Reflections on the Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 II Release and a Call for OM System Innovation

Nikon recently launched the latest iteration of its 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, and the upgrades are noteworthy. The new model has been slimmed down to an impressive 675g, features 11 rounded aperture blades for smoother bokeh, and now sports a reduced 77mm filter thread. Most significantly, it incorporates an internal zoom design, enhancing portability and usability—a leap forward for full-frame shooters.

As an enthusiast who adores the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro (now under the OM System banner), I’ve long appreciated its optical quality. However, by today’s standards, its 380g weight feels overly substantial for a Micro Four Thirds (M43) crop sensor system, which is typically valued for its compactness. While the lens delivers excellent performance, its size and heft seem misaligned with the lightweight ethos that defines M43.

I’d like to call on OM System to consider a redesign of the 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro. By incorporating lighter materials—such as advanced composites or magnesium alloys—and leveraging in-camera correction for distortion or aberrations, they could significantly reduce its weight. This would better align the lens with the M43 philosophy, making it more appealing to users who prioritize portability without sacrificing quality.

What are your thoughts on this potential update?

GutiWong said:

Nikon recently launched the latest iteration of its 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, and the upgrades are noteworthy. The new model has been slimmed down to an impressive 675g, features 11 rounded aperture blades for smoother bokeh, and now sports a reduced 77mm filter thread. Most significantly, it incorporates an internal zoom design, enhancing portability and usability—a leap forward for full-frame shooters.

As an enthusiast who adores the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro (now under the OM System banner), I’ve long appreciated its optical quality. However, by today’s standards, its 380g weight feels overly substantial for a Micro Four Thirds (M43) crop sensor system, which is typically valued for its compactness. While the lens delivers excellent performance, its size and heft seem misaligned with the lightweight ethos that defines M43.

I’d like to call on OM System to consider a redesign of the 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro. By incorporating lighter materials—such as advanced composites or magnesium alloys—and leveraging in-camera correction for distortion or aberrations, they could significantly reduce its weight. This would better align the lens with the M43 philosophy, making it more appealing to users who prioritize portability without sacrificing quality.

What are your thoughts on this potential update?

Click to expand...

If OM System stays in the business long enough…I suspect they might try that when they move to higher megapixel sensor in the next generation of sensors.

I agree that although the build quality is nice, OM pro lenses feel excessively hefty almost like they are trying too hard to seem premium. I would much prefer PL style light weight construction.

It would also be nice to have sharp, small, and fast zoom even if it’s limited in range. Or alternatively, F2.8 that goes wider like 10-40 or longer like 14-60 could be interesting.

GutiWong said:

What are your thoughts on this potential update?

Click to expand...

I think OM Systems is not interested in doing any innovating. They’ve done everything they can over the last few years to demonstrate that to us all.

To see their approach to lens “design” simply consider the 150-600. They pay Sigma to put a new mount on an existing lens, and sell it at triple the price. They couldn’t even be bothered to request that the optical design be adapted to account for the smaller imaging circle on MFT that could have made a lens of that range smaller and lighter.

I'd love to see some innovation from OMDS, or even some catch-up to other manufacturers with actual enhancements to firmware. But I don’t think we’re going to see any of that.

GutiWong said:

Nikon recently launched the latest iteration of its 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, and the upgrades are noteworthy. The new model has been slimmed down to an impressive 675g, features 11 rounded aperture blades for smoother bokeh, and now sports a reduced 77mm filter thread. Most significantly, it incorporates an internal zoom design, enhancing portability and usability—a leap forward for full-frame shooters.

As an enthusiast who adores the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro (now under the OM System banner), I’ve long appreciated its optical quality. However, by today’s standards, its 380g weight feels overly substantial for a Micro Four Thirds (M43) crop sensor system, which is typically valued for its compactness. While the lens delivers excellent performance, its size and heft seem misaligned with the lightweight ethos that defines M43.

I’d like to call on OM System to consider a redesign of the 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro. By incorporating lighter materials—such as advanced composites or magnesium alloys—and leveraging in-camera correction for distortion or aberrations, they could significantly reduce its weight. This would better align the lens with the M43 philosophy, making it more appealing to users who prioritize portability without sacrificing quality.

What are your thoughts on this potential update?

Click to expand...

Given how awesome the 12-45/4 is, it could make sense to go the internally zoomed route of only to better differentiate the f/2.8 from the f/4. For someone like me who adores the internally zooming 40-150/2.8, it would honestly make me more inclined to buy one. You’d then have all of the top-tier “holy trinity” Pro zooms be internally zooming (which technically the 7-14 is too).

That said, it seems unlikely at this point since it doesn’t really solve a problem for OMS - they have better places to invest their money. They’d be better off figuring out how to cost effectively have weather sealing in even their egret level bodies, IMO.

Will Rose said:

GutiWong said:

What are your thoughts on this potential update?

Click to expand...

I think OM Systems is not interested in doing any innovating. They’ve done everything they can over the last few years to demonstrate that to us all.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately I suspect you're right.

Will Rose said:

To see their approach to lens “design” simply consider the 150-600. They pay Sigma to put a new mount on an existing lens, and sell it at triple the price. They couldn’t even be bothered to request that the optical design be adapted to account for the smaller imaging circle on MFT that could have made a lens of that range smaller and lighter.

Click to expand...

I don't think the imaging circle plays much part in the size of a lens. Mostly it's the focal length and minimum F-stop. Where m43 wins out is letting you get away with a lens of half the FL. A 1200mm lens on FF would be a real monster.

Will Rose said:

I'd love to see some innovation from OMDS, or even some catch-up to other manufacturers with actual enhancements to firmware. But I don’t think we’re going to see any of that.

Click to expand...

Mark Ransom said:

Will Rose said:

GutiWong said:

What are your thoughts on this potential update?

Click to expand...

I think OM Systems is not interested in doing any innovating. They’ve done everything they can over the last few years to demonstrate that to us all.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately I suspect you're right.

Mark Ransom said:

To see their approach to lens “design” simply consider the 150-600. They pay Sigma to put a new mount on an existing lens, and sell it at triple the price. They couldn’t even be bothered to request that the optical design be adapted to account for the smaller imaging circle on MFT that could have made a lens of that range smaller and lighter.

Click to expand...

I don't think the imaging circle plays much part in the size of a lens.

Click to expand...

How could it not? Why would a manufacturer make a lens that was big enough and had large enough lens elements to project an image circle that would not be fully utilized?

--

Sam Bennett
Instagram: @swiftbennett

Mark Ransom said:

Will Rose said:

GutiWong said:

What are your thoughts on this potential update?

Click to expand...

I think OM Systems is not interested in doing any innovating. They’ve done everything they can over the last few years to demonstrate that to us all.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately I suspect you're right.

Mark Ransom said:

To see their approach to lens “design” simply consider the 150-600. They pay Sigma to put a new mount on an existing lens, and sell it at triple the price. They couldn’t even be bothered to request that the optical design be adapted to account for the smaller imaging circle on MFT that could have made a lens of that range smaller and lighter.

Click to expand...

I don't think the imaging circle plays much part in the size of a lens. Mostly it's the focal length and minimum F-stop. Where m43 wins out is letting you get away with a lens of half the FL. A 1200mm lens on FF would be a real monster.

Mark Ransom said:

I'd love to see some innovation from OMDS, or even some catch-up to other manufacturers with actual enhancements to firmware. But I don’t think we’re going to see any of that.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

If you look at the effect of teleconverters and focal reducers in changing the size of the image circle relative to the change in lens shape etc, I’d say the fundamental properties of a lens are angle of view, physical aperture (entry pupil), and image circle in that order.

Confusion arises for lenses that are not optimised for their native mount (and therefore sensor size). As f-stop falls below f2.8 for zooms and f2 for primes, the image circle starts to have more impact on lens design throughout the whole lens.

So, I agree that image circle has little effect on lens size per se, unless you are a believer that f2.8=f2.8, in which case it surely effects lens size for the same angle of view through an increase in physical aperture and the effect of that on the elements near the front. As you want larger apertures at wider angles of view, you hit a limit on lens design with smaller sensors.

The other effect is that exposure is the most important factor in low light AF, along with PDAF array design. So smaller sensors have a low light AF advantage with native lenses of similar size and the same angle of view.

I routinely switch between my MFT and FE kit. Of course the FE kit is typically larger because that’s what the market wants. It doesn’t have to be that way. Compare a G9 with a 17mm f1.2 Pro to an A7C with a 35mm f2 DG DN. My Viltrox 35/1.2 LAB is a whale next to the 17/1.2 but it captures more light, gives better subject separation, and is a lot cheaper.

The OM5 with Laowa 10/2 is just tiny, even compared to an A7C with a CV 21/3.5 Colour Skopar.

A

GutiWong said:

What are your thoughts on this potential update?

Click to expand...

IMO redesigning an already highly-regarded lens would be a waste of OM Systems' currently meager resources. The 12-40/2.8 PRO II was released just 3 years ago. If you want a smaller, lighter lens there is the 12-45/4 PRO.

I think what some people ignore is that when m4/3 was born, there was an inherent small-size advantage not only because of the smaller sensor but also because of the mirrorless design. Now that most of the DSLR makers have switched to mirrorless, there is simply not as much of a size advantage for m4/3 compared with APS-C and FF.

Re: 150-600, an m4/3-specific design would probably reduce weight by 20% or so. Probably not worth it for OMS to contract a specially-engineered smaller version of that lens. There already seems to be an OMS touch on it, anyway - more "special" elements, Sync-IS, and arca-compatible tripod foot.

Sam Bennett said:

GutiWong said:

Nikon recently launched the latest iteration of its 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, and the upgrades are noteworthy. The new model has been slimmed down to an impressive 675g, features 11 rounded aperture blades for smoother bokeh, and now sports a reduced 77mm filter thread. Most significantly, it incorporates an internal zoom design, enhancing portability and usability—a leap forward for full-frame shooters.

As an enthusiast who adores the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro (now under the OM System banner), I’ve long appreciated its optical quality. However, by today’s standards, its 380g weight feels overly substantial for a Micro Four Thirds (M43) crop sensor system, which is typically valued for its compactness. While the lens delivers excellent performance, its size and heft seem misaligned with the lightweight ethos that defines M43.

I’d like to call on OM System to consider a redesign of the 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro. By incorporating lighter materials—such as advanced composites or magnesium alloys—and leveraging in-camera correction for distortion or aberrations, they could significantly reduce its weight. This would better align the lens with the M43 philosophy, making it more appealing to users who prioritize portability without sacrificing quality.

What are your thoughts on this potential update?

Click to expand...

Given how awesome the 12-45/4 is, it could make sense to go the internally zoomed route of only to better differentiate the f/2.8 from the f/4. For someone like me who adores the internally zooming 40-150/2.8, it would honestly make me more inclined to buy one. You’d then have all of the top-tier “holy trinity” Pro zooms be internally zooming (which technically the 7-14 is too).

That said, it seems unlikely at this point since it doesn’t really solve a problem for OMS - they have better places to invest their money. They’d be better off figuring out how to cost effectively have weather sealing in even their egret level bodies, IMO.

Click to expand...

Having shot my OM5 with 12-45/4 and PL 25/1.4 against my wife’s new iPhone 16 for a week, I’m not sure there is much of a market for an entry level ILC camera. Small(er) fixed lens cameras seem to be doing OK, but Sony, Fuji and Ricoh own that market and it’s not entry level in terms of price.

MFT has optically good small WR lenses. The smaller OM bodies (OM5, OM3 are already WR). Not sure where the EP7 fits in terms of market position and whether its main market would value WR. I guess it would fit the outdoor branding of OMDS.

A

A

Will Rose said:

GutiWong said:

What are your thoughts on this potential update?

Click to expand...

I think OM Systems is not interested in doing any innovating. They’ve done everything they can over the last few years to demonstrate that to us all.

Click to expand...

I will withhold judgement on that until I see the new (??50-200??). I see nothing wrong with adapting Sigma lenses to mFTs when it gives users an option that they would otherwise not have, given that OM Systems is a small manufacturer and could not afford to quickly create multiple new lenses. Several of the "Olympus lenses" are really Sigma designed and manufactured lenses.

Will Rose said:

To see their approach to lens “design” simply consider the 150-600. They pay Sigma to put a new mount on an existing lens, and sell it at triple the price. They couldn’t even be bothered to request that the optical design be adapted to account for the smaller imaging circle on MFT that could have made a lens of that range smaller and lighter.

Click to expand...

The difference in size and weight would be minimal for most lenses. That diameter of the lens and the front element are going to be the same size for the same focal length.

Will Rose said:

I'd love to see some innovation from OMDS, or even some catch-up to other manufacturers with actual enhancements to firmware. But I don’t think we’re going to see any of that.

Click to expand...

I want them to get Sigma to add mFTs to the list of cameras which will take their recent 500mm f5.6 lens (sharp and not heavy). I don't care that it would not be designed by OM Systems.

There is a Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 of 305 grams and it has stabilization which the Nikon does not. While it may be possible to design such a lens with less weight, I don't think it would be much different.

Just a note: Nikon includes this warning with the new lens, is that something that may be true of other lenses. Given the apparently aging group of ILC users, this could limit the lens use.

WARNING: Do not use this product if you have a pacemaker or other medical device. The magnet or magnets in this product could cause medical devices to malfunction.

If there's an opening on the constant aperture standard zoom side it's more in the Lumix court, given they're on iteration III of the 12-35/2.8. Since that came out just three years ago a refresh seems quite far off, if ever. Standing apart ATM are the f:1.7 twins, which combined cover that AoV range and then some.

I suspect folks are generally leaning towards longer zoom ranges, exemplified by the 12-100. 12-35 is pretty constrained.

IMHO

Rick

ahaslett said:

Sam Bennett said:

GutiWong said:

Nikon recently launched the latest iteration of its 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, and the upgrades are noteworthy. The new model has been slimmed down to an impressive 675g, features 11 rounded aperture blades for smoother bokeh, and now sports a reduced 77mm filter thread. Most significantly, it incorporates an internal zoom design, enhancing portability and usability—a leap forward for full-frame shooters.

As an enthusiast who adores the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro (now under the OM System banner), I’ve long appreciated its optical quality. However, by today’s standards, its 380g weight feels overly substantial for a Micro Four Thirds (M43) crop sensor system, which is typically valued for its compactness. While the lens delivers excellent performance, its size and heft seem misaligned with the lightweight ethos that defines M43.

I’d like to call on OM System to consider a redesign of the 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro. By incorporating lighter materials—such as advanced composites or magnesium alloys—and leveraging in-camera correction for distortion or aberrations, they could significantly reduce its weight. This would better align the lens with the M43 philosophy, making it more appealing to users who prioritize portability without sacrificing quality.

What are your thoughts on this potential update?

Click to expand...

Given how awesome the 12-45/4 is, it could make sense to go the internally zoomed route of only to better differentiate the f/2.8 from the f/4. For someone like me who adores the internally zooming 40-150/2.8, it would honestly make me more inclined to buy one. You’d then have all of the top-tier “holy trinity” Pro zooms be internally zooming (which technically the 7-14 is too).

That said, it seems unlikely at this point since it doesn’t really solve a problem for OMS - they have better places to invest their money. They’d be better off figuring out how to cost effectively have weather sealing in even their egret level bodies, IMO.

Click to expand...

Having shot my OM5 with 12-45/4 and PL 25/1.4 against my wife’s new iPhone 16 for a week, I’m not sure there is much of a market for an entry level ILC camera. Small(er) fixed lens cameras seem to be doing OK, but Sony, Fuji and Ricoh own that market and it’s not entry level in terms of price.

Click to expand...

Fujis been pretty successful selling a pretty wide range of ILCs - some entry level, some not. I think the market is clearly there and the differentiator is the difference in experience, not image quality. Yeah, smartphones generally have great image quality these days. But some people simply do not want to use their phone for photography. The pendulum is swinging back to “real” cameras - it won’t swing back to where the market was and it may even swing back but the market is clearly changing.

ahaslett said:

MFT has optically good small WR lenses. The smaller OM bodies (OM5, OM3 are already WR). Not sure where the EP7 fits in terms of market position and whether its main market would value WR. I guess it would fit the outdoor branding of OMDS.

Click to expand...

Yeah I think it would have to since as you mentioned Fuji is really dominating and the rest of the manufacturers have good competitive products.

drj3 said:

There is a Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 of 305 grams and it has stabilization which the Nikon does not. While it may be possible to design such a lens with less weight, I don't think it would be much different.

Just a note: Nikon includes this warning with the new lens, is that something that may be true of other lenses. Given the apparently aging group of ILC users, this could limit the lens use.

WARNING: Do not use this product if you have a pacemaker or other medical device. The magnet or magnets in this product could cause medical devices to malfunction.

Click to expand...

This hit my main point. The Panasonic F2.8 duo has the small size covered. Olympus has chosen to be a bit larger but also be all about build quality and sealing.

If they were to put the R&D into anything the 40-150 F2.8 would be a better candidate. Even if modern optics & materials can only get them a modest percentage off of the size it would have a much larger impact there.

Will Rose said:

GutiWong said:

What are your thoughts on this potential update?

Click to expand...

I think OM Systems is not interested in doing any innovating. They’ve done everything they can over the last few years to demonstrate that to us all.

Click to expand...

The camera industry in general has done little innovation. We've had internal zoom lenses for years. We've had VCM for years. Olympus brought an internal zoom 40-150/2.8 with dual VCM motors to M43 over a decade ago.

Will Rose said:

To see their approach to lens “design” simply consider the 150-600. They pay Sigma to put a new mount on an existing lens, and sell it at triple the price. They couldn’t even be bothered to request that the optical design be adapted to account for the smaller imaging circle on MFT that could have made a lens of that range smaller and lighter.

Click to expand...

Olympus and Panasonic have designed and marketed hundreds of lenses. There is little left to reach for at this point in a mature system. Many companies use Sigma/Tamron designs to expand offerings. Why shouldn't M43?

Will Rose said:

I'd love to see some innovation from OMDS, or even some catch-up to other manufacturers with actual enhancements to firmware. But I don’t think we’re going to see any of that.

Click to expand...

I'd love to see some innovation from Canon, Nikon, Sony to catch up to OM with actual enhancements at an affordable price. For years, OM has offered compact, WR, with the best IBIS and IP ratings with features like ProCap, in camera stacking, custom focus limiters, Live Composite, Live Time, pixel shift, HHHR, LiveND, LiveGND and 60+FPS RAW bursts, all at a fraction of the price of offerings from the big 3. But I don't think we're going to see any of that.

CBR1100XX said:

drj3 said:

There is a Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 of 305 grams and it has stabilization which the Nikon does not. While it may be possible to design such a lens with less weight, I don't think it would be much different.

Just a note: Nikon includes this warning with the new lens, is that something that may be true of other lenses. Given the apparently aging group of ILC users, this could limit the lens use.

WARNING: Do not use this product if you have a pacemaker or other medical device. The magnet or magnets in this product could cause medical devices to malfunction.

Click to expand...

This hit my main point. The Panasonic F2.8 duo has the small size covered. Olympus has chosen to be a bit larger but also be all about build quality and sealing.

If they were to put the R&D into anything the 40-150 F2.8 would be a better candidate. Even if modern optics & materials can only get them a modest percentage off of the size it would have a much larger impact there.

Click to expand...

I doubt there will be a new 40-150 f2.8. The 40-150 f4 is the lower weight and size for those focal lengths. The new zoom will probably cover many of the same focal lengths and probably at f2.8 with stabilization which would reduce the attractiveness of a new 40-150 f2.8.

GutiWong said:

Nikon recently launched the latest iteration of its 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, and the upgrades are noteworthy. The new model has been slimmed down to an impressive 675g, features 11 rounded aperture blades for smoother bokeh, and now sports a reduced 77mm filter thread. Most significantly, it incorporates an internal zoom design, enhancing portability and usability—a leap forward for full-frame shooters.

As an enthusiast who adores the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro (now under the OM System banner), I’ve long appreciated its optical quality. However, by today’s standards, its 380g weight feels overly substantial for a Micro Four Thirds (M43) crop sensor system, which is typically valued for its compactness. While the lens delivers excellent performance, its size and heft seem misaligned with the lightweight ethos that defines M43.

I’d like to call on OM System to consider a redesign of the 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro. By incorporating lighter materials—such as advanced composites or magnesium alloys—and leveraging in-camera correction for distortion or aberrations, they could significantly reduce its weight. This would better align the lens with the M43 philosophy, making it more appealing to users who prioritize portability without sacrificing quality.

What are your thoughts on this potential update?

Click to expand...

The new Nikon lens is $2800. The OM System 12-40 f/2.8 II is $1000.

How much closer to $2800 are you willing to spend for the innovation?

GutiWong said:

Nikon recently launched the latest iteration of its 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, and the upgrades are noteworthy. The new model has been slimmed down to an impressive 675g, features 11 rounded aperture blades for smoother bokeh, and now sports a reduced 77mm filter thread. Most significantly, it incorporates an internal zoom design, enhancing portability and usability—a leap forward for full-frame shooters.

As an enthusiast who adores the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro (now under the OM System banner), I’ve long appreciated its optical quality. However, by today’s standards, its 380g weight feels overly substantial for a Micro Four Thirds (M43) crop sensor system, which is typically valued for its compactness. While the lens delivers excellent performance, its size and heft seem misaligned with the lightweight ethos that defines M43.

I’d like to call on OM System to consider a redesign of the 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro. By incorporating lighter materials—such as advanced composites or magnesium alloys—and leveraging in-camera correction for distortion or aberrations, they could significantly reduce its weight. This would better align the lens with the M43 philosophy, making it more appealing to users who prioritize portability without sacrificing quality.

What are your thoughts on this potential update?

Click to expand...

So for a Nikon lens, 675g is impressively light but @ 380g for Olympus it is substantial?

GutiWong said:

Nikon recently launched the latest iteration of its 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, and the upgrades are noteworthy. The new model has been slimmed down to an impressive 675g, features 11 rounded aperture blades for smoother bokeh, and now sports a reduced 77mm filter thread. Most significantly, it incorporates an internal zoom design, enhancing portability and usability—a leap forward for full-frame shooters.

As an enthusiast who adores the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro (now under the OM System banner), I’ve long appreciated its optical quality. However, by today’s standards, its 380g weight feels overly substantial for a Micro Four Thirds (M43) crop sensor system, which is typically valued for its compactness. While the lens delivers excellent performance, its size and heft seem misaligned with the lightweight ethos that defines M43.

Click to expand...

Saying that something light and new is needed is always a reasonable point. But when it comes to a 2-stop difference, how much of a weight difference does that actually justify? A half by length? A quarter by area? Or one-eighth by volume? No one can say for sure. Even the venerable 'Law of Equivalence' has nothing to say about the weight of lens elements, barrels, or housings.
Of course, with advanced technology, the 12–40mm could be made smaller and lighter. But the real issue is the extent. If you're only cutting around 50 grams from a 380g lens, it might actually be more reasonable - from a company's perspective - to just say, “screw it and do something else.”

GutiWong said:

I’d like to call on OM System to consider a redesign of the 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro. By incorporating lighter materials—such as advanced composites or magnesium alloys—and leveraging in-camera correction for distortion or aberrations, they could significantly reduce its weight. This would better align the lens with the M43 philosophy, making it more appealing to users who prioritize portability without sacrificing quality.

Click to expand...

OMDS’s “philosophy,” or at least its original intent, has changed completely since the days of the E-P1. The market that the E-P1 was aiming for is now dominated by smartphones. Yet both the E-P1 and the OM-1 Mark Ⅱ are μ4/3 camera.

So I don’t think we need to pay attention to any so-called "μ4/3 philosophy" or whatever that’s supposed to mean. More often than not, when users bring up the “philosophy,” the reason is clear : it’s when a new product doesn’t match the preferences of a sizable - but not all - portion of users. Even if such a philosophy exists, it’s probably closer to a corporate secret. The same applies to the so-called “OMDS-doing-absolutely-nothing-ers,” because “absolutely nothing” might very well be part of what's deliberately kept in the company’s vault.

The 12–40mm F2.8 lens has already had its internal structure thoroughly exposed through numerous broken-mount cases, and its optical characteristics, with extensive use of digital corrections, have been well understood for over a decade. What you're asking for was already addressed back in 2013.

Wow. $2800. Makes my Oly 12-100mm Pro "cheap". As a retired hobbyist, I could never afford that expense for a general use lens. Just me I suppose.

Greg