Reflections on the Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 II Release and a Call for OM System Innovation

[gary0319]

i'd love to see some redesigned WR sharp, tiny pancake primes from either OMS or Lumix

the 20mm 1.7, for example, is often hailed as one of the best small lenses in the system, followed by the inevitable criticism regarding the poor AF performance

why not remake the 14 2.5, 20 1.7 and even the 45mm to be even better, smaller and... stylish? these lenses look so dated in comparison to the competition

there's no... desirability

On Noise..

I've no tests like DPR does (which are suspect at best, IMO)

Gary their tests may not be perfect but you have shots taken in controlled lighting ( with a daylight and low light option ) , with the same subject same lens taken on heavy duty tripods properly focused and provide raw samples etc. Which is a great deal better than almost all "tests" posted in the forum many of which are very flawed processed in software such as OM workspace which no matter if you turn it off still adds NR

James, where it all falls down, IMO, is using DPR test shots to try to compare across brands when the only reference is that DPR uses the Adobe Camera Raw for it conversions, so we're not really getting the "raw" information but only how Adobe interprets differing brand raw files.

Gary, I have and have had multiple m43 camera over the years I know how the raw files look. You do not need to use ACR . They provide all the raw files to download and you can use whatever software you fancy

If I use something other than ACR, what am I to think? Add to that, when looking at DPR files from images done in years past, i.e.; 16 vs 20mpx .orf files we're most likely looking at ACR versions that are years removed from one another. To me all those DPR test shots are pretty worthless.

Download the actual RAW files and use any software I don't look at their JPEG's always download the raw files . Just because they convert in ACR does not mean we have to. However it is not ACR making the raw files look "worse" it is Workspace making it appear better by adding NR behind the scenes

Workspace settings



If you want ACR to look as good or better than Workspace just use their NR

ACR defaults no NR. Workspace with NR off ( clearly not the case ) and finally ACR with NR turned on



Despite the gnashing of teeth about their subscription model Adobe is the single biggest player in photo and graphic editing by some margin

https://electroiq.com/stats/adobe-creative-cloud-statistics/

If one wants to use them, fine. Just don't be surprised if your actual experience is different than what you see in those test shots…..mine always are.

That is because in images you have posted before you have used workspace which bakes in NR no matter what you set it at , off is not off with that software. Giving the false impression of the raw file being cleaner when the reality is it is getting NR baked in

but I only know from having both older and newer sensor-based Olympus/OM cameras. That my "comfortable" ISO setting for general use is much higher with the newer cameras, and that's what is important to me.

Compared to the older 16mp m43 sensor there is maybe 1/2 a stop north of 3200 ISO , compared to previous 20mp cameras a 1/3rd of stop ? . In real life use the differences are negligible certainly not "much higher ". I have owned m43 cameras with 12mp , 16mp and 20mp . I still have the GF1 , GH3, GX8, E-M5 III , OM-1 and have had some other bodies over the years . There is no honest test that can show any more improvements than this. It is not just m43 in all formats the advances in raw noise performance has not had a significant advance in recent years

Daylight 6400 ISO 100% crops



Low light 6400 ISO 100% crops



When you compare m43 , APS and FF the RAW noise difference is what you would expect. You can cherry pick the worst of format 1 vs the best of format 2 but comparing the same gen sensors. There are occasional models such as the Sony A7 II which displayed poorer performance than other cameras using the same sensor . But when you look at the best from each format or generation within a format

6400 ISO 100% crops m43 - APS and FF



What has improved over recent years is the various NR software options but can be used on older cameras as well. Confirmation bias can be somewhat rampant in the forum Not you at all but there are folk here do some staggering jumping through hoops to prove OM cameras are better than they actually are . Yes it is always OM/Olympus users

On Pancakes..

Agree I would be all over an updated and weather sealed 14-42 EZ, but I suspect when one gets to trying to weather seal a pancake zoom lens like the 14-42 EZ or the Panny version, the construction problems manifest themselves quickly.

Well, since the raw files themselves are not what is represented in the DPR test scenes. It is ACR that is represented, and that is what most often are provided by you and others for comparisons.......yet you say just download the raw files and use whatever you want.

Yes, I do use Workspace for my raw conversions, even if there is some NR. And now we are admonished to use the Adobe ai noise reduction to remove the noise from the Adobe raw conversions. All-in-all I stand by my assertion that the DPR test scenes are not representative of the real world....even if they are equally flawed, IMO. But, I don't think you and I will ever agree on this, or even agree to disagree, so I'll let it go at this point.

There will be some changes using a different RAW processor but the noise itself isn't the only thing that I look at with the DPR test scenes. Even if Workspace is baking in some with its' own conversions the DPR tool is a good baseline since you can see the relative sharpness of the RAW files themselves.

Workspace add noise reduction to every image that goes through it even when set to off as shown above

#Like if you look at the comparison below the D750 has the lowest noise but the D500 and E-M1 mkIII both have sharper outputs. So you can know that you can apply a bit more NR in post on the latter 2 and have similar sharpness in your final result.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...&x=-0.49511634756995565&y=-1.0282120936073165

So if you were to normalize their sharpness with more NR on the the D500/E-M1 mkIII to the D750 it would narrow the gap. In practice I found that when doing this the D500 got a good bit closer to the D750 and made for a noticeable improvement over the D7200. And the same is true for making up some of the E-M1 mkIII's higher noise levels.

You need to download the actual raw files the studio comparison screen is not representative of the actual raw results

Well, on that we can agree

When you look at the raw files the D750 is both less noisy , better colour and more detailed as would be expected

Just out of curiosity, what program do you use to compare the downloaded raw files ?

 

[Satyaa]

Nikon recently launched the latest iteration of its 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, and the upgrades are noteworthy.

Goes to show you how little effort went into the 2019 version of this lens.

Nothing wrong with the original Z 24-70, even by today's standards. If you compare their last F mount 24-70 version to the first Z version, you will see significant improvement.

The benefits of this new version will be apparent once people start using it for video and potentially whatever camera Nikon is going to release in the RED collection.

That's my opinion based on the changes. There won't be a noticeable difference in IQ.

The new model has been slimmed down to an impressive 675g,

Last year Sigma released a 745g 24-70/2.8 and Sony already released a 695g 24-70/2.8 three years ago. Both of these lenses are less money than the Nikon.

features 11 rounded aperture blades for smoother bokeh,

Like the Sigma and the Sony and the Panasonic and the Leica.

and now sports a reduced 77mm filter thread.

Holy vignetting Batman!

Most significantly, it incorporates an internal zoom design,

Are customers demanding this for a 24-70? I mean, I'm not against it but these are mostly indoor event lenses. For a 70-200 it makes more sense because then you get into sports shooting for some events. I'm thinking like beach volleyball where an internal zoom would be advantageous.

enhancing portability and usability—a leap forward for full-frame shooters.

Is that the Nikon marketing tag? It's not really more portable however as it is longer than the outgoing lens. Almost an inch longer than the Sigma and Sony too. Always trade offs to consider.

As an enthusiast who adores the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro (now under the OM System banner), I’ve long appreciated its optical quality. However, by today’s standards, its 380g weight feels overly substantial for a Micro Four Thirds (M43) crop sensor system, which is typically valued for its compactness. While the lens delivers excellent performance, its size and heft seem misaligned with the lightweight ethos that defines M43.

It is tiny and lightweight and a fraction of the cost of other F2.8 zooms. I'd say that is very much in line with M43 ethos. The Lumix 12-35/2.8 is smaller still at 306g.

I’d like to call on OM System to consider a redesign of the 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro. By incorporating lighter materials—such as advanced composites or magnesium alloys—and leveraging in-camera correction for distortion or aberrations, they could significantly reduce its weight. This would better align the lens with the M43 philosophy, making it more appealing to users who prioritize portability without sacrificing quality.

What are your thoughts on this potential update?

I'm sure we all have one-off franken-lenses we want manufacturers to make for us personally. It would have to be in high demand from the majority of the user base and I just don't see this as a priority.

 

[MJ_Photo38]

Nikon recently launched the latest iteration of its 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, and the upgrades are noteworthy. The new model has been slimmed down to an impressive 675g, features 11 rounded aperture blades for smoother bokeh, and now sports a reduced 77mm filter thread. Most significantly, it incorporates an internal zoom design, enhancing portability and usability—a leap forward for full-frame shooters.

The internal zoom certainly does NOT enhance portability, as when packed in a bag, the lens is larger than its extending lenses siblings.

It's also still larger than the aleady huge 24-70 f/2.8 S, and it's larger than pretty much every other premium 24-70mm f/2.8 lens on the market.

If there is a leap, I fail to see where it actually is.

As an enthusiast who adores the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro (now under the OM System banner), I’ve long appreciated its optical quality. However, by today’s standards, its 380g weight feels overly substantial for a Micro Four Thirds (M43) crop sensor system, which is typically valued for its compactness. While the lens delivers excellent performance, its size and heft seem misaligned with the lightweight ethos that defines M43.

And yet, it's just over half the weight of the Nikon lens you just raved about. It's about the same size as Fujifilm's 18-55mm f/2.8-4 kit lens, with a similar weight (70gs off, at 310g)

I’d like to call on OM System to consider a redesign of the 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro. By incorporating lighter materials—such as advanced composites or magnesium alloys—

Fujifilm did exactly that with their recent 16-55mm f/2.8 II.

Yes, the lens is smaller, and lighter and about as sharp (if not a little bit sharper) than the previousm humongusly large XF 16-55mm f/2.8 red badge (it was so big that it was rivaling some full frame 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses...). Everyone cheered when the lens was announced, and specs were revealed...

... until the lens actually came in their hands. I could not count the number of posts complaining about the "plasticky" feeling of the lens compared to the pricepoint (I think it was $1300). Some even complained that the aperture ring creaked in operation. Some complained that if they buy a premium product, they expect a premium feel, which the composite plastic material used for that lens did NOT provide.

and leveraging in-camera correction for distortion or aberrations, they could significantly reduce its weight.

Please no. There is a reason why modern Canon non-L lenses (you know the ones that aren't super huge and actually affordable) are so heavily criticized : their extensive use of software corrections lead to a slippery slope where sub-par optics can be sold at the price of gold, with all the misery swiped under the rug with software.

I'd rather have a clean optical formula producing excellent results from the get go, with at best some distortion correction at the wide end (like it's already the case with the 12-40 f/2.8 Pro)

This would better align the lens with the M43 philosophy, making it more appealing to users who prioritize portability without sacrificing quality.

I have micro four thirds cameras and lenses for that reason specifically. I have the 12-40mm f/2.8 because compared to other systems, the optical quality is just as good, but the lens is a lot smaller.

The 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO makes sense, even with the MFT ethos in mind, so I don't see what is the problem here...

What are your thoughts on this potential update?

My thoughts are that I have the 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO, it's not prticularly heavy, it's the best lens I have optically, and probably the best built too.

Would I like if it was smaller? Sure. Would it compromise its build quality, optical quality, features (like for example the focus clutch which should be standard on all high end lenses)? Certainly, so this is a compromise I'm not willing to do.

If you're so enthusiastic about software correction, I could suggest you look at the 12-45mm f/4 PRO : it's smaller, lighter, just as sharp (if not sharper), and with AI noise reduction you won't see the difference in noise with the f/2.8 sibling.



... or you can jump the ship to Lumix and get the Pana-Leica 12-35mm f/2.8







--
(G.A.S. and collectionnite will get my skin one day)

 

[MJ_Photo38]

Nikon recently launched the latest iteration of its 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, and the upgrades are noteworthy.

Goes to show you how little effort went into the 2019 version of this lens.

The new model has been slimmed down to an impressive 675g,

Last year Sigma released a 745g 24-70/2.8 and Sony already released a 695g 24-70/2.8 three years ago. Both of these lenses are less money than the Nikon.

features 11 rounded aperture blades for smoother bokeh,

Like the Sigma and the Sony and the Panasonic and the Leica.

and now sports a reduced 77mm filter thread.

Holy vignetting Batman!

Most significantly, it incorporates an internal zoom design,

Are customers demanding this for a 24-70? I mean, I'm not against it but these are mostly indoor event lenses. For a 70-200 it makes more sense because then you get into sports shooting for some events. I'm thinking like beach volleyball where an internal zoom would be advantageous.

There isn't much of a benefit sealing wise to have an internal zoom. You as a customer could feel a bit safer, but as it stands even the extending 12-40 f/2.8 is rated IP 53, like the rest of the OM lineup, so it doesn't seem to be that much of an issue.

The biggest complaint I've seen about extending zooms is that if you get close to a window, fence or whatever, you cannot use it as support as you can't zoom if something is at the front of the lens. With an internal zoom, you don't have that problem. It's quite useful for people doing photos in zoos, at football fields, for hockey matches, you name it. Generally it's more a matter of telephoto work anyway, so I wouldn't think there would be such a demand for wide angle stuff.

On the other hand, having an internal zoom is much better for balancing on a gimbal, and seeing Nikon's recent push towards video, this make sense why they would want to make an internal zoom for gimbal video work.

enhancing portability and usability—a leap forward for full-frame shooters.

Is that the Nikon marketing tag? It's not really more portable however as it is longer than the outgoing lens. Almost an inch longer than the Sigma and Sony too. Always trade offs to consider.

As an enthusiast who adores the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro (now under the OM System banner), I’ve long appreciated its optical quality. However, by today’s standards, its 380g weight feels overly substantial for a Micro Four Thirds (M43) crop sensor system, which is typically valued for its compactness. While the lens delivers excellent performance, its size and heft seem misaligned with the lightweight ethos that defines M43.

It is tiny and lightweight and a fraction of the cost of other F2.8 zooms. I'd say that is very much in line with M43 ethos. The Lumix 12-35/2.8 is smaller still at 306g.

I’d like to call on OM System to consider a redesign of the 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro. By incorporating lighter materials—such as advanced composites or magnesium alloys—and leveraging in-camera correction for distortion or aberrations, they could significantly reduce its weight. This would better align the lens with the M43 philosophy, making it more appealing to users who prioritize portability without sacrificing quality.

What are your thoughts on this potential update?

I'm sure we all have one-off franken-lenses we want manufacturers to make for us personally. It would have to be in high demand from the majority of the user base and I just don't see this as a priority.

 

[tammons]

I’d like to call on OM System to consider a redesign of the 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro. By incorporating lighter materials—such as advanced composites or magnesium alloys—and leveraging in-camera correction for distortion or aberrations, they could significantly reduce its weight. This would better align the lens with the M43 philosophy, making it more appealing to users who prioritize portability without sacrificing quality.

What are your thoughts on this potential update?

P&L - It will never happen.

Why would they do such a thing? IE make a lens less optically perfect than it already is and use more plastic to save a few grams?

OMs market share is very small, and even if it did make sense on some gram counting level, there would be zero company profit from such a maneuver and just the opposite.

 

[danieljcox]

Nikon recently launched the latest iteration of its 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, and the upgrades are noteworthy. The new model has been slimmed down to an impressive 675g, features 11 rounded aperture blades for smoother bokeh, and now sports a reduced 77mm filter thread. Most significantly, it incorporates an internal zoom design, enhancing portability and usability—a leap forward for full-frame shooters.

I don't get it. The OM System is almost half the weight of the new Nikkor, and you say it's not in line with the smaller, lighter ethos of MFT? I find the 12-40mm F/2.8 plenty small and portable. I would rather see OM System spend the money it would take to redesign that lens on even better AF capabilities for stills and especially video. As nice as this new Nikkor seems to be, it NEEDED a redesign. The prior version was as big as their 80-200mm from the early 2000s.

 

[CBR1100XX]

i'd love to see some redesigned WR sharp, tiny pancake primes from either OMS or Lumix

the 20mm 1.7, for example, is often hailed as one of the best small lenses in the system, followed by the inevitable criticism regarding the poor AF performance

why not remake the 14 2.5, 20 1.7 and even the 45mm to be even better, smaller and... stylish? these lenses look so dated in comparison to the competition

there's no... desirability

On Noise..

I've no tests like DPR does (which are suspect at best, IMO)

Gary their tests may not be perfect but you have shots taken in controlled lighting ( with a daylight and low light option ) , with the same subject same lens taken on heavy duty tripods properly focused and provide raw samples etc. Which is a great deal better than almost all "tests" posted in the forum many of which are very flawed processed in software such as OM workspace which no matter if you turn it off still adds NR

James, where it all falls down, IMO, is using DPR test shots to try to compare across brands when the only reference is that DPR uses the Adobe Camera Raw for it conversions, so we're not really getting the "raw" information but only how Adobe interprets differing brand raw files.

Gary, I have and have had multiple m43 camera over the years I know how the raw files look. You do not need to use ACR . They provide all the raw files to download and you can use whatever software you fancy

If I use something other than ACR, what am I to think? Add to that, when looking at DPR files from images done in years past, i.e.; 16 vs 20mpx .orf files we're most likely looking at ACR versions that are years removed from one another. To me all those DPR test shots are pretty worthless.

Download the actual RAW files and use any software I don't look at their JPEG's always download the raw files . Just because they convert in ACR does not mean we have to. However it is not ACR making the raw files look "worse" it is Workspace making it appear better by adding NR behind the scenes

Workspace settings



If you want ACR to look as good or better than Workspace just use their NR

ACR defaults no NR. Workspace with NR off ( clearly not the case ) and finally ACR with NR turned on



Despite the gnashing of teeth about their subscription model Adobe is the single biggest player in photo and graphic editing by some margin

https://electroiq.com/stats/adobe-creative-cloud-statistics/

If one wants to use them, fine. Just don't be surprised if your actual experience is different than what you see in those test shots…..mine always are.

That is because in images you have posted before you have used workspace which bakes in NR no matter what you set it at , off is not off with that software. Giving the false impression of the raw file being cleaner when the reality is it is getting NR baked in

but I only know from having both older and newer sensor-based Olympus/OM cameras. That my "comfortable" ISO setting for general use is much higher with the newer cameras, and that's what is important to me.

Compared to the older 16mp m43 sensor there is maybe 1/2 a stop north of 3200 ISO , compared to previous 20mp cameras a 1/3rd of stop ? . In real life use the differences are negligible certainly not "much higher ". I have owned m43 cameras with 12mp , 16mp and 20mp . I still have the GF1 , GH3, GX8, E-M5 III , OM-1 and have had some other bodies over the years . There is no honest test that can show any more improvements than this. It is not just m43 in all formats the advances in raw noise performance has not had a significant advance in recent years

Daylight 6400 ISO 100% crops



Low light 6400 ISO 100% crops



When you compare m43 , APS and FF the RAW noise difference is what you would expect. You can cherry pick the worst of format 1 vs the best of format 2 but comparing the same gen sensors. There are occasional models such as the Sony A7 II which displayed poorer performance than other cameras using the same sensor . But when you look at the best from each format or generation within a format

6400 ISO 100% crops m43 - APS and FF



What has improved over recent years is the various NR software options but can be used on older cameras as well. Confirmation bias can be somewhat rampant in the forum Not you at all but there are folk here do some staggering jumping through hoops to prove OM cameras are better than they actually are . Yes it is always OM/Olympus users

On Pancakes..

Agree I would be all over an updated and weather sealed 14-42 EZ, but I suspect when one gets to trying to weather seal a pancake zoom lens like the 14-42 EZ or the Panny version, the construction problems manifest themselves quickly.

Well, since the raw files themselves are not what is represented in the DPR test scenes. It is ACR that is represented, and that is what most often are provided by you and others for comparisons.......yet you say just download the raw files and use whatever you want.

Yes, I do use Workspace for my raw conversions, even if there is some NR. And now we are admonished to use the Adobe ai noise reduction to remove the noise from the Adobe raw conversions. All-in-all I stand by my assertion that the DPR test scenes are not representative of the real world....even if they are equally flawed, IMO. But, I don't think you and I will ever agree on this, or even agree to disagree, so I'll let it go at this point.

There will be some changes using a different RAW processor but the noise itself isn't the only thing that I look at with the DPR test scenes. Even if Workspace is baking in some with its' own conversions the DPR tool is a good baseline since you can see the relative sharpness of the RAW files themselves.

Workspace add noise reduction to every image that goes through it even when set to off as shown above

#Like if you look at the comparison below the D750 has the lowest noise but the D500 and E-M1 mkIII both have sharper outputs. So you can know that you can apply a bit more NR in post on the latter 2 and have similar sharpness in your final result.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...&x=-0.49511634756995565&y=-1.0282120936073165

So if you were to normalize their sharpness with more NR on the the D500/E-M1 mkIII to the D750 it would narrow the gap. In practice I found that when doing this the D500 got a good bit closer to the D750 and made for a noticeable improvement over the D7200. And the same is true for making up some of the E-M1 mkIII's higher noise levels.

You need to download the actual raw files the studio comparison screen is not representative of the actual raw results

When you look at the raw files the D750 is both less noisy , better colour and more detailed as would be expected

Look at the 20 on the bill, the D750's is a bit softer. It appears clearer due to less noise but you can apply a bit of NR to them to normalize them. The D750's in the end will still be the cleanest but it will be a bit closer than that image.

 

[DylanBGarcia]

Nikon Z 24-70mm f2.8 S II Lens
£2,599.00

OM SYSTEM M.Zuiko 12-40mm f2.8 Mk II PRO Lens

£899.00

The Nikon is 3x the price, I am sure the Nikon is a amazing lens, the 50.1.8z and 35.1.8z and the 24-70z are amazing or vgood (24-70), however size, price and weight are high if you compare to 25 1.8, 17 1.8 and 12-45f4. I am sure if you put the 24-70mk2 on a Z8, 79, you would get killer IQ, (forget Z6, Z5, ETC). I would stay with OM systems, as IQ is still good and price and wight/size is very good for me.

If you have budget and drive everywhere the Z8 and 24-70 would be great but Hasselblad would be even better

I do wonder how many people are dreaming of a £2599.00 OM system 12-40 2.8 even if it is lighter and amazing IQ ?

2nd hand you can get a 12-40mk2 for 500, so you could get 5 12-40s for the price of one Nikon.

Yours Dylan

www.dylangarcia.art

 

[pipituni]

You need to download the actual raw files the studio comparison screen is not representative of the actual raw results

When you look at the raw files the D750 is both less noisy , better colour and more detailed as would be expected

i come to the same conclusion just using the studio scene. i prefer to look at the thread and text as it's much more apparent when one system resolves more detail than another:

 

[Szymon Ciski]

Nikon recently launched the latest iteration of its 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, and the upgrades are noteworthy. The new model has been slimmed down to an impressive 675g, features 11 rounded aperture blades for smoother bokeh, and now sports a reduced 77mm filter thread. Most significantly, it incorporates an internal zoom design, enhancing portability and usability—a leap forward for full-frame shooters.

As an enthusiast who adores the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro (now under the OM System banner), I’ve long appreciated its optical quality. However, by today’s standards, its 380g weight feels overly substantial for a Micro Four Thirds (M43) crop sensor system, which is typically valued for its compactness. While the lens delivers excellent performance, its size and heft seem misaligned with the lightweight ethos that defines M43.

I’d like to call on OM System to consider a redesign of the 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro. By incorporating lighter materials—such as advanced composites or magnesium alloys—and leveraging in-camera correction for distortion or aberrations, they could significantly reduce its weight. This would better align the lens with the M43 philosophy, making it more appealing to users who prioritize portability without sacrificing quality.

What are your thoughts on this potential update?

The primary concern lies not with the lenses themselves, as most professional lenses surpass the sensors (m43) used in image capture. However, the availability of M43 gear is ample, and when utilized by skilled photographers, it can yield exceptional results. Have you ever wondered why professionals rarely express dissatisfaction with their equipment? Their focus is solely on utilizing their current gear. When it becomes obsolete, they replace it. In other words they spend all their time using their gear, not complaining about them.

This community appears to be trapped in an artificial bubble of an uninformed juvenile cult that reveres only M43 gear. They incessantly complain about any M43 product available. For a platform that frequently invokes M43 systems as “good enough,” it never appears to be sufficiently "good enough"for the majority of the complainers here. Photographic effort is also noticeably absent because it is overshadowed by complaining.

The disparity between Full-Frame and M43 cameras has gradually diminished over the years. Approximately 95% of buyers are not overly concerned about the additional weight of a few ounces. They make purchasing decisions based on the results they can achieve with their investment, rather than seeking out equipment from companies that are perceived only as "good enough.” Good enough for what?

Canon currently holds a dominant position in the digital camera market and steadily gaining market share and fast approaching 50%, while OMDS holds a market share of less than 3%. There is a valid reason for this. If I were curious about M43 and came to this forum, and after reading a few posts, I'd run away as fast as possible!

 

[James Stirling]

i'd love to see some redesigned WR sharp, tiny pancake primes from either OMS or Lumix

the 20mm 1.7, for example, is often hailed as one of the best small lenses in the system, followed by the inevitable criticism regarding the poor AF performance

why not remake the 14 2.5, 20 1.7 and even the 45mm to be even better, smaller and... stylish? these lenses look so dated in comparison to the competition

there's no... desirability

On Noise..

I've no tests like DPR does (which are suspect at best, IMO)

Gary their tests may not be perfect but you have shots taken in controlled lighting ( with a daylight and low light option ) , with the same subject same lens taken on heavy duty tripods properly focused and provide raw samples etc. Which is a great deal better than almost all "tests" posted in the forum many of which are very flawed processed in software such as OM workspace which no matter if you turn it off still adds NR

James, where it all falls down, IMO, is using DPR test shots to try to compare across brands when the only reference is that DPR uses the Adobe Camera Raw for it conversions, so we're not really getting the "raw" information but only how Adobe interprets differing brand raw files.

Gary, I have and have had multiple m43 camera over the years I know how the raw files look. You do not need to use ACR . They provide all the raw files to download and you can use whatever software you fancy

If I use something other than ACR, what am I to think? Add to that, when looking at DPR files from images done in years past, i.e.; 16 vs 20mpx .orf files we're most likely looking at ACR versions that are years removed from one another. To me all those DPR test shots are pretty worthless.

Download the actual RAW files and use any software I don't look at their JPEG's always download the raw files . Just because they convert in ACR does not mean we have to. However it is not ACR making the raw files look "worse" it is Workspace making it appear better by adding NR behind the scenes

Workspace settings



If you want ACR to look as good or better than Workspace just use their NR

ACR defaults no NR. Workspace with NR off ( clearly not the case ) and finally ACR with NR turned on



Despite the gnashing of teeth about their subscription model Adobe is the single biggest player in photo and graphic editing by some margin

https://electroiq.com/stats/adobe-creative-cloud-statistics/

If one wants to use them, fine. Just don't be surprised if your actual experience is different than what you see in those test shots…..mine always are.

That is because in images you have posted before you have used workspace which bakes in NR no matter what you set it at , off is not off with that software. Giving the false impression of the raw file being cleaner when the reality is it is getting NR baked in

but I only know from having both older and newer sensor-based Olympus/OM cameras. That my "comfortable" ISO setting for general use is much higher with the newer cameras, and that's what is important to me.

Compared to the older 16mp m43 sensor there is maybe 1/2 a stop north of 3200 ISO , compared to previous 20mp cameras a 1/3rd of stop ? . In real life use the differences are negligible certainly not "much higher ". I have owned m43 cameras with 12mp , 16mp and 20mp . I still have the GF1 , GH3, GX8, E-M5 III , OM-1 and have had some other bodies over the years . There is no honest test that can show any more improvements than this. It is not just m43 in all formats the advances in raw noise performance has not had a significant advance in recent years

Daylight 6400 ISO 100% crops



Low light 6400 ISO 100% crops



When you compare m43 , APS and FF the RAW noise difference is what you would expect. You can cherry pick the worst of format 1 vs the best of format 2 but comparing the same gen sensors. There are occasional models such as the Sony A7 II which displayed poorer performance than other cameras using the same sensor . But when you look at the best from each format or generation within a format

6400 ISO 100% crops m43 - APS and FF



What has improved over recent years is the various NR software options but can be used on older cameras as well. Confirmation bias can be somewhat rampant in the forum Not you at all but there are folk here do some staggering jumping through hoops to prove OM cameras are better than they actually are . Yes it is always OM/Olympus users

On Pancakes..

Agree I would be all over an updated and weather sealed 14-42 EZ, but I suspect when one gets to trying to weather seal a pancake zoom lens like the 14-42 EZ or the Panny version, the construction problems manifest themselves quickly.

Well, since the raw files themselves are not what is represented in the DPR test scenes. It is ACR that is represented, and that is what most often are provided by you and others for comparisons.......yet you say just download the raw files and use whatever you want.

Yes, I do use Workspace for my raw conversions, even if there is some NR. And now we are admonished to use the Adobe ai noise reduction to remove the noise from the Adobe raw conversions. All-in-all I stand by my assertion that the DPR test scenes are not representative of the real world....even if they are equally flawed, IMO. But, I don't think you and I will ever agree on this, or even agree to disagree, so I'll let it go at this point.

There will be some changes using a different RAW processor but the noise itself isn't the only thing that I look at with the DPR test scenes. Even if Workspace is baking in some with its' own conversions the DPR tool is a good baseline since you can see the relative sharpness of the RAW files themselves.

Workspace add noise reduction to every image that goes through it even when set to off as shown above

#Like if you look at the comparison below the D750 has the lowest noise but the D500 and E-M1 mkIII both have sharper outputs. So you can know that you can apply a bit more NR in post on the latter 2 and have similar sharpness in your final result.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...&x=-0.49511634756995565&y=-1.0282120936073165

So if you were to normalize their sharpness with more NR on the the D500/E-M1 mkIII to the D750 it would narrow the gap. In practice I found that when doing this the D500 got a good bit closer to the D750 and made for a noticeable improvement over the D7200. And the same is true for making up some of the E-M1 mkIII's higher noise levels.

You need to download the actual raw files the studio comparison screen is not representative of the actual raw results

Well, on that we can agree

Only because you cannot actually view raw files this way you can though download the actual raw files

When you look at the raw files the D750 is both less noisy , better colour and more detailed as would be expected

Just out of curiosity, what program do you use to compare the downloaded raw files ?

The one that bakes in the least pre cooked stuff which is most anything other than workspace.

I posted the result of ACR with no NR , ACR with NR and OM workspace always with NR no matter what you do ,in the reply to you above . It is a well known fact that workspaces bakes in some noise no matter. If you don't mind pre baked NR or strongly favour it ;-) you can save a preset in ACR and apply it automatically to get the same output as workspace.





Obviously you use what you prefer nothing at all wrong with that and I am certainly not suggesting otherwise. But lamenting one software for not baking in NR makes no sense. If I edited an image from another brand ran it through DXO or Topaz etc to reduce noise and then pointed out how much cleaner it was than an OM image without baked in NR. I think there would be a lot of tears on keyboards



--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[James Stirling]

i'd love to see some redesigned WR sharp, tiny pancake primes from either OMS or Lumix

the 20mm 1.7, for example, is often hailed as one of the best small lenses in the system, followed by the inevitable criticism regarding the poor AF performance

why not remake the 14 2.5, 20 1.7 and even the 45mm to be even better, smaller and... stylish? these lenses look so dated in comparison to the competition

there's no... desirability

On Noise..

I've no tests like DPR does (which are suspect at best, IMO)

Gary their tests may not be perfect but you have shots taken in controlled lighting ( with a daylight and low light option ) , with the same subject same lens taken on heavy duty tripods properly focused and provide raw samples etc. Which is a great deal better than almost all "tests" posted in the forum many of which are very flawed processed in software such as OM workspace which no matter if you turn it off still adds NR

James, where it all falls down, IMO, is using DPR test shots to try to compare across brands when the only reference is that DPR uses the Adobe Camera Raw for it conversions, so we're not really getting the "raw" information but only how Adobe interprets differing brand raw files.

Gary, I have and have had multiple m43 camera over the years I know how the raw files look. You do not need to use ACR . They provide all the raw files to download and you can use whatever software you fancy

If I use something other than ACR, what am I to think? Add to that, when looking at DPR files from images done in years past, i.e.; 16 vs 20mpx .orf files we're most likely looking at ACR versions that are years removed from one another. To me all those DPR test shots are pretty worthless.

Download the actual RAW files and use any software I don't look at their JPEG's always download the raw files . Just because they convert in ACR does not mean we have to. However it is not ACR making the raw files look "worse" it is Workspace making it appear better by adding NR behind the scenes

Workspace settings



If you want ACR to look as good or better than Workspace just use their NR

ACR defaults no NR. Workspace with NR off ( clearly not the case ) and finally ACR with NR turned on



Despite the gnashing of teeth about their subscription model Adobe is the single biggest player in photo and graphic editing by some margin

https://electroiq.com/stats/adobe-creative-cloud-statistics/

If one wants to use them, fine. Just don't be surprised if your actual experience is different than what you see in those test shots…..mine always are.

That is because in images you have posted before you have used workspace which bakes in NR no matter what you set it at , off is not off with that software. Giving the false impression of the raw file being cleaner when the reality is it is getting NR baked in

but I only know from having both older and newer sensor-based Olympus/OM cameras. That my "comfortable" ISO setting for general use is much higher with the newer cameras, and that's what is important to me.

Compared to the older 16mp m43 sensor there is maybe 1/2 a stop north of 3200 ISO , compared to previous 20mp cameras a 1/3rd of stop ? . In real life use the differences are negligible certainly not "much higher ". I have owned m43 cameras with 12mp , 16mp and 20mp . I still have the GF1 , GH3, GX8, E-M5 III , OM-1 and have had some other bodies over the years . There is no honest test that can show any more improvements than this. It is not just m43 in all formats the advances in raw noise performance has not had a significant advance in recent years

Daylight 6400 ISO 100% crops



Low light 6400 ISO 100% crops



When you compare m43 , APS and FF the RAW noise difference is what you would expect. You can cherry pick the worst of format 1 vs the best of format 2 but comparing the same gen sensors. There are occasional models such as the Sony A7 II which displayed poorer performance than other cameras using the same sensor . But when you look at the best from each format or generation within a format

6400 ISO 100% crops m43 - APS and FF



What has improved over recent years is the various NR software options but can be used on older cameras as well. Confirmation bias can be somewhat rampant in the forum Not you at all but there are folk here do some staggering jumping through hoops to prove OM cameras are better than they actually are . Yes it is always OM/Olympus users

On Pancakes..

Agree I would be all over an updated and weather sealed 14-42 EZ, but I suspect when one gets to trying to weather seal a pancake zoom lens like the 14-42 EZ or the Panny version, the construction problems manifest themselves quickly.

Well, since the raw files themselves are not what is represented in the DPR test scenes. It is ACR that is represented, and that is what most often are provided by you and others for comparisons.......yet you say just download the raw files and use whatever you want.

Yes, I do use Workspace for my raw conversions, even if there is some NR. And now we are admonished to use the Adobe ai noise reduction to remove the noise from the Adobe raw conversions. All-in-all I stand by my assertion that the DPR test scenes are not representative of the real world....even if they are equally flawed, IMO. But, I don't think you and I will ever agree on this, or even agree to disagree, so I'll let it go at this point.

There will be some changes using a different RAW processor but the noise itself isn't the only thing that I look at with the DPR test scenes. Even if Workspace is baking in some with its' own conversions the DPR tool is a good baseline since you can see the relative sharpness of the RAW files themselves.

Workspace add noise reduction to every image that goes through it even when set to off as shown above

#Like if you look at the comparison below the D750 has the lowest noise but the D500 and E-M1 mkIII both have sharper outputs. So you can know that you can apply a bit more NR in post on the latter 2 and have similar sharpness in your final result.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...&x=-0.49511634756995565&y=-1.0282120936073165

So if you were to normalize their sharpness with more NR on the the D500/E-M1 mkIII to the D750 it would narrow the gap. In practice I found that when doing this the D500 got a good bit closer to the D750 and made for a noticeable improvement over the D7200. And the same is true for making up some of the E-M1 mkIII's higher noise levels.

You need to download the actual raw files the studio comparison screen is not representative of the actual raw results

When you look at the raw files the D750 is both less noisy , better colour and more detailed as would be expected

Look at the 20 on the bill, the D750's is a bit softer. It appears clearer due to less noise but you can apply a bit of NR to them to normalize them. The D750's in



the end will still be the cleanest but it will be a bit closer than that image.

There is clearly more detail and less noise in the D750 file. There is no detail to be squeezed from the E-M1 III file as you would just be sharpening the noise. The FF image is better in every way which is just what would be expected.





Adding NR to both images would only make the FF image look better as it has more detail to start with. Getting rid of noise is not difficult if you don't mind mushy results

The comparisons with both images run through DXO pureraw 5 using the downloaded raw files not the screenshot of the studio comparison , you cannot display raw images this way

DXO Pureraw 5 applied to both files

The D750 file is cleaner and has an even bigger detail advantage as it started with more detail and less noise . As I say removing noise is easy creating real detail not captured alas impossible











--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[gary0319]

i'd love to see some redesigned WR sharp, tiny pancake primes from either OMS or Lumix

the 20mm 1.7, for example, is often hailed as one of the best small lenses in the system, followed by the inevitable criticism regarding the poor AF performance

why not remake the 14 2.5, 20 1.7 and even the 45mm to be even better, smaller and... stylish? these lenses look so dated in comparison to the competition

there's no... desirability

On Noise..

I've no tests like DPR does (which are suspect at best, IMO)

Gary their tests may not be perfect but you have shots taken in controlled lighting ( with a daylight and low light option ) , with the same subject same lens taken on heavy duty tripods properly focused and provide raw samples etc. Which is a great deal better than almost all "tests" posted in the forum many of which are very flawed processed in software such as OM workspace which no matter if you turn it off still adds NR

James, where it all falls down, IMO, is using DPR test shots to try to compare across brands when the only reference is that DPR uses the Adobe Camera Raw for it conversions, so we're not really getting the "raw" information but only how Adobe interprets differing brand raw files.

Gary, I have and have had multiple m43 camera over the years I know how the raw files look. You do not need to use ACR . They provide all the raw files to download and you can use whatever software you fancy

If I use something other than ACR, what am I to think? Add to that, when looking at DPR files from images done in years past, i.e.; 16 vs 20mpx .orf files we're most likely looking at ACR versions that are years removed from one another. To me all those DPR test shots are pretty worthless.

Download the actual RAW files and use any software I don't look at their JPEG's always download the raw files . Just because they convert in ACR does not mean we have to. However it is not ACR making the raw files look "worse" it is Workspace making it appear better by adding NR behind the scenes

Workspace settings



If you want ACR to look as good or better than Workspace just use their NR

ACR defaults no NR. Workspace with NR off ( clearly not the case ) and finally ACR with NR turned on



Despite the gnashing of teeth about their subscription model Adobe is the single biggest player in photo and graphic editing by some margin

https://electroiq.com/stats/adobe-creative-cloud-statistics/

If one wants to use them, fine. Just don't be surprised if your actual experience is different than what you see in those test shots…..mine always are.

That is because in images you have posted before you have used workspace which bakes in NR no matter what you set it at , off is not off with that software. Giving the false impression of the raw file being cleaner when the reality is it is getting NR baked in

but I only know from having both older and newer sensor-based Olympus/OM cameras. That my "comfortable" ISO setting for general use is much higher with the newer cameras, and that's what is important to me.

Compared to the older 16mp m43 sensor there is maybe 1/2 a stop north of 3200 ISO , compared to previous 20mp cameras a 1/3rd of stop ? . In real life use the differences are negligible certainly not "much higher ". I have owned m43 cameras with 12mp , 16mp and 20mp . I still have the GF1 , GH3, GX8, E-M5 III , OM-1 and have had some other bodies over the years . There is no honest test that can show any more improvements than this. It is not just m43 in all formats the advances in raw noise performance has not had a significant advance in recent years

Daylight 6400 ISO 100% crops



Low light 6400 ISO 100% crops



When you compare m43 , APS and FF the RAW noise difference is what you would expect. You can cherry pick the worst of format 1 vs the best of format 2 but comparing the same gen sensors. There are occasional models such as the Sony A7 II which displayed poorer performance than other cameras using the same sensor . But when you look at the best from each format or generation within a format

6400 ISO 100% crops m43 - APS and FF



What has improved over recent years is the various NR software options but can be used on older cameras as well. Confirmation bias can be somewhat rampant in the forum Not you at all but there are folk here do some staggering jumping through hoops to prove OM cameras are better than they actually are . Yes it is always OM/Olympus users

On Pancakes..

Agree I would be all over an updated and weather sealed 14-42 EZ, but I suspect when one gets to trying to weather seal a pancake zoom lens like the 14-42 EZ or the Panny version, the construction problems manifest themselves quickly.

Well, since the raw files themselves are not what is represented in the DPR test scenes. It is ACR that is represented, and that is what most often are provided by you and others for comparisons.......yet you say just download the raw files and use whatever you want.

Yes, I do use Workspace for my raw conversions, even if there is some NR. And now we are admonished to use the Adobe ai noise reduction to remove the noise from the Adobe raw conversions. All-in-all I stand by my assertion that the DPR test scenes are not representative of the real world....even if they are equally flawed, IMO. But, I don't think you and I will ever agree on this, or even agree to disagree, so I'll let it go at this point.

There will be some changes using a different RAW processor but the noise itself isn't the only thing that I look at with the DPR test scenes. Even if Workspace is baking in some with its' own conversions the DPR tool is a good baseline since you can see the relative sharpness of the RAW files themselves.

Workspace add noise reduction to every image that goes through it even when set to off as shown above

#Like if you look at the comparison below the D750 has the lowest noise but the D500 and E-M1 mkIII both have sharper outputs. So you can know that you can apply a bit more NR in post on the latter 2 and have similar sharpness in your final result.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...&x=-0.49511634756995565&y=-1.0282120936073165

So if you were to normalize their sharpness with more NR on the the D500/E-M1 mkIII to the D750 it would narrow the gap. In practice I found that when doing this the D500 got a good bit closer to the D750 and made for a noticeable improvement over the D7200. And the same is true for making up some of the E-M1 mkIII's higher noise levels.

You need to download the actual raw files the studio comparison screen is not representative of the actual raw results

Well, on that we can agree

Only because you cannot actually view raw files this way you can though download the actual raw files

When you look at the raw files the D750 is both less noisy , better colour and more detailed as would be expected

Just out of curiosity, what program do you use to compare the downloaded raw files ?

The one that bakes in the least pre cooked stuff which is most anything other than workspace.

Actually, I am interested in what you use, personally, James, if you don’t mind sharing. I’m particularly interested on what you use for your .ORF files, I would like to give it a try as an alternative to my current WS preference.

I posted the result of ACR with no NR , ACR with NR and OM workspace always with NR no matter what you do ,in the reply to you above . It is a well known fact that workspaces bakes in some noise no matter. If you don't mind pre baked NR or strongly favour it ;-) you can save a preset in ACR and apply it automatically to get the same output as workspace.



Obviously you use what you prefer nothing at all wrong with that and I am certainly not suggesting otherwise. But lamenting one software for not baking in NR makes no sense. If I edited an image from another brand ran it through DXO or Topaz etc to reduce noise and then pointed out how much cleaner it was than an OM image without baked in NR. I think there would be a lot of tears on keyboards

 

[James Stirling]

In 2014 I bought an EM-1 with the 12-40mm f2.8. Nice lens. Physically I found it too long, too front heavy. I did not enjoy using it.

Sold the lens after a few months, and bought the Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8. SO much happier. Smaller, lighter lens. Beautifully made, also. Balance on the camera was perfect.

Fast forward 10 years. Two iterations of the 12-35mm have come out since then, the latest being a PL version, with improved coatings and closer min focus at the near end. I have this version, it's a GREAT lens. AND: IT IS ALL THE THINGS YOU ARE ASKING IN A NEW M43 LENS....but it's a Panasonic not an OM.

WHY, in heaven's name, would OM systems release a new product that utterly duplicates something that already exists, in a current, high quality, version, in the same mount? Especially when it's at the wide end of the focal range where things like sync IS are really irrelevant, thus negating any potential advantage on that score?

Now, if they wanted to release an f 1.4 zoom? That would be interesting. BUT, to get that fast an aperture, it would probably be the same size and cost as a FF f2.8 zoom....

Given the fact that any m43 lens close to being truly equivalent to a FF alternative is in fact more expensive a premium 12-40mm F/1.4 would cost more than any FF F/2.8 standard zoom. Not forgetting that Nikon , Panasonic and especially Sony have access to third party F/2.8 standard zooms

The Olympus 20mm F/1.4 has on Lenstip's test a peak wide open centre of 1321 lw/ph . The Sony 40mm F/2.5 has on lenstip's test a peak wide open centre score of 2813 lw/ph. The peak resolution rating for both lenses is achieved at F/4 where the 20mm F/1.4 hits 1818 LW/PH the Sony 40mm achieves 3289 LW/PH

The Sony lens is smaller lighter a little cheaper. It is a well built weather resistant metal lens , has de-clickable aperture ring, AF/MF switch.

20mm F1.4 M.Zuiko ED Digital PRO

20mm F1.4 M.Zuiko ED Digital PRO, Olympus, OM System, OMSystem, 20mm, M.Zuiko, MZuiko

www.ffordes.com

https://www.cliftoncameras.co.uk/sony-fe-40mm-f25-g-lens

OM systems is releasing products that fill a niche in the line that is not already met elsewhere in the system. That is the ONLY way they are going to be able to sell enough gear to recoup the development costs of the products. Releasing something that has a comparable item in the line already is a recipe for loss, and they are not going to go there.

-J

I agree it would be folly to chase such things , for many/most ? users the existing 12-40mm 1/II , the 12-35mm F/2.8 or 12-45mm already tick the size weight quality boxes

--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[ahaslett]

In 2014 I bought an EM-1 with the 12-40mm f2.8. Nice lens. Physically I found it too long, too front heavy. I did not enjoy using it.

Sold the lens after a few months, and bought the Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8. SO much happier. Smaller, lighter lens. Beautifully made, also. Balance on the camera was perfect.

Fast forward 10 years. Two iterations of the 12-35mm have come out since then, the latest being a PL version, with improved coatings and closer min focus at the near end. I have this version, it's a GREAT lens. AND: IT IS ALL THE THINGS YOU ARE ASKING IN A NEW M43 LENS....but it's a Panasonic not an OM.

WHY, in heaven's name, would OM systems release a new product that utterly duplicates something that already exists, in a current, high quality, version, in the same mount? Especially when it's at the wide end of the focal range where things like sync IS are really irrelevant, thus negating any potential advantage on that score?

Now, if they wanted to release an f 1.4 zoom? That would be interesting. BUT, to get that fast an aperture, it would probably be the same size and cost as a FF f2.8 zoom....

Given the fact that any m43 lens close to being truly equivalent to a FF alternative is in fact more expensive a premium 12-40mm F/1.4 would cost more than any FF F/2.8 standard zoom. Not forgetting that Nikon , Panasonic and especially Sony have access to third party F/2.8 standard zooms

The Olympus 20mm F/1.4 has on Lenstip's test a peak wide open centre of 1321 lw/ph . The Sony 40mm F/2.5 has on lenstip's test a peak wide open centre score of 2813 lw/ph. The peak resolution rating for both lenses is achieved at F/4 where the 20mm F/1.4 hits 1818 LW/PH the Sony 40mm achieves 3289 LW/PH

The Sony lens is smaller lighter a little cheaper. It is a well built weather resistant metal lens , has de-clickable aperture ring, AF/MF switch.



https://www.ffordes.com/p/V335050BW000/micro-43rds/20mm-f14-mzuiko-ed-pro

https://www.cliftoncameras.co.uk/sony-fe-40mm-f25-g-lens

OM systems is releasing products that fill a niche in the line that is not already met elsewhere in the system. That is the ONLY way they are going to be able to sell enough gear to recoup the development costs of the products. Releasing something that has a comparable item in the line already is a recipe for loss, and they are not going to go there.

-J

I agree it would be folly to chase such things , for many/most ? users the existing 12-40mm 1/II , the 12-35mm F/2.8 or 12-45mm already tick the size weight quality boxes

I can’t say that either the 20/1.4 or 40/2.5 G is a terribly exciting lens.

The £2,599 launch price of the Z 24-70/2.8 S II leaves a bit of headroom over the 12-40mm. A 12-35/1.4 MFT lens would weigh rather a lot, look at the f1.7 zooms.

I agree with the general view that 12-35/2.8, 12-40/2.8, 12-45/4 and 10-25/1.7 pretty much cover whatever anyone could want in MFT.

Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 

[James Stirling]

In 2014 I bought an EM-1 with the 12-40mm f2.8. Nice lens. Physically I found it too long, too front heavy. I did not enjoy using it.

Sold the lens after a few months, and bought the Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8. SO much happier. Smaller, lighter lens. Beautifully made, also. Balance on the camera was perfect.

Fast forward 10 years. Two iterations of the 12-35mm have come out since then, the latest being a PL version, with improved coatings and closer min focus at the near end. I have this version, it's a GREAT lens. AND: IT IS ALL THE THINGS YOU ARE ASKING IN A NEW M43 LENS....but it's a Panasonic not an OM.

WHY, in heaven's name, would OM systems release a new product that utterly duplicates something that already exists, in a current, high quality, version, in the same mount? Especially when it's at the wide end of the focal range where things like sync IS are really irrelevant, thus negating any potential advantage on that score?

Now, if they wanted to release an f 1.4 zoom? That would be interesting. BUT, to get that fast an aperture, it would probably be the same size and cost as a FF f2.8 zoom....

Given the fact that any m43 lens close to being truly equivalent to a FF alternative is in fact more expensive a premium 12-40mm F/1.4 would cost more than any FF F/2.8 standard zoom. Not forgetting that Nikon , Panasonic and especially Sony have access to third party F/2.8 standard zooms

The Olympus 20mm F/1.4 has on Lenstip's test a peak wide open centre of 1321 lw/ph . The Sony 40mm F/2.5 has on lenstip's test a peak wide open centre score of 2813 lw/ph. The peak resolution rating for both lenses is achieved at F/4 where the 20mm F/1.4 hits 1818 LW/PH the Sony 40mm achieves 3289 LW/PH

The Sony lens is smaller lighter a little cheaper. It is a well built weather resistant metal lens , has de-clickable aperture ring, AF/MF switch.



https://www.ffordes.com/p/V335050BW000/micro-43rds/20mm-f14-mzuiko-ed-pro

https://www.cliftoncameras.co.uk/sony-fe-40mm-f25-g-lens

OM systems is releasing products that fill a niche in the line that is not already met elsewhere in the system. That is the ONLY way they are going to be able to sell enough gear to recoup the development costs of the products. Releasing something that has a comparable item in the line already is a recipe for loss, and they are not going to go there.

-J

I agree it would be folly to chase such things , for many/most ? users the existing 12-40mm 1/II , the 12-35mm F/2.8 or 12-45mm already tick the size weight quality boxes

I can’t say that either the 20/1.4 or 40/2.5 G is a terribly exciting lens.

It was just giving one of many examples where m43 lenses close to being equivalent are typically at least as large and almost always more expensive. The 40mm wins on resolution, size weight and cost and

The £2,599 launch price of the Z 24-70/2.8 S II leaves a bit of headroom over the 12-40mm. A 12-35/1.4 MFT lens would weigh rather a lot, look at the f1.7 zooms.

The 10-25mm at F/1.7 already drops in at around £1699 from main dealers . An F/1.4 going to 35mm would likely be more expensive than the FF offerings

I agree with the general view that 12-35/2.8, 12-40/2.8, 12-45/4 and 10-25/1.7 pretty much cover whatever anyone could want in MFT.

A combination of many years using FF lenses , having large hands ( some may say clumsy } I find the higher end m43 standard lenses to be quite compact and very capable .

Andrew

--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[James Stirling]

Nikon recently launched the latest iteration of its 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, and the upgrades are noteworthy. The new model has been slimmed down to an impressive 675g, features 11 rounded aperture blades for smoother bokeh, and now sports a reduced 77mm filter thread. Most significantly, it incorporates an internal zoom design, enhancing portability and usability—a leap forward for full-frame shooters.

I don't get it. The OM System is almost half the weight of the new Nikkor, and you say it's not in line with the smaller, lighter ethos of MFT? I find the 12-40mm F/2.8 plenty small and portable.

Agree completely between the two 12-40 variants , the three 12-35mm Panasonic F2.8 and the 12-45mm . No matter new or used OM or Panasonic options abound

I would rather see OM System spend the money it would take to redesign that lens on even better AF capabilities for stills and especially video. As nice as this new Nikkor seems to be, it NEEDED a redesign.

The existing z 24-70mm F/2.8 is already an excellent performer comfortably better than any F mount standard zoom that came before it and at least as good as the competition. Until the Sony GM II 24-70mm F/2.8 . The Nikon z 24-70mm F/2.8 was in a similar weight bracket to Sony, Canon , Panasonic 24-70mm F/2.8 lenses . The Sony GM II certainly got the mounjaro treatment

The prior version was as big as their 80-200mm from the early 2000s.

Meanwhile



--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[ahaslett]

In 2014 I bought an EM-1 with the 12-40mm f2.8. Nice lens. Physically I found it too long, too front heavy. I did not enjoy using it.

Sold the lens after a few months, and bought the Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8. SO much happier. Smaller, lighter lens. Beautifully made, also. Balance on the camera was perfect.

Fast forward 10 years. Two iterations of the 12-35mm have come out since then, the latest being a PL version, with improved coatings and closer min focus at the near end. I have this version, it's a GREAT lens. AND: IT IS ALL THE THINGS YOU ARE ASKING IN A NEW M43 LENS....but it's a Panasonic not an OM.

WHY, in heaven's name, would OM systems release a new product that utterly duplicates something that already exists, in a current, high quality, version, in the same mount? Especially when it's at the wide end of the focal range where things like sync IS are really irrelevant, thus negating any potential advantage on that score?

Now, if they wanted to release an f 1.4 zoom? That would be interesting. BUT, to get that fast an aperture, it would probably be the same size and cost as a FF f2.8 zoom....

Given the fact that any m43 lens close to being truly equivalent to a FF alternative is in fact more expensive a premium 12-40mm F/1.4 would cost more than any FF F/2.8 standard zoom. Not forgetting that Nikon , Panasonic and especially Sony have access to third party F/2.8 standard zooms

The Olympus 20mm F/1.4 has on Lenstip's test a peak wide open centre of 1321 lw/ph . The Sony 40mm F/2.5 has on lenstip's test a peak wide open centre score of 2813 lw/ph. The peak resolution rating for both lenses is achieved at F/4 where the 20mm F/1.4 hits 1818 LW/PH the Sony 40mm achieves 3289 LW/PH

The Sony lens is smaller lighter a little cheaper. It is a well built weather resistant metal lens , has de-clickable aperture ring, AF/MF switch.



https://www.ffordes.com/p/V335050BW000/micro-43rds/20mm-f14-mzuiko-ed-pro

https://www.cliftoncameras.co.uk/sony-fe-40mm-f25-g-lens

OM systems is releasing products that fill a niche in the line that is not already met elsewhere in the system. That is the ONLY way they are going to be able to sell enough gear to recoup the development costs of the products. Releasing something that has a comparable item in the line already is a recipe for loss, and they are not going to go there.

-J

I agree it would be folly to chase such things , for many/most ? users the existing 12-40mm 1/II , the 12-35mm F/2.8 or 12-45mm already tick the size weight quality boxes

I can’t say that either the 20/1.4 or 40/2.5 G is a terribly exciting lens.

It was just giving one of many examples where m43 lenses close to being equivalent are typically at least as large and almost always more expensive. The 40mm wins on resolution, size weight and cost and

The £2,599 launch price of the Z 24-70/2.8 S II leaves a bit of headroom over the 12-40mm. A 12-35/1.4 MFT lens would weigh rather a lot, look at the f1.7 zooms.

The 10-25mm at F/1.7 already drops in at around £1699 from main dealers . An F/1.4 going to 35mm would likely be more expensive than the FF offerings

I agree with the general view that 12-35/2.8, 12-40/2.8, 12-45/4 and 10-25/1.7 pretty much cover whatever anyone could want in MFT.

A combination of many years using FF lenses , having large hands ( some may say clumsy } I find the higher end m43 standard lenses to be quite compact and very capable .

Andrew

I find a mix of smallish, affordable and very decent IQ (contrast) and tiny, cheap and usable.

FE gives me big shooting envelope per £ and kg, plus a different set of options.

Interesting to compare the Laowa 10/2 and CV 21/3.5 Colour Skopar for example.

A

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 

[MJ_Photo38]

Nikon recently launched the latest iteration of its 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, and the upgrades are noteworthy. The new model has been slimmed down to an impressive 675g, features 11 rounded aperture blades for smoother bokeh, and now sports a reduced 77mm filter thread. Most significantly, it incorporates an internal zoom design, enhancing portability and usability—a leap forward for full-frame shooters.

As an enthusiast who adores the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro (now under the OM System banner), I’ve long appreciated its optical quality. However, by today’s standards, its 380g weight feels overly substantial for a Micro Four Thirds (M43) crop sensor system, which is typically valued for its compactness. While the lens delivers excellent performance, its size and heft seem misaligned with the lightweight ethos that defines M43.

I’d like to call on OM System to consider a redesign of the 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro. By incorporating lighter materials—such as advanced composites or magnesium alloys—and leveraging in-camera correction for distortion or aberrations, they could significantly reduce its weight. This would better align the lens with the M43 philosophy, making it more appealing to users who prioritize portability without sacrificing quality.

What are your thoughts on this potential update?

The primary concern lies not with the lenses themselves, as most professional lenses surpass the sensors (m43) used in image capture. However, the availability of M43 gear is ample, and when utilized by skilled photographers, it can yield exceptional results. Have you ever wondered why professionals rarely express dissatisfaction with their equipment? Their focus is solely on utilizing their current gear. When it becomes obsolete, they replace it. In other words they spend all their time using their gear, not complaining about them.

This community appears to be trapped in an artificial bubble of an uninformed juvenile cult that reveres only M43 gear. They incessantly complain about any M43 product available. For a platform that frequently invokes M43 systems as “good enough,” it never appears to be sufficiently "good enough"for the majority of the complainers here. Photographic effort is also noticeably absent because it is overshadowed by complaining.

This is very true. Before being a micro four thirds shooter, I use Nikon DSLRs (mostly APS-C ones, although I have one full frame D700), and Fujifilm APS-C, and since a year and a half I've also had a Nikon Z full frame body. Now I use micro four thirds as it makes the most sense for me, but I was always browsing the forums from the other systems here on DPR Forums.

Sure, for DX Nikon DSLRs and Fuji X forums, the mention of equivalency and "how good our gear is to full frame" can sometimes rear its head within the active posts. But honestly, I've never seen as many as I have on the Micro Four Thirds Talk.

It seems every week there is one more forum post about how this is equivalent to that, and how we should have wider aperture lenses, and how equivalency is BS, and how we should demand OM / Panny to release better stuff to compete with full frame better, ...

Full frame this, full frame that.

I'm perfeclty happy with my MFT gear because I also have full frame gear, I see the difference between them and I see the strengths and weaknesses of both, and I then make my choice onwhat my personal preferences are.

We have a lot of die hard MFT shooters here that seem to only find the faults and require OM or Panny to "do better", while what they have is already brilliant stuff.

I recently got teh 12-40mm lens that is being complained about in this post, and this is the best lens I've ever used, even compared to the premium full frame lenses or Fuji X lenses that I've used in the past, there is simply no comparison. It's both smaller, lighter, cheaper and has great functionality and performance, most of the time being better than what their APS-C and full frame equivalents can do (esprcially with the focus clutch, close focusing abilities, etc)

Yet apparently it's still not good enough.

The disparity between Full-Frame and M43 cameras has gradually diminished over the years. Approximately 95% of buyers are not overly concerned about the additional weight of a few ounces. They make purchasing decisions based on the results they can achieve with their investment, rather than seeking out equipment from companies that are perceived only as "good enough.” Good enough for what?

Canon currently holds a dominant position in the digital camera market and steadily gaining market share and fast approaching 50%, while OMDS holds a market share of less than 3%. There is a valid reason for this. If I were curious about M43 and came to this forum, and after reading a few posts, I'd run away as fast as possible!

My thoughts exactly, I've seen more posts complaining about the sensor size here than I've seen on all other forums combined.

If you go on the Fujifilm X forum, you mostly see talks about AF settings, film simulations, limited stock,... but posts about lower image quality are few and far between.

 

[Searching]

Maybe you should just get a gym membership.