I agree. I had the 17 and the 45 f/1.2 lenses. Great lenses but I found I didn't use them except in extreme low light which is a rare experience for me. I thought they were superior but I always found myself picking up the f/1.8s because I didn't have a use for anything faster so I didn't see enough benefit in taking the bigger lenses. I know the f/1.2 lenses make better images with better bokeh, but it didn't make me use them. I'm not enough of an artist for that.
I think it tells you something about the practical use of the system. Small, light, reasonably priced, good quality, works in average DoF and lighting situations, not as much for extremes.
I traded the 12-40 for the 12-45 for lighter weight. I thought the 12-40 was nose heavy with nothing to hold on to. I don't miss the stop of light. I added the 40-150 f/4 and kept the 40-150 f/2.8 for the extra stop when I need it but mostly for the TCs.
I think the f/4 zooms are brilliant because of the packaging and the weather sealing. They are fast enough for what I do and a joy of a small, light, high quality imaging package to carry in a small bag with 1-2 bodies, the 25 f/1.8 and more. This kit makes me happy. So much capability in 4lbs. with two bodies and a 12-150 range in two lenses at f/4 + a fast prime. Just a great lightweight capable weather sealed kit except for the prime.
I go there first and add/change as needed but not often. Its perfection for me. The right balance of range, DoF, speed, quality, size and weight for an all-day carry anywhere. The perfect M43 kit for my needs
I think the 20 f/1.4 is a good compromise between the f/1.2 and f/1.8 primes. I'd buy one but I'm not sure I'll like the FL. f/1.4 might be the right speed for primes for general use though.
I've always thought lenses like the PL25/1.4, the Sigma 56/1.4, and more recently the 20/1.4 Pro struck a sweet spot that the system could've really used more of; not to mention all 3 are some of the smaller weather sealed primes, something the system could've used more of as well... This coming from someone that bought and loved the 17/1.2 (and now has a FF 20/1.8, 35/1.4 & 75/1.8).
Even the PL12/1.4 isn't that large for what it is, the price is just a little out there like many of the older/faster M4/3 wides (hello 12/2). Fuji seemed to recognize and target that niche better with their f2 WR line and with the updates to their older f1.4s, but their zooms and tele primes are as big as anything in FF land. It did seem like the f1.2 Pro prime cycle tied up Oly for several years.
That and the manufacturing plant move were both timed poorly... The 12-45/4 should've been out before or along with the E-M5 III which itself should've been out like a year earlier (wouldn't have run head on into the pandemic either, tho no one could predict that), and the 100-400 definitely should've been out much earlier.
I don't know why they went for f/2.8 zooms and f/1.8 primes first. Maybe they thought they had to offer these speeds because they were getting bashed over low light and shallow DoF comparisons to other formats at a time when higher ISO was not as usable. Same thing with the f/1.2 primes which seem to be a response to bokeh interest.
Ehh, f2.8 zooms can be pretty small, Oly just chose FL ranges and features that ballooned the size of their zooms while Pana went in subtly different directions that resulted in much more portable lenses; eg Pana's PL8-18 f2.8-4 or 7-14/4 vs Oly 7-14/2.8 Pro, or P 35-100/2.8 X vs O 40-150/2.8 Pro. The Pana 12-35/2.8 X is practically in the same size/weight category as the Oly 12-45/4 Pro.
For me the 35-100/2.8 is still one of the key lenses that keeps me shooting the system. It's totally subjective but I care a lot more about the speed than the extra range thru 300mm equivalent, which has always felt like no man's land to me. If I wanted to shoot longer I'd go way longer and spring for the PL50-200 or the 100-300 II I already own, and the former is
still smaller than the 40-150/2.8 Pro. Notably the 35-100, 40-150/4, PL50-200, and 75/100-300 are still smaller and/or lighter than most FF tele zooms.
I use that 35-100 for everything from events, concerts, and social occasions to landscapes and action, often on a dinky little GX850 body. I'm still curious about the other xx-2xx tele zooms Oly had on their roadmap (which OM had kept on), although between the two 35-100 (f4-5.6 & f2.8) and my FF 50-400 I'm probably set for the foreseeable future.
I like where the system is now. It's just what I need. I would have bought the f/4 zooms if the OM-1 wasn't available but it wouldn't surprise me if that body sold a number of f/2.8 40-150s, f/4 300s and 100-400s for them for the improved AF system I think its a great improvement over the bodies it replaced. Probably 150-400s too though in low numbers but it seems all they can make.
It's just too bad it's taking just as long for anything from the OM-1 to filter down the product line as it took for anything from the E-M1 II to filter down the line. The OM-5 was
not it.
For me, smaller bodies is a key part of the M4/3 size advantage, there's loads and loads of small FF primes now which overlap plenty with M4/3, and even some relatively small 350-500g f4
and f2.8 FF zooms (just not teles of course, a variable 70-300 is the only thing that'll be that light); but FF bodies can at best scale to something the size of a GX9 (and there's basically only one 500g RF-like body like that around, most are SLR style 650g+).
That IMO has been Oly/OM's biggest hurdle, nothing wrong with an E-M10 or E-PL but those lines (or even the E-M5/OM-5) haven't seen the kinds of improvement over the last 6+ years that the flagships have.
