What lenses do we need?

Most of this is because I have my GH4 now and it, together with the EM1, can do pretty good AF-continues in burst mode. But I have a wish, but wonder if that is more universal or that others over here wish something else....So here we go:

Which of the following lenses is most needed for the system?

Think sigma 18-35 with a speedbooster.

Maby it could be made a little smaller..

Id love a lens like that for video and low light indoor photography at home.

We need Sigma, and Tokina to take Micro Four Thirds seriously, we need more small and fast lenses. I want the 7-14 F/2.8 now rather than later.

Olydude wrote:

We need Sigma, and Tokina to take Micro Four Thirds seriously, we need more small and fast lenses. I want the 7-14 F/2.8 now rather than later.

You think it will be small....? I don't. 7-14 f 4 panny is not small either. Why the need for f2.8 btw. I honestly have a bit difficulty in understanding that. But that is probably because I only see this as a landscape lens in which case I will use a tripod mostly anyway.

If it is up to me, they could give me an ultra ultra ultra sharp 12 mm f5.6 for landscapes. Or the same 10-20 mm f5.6 to f8.0 for that. I don't need a shallow DOF for most of my landscapes. I can't have enough DOF. Again: I imagine this lens with a tripod. No OIS needed either. makes it even lighter and cheaper and Oly bodies will stabilise it still too....

F/5.6 is not nearly bright enough for anything but broad daylight. Perhaps you don't shoot a lot in low light, but I do.

C Sean wrote:

Panasonic 100mm 2.8 macro lens.

The 45mm 2.8 maybe ideal for medium to large insects, but the lens don't have far enough reach for the smaller critters. Also it save treading on flowers and disturbing the soil when getting the shot.

Superb bokeh, you do not use AF fro macroshots anyways (well i don't) and the lens is cheap and an absolute fantastic one too. Stop it down to F4 and it is sharp too. The lens was designed with bokeh in mind.

Olydude wrote:

F/5.6 is not nearly bright enough for anything but broad daylight. Perhaps you don't shoot a lot in low light, but I do.

How is that important for a landscape? If you shoot a landscape, why would you use f2.8? Most lenses are really sharp at f4 to f5.6 and that is what you want in a landscape (mostly). Same is true for architecture but a tripod is less handy there....

Which is very close to the existing 9-18, except presumably you want it sharper in the corners.

Mark Thornton wrote:

Which is very close to the existing 9-18, except presumably you want it sharper in the corners.

I want it to be excellent optically. I don't think the 9-18 is excellent at all, but unsure. The Panny seems to be a step up.

Tony8232 wrote:

Most of this is because I have my GH4 now and it, together with the EM1, can do pretty good AF-continues in burst mode. But I have a wish, but wonder if that is more universal or that others over here wish something else....So here we go:

Which of the following lenses is most needed for the system?

I have GH4 only. Which good 100-250 mm f4 do you have to offer so I can shoot wildlife that is not posing for me to take a pic?

That is only at most 1 stop faster than the 100-300 you already have.

Jorginho wrote:

Most of this is because I have my GH4 now and it, together with the EM1, can do pretty good AF-continues in burst mode. But I have a wish, but wonder if that is more universal or that others over here wish something else....So here we go:

Which of the following lenses is most needed for the system?

1. A better quality lens that goes to 300mm. Doesn't need to be that fast but no slower than f5.6. An f4 would be nice but I would like to keep the weight down to be not much mire than the existing zooms that go out to 300mm
2. A longer lens than 300mm. Something to 400mm and a 600mm 
3. A better wide angle zoom than the current 9-18. Should not be too much larger or heavier and should take front mounted filters. The upcomimg Olympus f2.8 wide angle zoom I fear will be much larger and heavier.

Regards

John

Jorginho wrote:

Olydude wrote:

F/5.6 is not nearly bright enough for anything but broad daylight. Perhaps you don't shoot a lot in low light, but I do.

How is that important for a landscape? If you shoot a landscape, why would you use f2.8? Most lenses are really sharp at f4 to f5.6 and that is what you want in a landscape (mostly). Same is true for architecture but a tripod is less handy there....

I shoot with available light, it's about as important as it gets particularly when you're shooting after the sun has gone down.

Mark Thornton wrote:

That is only at most 1 stop faster than the 100-300 you already have.

Bad bad focus c....otherwise a decent lens, I agree. The Gh4 stalls after a few shots, 2 fps or so and 20% in focus I think.

Olydude wrote:

Jorginho wrote:

Olydude wrote:

F/5.6 is not nearly bright enough for anything but broad daylight. Perhaps you don't shoot a lot in low light, but I do.

How is that important for a landscape? If you shoot a landscape, why would you use f2.8? Most lenses are really sharp at f4 to f5.6 and that is what you want in a landscape (mostly). Same is true for architecture but a tripod is less handy there....

I shoot with available light, it's about as important as it gets particularly when you're shooting after the sun has gone down.