Would a 10-40 lens be of any interest?

[pdk42]

It's interesting to see that most manufacturers build their zoom lenses in largely similar ranges, esp at the short end. So we have

• UWA zooms - typically 16-35 ish (FF equiv). Sometimes 14-28, sometimes 17-40 or such like. In m43 we have 7-14, 8-18, 8-25, and 9-18.
• Standard zooms - typically 24-70 ish (FF). Sometimes 28-80, 24-105 etc. In m43 we have 12-40, 12-35, 12-45, 14-42, 14-45, ...
• Superzoom - typically 28-200, sometimes wider. In m43 we have the 12-100, 14-140, 14-150 etc

Not being a long lens type, I usually find myself using a UWA and a standard zoom for much of what I do - the 8-18 plus either the 12-40 or the 12-100. I wouldn't normally use a superzoom, but the 12-100 is so good it's hard not to.

With the Panasonic S5, I'm using something that straddles the UWA and standard zoom ranges - the 20-60. And it's interesting, I'm finding that it's a very useful zoom range. It would be a 10-30 in m43 terms. We have the 8-25 and the Panasonic 10-25 I guess, but both fall a little short at the long end. In fact, the 20-60 could do with being a bit longer. Something like a 20-80 say (so 10-40). The extra bit at the wide end is really very useful and almost replaces the need for a UWA.

So, if there's any room left for another lens in the m43 world, I'd vote for a 10-40. Anyone else feel this would be a useful lens to have?

[gazza95]

The 12-40 f2.8 suits most of what I need as a standard lens and is just about fast enough.

I've added the longer lens's as that what I shoot a fair bit of these days.

Previously I had the 8-18 which was a great range but it was simply too slow to be of general use. The Panasonic 10-25 F1.7 was tempting until I got nervous about Panasonics repair service.

An 10mm f1.4 would tempt be to part with some cash though.

Gary

[pdk42]

Well, there is a Panasonic Leica 9mm f1.7 now. Apparently, it's pretty good and not crazy expensive. Personally, I don't need primes in this range.

[OM USer]

Of course replacing the 12-40 F/2.8 with a 10-40 F/2.8 with ILS would be tempting for many as an upgrade or for users new to MFT who want something in this range. If it was an F/4 then some would like this as a lighter and smaller lens than the existimg F/2.8 alternatives.I find the 7-14 F/2.8 to big and heavy and may get the 8-25 F/4. That and the 12-40 F/2.8 for me would be much more preferable than a 10-40mm as sometimes 10mm is not wide enough so you would still need to carry something wider (a small 7.5 or 8mm prime [Laowa perhaps] may be the right mix with a 10-40mm.).

[Tram]

I do like a wide angle lens, but i'm happy enough with the Panasonic 9mm and 8-18mm.
When I had Fuji my most used lens was the 10-24 and a 14mm so FF equivalent of 21 and 15-36 which was fine too.
Before that it was Canon when the 24/1.4 and a 16-35 made up my wide angle lens selection.

10-40 wouldn't be one thing or another so no thanks

[Wookie]

I’m please to see positive comments re 9mm, I’ve had one a few weeks, tried a few test shots, but I want to use it for night/Milkyway really, so have a while to wait before using it in anger.
Maybe I should look to use it on landscape too.

[Tram]

Pretty good for close ups too, used it a lot in that way and for interiors, not much for landscapes.
Only negative for me is the crappy plastic hood, feels like it might snap every time I attach/detach it.

[zuiko-holic]

I think a 10-40mm lens would be very desirable
Personally I am very interested in Cityscapes and the extra 2mm (4mm) would give that extra dramatic perspective I so much enjoy
It would save me from carrying one extra lens when I go walking around the city

A 10-40mm or even a 10-35mm f/2.8-4 would be a great addition in m4/3 line-up although it would probably cut sales from the 12-40mm

A lens starting from 20mm (equiv.) is giving that extra edge to a standard zoom lens without eliminating the necessity of an UWA for landscapes
So a 10-40mm lens can easily be combined with a, let's say, 7-14mm
It also fits great with a 40-150mm telephoto.