skip to Main Content


Question to 43rumors readers: What new MFT lens should Olympus/Panasonic launch in 2015?

Share

Panasonic_DMC-GF5_14Lenses_1000

I would like to know from you what new MFT lenses you hope to see in 2015. Please write your favorite lens specs on the comment system below. Lenses high on my list are:

12mm f/1.0 Zuiko lens -> P.S.: It’s on an official Olympus patent and not just a crazy dream of mine :)
17mm f/1.2 OIS Panasonic lens
12-35mm f/2.0 Zuiko zoom.

So what’s your dream lens?

Share
  • Reinhard Becker

    A telephoto zoom for nature like 4/100-300 (maybe with built in 1.4x)

    small tele primes like 2/135 or 2,8/200

  • Guillermo Moreno

    Panasonic 17mm F1.2!

  • Scott Gross

    I’m waiting for Sigma to get off their ass and make the 4.5mm lens for the EM1 at 9mm f/2.8 or 3.5. Yes I’m using it now with an adapter ring, and it works very good, but it would be nice not to have an Auto Lens Canon Mount be full Manual on this camera. This is the only thing holding me back from dumping my Canon gear and going pure Olympus.

  • Mark Ellsworth

    If the sky is the limit and the package comes with a rich uncle to finance them? Hmm… Insofar as my brain tends not to operate beyond what I can imagine being able to afford, I would be practical and pragmatic first. So, my first bit of wishing would be that all of the current lenses should cost half as much. I’ve got five so far. My second wish revolves around the 12-50mm lens I already have, but do not often use. Experience with it tells me that I want a 12-60mm lens, and could part with the constant aperture of the current pro lens, if the 60mm end of my hypothetical lens was not slower than f4.0. In low light, I am satisfied that I will use primes. That offbeat lenscap 9mm fisheye thingy provokes thought too. How about 11 little gold contacts that provide EXIF data for another $100, and a defish art filter built into the camera? On the totally unrealistic end, I would like an affordable 12-150mm f3.5 constant zoom with no distortions, aberrations, flares, drop-offs in edge sharpness, vignetting, etc. I would like all of my primes, f1.0, no price premium. Here is an obvious one. The extensible 9-18mm lens. It is not perfect, but it would be nice if the styling was updated to match current crop of premium lenses. Both of the other medium-price zooms have arrived at the style-matching party (75-300mm and 14-150mm).

  • elpaciko

    14-35mm f/1.4. I dont care if its as big as a brick… then i dont need my canon anymore

  • Hubertus Bigend

    Is Canon supposed to stay unchallenged in being the only company that has a pro-level superzoom lens with very good image quality, the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L? Except that Panasonic already has such a lens for the Four Thirds mount, the Leica Vario Elmar D 14-150mm f/3.5-5.6? Except for the “pro-level”, since it’s not environmentally sealed?

    How about something along the lines of a “PRO” M.Zuiko 12/14-140/150/160mm f/3.5-5.6 with similar image quality, perhaps even slightly faster? I wouldn’t mind if it was not quite as compact as the existing m43 superzooms, by the way.

    • Mirek

      I can’t agree more! +1 for IQ-centric high ratio zoom (like old FT Oly 12-60 or Leica mentioned). It does not have to be too compact, light, fast and cheap but versatile and sharp.

      • digifan

        Well Olympus has just released the 14-150mm F4-F5.6 II, a weather sealed lens. The results seem fine to me.
        Have doubts about both of them (Canon and Olympus) being PRO. Yes despite the L.

  • Aaron

    12mm f2.0 tilt shift lens

  • Niels

    One more comment: SIGMA should also get their act together: release the 150-600 (contemporary) for m4/3 mount

    • sigam

      It’s unusable at the long end.

  • Adam

    compact 200mm f/4
    pancake 25mm f/2

  • scillybishop

    compact 10mm f/4

  • ww

    20-80 f2 would be ideal

    • PdL59

      Yes, 20-80 mm would be a fantastic range. I could also accept f2.8.

  • VC

    weather sealed primes! 17mm, 25mm and so on

  • Fiendish Flouridator

    weather sealed primes

  • leo

    Panasonic and Olympus should stop releasing 1.8 lenses and get working on 1.0 and 1.2 lenses.
    The moment Canon and Nikon release a mirrorles system on bigger sensors, m43 system is dead.
    Only thing to save m43 system is adequate lenses for same or in the range of full frame shallow depth of field.
    Also, wide lenses, 7mm at 2.0 or 2.8, not f 4.0, what the hell panasonic, is bad enough that tiny sensor is horrible in low light.

  • dimitrisservis

    I am pretty happy with the lenses. A 12-35 would be nice as soon as it remains compact.

    I’d like a bit more on the sensor side, especially shadow detail, I do not see any need for better glass if there’s no plan to take advantage of it…

    • Narretz

      But there are 12-35 2.8 and 12-40mm 2.8, both weathersealed? Are they not good enough for you?

      • dimitrisservis

        Sure. I just supported the OP’s wish for a 12-35mm f/2.0

  • Zeikon

    Canon released a bigger sensor mirrorless system over two and a half years ago.

  • Augustus

    1 : Weather sealed fast primes. 12mm f/1.4 or faster, 17mm f/1.4 or faster, 25mm f/1.2 or faster, 45mm f/1.2 or faster. Ideally f/1.0. AF of course. And priced right, not $1500.
    2 : Ultra wide angle primes, like a 6 or 7mm, 10mm.

    3 : A 12-35mm f/2. Not 14mm at the wide end. Must be 12mm, or wider.

    • Augustus

      Oh, and a 12-50 or 12-40 f/2.8-4 that is sealed and AFFORDABLE to bridge the gap between slow kit zoom and the 12-40 f/2.8 PRO.

  • Kadmium

    I’d personally love a 13.5 – 27 f/1.8 OIS.

  • uniquename72

    On the one hand, the lens sytem for m4/3 is entirely complete for my shooting.

    OTOH, I’d love for someone to remake the 20mm pancake, but with acceptably fast focusing. It better on the newer Oly cameras, but still much slower to focus than every Oly lens I have.

    • jefrs

      It’s slow to AF because of its fine very accurate focus threads. It is still very fast focussing compared to other makes of cameras.
      Do make sure you have done its firmware update because that does speed it up especially on Olympus backs.

      • uniquename72

        Thanks! I’ll check out the firmware (I’ve never updated firmware on a *lenss*.)

  • james

    new Olympus camera with geomembrane sensor (hopefully E-M1 II)
    combined with Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 PRO, a fantastic lens that make Oly haters whining around… lol

  • Jv

    Small ultrawide prime thats razer sharp. 9mm f/2.8. I want it small enough for my gm1.

    • jefrs

      You cannot break the laws of physics. Low f-number means big lens.
      You should see the the GM1 on the back of the 100-300 ;-)

  • Vittore Buzzi

    9mm f 2.0 not a fish eye, 12 f 1.0, 14 f 1.0, 17 mm f 1.0, 25 f 1.0… prime lens.

  • JohnnyB

    90-250 2.8

    • Hubertus Bigend

      If you happen to have an E-M1, there already is the <a href="http://four-thirds.org/en/fourthirds/telephoto.html#c=OLYMPUS&i_090-250mm_f028_olympus&quot;Zuiko Digital 90-250mm f/2.8 with the MMF-2/3 adapters, and you can get a 1.4x and a 2x converter to boot which both work very well with that lens. A 90-250/2.8 couldn’t be made much smaller or cheaper as a native Micro Four Thirds, anyway…

      • Juurikas

        Actually it could be made smaller and lighter. Just like the Pro line has already shown that equivalent are smaller and lighter.
        The difference isn’t like FF vs MFT but it is still big difference. That is exactly reason the m4/3 mount was designed to get the lenses even smaller. As the 4/3 mount lenses did have difference to 135 format lenses but not a enough.

        • Hubertus Bigend

          Telephoto lenses of certain focal lengths and above cannot be made significantly smaller or lighter for mirrorless cameras than for DSLRs, because in telephoto lenses it’s only focal length and aperture which determine the design. If such a lens becomes smaller and lighter, it’s purely because of an optical design that forgoes optical correction for compactness, something which could have made the DSLR lens smaller, too, if that would have been desired at the time.

      • jefrs

        Have you seen the price of that thing? Ouch!

        Btw it will run on all mft cameras not just the E-M1, although that has the sensor designed to handle the focus of 4/3 lenses, the GH4 with DFD should push it even faster. (Panasonic made four thirds too)
        The original ?-500mm Bigma was four-thirds fitment.

        • Hubertus Bigend

          Right, I once tried the Sigma 50-500 on my E-30, and I’ve heard it would combine quite well with the E-M1. Regarding the GH4, to my best knowledge it doesn’t handle non-CDAF-capable FT lenses well, but I would be interested in links to information that says otherwise!

          • jefrs

            Thank you, useful information.

            Whilst the E-M1 is the only one ever fitted with non-CDAF pixels, the brains behind focussing is the camera and the GH4 has four brains.

            fyi “Newer Panasonic cameras like GH2, G2 and G10 feature some improved autofocus functionality using FT lenses.”
            – those are old cameras now.
            If I win the lens, I will test it on GH4, E-M5ii, E-PL7 and GX7 and may get back here with results

            • Hubertus Bigend

              I’ll be watching this space! Did I already say that, a few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to play with a GX7, and beside liking the camera very much, I found it focusing surprisingly well with my FT-mount Panasonic “Vario Elmar D” 14-150/3.5-5.6, at least as fast as the E-M1? The “Vario Elmar”, though, is specified as “contrast-AF compatible”, while most Olympus-made FT lenses aren ‘t and none of the Sigmas ever was, unfortunately. Interestingly, the E-M1 doesn’t care for “contrast-AF compatibility” of FT lenses; if it’s a FT lens, the camera falls into PDAF mode, I don’t get a choice. (I see, of course, that the E-M1 belongs to the kind of camera with which reviewers already tend to complain about too many choices…)

      • Rasmus Wiman

        What would be really nice would be if Oly upgraded the AF motors on those top pro 4/3 lenses. The Top Pro lenses are all totally amazing lenses, but they are being held back by not having top notch AF motors.

  • Matt

    There is still no UWA prime from either Olympus or Panasonic. None at all! Also nothing that is pro or very high quality for a 35mm equivalent lens. A weatherproof AF 17mm f/1.4 that is evenly sharp and without all the common flaws like huge vignetting, distortion. Again, nothing!

    Just lots of great portrait lenses. Panasonic just realised a 42.5mm f/1.7 when there are so many portrait lenses, and all nice ones already. Why? Will Olympus match that with its own 45mm f/1.2? And then a 67.5mm from Panasonic? Why all the duplication while serious gaps remain?

    • jefrs

      On FF, 24mm and below is UAW
      That means on mft 12mm and anything less is UWA and 14mm up to 20mm is WA and 20-25mm is standard etc
      The terms wide-angle, ultra-wide-angle, telephoto, long and extra-long are actually defined in terms of the negative size, its diagonal, length and height.
      The 135 film is a compact film size, it is so not full frame (that’s about 10×14 inches, the size of a sheet of photo print paper)
      The 35mm negative is 24x36mm giving it a diagonal of 43mm
      Height is 24mm = UWA
      Length is 36mm = WA
      Diagonal is 43mm = standard lens (45-50mm)
      and so on

    • jefrs

      The gaps are what zoom lenses are for. They cannot be made as fast as a prime.
      You zoom a prime with your feet. One really only needs a geometric progression of prime lens sizes 12(14), 24(20-25), 48 (50), 100, 200, 400 and so on. Have a look at the aperture F-numbers to get the idea.

      I’ve got the Panny 20/f1.7 and the Leica 25/f1.4 and I’ve got to tell you, that Leica is redundant.

  • Sendjunkmail

    f/1.0-1.4 or better lenses to compete with DSLR equivalence maybe for Pro, everything else f/2.8. Time for 12-50 (II) digital zoom lens or something targeted as a ‘cinema’ HD lens maybe 14-140 f/2.8 or better. Lens hoods for all lenses. Spending hundreds and not supplying a plastic part or overcharging for it is counter productive.

    In general higher IQ, better focusing, higher dynamic range and low noise and higher ISO and video capable camera system to begin with. Better firmware support for lenses and camera system.

    • jefrs

      That’s Olympus. Panasonic provide hood and bag.

  • Fulcrum Lever

    How about lens we don’t have but could use? Like an 8, 9 or 10 mm rectilinear lens? F/2.8 would be enough.

    • Narretz

      Even 4.0 would be enough for outdoor work.

      • jefrs

        Olympus 9-18/F4-5.6
        Sorted that for you there :D

        To be honest it is not a brilliant lens and I switch to the X12-35 at 12mm
        The other trick is to slip a wide angle lens filter on to go wider than 12mm.
        Problem with all the ultra wide angle lenses is they all distort the edges and need cropping, back to square one then.

  • VYAU

    Panasonic has been quiet of late, wonder whether they are rethinking their offerings or waiting for new tech.

    I pick:

    100-300mm F/4.0 – a popular request and will sell, weather sealed
    17.5mm F/1.2 – M43 still don’t have a pro standard 35mm equv. weather sealed

    8/10.5mm F/2.0 – M43 still lacking with wide primes
    10-60mm F/4.0 – a travel zoom option, weather sealed

    • Narretz

      They’ve just released two lenses – arguably not stuff for the PROs, but still. But maybe they are working on Cinema lenses?

      • jefrs

        I reckon they want to sack their ad-men: who on earth targets the GH4 only at videographers when it simply has the best still image of all the mft cameras.
        The E-M1 may be close but I’ve recently got the E-M5ii and my GH4 is wiping the floor with it due to its poor colour, low dynamics and high noise.
        As far as I’m concerned they should bin their cine work and concentrate on the main market.

        More wide angle lenses, no thanks. The mft x2 crop factor is ideal for wildlife, so where are the long lenses. The very first Bigma was 4/3 format, what on earth has happened to that, where’s the mft version?

    • jefrs

      The current 100-300 is already f/5.6 at the long end
      That lens could be made f/2.8-4.5 but not cheap.
      I do have a FF 55-225/F3.5-4.5, shame its glass isn’t as nice as the 100-300 though
      Do note (!) it is still only a 55-225 on mft :D

  • rrr_rrr

    I would like a 12mm F2.8 or F4 shift lens for architecture. As for the rest we are already very well covered. No need for tilt : the MFT sensor size offering more DOF than FF ones. So keep it simple and more compact.

    • Hubertus Bigend

      Shift is nothing without tilt, regardless of sensor format. People do not use tilt only to get more of your object into focus, they might also want to use it to get less of it into focus, or to direct what little of it does get into focus and what not while shooting wide-open.

      And you’re wrong, MFT does not offer more DOF than FF. With FF, you can always stop down two stops more (as long as the specific lens offers that F-stop you need).

      • digifan

        I think rrr_rrr means, for the same F stop (light) it m43 and smaller) offers more DOF which is correct.

        Subject isolation is nice but to a degree. MF and FF have nano DOF compared to 35mm and smaller sensors, that’s why a fast lens on the former formats is max F2 or F2.8.
        The point in photography has been to capture the moment while your subject is recognisable and aestetic. Having just one eye-lash in focus is not. But on the bigger formats unavoidable in low light.

        Now in todays era, many don’t know better than nano DOF is cool and only this is responsible for the best IQ and looks PRO.

        • Juurikas

          The thin DOF has been used decades ago as well, by medium and large format photographers. Where just one eyelash was in focus and everything else was out of focus. Or the other eye iris is in focus and everything else blurred, using tilt-shift technics.

          But even if we look most famous portraits, they are all taken with such depth of field that is possible with f/2.8 lens on 4/3 sensor. The nose is in focus, eyes are in focus, hair and bear is in focus and most often ears are in focus.

          The depth of field is about 15-20cm.

          Using Olympus 45mm f/1.8 wide open in normal portrait distance (0.8-1.2m) 2-4cm and that is so narrow that you get exactly only the eyelashes in focus if wanted. There is no need any wider aperture to get things out of focus. Even f/2.8 gives almost identical narrow depth of field.

          The reason to use wider aperture are two reasons:

          A: To get more light.

          B: To get subject isolated even from further distance, this is possible with f/1.8 very well.

          The A is the most uselful reason to pay more for fast lens, so we get the FAST shutter speed, hence the name “fast lens”. Get the motion freezed and subject in focus.
          Even the FF doesn’t allow to use widest apertures most of the time, even portraits are most often taken with f/3.5-8 to get subject in focus and background blurred. But they need to use so high ISO to keep subject and camera motion freezed that qualitu suffers.

          MFT is the best format out there. the best.

          Those who come and say that MFT doesn’t offer the DOF what FF does, they are mathematically correct. But visually they are incorrect as there is no such difference in final print. Those who claim FF has the benefit doesn’t take portraits and doesn’t take their cameras out. Otherwise they would know that MFT is the best format out there and they would not talk trash about FF being superior.

          • jefrs

            Pros like Bailey used Olympus lenses for portrait not because they were good but because they were soft.

          • Hubertus Bigend

            You seem to get things right for the first time where you admit that one needs minimal DOF “to get subject isolated even from further distance”, but then you show your complete ignorance of the subject in claiming “this is possible with f/1.8 very well”, which would be nonsense even if the focal length, which would be mandatory for any such statement, wasn’t missing (and perhaps you were relating to the 45mm lens). Why? Because the artistic wish to get distant subjects isolated knows no limit in distance. There is no such thing as too little subject isolation. There are only systems with more and with less restricted DOF bandwidths, and it’s smaller sensor systems which are more, and larger sensor systems which are less restricted. Full stop, end of story.

            As I said above, Micro Four Thirds does probably offer sufficiently little restrictions in DOF bandwidth for the huge majority of real-world applications and sufficient image quality for even more, which is why I myself have chosen Micro Four Thirds as my primary camera system. That doesn’t change the stated facts, or the fact that there are demands Micro Four Thirds cannot satisfy, and that these don’t have to be esoteric demands either.

        • jefrs

          Years ago shallow DoF was a Big Problem and lens designers went to a lot of trouble to increase the DoF on 35mm film SLR lenses; bokeh was most undesirable.

        • Hubertus Bigend

          More DOF for the same F-stop is completely irrelevant. More DOF for shooting parameters which offer roughly the same image quality at the same shutter speed, i.e. at equivalent ISO, would be relevant, but MFT does not offer that over FF.

          Shallow DOF is not only good for portraits. And there is no such thing as too little subject isolation, one reason being the wish to isolate distant subjects. There are only systems with more and with less restricted DOF bandwidths, and it’s smaller sensor systems which are more, and larger sensor systems which are less restricted.

          Micro Four Thirds does probably offer sufficiently little restrictions in DOF bandwidth for the huge majority of real-world applications and sufficient image quality for even more, which is why I myself have chosen Micro Four Thirds as my primary (currently single, actually) camera system. That doesn’t change the stated facts, or the fact that there are demands Micro Four Thirds cannot satisfy, and that those don’t have to be esoteric demands either.

      • jefrs

        DoF is only partly aperture, a lot of it is lens design and do you know, they design lenses to be sharp not blurry. They want a deep DoF. Bokeh is actually a fault.

        • Hubertus Bigend

          Ok, seems you really know all about optics and photography there is to know… (NOT)

  • Agachart Sukchouy

    i wish 10-38mm f2.6-3.8 or leica zoom

  • MrK

    Panasonic should upgrade the 100-300mm to f/4.0 or faster.

    • jefrs

      It is f/4-5.6 which is pretty fast for a long zoom lens

      To make it faster they would need to reduce zoom range and/or increase size: 300mm f/5.6 needs the iris 54mm diameter, 300mm f/4 needs the iris 75mm diameter.

  • Alex

    Well I want to replace my Olympus 17mm f2.8 but the only options are Olympus 17mm f1.8 or Panasonic 15mm f1.7. I want to have out of focus effects and wide enough for selfies. Problem is, these two are way too expensive!

    I suggest Panasonic make a 17mm f2 and undercut Oly’s price by 30%. Only are being spoilt charging so much for a pretty usual lens.

    • Narretz

      Personally, I think it’s weird that there’s nothing faster than 1.8 (with AF) for one of the most popular focal lengths. In that vein, the price on the Oly 1.8 would also come down if Pana released a 17mm 1.4. that is priced only a tiny bit above Oly’s.

      • Alex

        I like your reasoning and hope Panasonic make something like that. You can’t have enough choices in this focal range!

      • jefrs

        Fast and wide should be easy.
        Think – 17mm f/1.4 would only need a 12mm iris. There’s not that much glass needed there.
        Problem is we’ve gone under the magic 23mm image circle diameter. It has to be focussed evenly across the sensor or you get very severe distortion

    • jefrs

      You want the Panasonic 20/F1.7 then, it’s one of the must-have lenses anyway.

  • 12-35mm F1.7

    • jefrs

      Do-able but hideously expensive. You want primes for that speed.

  • OIS

    25mm with OIS is what Pana essentially misses.

    • jefrs

      25mm will hand hold at 1/25 or slower so why do you want OIS.
      That is already so slow we get motion blur; often too slow to use.
      To go slower we use a bean bag or tripod.

      • OIS

        For video. I don’t do stills. There is too much RS jello without OIS that sucks at any shutter speed. It’s just not so apparent for stills but effectively ruins video.

        • jefrs

          If you do video then you want the GH4 because the E-M5ii is simply not as good at movie shooting. I have both.
          You’ll also be lucky to shoot consistently for longer than about 6 minutes on the E-M5ii before the sensor overheating safety cut-out kicks in. I’ve been testing that; it will do 10 minutes then the time gets less and less. Nor will it shoot a file greater then 4GB. This is all in the manual. Oh, and the image degrades to reddish as the movie progresses too. So does the E-PL7.
          If you are a videographer then please throw away those horrible old cine lenses, you need AF and OIS.

  • TheTree

    9/2,8 + 55/1,2 + travel zoom 12-50/2,8-4

  • FF4EVA

    4-400mm f1.2 and the size of Oly 12-50mm and no excuse please!!!

    • FF4EVA

      …or I’ll stick to Full Frame

      • Juurikas

        Where is the 4-400mm f/1.2 lens to FF, and size of the 12-50mm from Olympus?

        • ExaGOD

          It was sarcasm I think

  • digifan

    A 100 – 400mm F4 – F5.6 weather sealed with a function button, and tripod mount.
    Zoom (thumb and middlefinger) and focus (thumb and index finger) rings must be operable while tripod mount rests in the left hand.
    From Pana it must have OIS, from Olympus it doesn’t need OIS.

    • digifan

      Forgot that the Olympus needs the dual voice coil motors. It will be a stunning sports and BIF lens!

      • Juurikas

        Not with F4-5.6 it isn’t.
        f/2.8 is requirement and f/4 is minimum, both constant speed.

        Sports and wildlife photographers would be pleased as that 150-450mm would be smaller and lighter than anything from Canon/Nikon, even when f/2.8!

        • bgg

          would love to have / buy that too, and a 70-200mm MFT, with f2.8 (or 4.0), weatherproofed a must !, preferably from Pana (OIS !)

      • jefrs

        I’m thinking Olympus may be about to try combine body+lens stabilisation for the long lenses with those VCM in lens and camera.
        Body stabilisation really, really does not work with long lenses.

    • m43-reini

      I like to see a super telezoom as well, but with different f
      f2.8 150-300 mm
      or f2.8-4 150-400 mm

      • jefrs

        f/2.8 at 300mm is a bit of a no-no and f/4 at 450mm is a very big expensive ask.

  • Narretz

    It think we won’t see at most one or two lenses from Pana and if we’re lucky one additional lens from Oly. Oly still has 3 lenses to release this year, Pana has already announced 2. I doubt they’ll release more than four this year.

    As usual, I also want to reiterate that I’d really like to see the fabled Panasonic 12-50 2.8 – 3.3 (OIS?): https://www.43rumors.com/ft4-panasonic-is-preparing-a-12-50mm-f2-5-3-3-zoom/

    • jefrs

      How would that be better than the X12-35? What would be the point?
      Given that the cheapo 14-42 52Ø is one of the best lenses out there …

  • Harry

    Add the aperture ring of the Panasonic/Leica 15mm to all lenses with constant aperture because it is a big pleasure to use (i.e crate a version II of the lenses):
    25mm 1.4
    42,5mm 1.7
    60mm 2.8 Macro
    12-35mm 2.8
    35-100mm 2.8
    If it gets the same look and feel as the 15mm I would be more than happy.
    Another wish is to combine the manual focus of the Olympus lenses with distance marks with the Panasonic Aperture ring for all primes.

    • Harry

      I meant the 45 2.8 Macro instead of the 60mm 2.8 Marco :-)

      • jefrs

        For the amount of macro I shoot, a screw on close-up ‘filter’ is the way to go.

    • jefrs

      I’d like a crate of those lenses too.
      But I’ve already got all but one of those and I manage very well with the aperture on the thumb wheel

  • Rasmus Wiman

    400 mm f/2.8 or 600 mm f/4.

    • jefrs

      dream on – but 400/F4.5 and 600/F6.3 are do-able

  • Soumik Ghose

    Some budget lenses please. I am not a professional, so cant afford to spend so much on lenses. But i am very interested in photography and want to to take all kinds of good photos to share with friends and family. So, something in the budget range of the following would be great :
    Wide angle (<=10mm) lens.
    Super fast portrait lens (<=f1.4) .
    20mm like walk around pancake prime with fast aperture.. which actually focuses faster than my 20mm f1.7.

    That would pretty much be my kit all the time… if available.

    • jefrs

      It’s an expensive hobby.
      We are talking about enthusiast amateur lenses here.
      Pro lenses can run to £8,000 to £11,000 or more. Gulp!

  • mma173

    10.5-37.5mm F/2.0 :P

  • rubber bisquits

    Teleconverter for the 75-300mm lens. Or…bring out a Pro version of the lens with a TC made for it.

    • dreamer

      I would say “not a Pro”, just a “Premium” would be ok, e possibly with a shorter range (like – for instance- 110-300/f4-5.6)

  • Dzhus

    All I need is 20/1.7 which focuses fast on Oly bodies (think 25/1.8 in terms of focusing speed, but like 20/1.7 in terms of size and FL)

  • Rik

    Panasonic 100-300/f4 or 100-400/f4 with OIS is on top of my wishlist!

    • jefrs

      There is a real big reason why a zoom lens like the 100-300 is variable aperture and only f/4.0-5.6
      Firstly, fixed aperture compromises optical design.
      Secondly f = 1/(FocalLength) i.e. 300/4 = 75mm diameter iris which would need a lens body of over 100mm diameter and probably new car price.
      The Bigma 150-500/4.5-6.3 is longer but not as good glass as the existing Leica designed Lumix 100-300/F4.0-5.6 (the Oly 75-300 is a good lens but much slower and inferior)
      Note 500/6.3 = 80mm which is not as big as you are asking.
      Primes of 450/F4.5 and 600/F6.3 are big. expensive but do-able

      • Rik

        I am sure Panasonic can do it. Lets start competing with Canon/Nikon/Sony and make a 100-300/f4.

  • Panasonic 10.5mm f/2.5 would be quite nice lens to have.
    Also, anything wider than 14mm from Panasonic would be almost as equally good.

    • jefrs

      X12-35 then, sorted.

  • Bert

    I like a Panasonic lens 12-60mm, would be a nice all round lens !

    • jefrs

      That’s a 5X zoom and would not be worth making as top quality i.e. fast.
      They already make a 10X zoom 14-140/F3.5-5.6 which is a fine walkabout lens.
      Maximum zoom for top-end stuff is 3X. It’s to do with the physics of lens engineering design.

  • joey

    I’m happy with the number of primes a available and don’t need more than my 8, 17, 45 & 75mm

    I would consider replacing my 12-35 with a 12-50 if it was around the same size and weight, even if it was only 3.5

    To go with that a quality 50-150 similar in size to the 35-100 would be perfect :)

  • Joe la Biche

    A powered large zoom, like a 12-120mm or more.

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, 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.

Close