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

[ahaslett]

Maybe you should just get a gym membership.

and a 150-600mm?

A

 

[gary0319]

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.

You might notice that a lot of the more strident complaints come from folks with no camera gear of any brand in their profile. I just find that curious.....

 

[James Stirling]

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

The problem with MF is the lack of lens choice , I am not up to date with Hasselblad lenses ( and my wife will be sure I stay this way ) Looking at the DPreview Hasselblad lens listings the closest they have to being equivalent to a FF 24-70mm F/2.8 yes equivalence applies to all formats

https://www.dpreview.com/products/hasselblad/lenses?subcategoryId=lenses&page=1

Seems to be the 35-75mm F3.5-4.5 which is equivalent to a FF 28-60mm F/2.8-3.5 which is quite a bit heavier and with a bonus £2000 higher price than the new Nikon

I think Fuji MF is a less divorce triggering option

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 ?

I think the OP is dreaming about a smaller lighter 12-40mm F/2.8 not an F/1.4 to match the FF lens

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

You can also get second hand 24-70mm F/2.8 s lenses around the £1520-1620 range so only which like the used price of the 12-40mk I will probably drop a bit as the new version comes out the 12-40mk 1 used comes in around the £420-460 range . That is only approx 3.5x 12-40mm per Z 24-70 F/2.8s

As m43 users we are not restricted in standard zoom options covering a decent selection

Yours Dylan

www.dylangarcia.art

--
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]

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

I have not tried either lens the V 21/3.5 Colour Skopar looks very decent for such a small form factor

Review: Voigtlander 21mm F3.5 Color-Skopar - phillipreeve.net

Review of the Voigtlander 21mm F3.5 on the Sony a7II which covers both in-depth testing and real world use with many full resolution images.

phillipreeve.net

--
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

 

[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.

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

Here's the 20 isolated with the size normalized from the RAW files in Adobe LRC:



Order is D750, D500, D500 +15 NR luminance.

It's not exact but is a rough demonstration of what I'm saying. The middle D500 has crisper edged to the number. And when you add NR it gets closer to the look of the D750. Now the D750 at this point still obviously has less noise than the D500 even with that NR but it does cut some of the difference between them.

You do have some improvement on smallest details with the D750 thanks to the larger sensor like with the top right coin due to the higher noise obscuring them more on the D500 while "larger" details (though still relatively small in the frame) like the number 20 are where this mostly helps out.

One difference between the 2 is the lack of an AA filter on the D500 but neither does the D7200 and that one has noticeably softer output at higher ISO as well even with its' higher resolution. So there's something in the imaging pipeline causing the change be it the sensor or processor.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Amazing that one (acknowledged) already great lens among many can overheat so many keyboards, including mine ....

Maybe all M4/3 lenses already marketed also need a revamp and it might take some time .....

Wants are more or less promises that if what is wanted is made I certainly will buy one (if the price is suitable of course) and my perfect product as described will obviously sell like crazy and make the exercise well worth while. "Ho hum" says OMS .... "One confirmed sale - we will talk to the bean counters, and marketing ....."

But it has been worthwhile chatting about the hypothetical.

Meanwhile we might do better practising the skills we already have with what we can already buy.

 

[CBR1100XX]

Amazing that one (acknowledged) already great lens among many can overheat so many keyboards, including mine ....

Maybe all M4/3 lenses already marketed also need a revamp and it might take some time .....

Wants are more or less promises that if what is wanted is made I certainly will buy one (if the price is suitable of course) and my perfect product as described will obviously sell like crazy and make the exercise well worth while. "Ho hum" says OMS .... "One confirmed sale - we will talk to the bean counters, and marketing ....."

But it has been worthwhile chatting about the hypothetical.

Meanwhile we might do better practising the skills we already have with what we can already buy.

One of the strengths of the system is that almost every need you could have has multiple lenses between Panasonic and Olympus over the past ~15 years.

One of the weaknesses is that the limited market means that there's going to be limited R&D. Mostly I'd like to see the occasional lenses pop up like the 150-400, or 9mm. Those 2 lenses couldn't be more different in most ways except that they fill in a current niche in the system.

Something like a 6-7mm F2 AF lens would be another good one to see. Or maybe a small fast telephoto prime.

 

[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.

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.

You might notice that a lot of the more strident complaints come from folks with no camera gear of any brand in their profile. I just find that curious....

Hey Gary, you’ve totally nailed my point and given “juvenility” a whole new meaning! Adding a brand to your profile? Seriously, a man of your age? But hey, this is where I always see these predictable and uninteresting statements.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Amazing that one (acknowledged) already great lens among many can overheat so many keyboards, including mine ....

Maybe all M4/3 lenses already marketed also need a revamp and it might take some time .....

Wants are more or less promises that if what is wanted is made I certainly will buy one (if the price is suitable of course) and my perfect product as described will obviously sell like crazy and make the exercise well worth while. "Ho hum" says OMS .... "One confirmed sale - we will talk to the bean counters, and marketing ....."

But it has been worthwhile chatting about the hypothetical.

Meanwhile we might do better practising the skills we already have with what we can already buy.

One of the strengths of the system is that almost every need you could have has multiple lenses between Panasonic and Olympus over the past ~15 years.

One of the weaknesses is that the limited market means that there's going to be limited R&D. Mostly I'd like to see the occasional lenses pop up like the 150-400, or 9mm. Those 2 lenses couldn't be more different in most ways except that they fill in a current niche in the system.

Something like a 6-7mm F2 AF lens would be another good one to see. Or maybe a small fast telephoto prime.

Niche filling seems to be a more productive idea than updating already good lenses that have several similar versions on sale as well. Spoilt for choice perhaps and somehow our jaded lens acquisition genes want an update of something already admitted to be a very good lens.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

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.

Been there, done that, with Canon dslr gear. Now my M4/3 kit ca easily match my old dlsr gear in performance. As that was certainly the "good enough bar" what more do I need?

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, ...

Small Sensor Syndrome (SSS) raised by those that are frightened by the huge FF sensors.

Full frame this, full frame that.

I suggest a small FF kit so that SSS can be contained and the FF sensor will no longer be the boogy man. I now have two L-Mount bodies (S1 and S9) but no L-Mount lenses whatsoever. Simply because I wanted another mount-horse to saddle with my EF mount lenses.

There is nothing there that indicates I am about to abandon my heavy commitment in M4/3 gear. I am completely nonplussed on the real advantages of each system as I tend to select gear for each purpose. Right at the moment I am very pleased that the various camera bodies at my disposal give my lenses a wider degree of operating experiences.

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.

Agreed.

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.

See SSS above.

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 OP wanted it with internal focusing (that I prefer also) but this would hardly make the existing lens smaller I would have thought. Also praised the existing lens capabilities whilst asking for improvements. Really?

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.

SSS has to be alive and kicking and has the merit that the 4/3 sensor is smaller than the aps-c sensor. But few, if any, suggest that they are off to aps-c, simply not good enough it appears. I would suggest that NIkon, Canon and Sony aps-c bodies are very often used with FF capable lenses and doubt if the irony of "smaller" sized bodies need smaller lenses penetrates deeply.

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.

M4/3 SSS issues are as much about dreaming of what the sudden investment of $$$ in FF sensor kit might bring without any effort whatsoever. It is as much about easy automatic FF photographic genius as much as anything else. As long as you can better equivalent with the new FF gear. Just "becoming equivalent" is getting nowhere fast.

 

[danart]

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.

Yes, when you put the Sony 40mm f2.5 lens on a hi-res FF 42MP sensor you will get those LW/PH values - the results however are not comparable in the way you are trying to present... It equates to a rather misleading comparison of apples and oranges.

As for a comparable zoom with the Nikon - we can see what a close comparison would look like in the 10-25 f1.7 - it would likely be a similar size at a F1.4 at 12-35 due to the complexity of UWA at f1.7 - regardless it is nothing more than hypothetical speculation that a 12-40 f1.4 would be larger and more expensive - where there is a more complex design in the 10-25 f1.7 that shows this would unlikely be the case.

The lumix is $800 USD less than the Nikon. That said the 10-25 is an exceptionally good performer for the system that could save users from feeling the need to add an additional system or go with a more expensive one - The difference between f/3.4 and f/2.8 is approximately 0.56 stops, or just over half a stop

You can get the below lens as a kit with a GH7 and have very capable video/stills setup for $3,900. If you want to keep all the advantage that FF offers such as hi-res and light gathering... The cost for the below kit is $6.5K - You could add both the PanaLeica 12-35mm f2.8 and the 35-100f 2.8 (as compact options) OR the 25-50 f1.7 to the above GH7 kit and still walk away with $500 in your pocket... how much 20MP of linear resolution and 1/2 a stop matters vs the extra premium is a more individual question. However this represents a more accurate spread of where the systems lie from a cost/benefit perspective - especially where you consider total features.

Obviously there are cheaper options in the Z6iii or G9ii, that would bring costs closer. however the G9ii doesn't throw so much away vs the GH7 compared to what the z6iii that would give up vs the Z8 - However for hybrid application the GH7/10-25 set up is very good bang for buck and really doesnt give up much vs FF as many would assume.

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

 

[jjbinx]

Amazing that one (acknowledged) already great lens among many can overheat so many keyboards, including mine ....

Maybe all M4/3 lenses already marketed also need a revamp and it might take some time .....

Wants are more or less promises that if what is wanted is made I certainly will buy one (if the price is suitable of course) and my perfect product as described will obviously sell like crazy and make the exercise well worth while. "Ho hum" says OMS .... "One confirmed sale - we will talk to the bean counters, and marketing ....."

But it has been worthwhile chatting about the hypothetical.

Meanwhile we might do better practising the skills we already have with what we can already buy.

One of the strengths of the system is that almost every need you could have has multiple lenses between Panasonic and Olympus over the past ~15 years.

Long prime lenses . . .

There does not appear to be many primes in the 100 to 300mm range - just two, one of which seems to be no longer in production.

And prime lenses beyond 300mm = none

jj

One of the weaknesses is that the limited market means that there's going to be limited R&D. Mostly I'd like to see the occasional lenses pop up like the 150-400, or 9mm. Those 2 lenses couldn't be more different in most ways except that they fill in a current niche in the system.

Something like a 6-7mm F2 AF lens would be another good one to see. Or maybe a small fast telephoto prime.

 

[JHaagsma]

Funny how many new FF products lead to doom and gloom posts about m43. I have to say I was impressed by the weight of this lens (I remember my old Canon 28-80 2.8-4L of almost 1 kg), but look at the size of that thing! They expect me to walk around all day with that around my neck? Please, no. This is why I am happy with m43. Much more compact and lightweight. That is a system I will take with me while the Nikon would stay in the closet. I'm happy to compromise a bit on IQ. Others will feel different and I wish them a lot of fun with this lens.

 

[ahaslett]

Funny how many new FF products lead to doom and gloom posts about m43. I have to say I was impressed by the weight of this lens (I remember my old Canon 28-80 2.8-4L of almost 1 kg), but look at the size of that thing! They expect me to walk around all day with that around my neck? Please, no. This is why I am happy with m43. Much more compact and lightweight. That is a system I will take with me while the Nikon would stay in the closet. I'm happy to compromise a bit on IQ. Others will feel different and I wish them a lot of fun with this lens.

As someone who routinely uses FF and MFT, I'd say it's more about shooting envelope. If you are shooting within the envelope there is no photographic compromise on IQ.

Sometimes the envelope of my MFT kit extends beyond my specific FF kit. The OM1 sensor readout speed and AF for example.

A

 

[MJ_Photo38]

Funny how many new FF products lead to doom and gloom posts about m43. I have to say I was impressed by the weight of this lens (I remember my old Canon 28-80 2.8-4L of almost 1 kg), but look at the size of that thing! They expect me to walk around all day with that around my neck? Please, no. This is why I am happy with m43. Much more compact and lightweight. That is a system I will take with me while the Nikon would stay in the closet. I'm happy to compromise a bit on IQ. Others will feel different and I wish them a lot of fun with this lens.

As someone who routinely uses FF and MFT, I'd say it's more about shooting envelope. If you are shooting within the envelope there is no photographic compromise on IQ.

Sometimes the envelope of my MFT kit extends beyond my specific FF kit. The OM1 sensor readout speed and AF for example.

A

I guess it depends on the full frame camera we're talking about.

The sensor used in the OM-1 is an 80MP chip using a quad bayer filter (to get 20MP images). Since it's using all photosites for cross AF, it needs to readout all photosites for every exposure, making it quite a bit slower than other stacked sensor on the market :

OM-1(ii) / OM-3 : 8.3ms

Fujifilm X-H2S : 5.5ms

Sony A1II : 3.8ms

Nikon Z9 / Z8 : 3.7ms

Canon R3 : 4.8ms

Canon R1 : 2.8ms

Sony A9III : 0.0ms (global shutter)

The OM-1's sensor is about 3 times slower than the Canon R1, which is a full frame camera.

So if you full frame body has a slow sensor, like the one you'd find in pretty much any non-stacked sensor on the market, then yeah the OM-1's stacked sensor is going to be beneficial.

If on the other hand you wanted to get a high resolution NIkon camera, and got the Z8, the Z8 has a faster readout than the OM-1.

 

[atomgr]

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.

This has been my weekly reading for the last 10-12 years together with the "since you have a phone why you pay extra for a camera".

 

[WilyKit]

There aren't many people who will pay $2,800 for a lens like this. People will keep buying the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 DG DN II Art which costs $1,200, instead. It weighs just 60 grams more than the Nikon, and it's also excellent.

 

[MJ_Photo38]

There aren't many people who will pay $2,800 for a lens like this. People will keep buying the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 DG DN II Art which costs $1,200, instead. It weighs just 60 grams more than the Nikon, and it's also excellent.

That lens isn't available for Nikon Z mount, though.

Most people in search of a budget but still good wide aperture standard zoom lens generally go for the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 G2, or the Nikon 28-75 f/2.8 (which is a rebadged Tamron G1)

 

[ahaslett]

Funny how many new FF products lead to doom and gloom posts about m43. I have to say I was impressed by the weight of this lens (I remember my old Canon 28-80 2.8-4L of almost 1 kg), but look at the size of that thing! They expect me to walk around all day with that around my neck? Please, no. This is why I am happy with m43. Much more compact and lightweight. That is a system I will take with me while the Nikon would stay in the closet. I'm happy to compromise a bit on IQ. Others will feel different and I wish them a lot of fun with this lens.

As someone who routinely uses FF and MFT, I'd say it's more about shooting envelope. If you are shooting within the envelope there is no photographic compromise on IQ.

Sometimes the envelope of my MFT kit extends beyond my specific FF kit. The OM1 sensor readout speed and AF for example.

A

I guess it depends on the full frame camera we're talking about.

The sensor used in the OM-1 is an 80MP chip using a quad bayer filter (to get 20MP images). Since it's using all photosites for cross AF, it needs to readout all photosites for every exposure, making it quite a bit slower than other stacked sensor on the market :

OM-1(ii) / OM-3 : 8.3ms

Fujifilm X-H2S : 5.5ms

Sony A1II : 3.8ms

Nikon Z9 / Z8 : 3.7ms

Canon R3 : 4.8ms

Canon R1 : 2.8ms

Sony A9III : 0.0ms (global shutter)

The OM-1's sensor is about 3 times slower than the Canon R1, which is a full frame camera.

So if you full frame body has a slow sensor, like the one you'd find in pretty much any non-stacked sensor on the market, then yeah the OM-1's stacked sensor is going to be beneficial.

If on the other hand you wanted to get a high resolution NIkon camera, and got the Z8, the Z8 has a faster readout than the OM-1.

Indeed.

The Z8 is 910g, £3,789 and 46Mpix. The OM1 mk ii is 599g, £2,049 and 20Mpix. The Z8 will do 20fps in RAW with AF, the OM1 50fps (I got the Z8 spec from Google AI, so correct me if that’s wrong!). Precapture only works in jpeg.

Since I’m an FE owner, my alternative one-camera would be the A1ii. Now I have a lens issue for wildlife compared to my needs. Actually, I have lesser lens options at the light end across the FL range.

There are lots of options out there, we all choose the ones that work best for us. In my case that’s MFT for lighter and FE for higher resolution and DR (also I prefer Sony AF).

A

 

[MJ_Photo38]

Funny how many new FF products lead to doom and gloom posts about m43. I have to say I was impressed by the weight of this lens (I remember my old Canon 28-80 2.8-4L of almost 1 kg), but look at the size of that thing! They expect me to walk around all day with that around my neck? Please, no. This is why I am happy with m43. Much more compact and lightweight. That is a system I will take with me while the Nikon would stay in the closet. I'm happy to compromise a bit on IQ. Others will feel different and I wish them a lot of fun with this lens.

As someone who routinely uses FF and MFT, I'd say it's more about shooting envelope. If you are shooting within the envelope there is no photographic compromise on IQ.

Sometimes the envelope of my MFT kit extends beyond my specific FF kit. The OM1 sensor readout speed and AF for example.

A

I guess it depends on the full frame camera we're talking about.

The sensor used in the OM-1 is an 80MP chip using a quad bayer filter (to get 20MP images). Since it's using all photosites for cross AF, it needs to readout all photosites for every exposure, making it quite a bit slower than other stacked sensor on the market :

OM-1(ii) / OM-3 : 8.3ms

Fujifilm X-H2S : 5.5ms

Sony A1II : 3.8ms

Nikon Z9 / Z8 : 3.7ms

Canon R3 : 4.8ms

Canon R1 : 2.8ms

Sony A9III : 0.0ms (global shutter)

The OM-1's sensor is about 3 times slower than the Canon R1, which is a full frame camera.

So if you full frame body has a slow sensor, like the one you'd find in pretty much any non-stacked sensor on the market, then yeah the OM-1's stacked sensor is going to be beneficial.

If on the other hand you wanted to get a high resolution NIkon camera, and got the Z8, the Z8 has a faster readout than the OM-1.

Indeed.

The Z8 is 910g, £3,789 and 46Mpix. The OM1 mk ii is 599g, £2,049 and 20Mpix. The Z8 will do 20fps in RAW with AF, the OM1 50fps (I got the Z8 spec from Google AI, so correct me if that’s wrong!). Precapture only works in jpeg.

If you want something that shoots faster than 20fps RAW with pre-capture, no Nikon camera is really going to float your boat. Both Sony and Canon have RAW pre-capture though, and 30fps shooting (anything faster than 20fps is generally unecessary imho, YMMV)

Since I’m an FE owner, my alternative one-camera would be the A1ii. Now I have a lens issue for wildlife compared to my needs. Actually, I have lesser lens options at the light end across the FL range.

Yes, but at this point, you're not choosing MFT because it's faster than full frame, as you can get faster full frame camera than the OM-1. On the other hand you're choosing MFT because it's cheaper, lighter, and because it gives you similar capabilities. Same for AF, as you prefer Sony AF over OM.

Still valid, but not the same thing. Just so we put the right words on the right things.
I also shoot MFT because it's smaller and lighter than my full frame Nikon Z6 for pretty much anything involving a telephoto lens.

I used to shoot airshows with my Z6 + Sigma 100-400mm lens on an FTZ adapter, this was a lump to carry around and at the end of the day I had quite a bit of neck pain, having the camera pointed at the sky with a 1200g lens attached on it.

Now with my E-M1 mark II + 75-300 not only do I have more reach, faster framerate and similar image quality (since it's in good light anyway), but I also don't have to carry around a heavy setup, that 75-300mm lens is very light and more than enough for what I do.