Sharpest 40-45mm landscape lens

Fri13 wrote:

It breaks only Your philosophy, not the m4/3 mount (4/3 sensor) idea that is to have small and light system camera compared to larger formats without compromise to image quality or depth of field control.

The 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro is very compact and light as is. It just doesn't fit to people who want everything to be f/1, 100g, with between 6mm and 150mm and $150.

// Off topic:
I quote:

"A Canon rep explained to me back in the '90s that Canon didn't care if itever recouped its investment costs on the three tilt-shift lenses for the EOS system...the point was that certain pros needed such lenses and would switch to the Canon system in order to get them. Which meant that those pros would also begin buying Canon bodies, Canon lenses, and Canon accessories, and would switch from NPS to CPS, and would lend their implicit endorsement and the prestige of their professional accomplishments to Canon instead of to Nikon."

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2014/12/the-ten-best-digital-cameras.html

And that is exactly the same thing that many needs to get. Like Olympus needs to bring a Pro zoom between 150mm and 400-500mm range with f/2.8 or at least f/4. It would be big, heavy and expensive, but that is exactly that many professional and enthusiastic needs and they are ready to invest to such system that offers that they need. If there isn't what they need, they look elsewhere.

It is as well amazing how a normal street salesman understands this in tourist areas, they only need to get the tourist in your shop, and they more likely buy a one thing if they can just slap quickly enough goods to their front in first 10 seconds that catches their eye, then just bombard with other similar kinds.
And that is as well consumer service as they show toy what you are interested at without asking different things. And the possibility you buy one or more goods is much higher than just offering one thing that everyone else is doing.

Olympus knew it needs to offer Pro line, and some people are negative claiming it is "against m4/3" while it isn't. As those people doesn't need fast shutter speeds and large magnification with specific image quality.

Yes, most need just something between 12-45mm and nothing else. They are ready to carry multiple primes and switch those as they have time and moment isn't going away. And they want everything fits to palm and weights as little as possible, even with cost of usable leveling.

I did said "for me", didn't I?

I totally agree with you, and with Canon's philosophy. The pro line is bait for people leaving DSLRs and coming to mirrorless. And I can't be happier with that, because at the end, the health of m43 benefits us all.

But, for me, in my case, and just for my personal own interests...  ... the Pro line of lenses is not what made me leave my Canon APS-C system and run to m43. But the small size and weight, and yes, also the fast affordable glass. Would I buy a 12-40 and 40-150 pro lenses in the future? I might. When the time is right, and when I'm able to consistently make some money out of photography. But for the time being, I enjoy my camera gear very much.

Is good to have options that fits multiple needs, isn't it?