Olympus updates its lens roadmap with three new lenses due out in 2020

The 300 f4 is 2500 euro, how much you think it would cost a 200 1.8 with high level optics? and what about size and weight?
In my opinion the 200 2.8 panasonic is already an excellent choice

"Quite portable" is obviously a very subjective thing.

A 200mm/f1.8 weighs 3 kg. Fuji's 200mm/f2 weighs 2.3 kg.

The Pana-Leica 200mm/f2.8 weighs 1.2 kg, and the Oly weighs 1.5 kg.

Those aren't small weight differences. And a 200mm/f1.8 or f/2 won't sell for a single penny less than $5000 (market rate for the ones that exist is $6000). Anyone who thinks otherwise is dreaming.

Even the old, shorter focal length (and thus much smaller physical aperture and front element) Olympus 4/3 SHG 150mm/f2 cost $3500 in today's inflation-adjusted dollars when it was sold new.

The 2.8 PRO line started with the 12-40 alone... So it could be reasonable to think this is the start of a small f4 line

Are you still shooting 8x10" sheet film or something?

In what universe does a 4/3" sensor actually count as "tiny?"

Does that make APS-C "very little," and FF "smallish" by your bizarre subjective standards?

It is also worth remembering that Olympus has more use for small sensors in their main business. Anyone fancy a full frame colonoscopy?

I also find it weird to describe a 4/3" sensor as tiny, when a FF sensor, merely 4x as large in area, not even an order of magnitude, usually is described as large.

...and the smartphone sensors that almost everyone in the world uses for photography and considers somewhere between "okay" and "amazing!" in IQ are 10x smaller than 4/3".

A 1/3" sensor is tiny. A 1/2.3" sensor is small.

By real world standards, 4/3" is probably the first of the "large" class of sensors begins, especially considering APS-C sensors are only 1.6x bigger (or even less in the case of Canon)...

By choosing m43, Olympus will fall further behind in DxO ratings, and for people whose interest in photography is comparing specs, the future looks grim. But for actually taking pictures, especially those who do so for fun, m43 has some advantages. Better and more versatile than a phone; smaller and lighter than other so-called compact systems except Canon M which does squeeze an APS sensor into a lightweight system with lightweight lenses.

Even if m43 were to dissapear, there are already too many APS and FF systems for Olympus to make a dent.

I think it needs to be very small to fit into the line-up, but if it is, it makes some sense.

And besides, almost everyone makes a 24-70/f2.8, 24-70/f4, and a 24-105/f4 (or 24-120) so why not Olympus, too?

Olympus hasn't made any M4/3 zooms that stand out as being particularly small (relative to Pana's in particular) outside of the old 9-18... The fact that this isn't in the Pro lineup might signal a change of pace from what they've been doing the last couple years tho, so who knows.

It'll be interesting to see if it's any smaller than the 12-60 f2.8-4 or the 12-35 f2.8 too, since the latter in particular is already a little smaller than Oly's own 12-40 f2.8... And both of the f2.8 are old enough that they often go on sale for $800. So the 12-45 f4 would have to be < $700 and/or smaller to make sense.

It might just be kind of a higher end kit option they wanna offer instead of the super zooms, the f2.8s, or the long in the tooth 12-60... If the f4 is cheaper for them to make and it allows for more attractive kits it might make sense even if it isn't a big draw for current users. You would've thought that to make sense with the E-M5 III tho...

"The fact that this isn't in the Pro lineup" - The 12-45 F4 is in the PRO lineup

I think its a great strategy to attract more m43 buyers. 12-40 2.8 sits at $800, not a huge lens but not small either. 12-100 sits at $1150 and a large lens.

Bring this Pro lens in at $499 or lower, or kitted with the EM5iii. I would be more tempted to dive than with the current offerings.

$750 for an F4, while the 2.8 is $799? Likely not going to happen. Point is, if the price is cheaper and the lens is smaller, and IQ is on par with the other lens, it will make a kit more attractive. The EM5iii comes with a 14-150 if they can squeeze in an F4 with less range around the same price point, I would be more interested than a all-in-1 zoom

...if the sensor wasn't so "tiny" the lenses would be 3x the size and 4x the price. They would sell even less then. Why enter a saturated Full frame market? makes even less business sense

Philo. I don’t think full frame is saturated, you have Sony which I discount entirely, canikon are clinging on to a historic old DSLR range so they’re out, you are only left with a handful of first generation Canikon FF mirrorless and three from Panasonic, one from Leica and one Sigma, that’s hardly saturated. When you think of the killing Olympus could have made with some sort of full frame digital mirrorless OM1 it’s really little short of tragic.

Where do you get the idea that a flagship body and lens will be $3000 altogether?

The 150-400/f4.5 alone isn't going to be a single penny less than $5000. It could very likely be in the $7000-9000 range.

@Bigsensorisbest - I'm not sure where you get that idea that all of a sudden there is going to be a humongous influx of buyers for $2000+ cameras in a dying market.

Unless you think that $1000 FF mirrorless cameras sold as loss-leaders is the ticket to profitability.

FF mirrorless is now by far the most competitive, saturated sector in the market. Margins are going to shrivel up as all 4 of the biggest camera companies in existence fight to differentiate themselves.

@Bigsensorisbest - If Olympus HAD released a FF EM1, basically I would NOT have bought it. I've had FF(Nikon), APS-C(Pentax,Nikon,Fuji) and now m4/3. I love shooting birds/wildlife and without question the EM1Mkii + 300mm F4 is the best system I have used due to it's handheld portability and premium build quality. I can see the benefits of other systems, but for me personally I've never enjoyed shooting more than I have with the Olympus. Oh and the PRO primes are something else too!

"The 150-400/f4.5 alone isn't going to be a single penny less than $5000. It could very likely be in the $7000-9000 range."

Yes. $7,000 is a real possibility and it might be commercially viable at that price. If Olympus can bring this in at $5,000, they will have a winner. Not cheap, but within reach of many potential buyers who are not professionals. Think of the birders who spend on gear. The 55 and old crowd who have disposable income for adventure travel and gear, but don't want a big kit. the 12-100mm and the 150-400mm with the 2x teleconverter would be terrific kit if paired with the superb ergonomics and IBIS of the E-M1X

@Bigsensoris best:
I guess your logic might work if you "discount" Sony entirely, but really why would anyone other than you do so?

As I wrote, the premise of discounting Sony entirely is flawed as far as I am concerned, but regardless of what you and I think, the marketplace will resolve this.

He likes big sensors and he cannot lie.

Actually he's just overcompensating.

Forget discounting Sony, why would he say "canikon are clinging on to a historic old DSLR range so they’re out" when Canon and Nikon are both actively developing new ML FF mounts? Canon even seems to have gotten serious about EF-M... And Nikon expanded Z mount to DX. If anything they've finally woken up... And it's quite a crowded space indeed (add the L mount/alliance).

It's not the number of individual (FF mirrorless) camera models that decides whether that market is saturated or not. It is the number of lens mounts (and camera companies). The more lens mounts you have and the more companies are involved, the more duplicate lens developments will happen (every lens mount needs a more or less full lens lineup, and even with shared lens mounts, the companies sharing it will have duplicate lenses). Something similar will happen in regard to camera models (though here the number of different cameras per company can be lower than what we had in the past).

As the overall market shrinks, so is the number of duplicate developments (lenses and cameras) that the market can support. And that is before market dynamics are taken into account. The companies with the smallest market share will have less money to invest into new lenses and bodies, making their systems less attractive.

The full frame market is absolutely saturated. The APS market is absolutely saturated. Not only too many manufacturers, but too many similar models. If that wasn't enough, image quality is more than good enough for almost everybody. The technology may be fascinating but I see 60mp consumer cameras as close to desperation--makes a great press release, but impractical for many. Maybe I'm wrong and next year people to upgrade from 60mp to 80mp but...

When I travel, I'm amazed at how few tourists even use cameras any more. They want something that is always with them and makes a small file they can upload or email. They will even schlepp tablets and use them for photos, but not cameras.

I own the Panasonic 100-400mm f/4-6.3.

Not only is this plenty enough light for most circumstances, I wouldn’t want it to be any larger. That lens is big enough already.

Anything over 300mm and brighter than f/5.6 is going to cost a lot and be heavy, not ideal if you want to remain mobile.

Let’s not forget that many 500mm f/4 lenses get paired with a teleconverter (sometimes two) to get extra reach on full frame. I’ve seen someone get over 1300mm focal length just to do bird photography, dropping from f/4 to f/8 or below... so f/6.3 is perfectly usable 👍

Pouring millions of dollars into lens R&D after pouring millions of dollars into relocating their manufacturing facility.

If that's damage control before closing down a business, they've got literally the worst finance guys in the world running things...

I might end up with an E-M5 III in a few years when the price is down to $700-800, we'll see.

Thank you, I learned something. Doesn't happen often in these fora ...

Nice thought, but someone more verses in lens design than me might be able to shed some light on how big/heavy a 500mm, even at f/6.3, would have to be...…..I suspect something more than I would want to tote, but I really have no idea.

@Craig
I think given Olympus's history with computational photography the system will become a lot more appealing for more than pensioners sooner rather than later

@ Craig from Nevada..
This is the exact strategy that has resulted in more than 20 members of my 60 member camera club of older, retired, financially secure, wildlife and travel oriented shooters, that have chosen to switch to or add Olympus kits in the last 18 months.

A 8-25 f4 is what Olympus has on their roadmap.

It's worth recognizing that the Panasonic 10-25 that you deride as being too limited has the widest focal range of any photographic lens like it that has ever been made. It is very much a technical wonder.

A 9-40/f2.8 (18-80mm equivalent!) would be absolutely unprecedented. Bigger manufacturers like Canon, Nikon, and Sony can't even produce a 21-70mm (eq) at any aperture, let alone something much wider and longer at the same time. They don't make anything even close to it, really.

Such a lens is extremely difficult to make, especially if you want it to be any good at all, optically. As Samuel Dilworth says, it would be huge and extraordinarily expensive, to boot.

Maybe the 12-45 is a pancake sized le s with pro line quality and it's intended as a kit for new bodies. Would be really nice

Standard zooms (that go from wide-angle to beyond normal) have been basically limited to 24 m equiv. at the wide end since almost forever on any kind of system. Relatively recently some fixed-lens cameras have moved that bar down to between 20 and 22 mm equiv.. The Panasonic 10-25 mm has moved it to 20 mm equiv. for ICL systems, though it is debatable whether it should be counted as it doesn't get 'beyond' normal.

The never-released Nikon DL 18-50 mm (equiv.) would have further moved that line but as the Panasonic 10-25 mm not quite reaching beyond normal (and fixed-lens cameras have more design freedoms by enabling an almost zero flange distance).

Since the roadmap was first shown, one of the lenses from it had been released.

I guess this update shows us what will come next.

I'm not a fan of roadmaps since no one except Canon delivers on time (and NIkon backorders when they deliver, claiming unexpected demand.) But I find it hard to believe Olympus would issue a press release with multiple new lenses if there were no plans to make them. It's posssible the marketing people haven't gotten the memo, and certainly all the camera manufacturers are in trouble, but this looks genuine to me.

Priced between 8 and 10 grands the 150-400mm F4.5 TC1.25x IS PRO will definitely take your money! :)

I agree that 40-150/f4 is probably not a good option, given that it would functionally match apertures with cheap, compact variable-aperture zooms already on the market. Unless it was miraculously small, somehow. You'd need to have very particular needs to get a 40-150/f4 instead of a 35-100/f2.8, 50-200/f4-5.6, 50-200/f2.8-4, or 100-300/f4-5.6 all of which are very compact and have been on the market for a while now.

A 40-150/f2 would be a real prestige lens, and because of its expanded focal range would still hold up well next to typical 70-200mm eq. APS-C and FF lenses in the typical equivalency d*ck-measuring contest. No denying it would be very big, heavy and expensive, though...

I could very much imagine that it will be a companion to the new 12-45mm f/4 standard zoom, also at f/4. For one, it could become really compact (like I suppose the 12-45 will, too). And then it would be just what MFT (and even FT back in the days) has been notoriously missing: comparatively slow, compact lenses, just not of the plastic type, but well built and with excellent image quality, too.

I guess it remains to be seen what Olympus means by ultra-compact (that's how they describe the 12-45). If the new 40-150 would be something that could be described that way, it might be interesting, I admit.

At the very least an Oly 100-400 should fit on Oly bodies without leaving metal shavings inside.

Panny really messed up what could have been a great lens. Oly can do it better.

That would make the prices of the Panny 100-400 fall. Who's going to buy a used lens that's had so many complaints when it was new?

I use the 300mm f4 a lot and I wouldn't like to loose any speed just for a bit more reach.

Good grief, $1000 is an absurd price point for such a lens, when you can get a brand new PL12-60/f2.8-4 for $800 (which already weighs 65g less than the O12-40/f2.8).

This lens makes a lot of sense if it's very small, starts at no more than $600, and weighs around 200g. Which should be very possible, given that the regular Lumix 12-60/f3.5-5.6 is right around there, and the physical aperture of 60mm @ f/5.6 is very similar to 45mm @ f/4, and that lens has a wider focal range and OIS, as well as sharing WR.

Trying to be fancy with such a modestly specced lens doesn't make any sense to me.

If it’s €1000, it’s no good. Needs to be half that. At least after the early-adopter tax expires. This lens doesn’t have to chart new ground in optical quality.

The industry has to stop pretending that people who are still buying standalone cameras are necessarily rich. If anything the opposite is likely true. Students, artists, retired hobbyists, etc., are not all loaded, but they’re exactly the sort of person who still wants a camera for one reason or another.

In today’s market of hulking unimaginative cameras, Olympus should stand for small, affordable, clever, and with plenty-good image quality anyway.

And there’s profit to be made there, because no-one else is serving that market except for some third-party lens makers.

EDIT: I agree with Androole above, whose comment appeared after I posted.

You make a very good argument, Samuel. Almost convinces me that this lens is required. About the "balance" of the 12-40 f/2.8: I own an E-M5 (original) and Panasonic GX-85. This lens is quite unbalanced on either body, unless you have the optional grip. So the f/4 should solve that.

About the "PRO" designation: this means the lens will be metal and not plastic. That kills the "200g" wishful thinking right away. They could have made it a "premium" zoom like the 9-18mm. But the constant aperture probably demanded (warrants) the coveted "PRO" designation. Still, I wish they could've pushed it to a 12-50mm f/4 zoom.

What if I'm hyped on Panasonic but don't have the five grand (camera and one lens) buy in price? M43 to the rescue! Also on the L mount front, pretty much all the glass for it is still expensive. You get what you pay for, sure, but there's a lot more M43 glass in all price ranges.

Plus when I travel, I don't need five pounds of full frame camera and f1.2 lens hanging round my neck.

Horses for courses, don't count M43 out so soon.

Let's just say no one should be placing stock market bets based on @Single Reflex's feelings here...

Now that Fuji makes a Medium Format camera, they're going to stop selling their APS-C cameras, right? Any minute now?

Likewise with Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Pentax? No more APS-C because they've got FF?

I don't understand why people have this bizarro-world belief that M4/3 is somehow uniquely bad or different from a product segmentation perspective. It's just another product range that has a specific role in the market, with pros and cons, like any other.

He has a "feeling" about Pansonic's lens production plans. And based on the fact that some are made in China. Sounds rock solid to me. Like the rumor Olympus will close its doors in the spring.

If portability (and affordability) is required then APS-C L-mount bodies (and lenses) will by the answer; just look at Leica TL, CL. Great balance of size and image quality etc.

The same for sub-fullframe video. Even bussines behemoth like Panasonic will (in foreseeable future) feed just one system in shrinked market.

Now you can't currently use great S PRO telezooms 70-200 on any "crop" Panna body and that's quite disastrous from marketing point of view. Just ridiculous.
Lumix G9 II with L-mount will be right solution for many enthusiasts with bunch of S lenses (like myself). Believe me.

Ooh yeah, an M43 body tied to two grand a pop lenses that weren't made for it.

How 'bout I just buy the Metabones Canon EF Speed Booster adapter instead, and get lots of high quality glass for much less.

Okay, now I know for REALLY sure that we shouldn't pay any attention to what you're saying there, Single Reflex.

$2000-3000 Leica APS-C bodies represent a great balance of image quality and size, but it's a marketing disaster to offer high quality, fully-featured M4/3 bodies that cost 1/4 of that?

Remember also that Panasonic is its own company selling its own products - they have some supply-side relationships on Leica products, but the margin isn't going to be nearly as good as selling their own products.

Good for you, I (and most people) don't have that kind of money. I think m43 will be doing just fine next to the L-mount.