will make the voter more conscious for his/her choice, i think it wont hurt to add

        • Parci

          Pretty sure _most_ people don’t realize that and the list is full of big, heavy and extremely expensive stuff… (also pretty sure noone really wants a 1800 usd + 800-1000g heavy lens on their GF1/E-PL1 :))

  • Henrik

    The compact 12-75 would be awesome. I wonder how big and heavy it would be in theory?

  • Since there is already a 25mm f1.4 on going, what’s the point for pana/oly of making a 25mm f1.2?

    • And in addition, we have nokton.

    • Like nikon had a 50mm f1.8 f1.4 and f1.2 in the manual days … But hey they started with an f2

      • Maybe there is an f1.4 from pana and an f0.95 from cosina. There will be an f1.2 from oly. We will have a complete set of standard focal length.

    • Miroslav

      People are trying to urge Panasonic to make it faster, just like 14mm F2.5 that was F2.8 at first.

  • 12-75 f/2.8 OIS + video optimized…. my dream lens…

    • +1
      voted for that

      • Gino

        those lens will be quite big too, bigger than 14-140 for sure.

  • jeff

    you should specify to people that these are 35mm equives

    so by voting for a 50mm they are voting for a 100mm

    • admin

      Hmmm, I guess 90% of the readers already know that…but I agree with you that it is better to specify that!

  • jeff

    Admin , add a tilt shift bellows option to the list

    that would be awesome

    • Dont we have a MFT tilt&shift adapter? that we can mount SLR lens and make it tilt&shift?

      • jeff

        nope , just a tilt adapter which is the lensebaby

        but its not compatible with m43 lenses

    • admin

      I already have some Tilt-shift lenses in the list.

  • 20mm f/2.8 Pancake=20 Votes? Seriously can someone explain why such lens in the pool and why 20 i****s voted for it?

    • Or Change that to 35-150 f2.8 OIS HD

    • Maybe they’ll hope is cheaper, smaller and lighter (see GF2) than the 20mm f/1.7 without being too much darker (i.e. 1.5 stops)?

  • Hmm..i know its abit late for this but i would vote for 40-150 f2.8 OIS HD as well

  • juavel

    Why wide angle primes with that high aperture? after all wide angles can´t blur and they are harder to shake (lower shutter speeds allowed), in that focal range I prefer compactness.

    For the range 25 to 60 lower focals are needed to be able to blur portraits.

    • Miroslav

      Large aperture is for low light as well. That’s why there are so many lenses with high aperture in the poll.

      • juavel

        Where I think that one needs high aperture are for candid-urban, portrait and sports.

        If one is shooting urban scenes involving people usually shots at 3m-4m of distance from the subject, so I thing that below 17mm in 4/3 (35mm in 24×36) is not well suited for that kind of photography, if shooting urban but not people, just buildings one must use a tripod because DOF, so there are bright lenses that are pointless, those lenses are usually for landscape where they are always stuck at hyperfocal, I don´t think that bright lenses below 17mm should be a priority if they are bulky.

        • The Okram


          Sorry for being rude, but this is getting really tiresome. What you THINK might quite possibly not match what others NEED. To give you a clue, a fast aperture wide angle lens is what some of us would use for flash-less event photography. When shooting indoors even with a 2.8 lens, you’re quickly at ISO 1600 and 1/30 s, which is bloody useless for photographing people in motion (not to mention that ISO 1600 on current m4/3 cameras is more or less a no-no).

          Since a 12/2.8 which you obviously favor is presumably on Olympus’ roadmap already, we really do not need your wisdom explaining us that a faster 12 mm is not needed. If such a lens ever is produced, just don’t buy it, OK?

          (Sorry again for my rudeness, but this clueless contra-fast-wideangle argument is appearing on this forum all the time).

  • Aex

    Too many ppl want 25mm. How many normal lenses do people want, really!?!? We need portrait lenses!!!!!!!!!!!

  • G_C

    It’s mainly the WIDE stuff that m4/3 needs, all the tele stuff can be found in lenses from other manufacturers’ legacy lenses.

    because of the 2x crop factor.

  • snowflake

    What I would also like to see is an adaptor that allows canon, and other stabilized lenses to be added which still allow auto focus and image stabilization.


    The adaptor would also preserve the original full frame focal length, which would also increase the light gathering capacity or impact on the sensor, depending upon the lens. A lens used for full frame would now be 2 f stops better. For example, Canons 300mm f2.8 would become an amazing f1.4

    • JRK

      That is physically impossible you do realize.

  • Duarte Bruno

    Too many choices IMHO. Answers will be too much fragmented to draw any conclusions.
    Another thing I could point is the lack of telephoto options… :(

    • Miroslav

      The results will be too much fragmented for us to draw any conclusions. I’m sure Panasonic and Olympus have people with an hour to spare that will group these votes into categories and see what enthusiasts want.

      I’d also like to be able to see the results more clearly, but judging from the top twenty, the first five so far are:
      1. wide to normal fast zoom, around 12-60mm
      2. fast wide, around 12mm
      3. fast normal, around 25mm
      4. fast portrait, around 50mm
      5. fast tele zoom

      The bad thing about this poll is that the results will be distorted somewhat because if I wanted a fast zoom badly, I could vote for every that is on the list, but would surely not buy ten :).

    • admin

      Hi Bruno! The list includes almost all lenses you (reader) suggested me. Bye ;)

  • kai

    looking at the results it looks like people went click-crazy at the top and then went tldr getting towards the bottom. i’d put good money down that says if you re-arranged the options inversely, the ones that have the least votes right now would have the most.

  • Voldenuit

    Got to play with a CV Nokton 50/1.1 on my GF1 the other day. Very nice lens, will probably be my next purchase when I have the monies.

  • calxn

    Can we get 5 new zoom lenses around the 14-60 range? All overlapping please. And make them all variable aperture. Perhaps


    Everyone would love that, but who am I kidding? All those lenses were already on your 2011 roadmap anyway, right? Thank you, Panasonic.

  • 43 photo

    Admin, My suggestion for the next lens poll: take the 20 lenses with the most votes from this poll and add 5 tele-primes like 150/2.0, 300/2.8 and 400/5.6. Thanks!
    We have too many options now, when you bring this back to 25 lenses the poll would be better.

    The wide angle stuff is most popular in this poll but I think this does not mean that we want three lenses with 12mm in it. The micro-system also needs some fast tele primes to become mature and atrtractive to wildlife shooters.

    My suggestion for the next lens poll: take the 20 lenses with the most votes from this poll and add 5 tele-primes like 150/2.0, 300/2.8 and 400/5.6. Thanks!

    • admin

      Hi 43 photo. Yes we could do that!

  • Paulus

    Dear Admin!
    Great poll!
    But you have to make a PETITE FINALE with more detailed variable lens specifications!

    Who is the real winner in the super zoom standard category?
    1. 23%: 12-75 mm
    if you add the voters for the 12-75mm f/2.8 and
    the compact version 12-75 mm f/2.8-4.5.
    2. 17%: 12-50mm f/2.0 OIS video optimized with the current specifications
    and without price indication.
    3. 16 %: 12-60mm f/2.8-4.0 if you believe that the current Zuiko owners will
    buy the same version for micro four thirds instead of using the old one
    with an adapter.

    Currently Olympus and Panasonic fans are mixed up and lost in insecurity!
    In my opinion one of the main reasons is OIS!

    For example:
    I want a video optimized 12-75mm f/2.8 zoom – but without OIS because I`m an Olympus user/fan. Instead I would prefer the 12-75mm f/2.8 with Olympus quality of the Zuiko 12-60mm /f2.8-4.0 (optical quality, handling, SWS, autofocus speed and with the same weather sealing together with a professional micro four thirds camera also video optimized, Full-HD AVCHD).

    But I was forced to do a strategic vote in your poll voting for Panasonic: I had to choose the 12-75mm/f.2.8 with OIS to avoid getting a slow compact Olympus version lens 12-75mm f/2.8-4.5.
    So in this case Olympus and Panasonic get wrong information about my real needs.
    A second reason for a petite finale is the lacking of prices of the different lens specifications.
    There is also a need for price information of the very interesting 12-50 mm f/2.0 ($ 1.200, § 1.500 or §2.200) to prepare an ultimate success for the new professional standard wide zoom in real life.
    Petite finale:
    1. Are you an Olympus fan/user (having IBIS-
    In House Body Image Stabilization)?
    2. Are you a Panasonic fan/user (need OIS–
    Optical Image Stabilization)?
    3. Don ‘t know – like Olympus and Panasonic either

    For example:
    12-75mm f/ ?? standard version (opt for your optimal specifications you are willing to pay for!)
    4. Do you want weather sealing (additional $ 200)?
    5. Do you want a video optimized zoom (additional § 400)?
    6. Do you want a very fast professional standard wide zoom ( additional $ 600)?
    7. Can it be slow if it is compact and lightweight?

    Very important: ask the product specialist of Olympus and Panasonic about the physically possible lens specifications and a real pricing due to production cost before you make the second poll (petite finale).

    Best regards

    • 43 photo

      + 1

    • admin

      I will ask Panasonic and Olympus if they could give me some kind of feedback. I am also interested to hear what they think about the poll. Bye!

    • Voldenuit

      “I want a video optimized 12-75mm f/2.8 zoom – but without OIS because I`m an Olympus user/fan. ”

      If you’re shooting video, you want OIS regardless of which brand of body you use, because Oly’s IBIS doesn’t work with video.

      That 12-75/2.8 lens is going to be huge, as well, which I don’t think a lot of users have taken into account.

      • Paulus

        Dear Voldenuit!

        Thank you for the information about “IBIS and video”.

        Is there a chance that IBIS will work with video in future cameras of Olympus or is OIS the only technically feasible solution?

        Best regards

        • Voldenuit

          From what I’ve read, the limitation with using IBIS is that the mechanism/sensor overheats when recording video.

          If they ever solve that, it should be technically possible to have IBIS for video recording.

          For now, Oly is using digital stabilisation (ie pixel shifting) for video recording, which is much less effective than either OIS or IBIS.

          • Esa Tuunanen

            Don’t know if there are differences between stabilizations of Minolta(/Sony) and Olympus but in nearly seven years old (Konica)Minolta A2 stabilization was available in video shooting.
            And if I remember correctly at least about five minutes long video wasn’t problem.

  • Jules

    Can’t believe I voted for 10 lenses…
    At most, I buy 2 per year!

    • admin

      LOL :)

      • You asked for maximum of 10 lens vote
        That sounds like, “the bill’s all on me so take everything you like” kind of maximum of 10 lens :D

        Voted 4, but I think it can be easily reduced to half of it.

        BTW, if possible, ask the manufacturers it would be alright if they just be sincere and say they won’t make the requested lens because of technical problem or business decision (e.g: not so soon). :)

    • Mal

      The option to include 10 lenses is to probe more deeply into lenses that you might be interested in. There is no way the manufacturers will build all these lenses.

      So for example, how many people *might* be interested in a 12-x f2.8 zoom? By getting everyone to put in there ten favourite options, there might be a pattern that shows this to be a marketable lens, even if most of us want a fast prime as a our first option.

  • 3 lens Joe

    I’m sick and tired of people expecting and even desiring to be charged $2000 and upwards for a m4/3 lens! seriously, if you want that level of craftsmanship and can afford it then just go and buy a leica or a regular FF DSLR.

    The whole premise of m4/3 was smaller compact lenses at a lower manufacturing cost but with comparable quality (20mm f1.7 is the perfect example, and it’s a pancake). People who come here and other boards and post this kind of BS are the ones who send a message to Pana and Oly that we’re willing to bend over and take it with a smile on our faces, juts look at the Oly 75-300mm…

    We don’t even have a Pro m4/3 yet and you want Pro lenses ? what for ? Are you going to Antartica with your E-P1 or GH-2 ? didn’t think so.

    • You have a pretty solid argument Joe… I do hope to some sort of a “convergence” of 4/3 and m4/3 down the road, but I own neither so I really don’t have any room to talk here.

    • Paulus

      I’m sick and tired of people having no creative intellectual capabilities and phantasy for future developments.
      I hope you are not responsible for strategic planinng in your company – you certainly would have missed your profession.
      If I would have to go to Antartica (what I really do not want!) I would prefer to go with my E-PL1 – it is so compact and lightweight that my chances for a survival would be substantially increased (… I would have no chance with a full frame – especially protecting the batteries under my fur coat)

      • Paulus

        PS.: … perhaps you (3 lens Joe) have already realized that m4/3 and 4/3 use the same sensor size …

    • > if you want that level of craftsmanship and can afford it then just go and buy a leica or a regular FF DSLR.

      Leica – larger than m43 and tooooooo expensive.

      FF dSLR with an equivalent lens going to be about 2-4 times larger and heavier. I can afford m43 kit with good optics at 3K€ – but no, I have no desire to lug 3K€ FF kit around. As I’m concerned (hobbyist, casual), FF is even more dead than the 43.

      > and you want Pro lenses ? what for ?

      Lenses have longevity of decades – bodies of years. As Oly has some expertise in pro body design, it wouldn’t take them long to produce one. Designing, producing and marketing compact sealed lenses takes much much more time and money.

      > Are you going to Antartica with your E-P1 or GH-2 ? didn’t think so.

      If any indication, some people actually did take the GF1 into Himalaya.

  • Miroslav

    I suggested a 15-200mm F4.0-F6.0 collapsible MSC lens but you’ve put aperture range of F4.5-F6.0. Not a big deal, but may loose it a vote or two :).

    • admin

      Ops sorry Miroslav. I will add 1-2 votes ;)

  • drawingyourattention

    why is everyone voting the most for the 25mm f/1.2 lens, if there’s already a 25mm f1.4mm lens coming…?

    • admin

      Yeah..I am also very surprised!

    • Miroslav

      People are trying to urge Panasonic to make it faster, just like 14mm F2.5 that was F2.8 at first

  • @ Admin. Seems that Cosina should also be awared on the poll outcomes in addition to Pana/Oly, as they already made the relevant commitments. Here you might also take into account the fact that they recently seized production of lenses for Pentax… Anyway, excellent work with the poll preparations! Keep on & good luck (for all of us)!

    • admin

      Hi Toto! Cosina-Voigtländer is the same company. Thanks for your compliments ;)

    • Paulus

      + 1

  • Mey be extremly happy to see much more votes for 12 mm T/S…

  • Bez

    A list that long (!) and no manual focus lenses in it? Really?

  • Vlado

    What realy supriced me is the low Votes for the 12-35 …..

    Why I whould realy like sutch lens for m4/3

    1) is the range I mostly use on my 12-60 (it’s 24-70 ekvivalnet, so basicly all you need for normal shooting….)
    2) becouse of small zoom and f2-3.5 it can be small, realy small and thats the point of m4/3.

    Having sutch lens with m4/3 body is in my opinion ideal combination … But huh so low votes ?!?!?! Evreabody is willing to cary a big zoom lens with small m4/3 body or a set of many fix lenses ????

  • soldar

    some of the lenses aren’t really realistic, 12-50 f2? come on..
    I voted for a 12-60 2.8-4 as that’s a realistic and already designed lens, just need it in a smaller micro 4/3 version, together with a weather proof EP3 and you got yourself the ultimate travel set for a wintery europe vacation.

  • Paulus

    Dear Voldenuit!
    Thank you for the very interesting technical information!
    Best regards

  • MP Burke

    The two tilt/shift lenses garnered about 270 votes between them. I wonder if this is enough to make Olympus or Panasonic take an interest. There is no 4/3 T/S lens and you wonder what information they have that makes them think there will be insufficient sales.
    I was taking photographs at St. Albans Cathedral recently and was thinking that would have been an ideal situation to have a T/S lens of about 12mm focal length.
    While many would argue that perspectives can be corected in software, the fact remains that these lenses are used by professional architechtural photographers and enable you to see, on site, that good results have been obtained.
    I was interested to see a few votes for the idea of the leaf shutter lens that I posted a while ago. I used to think such a thing was unnecessary, until I had leaf shutter lenses on my Bronica RF645 and started using them with fill in flash. A leaf shutter will add a few £ to the price but does add a very useaful capability.

  • Kevin

    I (average EPL1-hobbyist that’s part of the consumer-majority of m4/3 users) just want a fast zoom that’s small enough to not outweigh my camera and be around/under $500…and if something like 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 is already weighing 520grams and $900, I won’t expect my desired lens to surpass those values.

    My point is, pros aren’t the majority of m4/3 customers, and they are probably going to look for something better (primes or just go FF cameras).

    So Olympus/Panny should keep in mind in making something affordable+compact (m4/3 concept) – perhaps a 14-50mm F2.8-3.5 280g lens?

  • shep

    There is an amusing contradiction in the wants expressed in this poll, as Paulus and others have noted. The preference, for example, for a larger and heavier f2.8-4.0 12-60mm instead of an smaller f4.0 12-60mm seems to be the very opposite of what MFT is all about! Do we really need that extra stop (only at only part of the zoom range, anyway)? Don’t we want to keep the size down? Olympus has been brilliantly inventing tiny designs with its collapsible lenses, especially the newer collapsibles: the 9-18mm and the revised Japan-only 14-42mm.
    If people really don’t care about the size and weight, they might just as well buy the existing 4/3 12-60mm lens plus an adapter.
    How badly do we really need larger apertures? An extra stop used to be important in film days, but with image stabilization plus good high-ISO digital performance, they are hardly needed anymore. The best reason to get large aperture is to get reduced depth of field, truly a problem for those of us who are used to 35mm lenses.
    I for one care deeply about size and weight. I praise Olympus for designing lenses that are among the world’s most compact.

  • 20mm f/2.8 is perhaps the most senseless lens on the list… with 20mm f/1.7 available … at most a f/1.4 (or even the same f/1.7) Mk. II Version with faster AF … but since the focal range is not quite that explored with primes, i would say there are other priorities…

    “f2.8-4.0 12-60mm instead of an smaller f4.0 12-60mm” Well… i would prefer the first, specially if coupled with OIS… as long as it did not surpassed the size of 14-140mm …

    I think that 12-35 f/2 IOS for video is a great idea.
    With new additional 2.6 video crop option those lens range becomes 12-91mm = 24-182 FF equivalent. Suitable range for any videographer at f/2.

    One video optimized lens for (almost) everything.

  • GM

    Why no one is interested in wide lenses? I think the real problem of m4/3 is to find a good but cheap wide or ultrawide lens.
    For medium, tele and ultra tele you can buy a vintage (that means good and cheap) lens but you don’t have any choice for wide. So i think that could be a smart choice for panasonic or oly to build a cheap good fast ultrawide lens (7-8-9-10mm f1.7/2.0/2.5/.2.8) ’cause it’ll be the only possibile user choice in the market. I’m sure about it ’cause this is what i’m doing: buying a gh2, vintage medium/tele primes (i don’t need af for video), and waiting for a pana, olympus, m4/3 (it should be simpler and cheaper to build ultrawide lenses for m4/3 technology) ultrawide lenses. If they build a 9 or 10mm (1,7 or 2,0 or 2,5) pancake i’m sure they’ll sell a big quantity.

  • Nathan

    I want every fast lens that costs less than 500 bucks. If you’re going to make 1200 dollar lenses, I’ll just end up spending 1200 on a full-frame lens for a Nikon or Canon. I mean, if the lenses aren’t going to save money, I might as well spend 2 lenses’ worth of money and get a D700, 5D mk III, or D3s.

    No reason to buy micro four thirds if it doesn’t save me money. Sure, it’s small, but I can bring a compact if I need small. When I need quality, I don’t care if I have to heft 11 lbs.

    • amvr

      Ditto , I totally agree with you, on everything.

      What’s the point of m4/3 if it’s not a cheaper alternative to DSLR/FF ? Just selling ¨Small¨ is not gonna cut in the long run, specially considering the G/GH series.

      What’s the point of having smaller lenses (less glass) if they’ll end up charging FF/Leica prices ?

      I can understand Pana/Oly releasing consumer products (GF-2/EPL1+kit zooms), they need a wide reach first, and premium glass is welcome too but we need some middle ground.

    • kosta

      Yes that is a fair point, but some people just want the best quality their system is capable of producing, and if the current limiting factors are the lenses available, then why would we not want better (albeit heavier) lenses?

      i’m in the contingent of people who enjoying travelling first, and taking photos second, so when i travel, i want to take quality photos, but i don’t want to lug any extra weight when i don’t need to. I can see m4/3 gives good quality, and with the right lenses, very good quality, which is why most of us want to push that innovation to making portable and reasonably good quality lenses.

      i think the extra stop we are after is so we can get the best dynamic range out of our camera and be able to have a lens that can be used for most situations (IMO 12-35 f2 or 14-50 f2-4)

      • shep

        MFT was designed first to be small and high quality. Cheap is not the first criterion.

        With lenses, you either go for a low aperture, light construction, cheap(er), lens, or large aperture, sturdy construction, and not so cheap. In a while we may have more choice between these two as Olympus starts to make a “pro” series.

        As for cost, prices come down after a year or three.

        There is no free lunch. I’d like an f1.0 that weighs 6oz and costs $400 too. But it’s not going to happen. We are already 4-5 stops better than in SLR film days (2-3 increased from IS, 2-4 from higher ISO for the same “grain” as 100 ISO film, while losing 1 or 2 stops from the smaller apertures of today’s small zooms). That’s not too shabby!

        As a traveling photographer, I really value low weight and size at high quality. This had not been available before MFT. Others are willing to have more weight for bigger apertures. Of course, that has been available for years in DSLR’s, and it will become available for MFT in due course. There’s room for both.

  • Steve

    The 100-300mm f2.8 almost made it into the top 10. I wonder how big and heavy this lens would be?

Back To Top

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The 43rumors website,, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps:
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: Addthis cookies:
Disqus cookies:
Vimeo cookies:
Youtube cookies:

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.