To givem them credit, they have f/2 zoom lenses. You don't see them very often on other systems. Going faster than f/2 is pretty much prime territory (excluding macros, and long teles and exotic lenses), and I guess they're just not a producer of those.

Thing is, I didn't specifiy "zoom"...
Even "lowly" Panasonic who is *supposed* to be not widely regarded in the lens arena (in comparison to Olympus, Canon, Voigtlander, Zeiss, Nikon) has broken the ƒ2.0 barrier...

when i look at that chart one thing leaps out at me , and reminds me one of my strongest peeves about olympus lens  recent history

the price difference between the 9-18 m4\3 and orig 4\3

i have handeled and tried out both
the original in robustly built with at least twice the optical glass nice build quality and nice zoom action

cost 599.00 usd

the 9-18 nicely compact but with a more plasticy feel and a lightly built less robust feel to it , much smaller optical surfaces,should be less costly

cost 699.00 usd

i cant tell you how much that makes me resent the corporate mindset
of the olympus corporation

i feel no goodwill or respect from them toward the customers who buy their products especially the early adopters of the m 4\3system

cosinaphile,
I think you'll see across the board that Olympus has priced Micro Four Thirds HIGHER than Four Thirds lenses...

micro 4\3 are cheaper to make but more expensive to buy

one only has to look at optical formulae and comparitive element size
with  the realization that it is the size and complexity  of lense optic  and respective housings that mostly account for lens prices after r and d is recouped

both f which are signifently reduce in micro 4\3
corporate greed and an attempt to move micro into boutique terratory
whare it was not originally intended imho

the same corporate change of mind recently embarassed sigma in its  most recent foveon sensored body mentioned prior to release by sigma spokes people as well under 2000 usd in price
when they then said its 10,000 dollars ,  the shtf ....well the rest ,as they say, is history

olympus spokespeople said micro 4\3 thirds would have a tremendous optical advantage in  smaller size and complexity by moving the rear element 20 mm  closer to the sensor  than it regular 4\3 counterparts
back in 2009 i was a brief interview on you tube with a female olympus rep who said this
saying this , as well as it would be less costly and complex to make a given lens
and wiki still has these original olympus claims in their m4\3 article
it is politely never mentioned by olympus today  needless to say

i think this greed and olympus`s inability to respond in a timely manner with
better bodies and lenses  when micro 4\3 recieved the enthusastic welcome it did 2 years ago to this very day

i think olympus is a corporate entitity with brilliant engineers and camera visionarys hampered by clueless and ignorant executives who stand in the way of micro four third success and penetration of the marketplace

looking at the lens lineup 2 years down the road i would say olympus :
"get your act together "......jmho

micro 4\3 are cheaper to make but more expensive to buy

I think this greed and olympus`s inability to respond in a timely manner with
better bodies and lenses  when micro 4\3 recieved the enthusastic welcome it did 2 years ago to this very day

i think olympus is a corporate entitity with brilliant engineers and camera visionarys hampered by clueless and ignorant executives who stand in the way of micro four third success and penetration of the marketplace

Well at least they have the brilliant engineers and designers! It's not greed: they are no greedier than anyone else required to compete in a tough market. But I absolutely agree with you, cosinaphile, that the managerial element at Olympus has no clue as to what they are doing. They are in all likelihood absorbed in cost control, efficiency analysis and new accounting measures. Hell, that kind of bureaucratic clap trap is all over the world now! We live in a world increasingly manipulated by bureaucracies, private as well as public.

Quote from: cosinaphile on June 11, 2011, 08:49:49 AM

micro 4\3 are cheaper to make but more expensive to buy

I think this greed and olympus`s inability to respond in a timely manner with
better bodies and lenses  when micro 4\3 recieved the enthusastic welcome it did 2 years ago to this very day

i think olympus is a corporate entitity with brilliant engineers and camera visionarys hampered by clueless and ignorant executives who stand in the way of micro four third success and penetration of the marketplace

Well at least they have the brilliant engineers and designers! It's not greed: they are no greedier than anyone else required to compete in a tough market. But I absolutely agree with you, cosinaphile, that the managerial element at Olympus has no clue as to what they are doing. They are in all likelihood absorbed in cost control, efficiency analysis and new accounting measures. Hell, that kind of bureaucratic clap trap is all over the world now! We live in a world increasingly manipulated by bureaucracies, private as well as public.

i suppoe you are right , no greedier than the other players
but every system should have one decent cheap fast prime it has defined interchangable lens cameras since the beginning, thats a change that i dont welcome

and i think greed defines our times, as yousay....publically and privately

Although O isn't in any hurry (2 year wait... Are they JUST DEAF?), their m4/3 lenses  are a bit smaller than P lenses in some cases.. But, to fair, O doen't need OIS either in some. The very reason I got the O/14-42ED over the P/14-42 OIS... Size... on a smallish camera.

As far as f/2 primes like the 4/3 system.. Why should they duplicate High Grade lenses, when there are adapters to use 4/3 on m4/3 with almost total compatabilty?

It is totally a marketing move to save money. Not good in many of our eyes, but, a smart move on their's as finacial move.

Yes, I do agree that many P lenses have Better IQ than O lenses.. many are a P/L partnership. AND IQ is also why I went with O/14-42ED. I buy for the IQ also. Sometimes "Size" matters  to use for a certain lens. The 12/3d P lens is intriging to me. I read it can take a 3d and 2d image... both at a 24mm fov...May be my next lens... A 24mm 3D HD video  , if I understood right.

would i buy the olympus70 300 f4.5 - 6.7 for what 900 usd ?

no i get by wth my panny 75-200mm m4\3 that cost me 325 usd
its cheaper now too

if i get desperate for a long zoom panny offers a 100-300 for what 5-600 usd? and its 1\2 a stop faster?............. hello!

ive got an oly 17 2.8 its pretty good
ive got the panny 20 1.7 its stellar

ive got the 7-14 panny f4 its very sharp and good  loads of fun
the olympus  9-18 was waited .........and waited for............  patiently!!!  then they overpriced it at introduction? fine then  , so i saved and got the panny for 200 usd more... a stop faster   at the long end  and not variable apature


panasonic  is delivering value and  thoughtful choice to the adopters of the micro 4\3 system

with the introduction of a 25 1.4 leica branded lens, priced ,i hope, at less than 800 usd they will leap even further ahead  of olympus,  whose indiference and casual attitude toward properly building system lenses in a timely and affordable manner frankly sucks.

1) Oly 9-18 vs Panasonic 7-14
- I'd rather have the Panasonic 7-14

2) Oly 17mm vs Panasonic 20mm and/or Panasonic 14mm
- I think the chatter on the 'net speaks for itself.
  -- Add upcoming 25mm and I'm still with Panasonic....

You have a point, but you're missing the price difference.

Best deal that I know of is a Sony A-mount adapter for $140, and $225 for the small 85mm f2.8 for you NEX system & voilà!   

I already have the Oly 17mm 
I'm definitely considering the above combination for my NEX....