-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Fun easy poll - what lens do you most wish m4/3 would make?
- Thread starter biggles266
- Start date
Marc Ramirez
Well-known member
Needs to fit in coat pocket to pair with 12 to 40 mounted on camera or compact 35 to 100
--
marcstephenramirez.blogspot.com
--
MarCraM Imaging, Videography, and Photography Blog
marcstephenramirez.blogspot.com
Jacques Cornell
Forum Pro
[No message]
Skeeterbytes
Forum Pro
Unfortunately there's no path to significant size and weight reductions from the current lens. A bit shorter, but not much else. F:2 zooms are BIG.
Works well on the E-M1, but focus isn't up to Pro standards, so that could be improved. Would just eat into 40-150 sales so Oly won't be doing that.
Cheers,
Rick
Works well on the E-M1, but focus isn't up to Pro standards, so that could be improved. Would just eat into 40-150 sales so Oly won't be doing that.
Cheers,
Rick
mahidoes
Senior Member
Change needed:
length should be reduced.
80mm length is so long and defeat the purpose small camera. That is why MFT is not my cup of tea.
length should be reduced.
80mm length is so long and defeat the purpose small camera. That is why MFT is not my cup of tea.
DeepSilence
Well-known member
Compact (max. length: 50mm) 12-40mm f/2.8-4.0.
Last edited:
jhorse
Veteran Member
With same optical standards and IQ as the f2.8s, but lighter, smaller (and may be a tad cheaper) than the latter. F4 would be in the m4/3 sweet spot.
jhorse
Veteran Member
With same optical standards and IQ as the f2.8s, but lighter, smaller (and may be a tad cheaper) than the latter. F4 would be in the m4/3 sweet spot.
B
BartyLobethal
Guest
[No message]
B
BartyLobethal
Guest
[No message]
James A.
Senior Member
Would love that from Olympus.
That's the one thing you can't avoid.
Being selfish I would go with a 400 F/5.6. It needs to be sharp wide open and I mean sharp. F/5.6 I have no trouble working with, it also needs to be excellent when using manual focusing, that would be a priority for how I shoot.
I pre-focus a lot and for some unknown reason, so do the FF folks I shoot with now as well, funny that ;-) The reason is simple, AF can't keep up with a small bird coming into a perch at a close distance. Pre-focus is the only way, so MF handling is a priority as well.
All the best.
Danny.
Being selfish I would go with a 400 F/5.6. It needs to be sharp wide open and I mean sharp. F/5.6 I have no trouble working with, it also needs to be excellent when using manual focusing, that would be a priority for how I shoot.
I pre-focus a lot and for some unknown reason, so do the FF folks I shoot with now as well, funny that ;-) The reason is simple, AF can't keep up with a small bird coming into a perch at a close distance. Pre-focus is the only way, so MF handling is a priority as well.
All the best.
Danny.
Impulses
Forum Pro
AngelicBeaver
Leading Member
I really like the 20mm pancake FOV. I'd love to have a premium version, even if it isn't as compact. Fast focus, brighter, no banding. I've recently acquired the PL 25 1.4, and while I like it for some things, I find that for family pics inside, it's a little too long. I used the 20 exclusively for quite a while and never got that feeling.
Tom Axford
Forum Pro
I'd like to see more small, but high quality lenses at a moderate price.
I'm really not interested in ultra-fast lenses because if I need the maximum light-gathering power it is much cheaper and easier to get it by going FF (an f/1.8 lens on FF has the same light-gathering ability as an f/0.9 lens on MFT and the FF lens will probably be much cheaper and more readily available).
There are already some excellent lenses that are both small and high quality (e.g. 12-32/3.5-5.6 and 35-100/4.0-5.6), but there is room for more, especially some really high-quality primes (an aperture of f/2 or thereabouts would be quite adequate).
I'm really not interested in ultra-fast lenses because if I need the maximum light-gathering power it is much cheaper and easier to get it by going FF (an f/1.8 lens on FF has the same light-gathering ability as an f/0.9 lens on MFT and the FF lens will probably be much cheaper and more readily available).
There are already some excellent lenses that are both small and high quality (e.g. 12-32/3.5-5.6 and 35-100/4.0-5.6), but there is room for more, especially some really high-quality primes (an aperture of f/2 or thereabouts would be quite adequate).
PhotoTurtle
Well-known member
- Messages
- 159
- Reaction score
- 112
Zoom range: 12mm to between 70mm-100mm at f/4
Weather sealed
Dual-IS capable
Silent focus motor
Stepless iris (an actual aperture ring would be ideal)
Constant aperture with no visible exposure shifts in the zoom range, even if electronically achieved.
Parfocal (even if electronically achieved)
I think that a lens like this would sell well even at $2,000+, because there are a LOT of people making high-quality videos (many of them professionally) with m43 gear.
I don't know if this combination of specs possible or practical, but I hope it is.
Weather sealed
Dual-IS capable
Silent focus motor
Stepless iris (an actual aperture ring would be ideal)
Constant aperture with no visible exposure shifts in the zoom range, even if electronically achieved.
Parfocal (even if electronically achieved)
I think that a lens like this would sell well even at $2,000+, because there are a LOT of people making high-quality videos (many of them professionally) with m43 gear.
I don't know if this combination of specs possible or practical, but I hope it is.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum