DSLR Photography Forum

6 out of the 10 existing M43 lenses already include the 14mm focal length. Is there really a need for a new 14mm prime (regardless of speed)? Wouldn't a 10 or 12 make more sense? I totally approve of new fast-ish pancake primes - but the 14 mm focal length is totally redundant.

And what's with the 8mm fisheye? Is anybody really demanding a fisheye as one of the early lenses in a new lineup?

The 9-18 Oly looks like a good match for the GF-1. It is identical range wise to my Nikon 12-24 which is a totally useable wide zoom range. The Pany 7-14 is wider range-wise - but it is a much larger lens - my gut would be to go with the 9-18 if I were interested in a wide zoom at this point. The whole idea of buying a GF-1 is to minimize the size of your rig. If that isn't your top priority in a compact camera - buy the GH-1 instead.

I would be happy to buy a 40-100 F2.8-F4 (80-200 35mm equiv), or a 10 / 12mm F2.5 non-fisheye prime if it was available.

To maximize on the GF-1's size, the ideal kit would be the 20mm F1.7, a pancake 10mm F2.5 and a 40-100 F2.8-F4 tele zoom. Is that too much to ask? Apparently - only one of those lenses actually exists. Panasonic is making more lenses right now and generally has a higher overall quality - but Olympus may come through yet with a lineup that I actually want.

I am not closing the door on the Pany 14-140 yet - but I would gladly trade some of that super-zoom range for a smaller size.

Rant off...

Ranting about the 4/3 lens lineup, especially the lack of particular primes, is a long and cherished tradition. Well, as long as any tradition can be that involves digital cameras.

I'd hear from people: "I'd buy an Olympus, but there are no prime lenses available." But there's a huge difference between what people say they want and what they'll actually buy. There's already a system with some compelling cameras that has an awesome lineup of small fast primes to choose from. It even has a really small camera available. And it's dying because nobody wants it. (In case it's not jumping to the front of anyone's mind, check number 7.)

I'd also hear from people: "I really love having a 24mm to 400mm (35mm-equivalent) range in just two lenses that perform really well even wide open, and are never slower than f/4, but where are all the primes?" (Not including the 8mm fish, 25/1.4, 35/3.5, 50/2, 150/2, 300/2.8...)

What can I say? You're in good company. Wanting a different set of lenses from the one that exists is a time-honoured tradition with Olympus and Panasonic, and right behind that one is people never being able to agree on which primes and zooms should be next. I'd never use a 10mm, since I prefer wide zooms, and I wouldn't buy a 40-100 if there was a fast short telephoto prime available. Obviously, I mean a different fast tele prime, since the existing 45/2.8OIS is too expensive for me.

As a friend of mine who's considering switching from Olympus to Canon just said to me: "I think I'll just buy a Holga and be done with it."

:/

But on an aside, calling the 7-14 much larger than the 9-18 is reaching a bit. It's like calling the Mini Cooper much larger than a Smart car. It's true - 2500lbs versus 1600lbs - but every second car on the road is a two-ton SUV. The 7-14 is tiny.

My test, the one that I use when people are trying to choose at the camera store, is this: When choosing between two suitable lenses or cameras, unless there are times when you can honestly say that the size alone would make you leave one at home but bring the other, then there's no practical difference. It actually works for just about any feature, and can bring long bouts of agonizing to a sudden end. Very handy. (I should start calling it 'Matthew's Razor' or something. I've always wanted to be famous. )

I hear what you are saying, but I still feel the 9-18 is a better match size-wise plus it is less expensive. Having said that, if I get to the point where I want a wide zoom, I will obviously consider both.

It isn't so much what lenses have been produced - but the fact that the 14mm is so ubiquitous in the m43 lineup. Admittedly a 28mm equiv is a very common lens, but still...

Wide angle is one place where I would prefer a smaller, faster, wider prime to a zoom. On my Nikon 12-24, I almost always use it at 12-14 (18-21 equiv). Otherwise, I wouldn't have changed out my 18-200, yes? Indoors, you can always step forward a step or 2 but you can't always step backwards.

I do agree that there are compelling reasons to go with the 9-18 - in fact, there's a bit of déjà vu there, since there's both the 7-14 and 9-18 in 4/3 SLRs as well. (In this case, both from Olympus.) They even have the same relationship between them: fixed versus variable apertures, size, price - all we need is for someone to make an 11-22mm lens, and the set will be complete.

Your comment on the ubiquity of 28mm-equivalents got me thinking about Canon's EF-S lineup. It's been around since 2003, and off the top of my head, includes the 10-22, 18-55, 18-135, 18-200, 17-55, 17-85, 15-85, 55-250, and 60mm Macro. Now obviously those are meant to overlay the existing EF line, but there are still no wide primes available. The widest small-ish EF prime is the 20mm f/2.8, but that's closer to the 'alternative normal' of 35mm-e, and it costs $600.

And don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a 10mm prime - and a 30 and 50, as well. There's lots of holes to fill, and perhaps the m4/3, with its emphasis on small size, will finally do it.