ustein
Contributing Editor
That is a wish list, right?
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
m4/3 weakness: Fast midrange zooms
- Thread starter ustein
- Start date
Your first option would be my walkaround and I'd add the 20 f/1.7 and be happy almost all the time LOL. When I travel with the 5D I often carry the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (I have owned the really nice 24-70L for years and have carried it many times, but just got tired of the size/weight and have loved the Tammy as an alternative), add the 50 f/1.4--and maybe a wide option (I have too many, but usually the 12-24) so I can see a fastish zoom (if they can keep it reasonably small/light--otherwise I'll carry primes) with the 20 and be happy for travel.
Diane
Well, I was thinking that the primary weakness of m4/3 was that it was missing a decent fast telephoto prime. I really wish Olympus or Panasonic would make a 100 f/2.8 or a 200 f/2.8. The real promise of m4/3 was the reduction in lens size. The Panasonic 45-200 and the to be released 100-300 are both f/4-5.6 which is not that fast.
JBurnett
Well-known member
I started out by thinking about compromises. Fast is important, but if the size and weight get too high, it would defeat the purpose of m4/3 IMO. After all, one can adapt the superb Olympus 12-60 f/2.8-4 to m4/3 right now, but it's a large, heavy solution (more than 650g with adapter). For me, the 45-200 size/weight would be about the upper limit that I'd be looking for. So I thought "what if you limited the zoom to 3X"? Sure, it's a compromise. However, some of the most revered full-frame zooms have been in similar ranges:
12-35: 24-70mm
17-50: 35-105mm (an older, but much-used standard)
35-105: 70-200mm
Along the same lines as your Oly 14-54 thoughts -- if there was a 14-45mm f/2.8 constant aperture lens that was, say, just a little smaller than the 45-200, would anyone bite?
Last edited: