100-400 in spring?

Hithertoo wrote:

I'm saying its pointless, at this stage there are more obvious gaps to fill then offering 4 25mm lenses for the same format, and about the same for 45mm lenses.

I don't know about that, the first two 25mm primes are too expensive for my taste, and Panasonic has a chance to fill this gap. I'm simply not going to pay 400-600 EUR for a "nifty-fifty". Panasonic will add another choice, and choice is always good.

There still isn't a decent option for a native 50-58mm sort of lens

Wait, you complain about redundancy and you want a 50mm lens? Does the difference of 5mm make that big of a difference?

Either way, it's not as bad, there's Sigma 60/2.8, which while not fast, is very cheap and excellent optically.

there still isn't a native prime wider than 12mm with auto focus

Couldn't care less about AF in such a lens. But I want one that is fast. Make a 10mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 and I'm in, AF or not. (And no, Voigtlander won't cut it)

there isn't a tilt shift lens

And most likely won't be. Both Oly and Panasonic know that would only loose them money, and they probably feel that prestige is not worth it. I disagree, though. A tilt shift lens would open completely new possibilities for MFT users, especially in the field of DoF manipulation (tilt-shift is not only architecture).

there isn't a medium length zoom other than the 12-50 which is decidedly dated

It's not dated, it just was designed to not go head to head against the then in development 12-40/2.8. Which is a shame. A premium kinda fast zoom like that is the single most glaring hole in MFT lens lineup. And probably the most requested by users, if the polls and discussions here are any indication.

We're still waiting for fast lenses beyond 300mm equivalency.

Does 40-150 + TC fit that requirement? I mean, it's high quality 210/4, so not too shabby. But if you're waiting for something like 200/2, you can just give up right now.

What am I saying? I'm saying Olympus and Panasonic have lost the plot with Micro Four Thirds lenses. That is an objective reality.

What's objective in your assessment of the situation? It's just your opinion based on your particular wants or needs, there's nothing objective about those. And how much of all that is because of limited resources those companies can (or want) allocate towards MFT lens development?

I was really excited about Micro Four Thirds when Panasonic and Olympus were working together on releasing lenses, and now both companies seem to be more interested in just outdoing each other.

There is no partnership anymore.

If you think about it, was there ever? Beyond the initial stage, where reducing the cost of development was important?

Just crap after crap in the last 3 releases of 45, 25, and 25mm lenses that were painfully unnecessary.

I'm pretty sure there was only one 25mm lens launched recently. And whether they are necessarily or not depends on who you ask. If I were a Panasonic user, I'd welcome the 42.5 with IS with open arms.

We can add another slow variable aperture lens to the list of things not to be excited by from either Panasonic or Olympus.

That's only you. Judging by general buzz on the internets, a lot of people are pretty excited about this one, me included.

If the 8mm fisheye wasn't useless enough particularly with its fast aperture.

Now this is just complete nonsense. This is the only interesting lens in the whole PRO lineup. And the only one I consider buying.

The state of Micro Four Thirds is really starting to bother me, if I wasn't so bogged down I'd probably be looking at a company with a decent road map such as Fuji, or even Samsung.

Just curious, what does Samsung have interesting in their roadmap? I know they already have some interesting lenses, but I never even heard they actually had a roadmap.

There's no justification for the state of Micro Four Thirds lenses when there is still so many other viable lenses they could be making money out of if they just stopped releasing the same lenses everyone else already has with an Olympus stamp rather than a Panasonic one or vice versa.

Well, there's one justification for sure. In the end, this is a business. Can you show me a company that gives away a market share to a competitor "for the greater good"?

Look at Sigma for example. They're one of those rare companies that makes some very unique lenses, but if you actually look at their offer, most of it is the same stuff that other makers offer. Do you imagine them saying: "No, we're not going to make a 50mm Art lens, because there are already 7 other 50mm primes on the market"? That would be crazy, don't you think? Than why should Panasonic or Olympus act in such a crazy way?