Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus Micro Four Thirds

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 12, 2013, 3:12 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

It probably depends on whether they are constant f2.8 zooms, which would probably mean prices higher than the current four-thirds 12-60 and 50-200 variable aperture lenses. If they do the f2.8-4 or f2.8-3.5 variable aperture lenses, prices at or below the four-thirds models are probably more likely.

Honestly, it's about time for the 12-50 lens-only price to drop a bit. It's not a $500 lens.

When the four-thirds system went into partial hybernation the prices on those two lenses spiked up to their historic highs. The 12-60 used to fluctuate between $800-$1,000 (I bought mine for $795 in 2008) and the 50-200 SWD between $900-$1100 (I paid $895 for that one), depending on how the currencies were moving against one another.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2013, 7:56 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Chappell View Post
It probably depends on whether they are constant f2.8 zooms, which would probably mean prices higher than the current four-thirds 12-60 and 50-200 variable aperture lenses. If they do the f2.8-4 or f2.8-3.5 variable aperture lenses, prices at or below the four-thirds models are probably more likely.

Honestly, it's about time for the 12-50 lens-only price to drop a bit. It's not a $500 lens...
beyond it not being a $500 lens it is just really disappointing that it is so slow in the aperture. It seems they decided that having power internal zooming was more important than low light performance. I get the sense that each time they improve sensor performance they think they can get away with a slower lens. I know that there are always compromises to be made but I think that if they had released something more akin to the 14-54 f2.8-3.5 MK II minus the power zoom people would be more excited and willing to pay $500 for it. As it stands I can't imagine that they sell many outside the kits with the OM-D.
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2013, 7:58 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Beaver, PA
Posts: 894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
beyond it not being a $500 lens it is just really disappointing that it is so slow in the aperture. It seems they decided that having power internal zooming was more important than low light performance. I get the sense that each time they improve sensor performance they think they can get away with a slower lens. I know that there are always compromises to be made but I think that if they had released something more akin to the 14-54 f2.8-3.5 MK II minus the power zoom people would be more excited and willing to pay $500 for it. As it stands I can't imagine that they sell many outside the kits with the OM-D.
Well also, as far as I know it's the only weatherproof m43 lens. Besides the 60 perhaps?
SammyKhalifa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2013, 8:55 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SammyKhalifa View Post
Well also, as far as I know it's the only weatherproof m43 lens. Besides the 60 perhaps?
both of the Panasonic X series f2.8 zooms are both dust and splash proof like the 12-50
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2013, 9:03 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

Yes, the 60 also has the sealing.

The maximum aperture of the 12-50 would be OK on the E-M5 if the lens really performed and the modest maximum aperture should have made that easier to do, but Olympus must have taken one too many steps trying to keep the thing as small as possible. The more I use it the less impressed I am with it, even after getting a second copy that is noticeably better than the first.

There are lots of people just fine with it as-is. As a $300 inclusion in the kit, it is as good as any version of the 14-42 (for what that's worth) and a better option since it includes the sealing, a wider wide end, although what I have experienced it is optically quite flawed, a macro option and a zoom mechanism that works better for people who shoot videos.

Right now the "most affordable", best performing 12mm option from Olympus is using the 9-18 M. Zuiko at 12mm and only zooming wider when needed. After having tried virtually every combination, the 9-18 and 40-150 M. Zuiko two lens setup is about as good as it currently gets in terms of cost vs. performance.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:49 PM.