Are We Ever Going to Get a 135mm Equiv m4/3 Lens?

I shot a ton of 135mm lenses on my film cameras, and M43 75mm f1.8 feels right at home.

On Panasonic or Olympus?

The 14-140mm covers 135mm, albeit at circa f5.

I still have my 135mm SLR lens bought for portraits. Sits in the cupboard, of course. Now, I use the Panasonic 42.5mm f1.7 a cracking lens, not expensive and certainly worth a try if you’ve not already done so.

--
Stuart
Latest uploads
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dieselgolfer/
G80 images
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dieselgolfer/albums/72157669344521949
FZ2000 images https://www.flickr.com/photos/dieselgolfer/albums/72157698581763842
FZ330 images https://www.flickr.com/photos/dieselgolfer/albums/72157659823425652
TZ60 images https://www.flickr.com/photos/dieselgolfer/albums/72157642261079494
Aurora Borealis https://www.flickr.com/photos/dieselgolfer/albums/72157663549812064

Covers the exact focal length you want, is pretty fast at f2.0, and is weather-sealed. Plus you can use it with your 4/3 cameras.

epozar said:

Cagey75 said:

This is the first thread I've seen requesting this FL specifically! Maybe that's why they don't do it? no demand.

Click to expand...

Just every ff system has it. And Sigma recently released a f1.8 version

epozar said:

I would much rather see a 50mm F2.8 macro tbh, every FF system has a 100mm or at least 105mm 2.8 macro. 60 is fine for that sole purpose but a little long for every day use, 50mm 2.8 1:1 would be so perfect for the system, surprised Sigma haven't done it yet.

Click to expand...

I have an ft 50/2.0 macro for this

Click to expand...

FF does have it, but I've already seen Sony FF users call it a 'niche' lens. 85mm is much more popular for FF these days, and for M43 we have that pretty much in the 42.5 and 45mm offerings.

You don't have a native M43 50mm F2 though, would love to see Olympus make an up to date version

epozar said:

On Panasonic or Olympus?

Click to expand...

Voigtländer!

Although, I'm happy with my little adapted 75mm f2.5 Color Heliar.

Chris R-UK said:

Does anybody else think that the original post is a joke? If it is, the OP has been very successful.

The OP wants a 67.5mm lens and it must have a 62mm filter. He wants to use it for landscapes and 75mm is no good because he would have to move back a few feet and that might cause him to fall off a cliff. The 40-150mm f/2.8 is too heavy but he carries a tripod around (and takes 30 minutes to set it up).

Have we all been taken in?

Click to expand...

Or it's just because I've shot a lot more photos a year, so I actually know what I want to photograph?

From marketing's PoV, how successful do you think it'll be if Olympus reissue yet another lens that already exists on the market? And if you haven't read others' post, you should really know 135mm equivalent is a very important focal length that m4/3 has yet to produce. (and 135mm is actually a 85mm-ish portrait focal length for medium format).

I do love my 75mm f/1.8 and I've shot quite a bit photos with it, but it does have its limitation. It's not its sharpness or rendering, but its focal length. Haven't you ever had a moment which you thought, "I wish I brought that lens with me?"

Old Olympus OM System (film) had the proper wisdom of sharing two filter sizes for almost all focal lengths below 135mm: 49mm for consumer level lenses, and 55mm for pro level lenses. It's not strange. It's what professionals want. List of OM Lenses

Photography habits have changed quite a bit (EVF vs OVF, mirrorless vs mirror, shallow DoF vs more DoF, high contrast vs low contrast), so just because you don't shoot it that way doesn't mean other people are weird.

40-150mm like I mentioned, it's for wildlife (and zoom lenses are perfect for scout photos, and to test which focal length works best, but not for the final version of the photo). When it comes to landscape, demand is very different. Edge-to-edge sharpness is more important for landscape so zoom lenses can be cumbersome while tripod is worth carrying because it improves that marginal sharpness perhaps you don't really care in your shooting style. You don't bring a portrait lens on a landscape expedition. Like wise, you don't carry a tripod if you were doing street photography that day. Would you carry a red filter if you were shooting color photos that day? Is polarizing filter necessary if you are going to shoot portraits? Carry the wrong gears is heavy. Shooting the wrong photo is costly, especially you've spent the last ten years perfecting your craft. You don't need another photo go straight down to recycle bin because it's not better than the last version.

Torsten Hoff said:

Covers the exact focal length you want, is pretty fast at f2.0, and is weather-sealed. Plus you can use it with your 4/3 cameras.

Click to expand...

I am sure it is. I have 14-35mm SWD f/2. I love it. But my main camera has been E-M5 II nowadays, so that lens is a little too heavy for that small camera. (I do carry it with E-5... only once a while though). 14-35mm f/2 is the only lens I have that's 77mm filter, so planning a trip around that lens usually means there gotta be a very important scene I was looking for (and brings out E-5, which is fine to carry when I was younger). As you can see I have less time and getting lazy nowadays, so I don't want to carry two stacks of large filters. Some people don't understand the benefit of sharing filters, so I wonder if people actually appreciate Olympus's engineering effort to build all three existing f/1.2 primes using the same 62mm filter.

75mm f/1.8 is very good (and the sharpest lens in my m4/3 line up). I don't deny it. The reason wanting for a little shorter is because I've run into situation with 75mm f/1.8 quite a bit. I am hoping the new bright prime will at least cover 67.5mm focal lengths so I can carry just three primes. I used to carry 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro plus 75mm f/1.8, which as you see, 75mm f/1.8 isn't 62mm filter so it's a little annoying. My dream team would be 14mm, 25mm, and 67.5mm (28mm, 50mm, 135mm). The gap between 25mm and 75mm is pretty big, and I don't shoot 45mm focal length frequent enough to carry one more lens (my small bag can only carry three primes. If I carried the large bag, I might as well just carry the zoom).

citizenlouie said:

75mm f/1.8 isn't 62mm filter so it's a little annoying.

Click to expand...

Can't you just use a 58mm - 62mm step-up ring?