It is interesting that this discussion is happening now. Over the weekend, I decided to try mounting my trusty OM lenses on a Canon 5D. I wanted to see how usable the combination was and if the combination was a viable alternative to my current set up and if the lenses performed well enough on a FF with 24megapixel sensor. The current OM lenses that I have and tested with the 5D are the 21/3.5, 24/2.8. 24/3.5 shift, 35/2.0. 55/1.2, 90/2.0, 100/2.8, 180/2.8 and 300/4.5.
The long and short of it, most of it was short since I didn't have that much time to tests everything I wanted to with every lens and I have not views the images on a large screen, there was little vignetting on most lenses when used wide open. If there was any, it was not visually important. The biggest problem was the CA wide open with the tele's. This teneded to improve with stopping down. Curiously, the 100/2.8 performed better than the 90/2.0. The 55/1.2 held its own, but again, I think I just did not evaluate it enough. The wides is where the difference lies.
Even with my less than stellar non 2.0 superwide lenses, the biggest difference that I noticed with the wide OM on a FF sensor was the uncanny ability to ISOLATE the subject. The 21mm could do it, the 24mm could do it and the 35mm could do it. The bokeh also looked great, but then again, I need to see it on a large screen. I have the 12-60 on the e-system, and it just could not isolate the subject like my OMZ's on a FF. When it comes to physical size, the set up was smaller with the OMZ with the 5D. If the 5D were smaller, it would be the perfect combination.
I then began to think about the 14-35 DZ. But the price and size is an issue.
After going thru this exercise, I have come to this conclusion,
1. There is no replacing the ability of a fast sub 2.0 wide, normal and short tele lenses in isolating your subject matter. I don't now if the art filters is Olympus' attempt to circumvent this issue. If it is, it is lame. I don't know if this is a marketing thing, and that the current thinking is the same effect of isolating the subject can be obtained thru digital manipulation runs counter to the the notion of what a photographer is. We might as well just be computer manipulators.
2. looking at the lens line up of Olympus, I think they have to go back to their roots. Small, reliable, optically superior and fast. Currently, in my mind, they have one, ok, maybe two of the four. Reliable and optically superior. They have to get the small and fast back in their line up in the HG or SHG where it really counts. No more apologies that the 50mm/2.0 is a great lens and the like. (I have not used that lens yet, but it appears to have it's limitations with the focusing system) They need a set of fast, as in sub 2.0 aperture 12mm, 17mm, 25mm and 40mm which are great wide open. Not this usable wide open and great at 4.0 or 5.6 stuff, which I seem to see with the Canon L and Nikon lenses. They should be great at the widest aperture and excellent at 4.0 and 5.6. An accurate and fast focusing system is a must. IS is not an issue.
3. Canon lenses tend to suffer the same fate of Olympus, maybe worse for their cropped lenses. Their lenses are really geared for the FF system, with a price to match. Nikon seems to be going down the same road.
If Olympus can couple these lenses with an even better camera which is compact, then their system will be true to their Raison d'être. If Olympus can just design this 4 lenses, it will turn their system around dramatically. To a certain degree, I agree that their design philosophy has gotten lost in the shuffle.
If you are interested, I can post some of the samples of the 5D OMZ combination.
