Should Olympus start a new f/2.8 prime lineup?

Except maybe an ultra-wide f2.8 lens.

But the rest? Forget it. F2 or faster or don't bother.

Just get the 12-40 2.8 and you basically have a bunch of 2.8 primes in one.  Whoever said 2.8 is slow .... eh?? The 12-40 is one of the better M43 lenses available, and many are happy enough with it's bigger brother the 12-100 F4! they don't think it's too slow.

Tommi K1 wrote:

Now most of the Olympus primes are f/1.8 ones in their Premium line. But they had a 25mm f/2.8 in their 4/3 system and 17mm f/2.8 in m4/3. But both are gone.

Should Olympus revive that f/2.8 line with something new, special for cheaper prices?

9mm f/4

17mm f/2.8

25mm f/2.8

75mm f/2.8

120mm f/4 (Macro?)

The 9mm, 17mm and 25mm in pancake designs, and 75mm to be made as small as possible. The 120mm f/4 macro in quality of 60mm Macro.

If one could get a 17mm and 25mm f/2.8 for lets say 200€ each, would it be worth to consider new users those, instead their f/1.8 Premium line that are 1.3 stops faster?

Considering that 17mm and 25mm f/1.8 models costs like 350€. Being pancake models without any fancy clutches etc, it would be nice cheap set to buy someone to start with. Ie E-PL9 + 17mm and 25mm for lower price.

F/2.8 is really too small for lenses, say, between 14 and 45mm and they would compete with existing zooms.

I would love the following lenses (if well made) with moderate aperture:

10/2.8, 12/2.8, 14/2.0, 17/2.0, 20/2.0, 25/2.0, 30/2.0, 40/2.0, 50/2.8, 70/2.8, 100/3.4, 150/4.0, 200/4.8, 300/5.6.

They could be light, inexpensive and sharp.

No we need more speed I would not even consider or even buy a 2.8 prime there already is a bunch of cheap 1.8 lenses

Belgarchi wrote:

I would love the following lenses (if well made) with moderate aperture:

[...] 200/4.8

Or a 200mm f/2.8 that doesn't cost 3000 EUR. You know, something like Canon 200mm f/2.8L II, which currently sells for 700 EUR.

, 300/5.6.

Now, that one would make equivalence police fuming.

They could be light, inexpensive and sharp.

Ah, the famous unicorn trio. Sorry, you can only get two of those, pick which ones

Tommi K1 wrote:

Now most of the Olympus primes are f/1.8 ones in their Premium line. But they had a 25mm f/2.8 in their 4/3 system and 17mm f/2.8 in m4/3. But both are gone.

Should Olympus revive that f/2.8 line with something new, special for cheaper prices?

9mm f/4

17mm f/2.8

25mm f/2.8

75mm f/2.8

120mm f/4 (Macro?)

The 9mm, 17mm and 25mm in pancake designs, and 75mm to be made as small as possible. The 120mm f/4 macro in quality of 60mm Macro.

If one could get a 17mm and 25mm f/2.8 for lets say 200€ each, would it be worth to consider new users those, instead their f/1.8 Premium line that are 1.3 stops faster?

Considering that 17mm and 25mm f/1.8 models costs like 350€. Being pancake models without any fancy clutches etc, it would be nice cheap set to buy someone to start with. Ie E-PL9 + 17mm and 25mm for lower price.

f/2.8 primes don't really make sense on M4/3. They are small, light, sharp, and affordable in the f1.7-f2 range. With the possible exception of an ultrawide prime or lens ~100mm or longer, it's pretty much impossible for me to see the appeal of f/2.8 lenses on M4/3. It would just be sucking up R&D resources to produce low-margin products that no one would buy.

Compact, light, affordable F2.8 primes for an FF system, though? That would be fantastic.

Astrotripper wrote:

Belgarchi wrote:

I would love the following lenses (if well made) with moderate aperture:

[...] 200/4.8

Or a 200mm f/2.8 that doesn't cost 3000 EUR. You know, something like Canon 200mm f/2.8L II, which currently sells for 700 EUR.

You can use that Canon 200mm/f2.8 on your M4/3 camera if you want, you know.

You'll be disappointed with it. It's a 25 year old lens design. It has less than half the linear resolving capability of the PL200mm/f2.8. But I guess if the cheap price is much, much more important than performance, that's fine.

, 300/5.6.

Now, that one would make equivalence police fuming.

They could be light, inexpensive and sharp.

Ah, the famous unicorn trio. Sorry, you can only get two of those, pick which ones

Androole wrote:

Astrotripper wrote:

Belgarchi wrote:

I would love the following lenses (if well made) with moderate aperture:

[...] 200/4.8

Or a 200mm f/2.8 that doesn't cost 3000 EUR. You know, something like Canon 200mm f/2.8L II, which currently sells for 700 EUR.

You can use that Canon 200mm/f2.8 on your M4/3 camera if you want, you know.

Yes. I might pick one up second hand. Should be nice with a SpeedBooster.

You'll be disappointed with it. It's a 25 year old lens design. It has less than half the linear resolving capability of the PL200mm/f2.8.

Well yeah, of course. And you think a cheap 200/4.8 would be as good as PL 200?

Besides, you can actually get that already by buying Panasonic 100-300 II. It's fairly affordable, reasonably small and lightweight and actually pretty good at 200mm. It's even weather resistant.

So since you can already have that, I assume Belgarchi has something smaller, lighter, cheaper and better in mind.

This is the kind of wishful thinking I have an issue with threads like that. It has to be small, it has to be cheap, it has to offer great image quality.

Yaay, I want a unicorn as well.

But it's not gonna happen.

But I guess if the cheap price is much, much more important than performance, that's fine.

Well, apparently it's not fine to the poster I replied to. As they, like OP, want it to be both cheap and sharp. And small as well.

the 2.8 lenses fit where other ones dont.

the 14 and 17mm pancakes are ultra compact.

Dave Lively wrote:

SushiRyu wrote:

I wrote an ad for these new lenses:
"Do you like the f1.8 primes that already exist for m43, but sometimes just wish that you could switch to a different lens instead of stopping down to 2.8 in those clutch moments? Introducing the new 75mm f2.8 from Olympus! Similar to the fabulous 75mm f1.8, but inferior."

Or how about:

"Do you want a 7mm lens but don't want to spend $800 to $1300 for one of the zooms? Introducing the 7mm f2.8 from Olympus, all the wide of our 7-14 zoom but only a third the weight and price"

Or:

"Do you want more working distance than our 60mm f2.8 macro provides? Tired of struggling to get light on small subjects? Introducing the 120mm f4 macro."

I wouldn't buy a conventional f2.8 prime for a focal lengths between 12 and 90mm. The compact and inexpensive f1.8 primes or kit zooms I already own are fine in that range. But depending on price, weight and optical quality I would likely buy a longer macro lens or an ultrawide 7mm to 9mm prime. And neither would have to be fast.

The Laowa 7.5mm f2 rectilinear costs $500, is tiny and weighs only 5 ounces. I'd love to see Olympus license that design and bring out one of those with autofocus (for the scuba divers on here; hint, hint I dive but haven't bought the UW housing yet). 
For the longer lengths I could definitely see a 2.8 being fabulous, 120mm or longer (I'd like 150mm). But to develop new 2.8 lenses in the same lengths that already have the 1.8 primes, doesn't make sense.

Tommi K1 wrote:

arson519 wrote:

No we need more speed I would not even consider or even buy a 2.8 prime there already is a bunch of cheap 1.8 lenses

About 350€ for f/1.8 lenses is not cheap, compared that you could get a f/2.8 one for 200€.

17mm f/1.8 = 350€

25mm f/1.8 = 350€

45mm f/1.8 = 240€

12mm f/2 = 670€

Total = about 1600€

So how about:

17mm f/2.8 = 150€

25mm f/2.8 = 200€

45mm f/1.8 = 240€

12mm f/2.8 = 250€

7mm f/2.8 = 350€

Total = about 1200€ (or 850€ if leaving that 7mm possibility away).

So you would get half the price all the same focal lengths, smaller, lighter and more affordable.

Now tell someone beginner to invest 1600/1000€ for lenses as extra over a 630€ for E-M10 III (body only), or to invest a 600/850€ with fast f/2.8 lenses.

If all of those lenses existed on the market at those prices, I'd advise a beginner to spend a little bit more on each lens upfront, because buying the 2.8 lenses will probably mean trying to sell them used when they decide to upgrade to the 1.8 down the line. You don't need to own every focal length prime, you can start with just 1 or 2, and decide to add to the collection in the future.

Tommi K1 wrote:

arson519 wrote:

No we need more speed I would not even consider or even buy a 2.8 prime there already is a bunch of cheap 1.8 lenses

About 350€ for f/1.8 lenses is not cheap, compared that you could get a f/2.8 one for 200€.

17mm f/1.8 = 350€

25mm f/1.8 = 350€

45mm f/1.8 = 240€

12mm f/2 = 670€

Total = about 1600€

So how about:

17mm f/2.8 = 150€

25mm f/2.8 = 200€

45mm f/1.8 = 240€

12mm f/2.8 = 250€

7mm f/2.8 = 350€

Total = about 1200€ (or 850€ if leaving that 7mm possibility away).

So you would get half the price all the same focal lengths, smaller, lighter and more affordable.

Now tell someone beginner to invest 1600/1000€ for lenses as extra over a 630€ for E-M10 III (body only), or to invest a 600/850€ with fast f/2.8 lenses.

Or one could get a grey-market 12-35, 12-40, or PL 12-60 for about 600 Euro/GBP/USD. Sure, not as small on-camera, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that one 12-40 is still lighter than the combination of 12mm, 17mm, 25mm, and 45mm.

(pretty even bet actually, a lot of donuts are about $1...)