Well, you are going to have to wait for a long time. A 12/0.7 is probably not practical. This is where a larger sensor makes sense. By the way, what percentage of photographs taken with a 24/1.4 do you believe to be taken at ƒ/1.4?

I really don't understand why you write that a (m4/3) 75/1.8 is equivalent to a (FF) 150/3.5.
it is not.
Depth of field only of a m4/3 75/1.8 is the same as depth of field of a FF 150/3.5 - so what????
But the m4/3 75/1.8 gathers the same light of a FF 150/1.8 (that is IF YOU CAN FIND AND ARE WILLING TO PAY for a FF 150/1.8).

Kodachrome200 is trolling again. The poor guy needs to get a life.

Also, your quibble that "it only gathers 1/4 of light that a FF lens is gathering" is completely inane because, as you yourself point out, the lens only needs to cover 1/4 the area of FF therefore making the "exposure time" the same, even if it does "gather 1/4 of light that a FF lens is gathering." So what exactly is your point? LOL. In practical reality, gathering light is really about how much light you put on each photo site on the sensor. Boasting that FF gathers more light because it gathers light across a wider sensor area is neither here nor there because each photosite is getting the same amount of light as the identical photosite on an m4/3 sensor receiving the same amount of light.

Your point might make more sense if the sensor inside a camera was actually a solar panel that powered the camera. If that were the case, then, yeah, it's great that a FF sensor gathers more light across its larger surface area because that means more power for your camera!

Its not equal to 100mm/f2.4 on APS-C. Canon APS-C equivalent would be more like a 92.5mm/f2.1 lens. This can be confirmed by APS crop factor 1.6X which gives just under 150mm.

There is about 1/2 EV difference from MFT to APS-C, 1 1/2 EV difference from APS-C to FF if calculated by total sensor area. Sony and Nikon is slightly bigger.

@DarkShift, actually this is an intesting thing, the fact that "APS-C" isn't a single size, actually nikon/sony are 1.5x, canon is 1.6x and Sigma used to be 1.7x.

I don't think canon, or even nikon users would correct canon users on their aperture of their lens' on APS-C, even though they didn't offer as much DoF as on their nikon APS-C...

Actually, I don't think any FF users look at their APS-C brethren and tell them that their lens' are a worse value on APS-C than they are on FF due to Depth of Field reasons.

"I shoot FX, you APS-C users have to pay too much for your 85mm f1.4 lens, it only offers equivalent to f/2.1..."

I agree. All I read recently here, is whining.

And to me some of these comments can be summarized as ridiculously as:

"Oh.. this it's okey. I was waiting for an ultra-light super zoom 10-1500mm equiv. stabilized f/0.7 for $200 with matching $150 full frame body that shoots 80MPixels and provides 1MByte RAW files"

If a product like this comes out, people will be complaining because they want (or not) video or because the screen swivels (or not).

Marty,

And Leica fanboys will gladly pay for it.

yeah but there is a point when you can buy a brand new brilliant 85mm f1.8 for canon or nikon for 500 bux new

seems like alot of money for m. zuiko lens since the performace of the olympuses primes has been marginal and not as good as the panasonics

"seems like alot of money for m. zuiko lens since the performace of the olympuses primes has been marginal and not as good as the panasonics"

So *all* Oly m. zuiko lenses are "marginal", huh? LOL. Have you tried the Oly 45/1.8? That lens is tack sharp. Have you done your own testing of this new 75/1.8?

I'm a Canon DSLR shooter, but I also have an Oly E-PM1. As for the 85/1.8, funny you should mention it because I've been using my Canon 85/1.8 on my Oly E-PM1 (wtih an EF-to-m4/3 adapter). Works great, except no aperture control or auto focusing. But at least I have in-body stabilization and viewfinder magnfication (great for manual focus). If I don't switch over to Canon's MILC system (when it is introduced), I'll probably end up getting this Oly 75/1.8. Not everything is about saving a buck. Many of us are gladly buying MILC's (even though we already use DSLR gear) because the compactness has a lot of advantages over bulkier, larger, thicker DSLR cameras and their lenses.

12/2 gets better reviews than the 14/2.5.

@Kodachrome200
An 85 1.8 Nikkor is meaningless if you are an m43s users.

And Pany has a few excellent lenses, but the Olympus 12/2 and the 45 1.8 are superb. If you think they're marginal you clearly haven't used them.

@marike6 no, it does mean something. it means something pretty specific. it means a 75 mm lens that only need to project and be sharp in a tiny area shouldnt cost that much. thats what it means

@Mike Brunette- I don't know what the heck you "looked up", but the m4/3 system has a 2X crop factor. That means its comparable to 150/1.8 in the 35mm world. Even more embarrassing for you, the dpreview even clearly states it: "With its 150mm-equivalent field of view..." So you might want to recheck what specs you're "looking up."

Not embarrassed at all, just corrected, so 150mm 1.8. My correction is the error, my bad. The important thing is that this is an exceptional lens value. I'm not her to criticize, I'm here for actual discussion.

I'm glad you knuckleheads took the time to correct me other than commenting on the observation.

Cheers

This is one wicked lens, that's all that matters.

A significant part of the µ4/3 community has been begging for bright primes since day one. It provides an option to use small lenses when one needs portability, but still to mount higher grade lenses when necessary.

Enough has been said about comparative size. Its a *significantly* smaller and cheaper combo than the FF equivalent.

The working difference between APS-C and 4/3 isn't that much, people like to be over dramatic about shallow DOF.

To get a notable gain- you have to do FF. And really- "if you are willing to spend this much" on µ4/3 lenses- that doesn't mean you're going to start paying double that for FF stuff.

If you want full frame, then buy full frame. There are plenty of nice full frame cameras and lenses available. Just accept the fact that you cameras and lenses will be a lot bigger, a lot more expensive and a lot heavier.

Want proof?

Lets compare two high quality cameras their equivalent lenses:

Nikon D700...........................995g....$2200
Nikon 24-70mm lens..............900g....$1900
Nikon 70-200mm lens...........1540g....$2400
Nikon 85mm prime lens..........350g......$400
Nikon 150mm prime lens.......1180g....$1100
Total....................................4965g....$8000

Olympus OM-D......................430g.....$1000
Panasonic 12-35mm lens.........305g.....$1200
Panasonic 35-100mm lens.......500g.....$1200
Olympus 45mm prime lens......116g......$400
Olympus 75mm prime lens......305g......$900
Total....................................1656g....$4700

It really just depends on how badly you need full frame, and how much you are willing to pay for it.

@JackM, I'm a Canon 5D user, and I can definitely tell you that a FF rig is absolutely much larger, heavier, and more conspicuous than an m4/3 rig. To put things into perspective for you, a 5D MKII body alone, with no battery, weighs more than an Olympus E-M5 (including battery) with an Oly 75/1.8 mounted on it! The 5D MKII (no battery) weighs 810g, while the Oly E-M5 (425g, including battery) and Oly 75/1.8 (304g) weighs only 729 grams total! *And* you get Image Stabilization with the m4/3 rig!

If I'm going on a trip, or just heading out to the park with my kids, or running around town, I would *much* rather take my m4/3 gear than lug my gargantuan FF gear with me! With DSLR gear, even APS-C DSLR gear, you tend to stick out like a sore thumb. Plus, there's a lot more bulk and weight hanging off your shoulder. I still use my Canon DSLR gear for work, but I can definitely tell you that it's a lot more *work* having to carry such heavy, larger gear.

Alright, where did you find a 150mm Prime Nikkor?

T3 your point is valid, and the Oly is less conspicuous, but it still has to go in a bag. If I'm going to carry a bag, I may as well have my 5D3, imo. However you say the benefit of the Oly is for family outings and such... are you telling me you also bring two or three primes and juggle them on these jaunts?

@JackM, yes, it may go in a bag, but it takes up a fraction of the space in that bag! The gear is also so light that you barely even notice that it's in the bag. Furthermore, my Panasonic 14/2.5 is so compact it *literally* slips into my shirt pocket!

As for carrying two or three primes, yes, the beauty of the m4/3 system is that these primes are so compact and light that you can carry two or three (or more) primes, and it's not cumbersome or obtrusive at all. With FF lenses, yes, it can often feel like you are "juggling them" because of their size, but with these diminutive m4/3 primes, it's more like, "Yep, I have that lens with me if I need it!" No point in spending hundreds of dollars on lenses, then leaving them at home! Ideally, you want to bring your lenses with you, but one obvious reason why people don't bring their lenses with them is because of size/weight/space issues. That's not really an issue with m4/3 gear! It's great, especially coming from bulky FF.

Well... that is pretty cool. Sadly with a 5D3 (formerly 5D2 and 7D) and 4 L lenses, I just can't afford or justify another system. Or rather, another digital system. I can get basically the same m4/3 stealth factor from my Pentax MX and 3 primes, or my Leica IIIf. If I want to shoot film that is. Sigh. Even if I could afford another digital system, I'd feel like I was cheating on my 5D3!

I've been a professional photog for 30 years and I am loving my Oly OLM and the prime lenses.The quality I am getting is better than my Nikon D7000 gear with the best lenses!
Can't wait for this lens to come out!

what?

the feeling is mutual.

http://www.dpreview.com/members/5067126618/galleries

attention to the nonsense ... amater photos ... does not earn a return on investment ... doing it for fun. I saw (http://digineff.cz/art/olympus/olympus-om-d-v-africe.html) images of Om-D5 firm ware doing a devastating work with bokeh ... sorry I will not give money to this one. I would not sell the photos...

@000 - The link you posted only shows mostly landscapes where "bokeh" is not desired. If the only thing that qualifies to you as good photography is "bokeh" then you should "give money" for macro photos.

Don't hold your breath for a review, they haven't reviewed a lens in almost 2 years....there is no REVIEW in DPreview

And it is a pitty! :(

I agree with zoomring - sadly: this portal drifted towards "gear news" only with added DSLR review from time to time instead of being thing site with reviews. Last lens review I can see was Sony Zeiss outstanding glass in.... Oct 20, 2010!
sad.

Zoomring, Higuel and Plastek...stop whinging. Be thankful that all this information is FREE. If you're unhappy with the content or lack thereof go to another website or buy a magazine. I think the folks at dpreview do a great job and I appreciate their efforts.

Guidenet, you don't know what you're taking about. Have you worked with that lens? Of course not...

Guidenet:
Phase detect autofocus and contrast detect autofocus have different motor needs.

PDAF can measure the point of best focus before it reaches it, so it will pull the focus there in one swift movement. This is an excellent fit for the round brushless motors you like.

CDAF gets little indication of best focus, so it often has to rack the focus back and forth. This is a good fit for small motors driving small focusing groups. Not racking the entire optical assembly back and forth will also make the focus more silent, which is important for movie shooters.

There is actually a ring-shaped brushless-type normal zoom that autofocuses on M43: the Four Thirds 12-60. Users report the sound is so disconcerting and the focus performance so bad that it's a good move to use it as a manual focus optic. Basically, ring-type focus motors are a poor choice on mirrorless, especially since MSC lenses are very swift in any case.

I would love a technician to explain the different autofocus motors and their advantages and disadvantages in PDAF and CDAF cameras.
I used to use Canon SLR and then DSLR cameras and always remember USM being used in most of their lenses and micro motors only being in their cheapest lenses and being noisy and slow. Now most contrast detect autofocus lenses are using micro motors and appear to be more applicable for their application than ring type motors but their motors are fast and silent.
Olympus does has their own ring type technology that was used in their 4/3 lenses but now use micro motors in their m4/3 lenses including their premium lenses. I can only assume that they are using the best and most appropriate technology.
It is interesting that Samsung use ring type motors in their 85mm and 60mm lenses thus allowing full time mechanically linked manual focus.
If anyone could give a technical explanation on lens motors and their advantages and disadvantages it would be appreciated.

Billx08: The 12-60 is ultra-fast and silent on its native SLRs, where it can do single fast movement autofocusing a lot of the time. It's clearly the CDAF that "breaks" it. Nikon are to be commended for their work on mirrorless focusing though.

>I think the way a motor racks in and out for a particular type of AF is semiconductor controlled and can work regardless. Sonic ring is silent, accurate and fast compared to other systems.

The problem is that the laws of physics are hit pretty fast. Everything points to the ring motors being fast due to high power. On CDAF you have to "turn" focus direction a lot, and that takes time and power.

In practice on M43 the thing deciding focus speed has been the size of the focus group: lenses like the 17/2.8 that move a lot of glass are slow. Those with an ultra-light focus group are very fast under your average conditions.

Doesn't Olympus know that you divide the focal length by the f-number, multiply by the weight of the glass in grams, and divide by 20 to get the equivalent price? Someone needs to learn them about Total Light Collection. TLC, baby. This lens is way overpriced.

@gesture - Look at Sony Nex, beautifully small body.

Except for the lenses (or lack of them). This is why APS-C may not be suitable for "compact" bodies, ands not because they cant make them.

Obviously not every lens or even every body is compact with mirrorless cameras, even with m4/3.

To me, I chose mirrorless not because I expected every lens and body combination to be compact, but because I wanted the /option/ to choose a compact system when I wanted to, yet still have the versatility of a bigger system when needed.

Sure, the 75mm f1.8 isn't going to be compact, but it's still much smaller than comparable APS-C lenses at that focal length and aperture, and it can do more than what a pancake lens could do; need compactness? put a pancake on it. need something else? switch it out to a more capable system. it's about compromise and choice.

This lens would be about 450-500g on APS-C and 900g on full frame.
This thing looks way more solid than my old 85mm F1.2L.

It is still "compact." Remember that this lens is equivalent to a 150/1.8 on FF. Such a lens on FF would be very large and heavy. This lens is still quite small. And it's still smaller than a Canon 100/2.0 (160/2.0 equivalent) on a Canon APS-C DSLR. (I'm using Canon as an example since I am a Canon DSLR user.) The Canon 100/2 is 460g, and measures 75mm (diam.) x 73.5 (length). The Oly 75/1.8 is 304g, and measures 63.5mm (diam.) x 69.5mm (length). So, yes, this lens is more compact than what you would use on APS-C.

You also have to keep in mind that this lens, *combined* with an m4/3 body, will be *significantly* smaller and more compact than a 100/2.0 on a Canon APS-C DSLR body! You really have to look at the complete package: lens + body. The lens is already smaller than a Canon 100/2.0, and an m4/3 body is *much* more than a Canon APS-C DSLR. So the complete package will be much smaller/more compact than putting a Canon 100/2.0 on *any* Canon APS-C DSLR.

T3, to be more pedantic, in many practical ways (assuming, for example, same size prints, and assuming that full-frame cameras have a one-stop noise advantage over micro-four-thirds), it's equivalent to a 150mm f/3.6 (or f/3.5).

Massimo, congrats. You've just invented the "equivalent weight" concept :)

I would wager the design is very close to a typical 85mm F1.8 full format lens. It's probably over designed in that respect because you end up with less vignetting and greater sharpness when you are just using the centre of a larger image circle.

Vignetting sounds like a very good guess. The Sigma 30/1.4 and 50/1.4 have oversized front elements and the manufacturer has specifically said that they're about reduced vignetting.