Lens logic

iceypix wrote:

I have the OMD-EM1 and the 12-40 f2.8 and the 40-150 f2.8, so far so good (awesome even!)

But, after these it gets a bit murky. We have a fixed F4 300mm on the way and the Panasonic 100-400mm on the way, but they're not exactly what I want (yeah I know, this is where you'll all lay into me ;)). The 300mm is, well, too fixed, and the 100-400mm is a bit slow. Would anyone else out there much rather have a 150-300mm F2.8-4 or fixed F4?

I'm sure there are plenty of people that would welcome such a lens. If it supported TC, you could turn it into a 210-420 f/4-5.6 (or constant f/5.6). That sounds great.

The problem here, I think, would be the price. I think it's safe to say such a lens would be in the $3000-4000 range. The 90-250/2.8 for 4/3 system is a $5000 lens, for example. So while a lot of people would be glad to see such a lens, not many of them would actually buy it.

That price makes it a very specialized, niche offering. It makes more sense to start with lenses that have a higher chance of actually be sold in enough numbers to pay for their development and maybe even turn in a profit.

And I think those upcoming lenses have a chance of doing that. The 100-400 and 300/4 are both targeted at somewhat different audience. And hopefully, they will be reasonably priced. With some luck, their arrival will grow the MFT user base that wants/needs super telephoto lenses. Once there are more people using and needing toys like that, you can think of making more advanced lenses, aimed at really advanced and demanding users.

Something like that.