Olympus fast zooms may be coming in 2013

Started Feb 7, 2013 | Discussions thread
wolfeel Regular Member • Posts: 212
Re: Good points

amtberg wrote:

amalric wrote:

amvrvd wrote:

4thnebula wrote:

I am a purist. I don't like IS in lenses. I prefer them in the camera.

However, a 14-45 f2.8-4, and 45-150 f2.8-150 would fit into the Olympus system well and I would probably be interested. I would hope the would add a 100-300 f2.8-4 though.

What use is there for 14mm as starting point ? just get a kit zoom then and raise the ISO.

Also, I don't see why everyone keeps repeating the same mantra about fast zooms needing to be HUGE and EXPENSIVE. Why should Oly's be huge ? there's no IS, they'll be software corrected, m4/3 flange distance is shorter than 4/3, the sensor is smaller than APS-C, etc...How come Fuji already has a fast zoom for APS-C, a smallish one at that, for only $699!? I'm convinced that people here WANT this unnecessary compromises just for the sake of status...if it ain't expensive it ain't worth it. This isn't leica guys, your lenses will devalue faster than Leicas so stop trying to MAKE m4/3 into an expensive format. Most people who go m4/3 are regular consumers, rising prices above Fuji, Sony or Canikon DSLRs is just going to put m4/3 into a niche. When this format was first announced it was advertised as having the advantage of cheaper manufacturing costs (less glass, more compact, less expensive), this is the oldest mirrorless format in the market yet we're still paying the R&D cost, how come ? Why is Fuji's fast zoom so cheap if their system is so new ? they're no bigger than Sony or Canikon, so why should Olympus be any different in its price ?

The idea that we should pay through our noses for these kind of lenses was only put forward by Pany, you don't need to validate them, specially when those lenses are nowhere near the quality of Oly 4/3 offerings, those were justifiably expensive, Pany's are expensive because there's no alternative. Weren't X lenses supposed to be ¨premium¨ ? well, besides their fast zooms (which are only just better than the kit zooms) there is no justification for their ¨premium¨ status. It's just marketing.

Just make it 12-45mm f2.5-4 for $699 and be done with it, Oly and Pany have already proven that they can do superb fast optics for reasonable prices (45mm 1.8, 20 1.7), there's nothing to justify their upcoming lens either being expensive nor huge.

I agree on all the points - the strongest being exactly Fuj's offering, the smallish 17-55/2.8. It can be done and for a reasonable price.

Those who clamour for expensive lenses are the silliest of all. And I suspect they never put the money, once the lens is out.

It's just another way of trolling, based on sheer ignorance.


Yep, Sigma and Tamron have also made smallish fast zooms for APS-C cameras. I had a Sigma 18-50/2.8 for Canon that wasn't that much bigger than the 12-35/2.8 for MFT. I think the Tamron equivalent was even smaller. Both are a fair bit heavier, but they can be scaled down for MFT.

Something like the APS-C Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 (roughly 14-55 MFT equivalent) would be nice ... especially as it has in-lens IS and only costs $400! In fact ... why doesn't Sigma just make one?

I suspect that that's what is going to happen soon (my speculaton only) so with the upcoming "pro" EM-5 or whatever designation the new camera will have, Olympus have to come out with 'pro" glass. Marketplace doesn't like vaccum, so if tere is money to be made Tamron or Sigma will come out with their versions of the products.  All in all, consumers will be the winners.

 wolfeel's gear list:wolfeel's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow