Which one is the least discussed 4/3 (AF) lens ?

Started Oct 26, 2012 | Discussions thread
dave gaines
dave gaines Veteran Member • Posts: 9,183
The least discussed 4/3 (AF) lens
4

goblin wrote:

Just a little brain teaser for everyone. I've seen a lot of lenses discussed here throughout the years, but there are quite a few I've never seen mentioned.

So give your two cents:

1) What is (are) the 4/3 lens(es) which YOU have NEVER seen discussed/mentioned here ? (like - if it has been mentioned - you missed it).

2) What is (are) the 4/3 lens(es) which you think has(have) gotten the least attention ?

3) What is (are) the ZUIKO 4/3 lens(es) which you think has(have) gotten the least attention ?

4) Which 4/3 lens do you think should have deserved more attention ? Why ?

5) Which one did you want to see released, but never saw it happen ?

6) What is your white whale ? Which one would you like to see forgotten at $99 in that dark pawn shop around the corner ?

Note: SHG lenses need no apply here. It's well known we all dream of them, so let's agree that we want all of them more than anything else, and keep it more exotic with what's left).

Good question.

1) The Panasonic 14-50 mm f/2.8-3.5 (right f-stops?). I hear it's a good lens but know little about it.

2 & 3) Olympus 11-22 mm f/2.8-3.5 - What a great lens that hardly gets much of any mention. Surely it beats the 9-18 in IQ and value and does things you can't do with the 7-14 or 8 mm FE, like add filters. The Olympus SG 35 mm f/3.5 macro lens is an exceptional lens that gets little mention.

4) Sorry, I have to side with the SHG lenses here. I want to know more about why I should buy them. The 7-14 and 8 mm FE should be disgussed more so people learn how to use these extreme lenses without introducing uneccassary distorion. I'd like to hear more about the 90-250 mm f/2.8. How is this so much better than the 50-200 mm lens? I know this question was raised very recently and it was helpful.

5) I used to long for the 100 mm f/2 macro that was once on the lens road map, but I eventually decided the 50 mm + EC-14 is plenty long and I didn't need a longer macro lens. But if the 100 mm was 1:1 then maybe... I'd like to see a long tele such as a 250 mm or 350 mm f/4 that's affordable and light weight. The 350/4 might still be a big lens?

6) Sigma 30 mm and 24 mm. With the far better Panasonic 25 mm f/1.4 available, there's little reason to discuss lenses with inconsistent IQ. Oh yea, the Sigma 300-800 mm monster. Who needs 1600 mm EFL in a 50 lb lens?

-- hide signature --

Dave
No thought exists without an image. Socrates
http://whaleshark.smugmug.com

 dave gaines's gear list:dave gaines's gear list
Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Olympus E-330 Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow