Edgar Matias

Actually, I disagree.

They both look fake, just in different ways...

The Nikon looks filmic fake (24 fps, like a movie) while the iPhone image looks interpolated fake (60 fps).

Both look pretty bad.

I use the 30mm/2.8 Panasonic (60mm-e). Great lens but still wish it was smaller/lighter.

Prior to that I used the Olympus 45mm/1.8, which is an awesome lens, but sadly not macro.

@SafariBob yes, but most people think of macro lenses in terms of photographing bugs.

I do a lot of product photography of larger objects. You wouldn't think they'd need a marcro lens, but they do.

Deep felt *thank-you* for stating the equivalent focal lengths!

IMO, the main benefit of it being a macro lens is not having to worry about running up against the minimum focus distance.

@Lars Rehm just curious... When you get these press announcements, do they not include a press contact, in case journalists have questions?

Could you not ask them what the focal lengths are?

Why post news about multi-lens phones, without stating the (equivalent) focal lengths?

Am I supposed to guess?

Have you forgotten you're a photography website?

Sheesh.

Guaranteed that lens will be soft.

The MUCH bigger RX10(ii) lens has the same 24-200mm range and it's soft compared to (for example) the LX10 lens that's only 24-72, or (presumably) the original...

Guaranteed that lens will be soft.

The MUCH bigger RX10 lens has that 24-200mm range and it's soft compared to (for example) the LX10 lens that's only 24-72.

There's no free lunch.

Based on an earlier poll , it looks like a fast 12-25mm f/2 zoom would be popular -- if it's not too heavy. Given the choice of a fast f/2 zoom + f/2.8 long zoom combo vs. a standard f/2.8 zoom ...

And also because people favour (or see in) certain focal lengths, so they buy primes in those focal lengths. The reason it's too limiting is because a 20-25mm f/2 would only allow 20mm people to go ...

An 8-12 might be possible (without getting too heavy). So how's this for a set... (1) 8-12mm f/2 (2) 12-25mm f/2 (3) 20-42mm f/2 For longer than that, I think I'd ...

I don't think you ever will.  The 8-18 f/2.8-4 is already 315g.

Which two primes?

For me, that's a little too limiting. Of the ones you listed, I think only the 14-17.5mm would be different enough to merit the effort, though I myself would prefer the 20-25mm. I found a blog post ...

I can't, but maybe Sigma can... Their 18-35mm f/1.8 is faster and lighter than the Oly (810g vs. 915g) though not as wide. It seems that limiting the zoom range to 2x is key. All their fast zooms ...

I think if you limit the zoom range to 2x and limit the aperture to f/2, you can get something relatively small/light. The fast Sigmas are all 2x zooms, and they got the aperture up to f/1.8.

Good points. I think the SHG lenses were too heavy and too expensive. Sigma's f/1.8 zooms are less expensive, and appear to be selling great. Native m4/3 versions would be significantly lighter -- ...

If they made an f/2 long zoom that was no heavier than the f/2.8 long zooms by Pana/Oly, but with a narrower range (to reduce weight), which zoom range would you choose? Note that this is a ...