Olympus' new PRO series lenses for micro Four-Thirds

I'm really not sure about these lenses yet but they are good for Olympus.  They have meaning for me because I've been using Four-Thirds equipment for 10 years this April.  The weather-sealed designs of my Olympus equipment have been instrumental in keeping the equipment safe in any circumstance I've had to photograph.

I have several Four-Thirds lenses--2 Super High Grade lenses (14-35mm, 35-100mm), 3 High Grade lenses (14-54mm, 50-200mm, 50mm macro), and 1 Leica/Panasonic lens (25mm).  Weaning myself from these lenses will be difficult because they're quite amazing.  I've found myself time and again disappointed by the majority of micro Four-Thirds lenses.  Those few that are great, are getting some reinforcements.

As they cast off their Four-Thirds line of dSLRs, they brought forth lens designs, in-between the HG and SHG lines of Olympus Four-Thirds lenses, but this time for micro Four-Thirds, and with constant maximum apertures.

The 12-40mm f/2.8 is already available and it's very good, positioned between the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and the 14-35mm f/2.0 Four-Thirds lenses.

The 40-150mm f/2.8 seems to be on-schedule and should arrive about halfway through 2014.  I suspect that the image quality will be roughly the same as the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 and not that close to the 35-100mm f/2.0.

Prior to CP+ expo, they showed new mockups of a 7-14mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4.0.

The 7-14mm f/2.8 obviously has a larger maximum aperture than the current 7-14mm f/4.0 that is highly regarded by Four-Thirds users.  As with any ultra-wide lens, it has a convex lens element in front, meaning that adding an optical filter is not easily possible and the lens doesn't support them directly.  I've been considering the Four-Thirds lens quite a long time, as the weather-sealing is a major factor for me.  I see a demonstrator available every so often for a considerable discount.  However, f/4.0 is difficult to use with the older sensors, unless I carry my cheapo studio lights with me, and somehow power them in an occasional outdoor twilight shoot.

The 300mm f/4.0 has a smaller aperture than its Four-Thirds equivalent, a rather huge lens that is/was priced at US$5999.99, I believe.  That could be the price of the 90-250mm f/2.8.  They were within US$1000 of each other.  The 300mm f/2.8, like the 90-250mm f/2.8 was built to order, rather than trying to stock something so complex and unique.  The f/4.0 lens will be much less unique and won't be able to be that heavy but hopefully, won't rely on electronic tricks to fix optical flaws, due to its smaller size.  I would expect that the 300mm f/4.0 will be roughly twice the price of the other three, possibly US$1999.99.  If higher, I don't see it going for more than US$2999.99.  Photographers of birds would surely like lighter equipment, but I wonder if the maximum aperture will cause them concern.  If  WiFi was enabled, they could have several of them pointed at a certain sport from different angles with the savings they got from not buying a 135 format 600mm lens.

They're still missing a 150-300mm f/2.8 zoom to fill the gap.  I wouldn't expect that lens to be US$999.99 but it shouldn't be outrageous, and being a 2x zoom lens, it could be light even with a very good optical design.  Given the current micro Four-Thirds 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7, they probably wouldn't even want to make people think about a comparison with a similar focal length range.  I currently use both the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 and 35-100mm f/2.0 but for different sports.  I'm not sure that working with two mirror-less bodies and two lenses is convenient to complete the 50-200mm range, but that's what they're doing anyway, not going with a 50-200mm.  The 40-150mm f/2.8 will certainly be close enough to the 35-100mm f/2.0 but there won't likely be a 4x zoom that will directly replace the 50-200mm, which is my most-used lens, followed by my ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 lens.

It's good to see Olympus finally decisive again, after 10 years of an almost completely aimless walkabout, even if there were some interesting highlights.

Update 2014.02.20: I bought the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens yesterday.  It's good to have a somewhat wider view, from 14mm to 12mm.  It made quite a difference--between getting the shot and getting part of the shot.  The lens feels right at home with the GH3, despite the lack of image stabilization.  It's sad that it won't work on the E-5 but times change.

Update 2014.02.25: After a few days of use of the 12-40mm, I'm as much in love with it as the 14-35mm f/2.0 lens, but with slightly lower expectations.  The great thing is that the lens hood is small enough to carry with me, though I can't imagine it's big enough to be incredibly effective.  I'm trying to remember whether I used it during the Olympus photo walk when the sun was just over the state capitol building and the Panasonic lens gave me huge lens flare but the Olympus lens mostly rejected it, even with the sun in the frame.

Could these keep me from moving to FujiFilm?

Update 2014.03.19: The 12-40mm seems quite amazing for the price.  It has brought new life to the GH3, as the color is so much better than that of the 35-100mm f/2.8.   Sadly, I have to wait for the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens to come from Olympus, but that should be around September, which will likely be a good time to purchase the Panasonic GH4.  Since the GH3 has a larger grip than the E-M1, I doubt I'll have any trouble keeping my hands steady during sports.  If I can do it with an E-1 that doesn't have stabilization, and the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 or E-5 with the 35-100mm f/2.0, I should be able to handle the GH3/GH4 and 40-150mm f/2.8.

Update 2014.12.16: I'm interested in the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens and it's available now, along with the 1.4x teleconverter, though I noticed something disturbing earlier.

I found this comment from Jordan Steele concerning his review of the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 lens and also concerning the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8:

The Panny is way better in the flare department

Now, I'm concerned about the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens, considering my previous experience with my 35-100mm f/2.8 lens and huge lens flare.

Olympus 25mm f/1.8 lens

Many people have high regard for the normal view--i.e., the view that humans are supposed to commonly have.

Using Four-Thirds, the normal view lens was not readily available.  Sure, you could use a zoom lens, and the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 had great image quality, but there was no 25mm fixed focal length lens.  Eventually, Olympus designed and built the very average 25mm f/2.8 pancake lens.  Panasonic also had a 25mm lens, with an f/1.4 maximum aperture, designed by Leica, and supposedly hand built by Panasonic, mainly for the Leica Digilux 3.  I have one, and it's a great lens, and even works well on my Panasonic GH3, aperture ring and all.  It was difficult to find.

Four-Thirds Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 on GH3 body, not sitting flat

E-5 with Four-Thirds 25mm f/1.4

When micro Four-Thirds arrived, there was no 25mm lens.  Eventually, Panasonic had another Leica-labeled 25mm f/1.4 available.  It's about half the price of the Four-Thirds version and much, much smaller--46mm filter size vs 62mm.  Still, at US$599.99, it's not cheap.  The image quality isn't as good as the Four-Thirds version but it's not nearly as huge or heavy or pricy but there sometime seem to be back/front-focusing problems, typically a Sigma problem.

micro Four-Thirds users needed a cheap(er) alternative.  If you can go out and buy a Canon 50mm f/1.8 for US$89.99, why can't you buy something similar for micro Four-Thirds?  Of course, the 50mm lens on cheap Canon dSLRs is equivalent to 75mm in 135 format terms.  A 35mm f/1.8 (effective 52.5mm) will be quite a bit more expensive.

So, Olympus has introduced their 25mm f/1.8.  It's not like the Four-Thirds version at all, thankfully.  It's not a pancake-style lens.  If you've seen the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 lens, you already know the basic shape of the 25mm f/1.8 lens.  Since it's not a pancake lens, it's likely to eschew all those nasty compromises.  It should focus much faster than Panasonic's dear 20mm f/1.7 lens, which doesn't have enough room for a faster motor.  However, the new Olympus 25mm lens is US$399.99.

I realize that it's 2014 and that products aren't cheap and that Olympus can't price it as though they're going to sell 1 billion of them.  They should be including the lens hood at that price.

However,  the only inexpensive lenses they have for micro Four-Thirds are the kit zoom lenses and the body cap lenses.  The 9mm f/8.0 fish eye body cap lens looks quite useful but still rather expensive, US$99.00, for the image quality and lack of electronics.

What bothers me is that all of the Four-Thirds High Grade lenses were a bargain, especially when you counted that they were weather-sealed, and yet Olympus has produced many expensive micro Four-Thirds lenses which are susceptible to the elements of nature.  I've used the 12mm f/2.0 extensively and it's lovely, but how is it worth the price when it can be destroyed by weather so easily?

I think that this is also a problem for the new 25mm f/1.8 lens.  At the price, it should be more functional and more protected.

I've found Robin Wong's view of the Olympus 25mm f/1.8 vs the Panasonic/Leica design f/1.4 lens to be interesting.  You may want to look.  Apparently, he's gotten a huge number of rude comments that were unnecessary.  I've read his findings again and find no reason to doubt them.  He could have a fine copy of the Olympus lens and a bad copy of the Panasonic lens.  I certainly haven't had any luck with my own micro Four-Thirds lenses at all.  My next purchase was to be the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens since it's so amazing, even on my Panasonic GH3.

The incorrect focusing problem of the Panasonic lens seems like the typical Sigma problem.  Why does that pertain?  Sigma is supposedly responsible for the manufacture of the Panasonic 25mm lens, even though it was designed by Leica Panasonic, approved by Leica.  Sigma has had quite a few calibration issues in the past.  They even have a special lens dock to help you correct the calibration problems at home.  (Apparently, the latest 18-35mm f/1.8 lens that is well-regarded has focusing issues.  I'm looking at buying one with a Nikon mount for use with a Metabones SpeedBooster for video recording on my GH4.)

As with the Olympus 45mm f/1.8, the 25mm f/1.8 is more than the sum of its parts.  It's not economical in a way that the Canon and Nikon dSLRs 50mm f/1.8 lenses are, but then, they have many drawbacks, such as having to stop down to f/2.8 to get decent sharpness, or f/5.6 to get optimal sharpness and they're not normal view lenses (for Nikon, 75mm equivalent in 135 Format terms) for the majority of the APS-C-sensored bodies on which they're used anyway.  Who would put a US$100 lens on a 135 Format frame camera body like the D800 or 5DMkIII?

I can understand that people feel that their purchase of the Panasonic lens was under attack in Robin's blog entry, just because there was a comparison that didn't validate their purchase 100%.  The truth is--it doesn't matter.  You buy the lens, you use the lens, you like the lens--why should that change?  You shouldn't attack someone because his findings don't agree with your findings or your opinion.

For 99% of the users for such a lens, will they even notice?

It reminds me of a software contractor I knew who invited me to his house, as he was auditioning speakers for his stereo system.  He played a number of classical pieces and I having played many of the piano pieces on 30 or so models of pianos was skeptical.  He and his friends switched cables, and they all came up with various witty comments, discerning invisible (to me) differences.  (I could have been wrong, but I've heard so many pianos from the keyboard, that it's difficult to not know the sound.)  At some point, he switched back to his original set, and played the various pieces again.  I could identify every piano being played, almost immediately.

If the product suits you, does it matter what anyone else thinks?  Do the numbers matter more than the experience using the product, or more than the results you get from using the product?

Update 2014.03.16: Apparently, more than a few reviewers have been pleased with the 25mm f/1.8.  I have no need for the lens but I'm sure that it would work well.  I'm just thankful that my lens is fully supported on the GH3.

Update 2015.04.08: I traded the GH3 for the E-M1 back in June, and finally got the GH4 in December 2014.  I'm still pleased with the Four-Thirds version of Leica's 25mm f/1.4 using the adapter.  I've used it on multiple occasions at skate parks in the evening and it's as amazing as it always was.  It's unfortunate that it isn't weather-sealed.

Update 2015.11.22: I just bought the new Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 lens for US$99.00 instead of US$249.00.  At the full price, I would consider paying the premium for the Olympus lens.  However, at the reduced price, minimal differences are ever minimized.  What would be good would be a 25mm lens with image stabilization.

Given that I now have 3 micro Four-Thirds bodies, this will be of good use.  It is small, light, and useful.  At the price, it did not stop my plans for any other lens.  While I love the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 that works well on Four-Thirds bodies, it can be a problem on micro Four-Thirds.

Panasonic GH3 + Olympus MMF-3 + Olympus SHG = greatness

I suppose I couldn't be more wrong about those micro Four-Thirds lenses, could I?  The fanatics seem to think that there are no better lenses.

Since I got the Olympus MMF-3 adapter, I'm pleased to say that the Olympus SHG ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 works very well with the GH3.  The lens is very heavy for a bit more than a 2x zoom but at the wider angles, you need more work to get a great lens.  That's why you see so few of them.  I'm leaving the adapter attached to the 14-35mm, while I can use the ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 with the Olympus E-5 and it's better balanced as a combination.

Notably, there is a problem if you insist on auto focus but it's similar to the problem on Four-Thirds bodies.  The 14-35mm lens will hunt far too much, similar to the 50mm macro.  Sadly, this is the revised lens that arrived in 2007 with the Olympus E-3 body and not the original lens that was supposed to be available in 2005.  That was apparently an optical masterpiece but somehow flawed in that it had to be redesigned.  The current, available 14-35mm lens is still an optical masterpiece but extends on both ends of the zoom range.

In any case, the 14-35mm can auto focus with the GH3 through the adapter, and it's faster than the experience with the Olympus E-1.  I often use manual focus so I'm sure about the details.  Focus assist/pinpoint focus is useful but as I'm turning the ring, it can be a bit bouncy.  Carry Dramamine, if necessary.  Since manual focus eliminates the automated hunting, I can get precise focus more quickly.

The 35-100mm f/2.0 is nearly perfect and the combination is a bit unbalanced, a bit more than it was with the E-1 but it works quite well, once again, it can be auto focused by the GH3 more quickly than with my E-1, but it's much faster with my E-5.

The optical quality of the two lenses is extremely high and I'm quite pleased with the results with the GH3.  Even in dim light, the combinations work much better than with the E-5.  I'm looking forward to buying and using the 7-14mm f/4.0 SHG lens.  If you're wondering why I wouldn't buy the much less expensive, much smaller Panasonic version, it's very simple: weather-resistance.

Why, oh, why would you spend nearly US$1000 for a lens if some driving rain or dust storm could affect the insides?  That said, I have the excellent Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 for Four-Thirds.  I'm concerned about taking it outside and really using it, unless it's a perfectly clear day or night.  It focuses quite quickly with the GH3, as well as the E-5.

I'm surprised to have made the (half a) leap to micro Four-Thirds, although the MMF-3 adapter is my very good friend.  For now, the Olympus SHG zooms continue to rule my world, with the HG zooms a close second and I've had the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 since 2004.  Further behind would be the premium Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 (which I don't have) and 35-100mm f/2.8 lenses.

Update 2013.09.16: Obviously, the same lenses will work wonders with the newly announced E-M1.  Of course, with the somewhat useful Phase Detection Auto Focus, they'll even work similarly to the E-5 but at a slower pace, and I suspect will work poorly in lower light, but that's not been shown that I can see.  The GH3 can auto focus to -4 EV, which is like starlight--something the opposite of intense.  There is no such specification that I can find for the E-M1, so maybe Olympus are re-working the firmware already to improve the performance of the auto focus.

Update 2014.02.11: The other day I had to laugh.  Someone had posted a comment on an article about the soon to be released Panasonic GH4, calling it an utter failure because with Nikon, Canon, and Sony mirror-less system cameras you could mount dSLR lenses, and you couldn't do that with FujiFilm (you can't but the official adapter supports Leica M-mount) or micro Four-Thirds.

Given that Olympus produces some of the finest dSLR lenses in their High Grade and Super High Grade lines, I can't imagine how deep ignorance goes.  I'm still not happy with micro Four-Thirds lens selections although Olympus has upped the game with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens and their intended 40-150mm f/2.8 lens that has not arrived yet.  I'm getting ready to send off my Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens because of huge lens flare but it hasn't been totally bad or good.  It's just not very good for the price--Olympus HG line was a steal in comparison.

Update 2014.02.25: The other day, I bought the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 micro Four-Thirds lens for my Panasonic GH3.  I am surprised at how much better it makes the GH3 photos look, as compared to the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens, even though it was less expensive.  You'd think Panasonic would work incredibly well with Panasonic.  I sent that lens off to be repaired, due to a rather huge problem with lens flare, something I saw documented about the time I bought mine, but didn't expect that there would be a problem.  Getting a repair seems to be a problem in the U.S.A.

In any case, by the end of 2014, Olympus will have the 12-40mm f/2.8 and 40-150mm f/2.8 lenses available.  Some time in 2015, they'll also have 7-14mm f/2.8 and a 300mm f/4.0 lenses.  I haven't seen anything about a 150-300mm f/2.8 lens but it needs to be part of the plan.

While the 12-40mm f/2.8 isn't as great as the 14-35mm f/2.0, it is great for the price, and appropriately positioned between the SHG 14-35mm on the high end and the HG 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 at the middle position, above the standard kit lens.  I'm also pleased that they've finally addressed the 12mm focal length.  I know it's more difficult to control the distortion, but it's worth having.  The new for 2015 7-14mm f/2.8 will be great for landscapes and also for indoor real estate, which too often is left to a point-and-shoot camera.

Update 2014.03.25: I'd like to add that all of my Four-Thirds lenses work well on the GH3, especially the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 that was meant for the Digilux 3.  It seems to be meant for Contrast Detect Auto Focus, so it moves quickly.  Since the GH3 has a top shutter speed of 1/4000th of a second, the f/1.4 in full sun is close to being overwhelmed, so a Neutral Density filter could be a good idea.  The GH4 will fix this problem as it has the 1/8000th shutter speed.  How did we manage in the old days with f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses and 1/1000th of a second shutter speed?

I'm happy to say that my experience with the new Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens, I have found renewed respect for Olympus and I am certain to buy the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens, though I feel a bit ambivalent about micro Four-Thirds still, especially after my ordeal with the 35-100mm f/2.8 lens and finding that it supposedly didn't need repair.  If Olympus would produce a somewhat bigger body, like a downsized E-5, or the E-1 with modern innards, I'd be very happy.  I'm not yet a hybrid shooter, though I'm going there and the GH3 and GH4 are on the right path, but Olympus does so many things right with the E-M1 that I wish they'd finished it properly.

Update 2014.10.17: I've been shooting with the E-M1 for roughly 4 months, having traded the GH3 before the trade-in value dropped.  The 12-40mm has been working well, though I've found one instance where it produced nasty lens flare.  It's rare that I've used any of my Four-Thirds lenses on it, save the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 because of the E-M1's small size.  I'm looking at the 40-150mm f/2.8 very seriously, along with the matching 1.4x teleconverter.  The combination is still cheaper than my Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0 lens, and the effective f/4.0 maximum aperture is only a bit slower than my 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 on the long end where I use it most.

Update 2015.03.11: I've had the Panasonic GH4 since December and it reminded me how good the design of the GH3 was.  It's much easier to use my Four-Thirds lenses than it is with the Olympus E-M1.

While I love the 12-40mm f/2.8 as compact as it is, they should have made it a bit bigger and made it uncompromisingly wonderful.  The 14-35mm f/2.0 is amazing in ways that the 12-40mm f/2.8 can't be but the lack of those 2mm on the wide end does make it somewhat incapable when taking architectural photos.  Olympus had a remedy for this problem with the 7-14mm f/4.0 but using it without artificial light indoors was difficult.  Now, they're bringing a 7-14mm f/2.8 to market for micro Four-Thirds, which seems perfect for higher end real estate.  I'm planning to use it for skate park photos mainly, along with the 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lens.

micro Four-Thirds has come a long way, and there are a few good lenses now, but Olympus' Four-Thirds lenses are still much better and an easy way to get great image quality.

Update 2015.08.07: Since I have the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8, Panasonic/Leica 15mm f/1.7, Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8, and 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lenses, the adapter doesn't get as much use on either my Panasonic GH4 or Olympus E-M1.  Occasionally, I will mount the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 on it, as it can be difficult to get lower light photos, but then, I'm finding the new Nikon D7200 and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens more difficult in such conditions, despite their supposed technical superiority.  Firmware updates will likely help.

Except for the 35-100mm f/2.8, the micro Four-Thirds lenses are very, very good.  They're not as good as my Olympus SHG lenses and on occasion, my HG lenses are more useful, but it's rare for me to use the adapter.  The best reason I can see to use it is to mount the Panasonic GM5 to my ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 and watch people be shocked at the appearance.

Update 2016.01.19: With the Olympus 300mm f/4.0 lens, supposedly there is a micro Four-Thirds lens that has exceeded the possible image quality of its Four-Thirds equivalent.  I'm not in a position to judge.  The micro Four-Thirds lens is about half the price of the Four-Thirds lens.  While the maximum aperture isn't as big, the sensors of the Four-Thirds' bodies aren't very good in lower light.  In the case of wildlife and bird photography, a thin depth of field is as difficult as it is helpful.

Second impressions on micro Four-Thirds, GH3

Now that I have my gear in some order and I'm not running around like a chicken with my head cut off, I have plenty of thoughts about micro Four-Thirds and specifically the Panasonic GH3, the 45-200mm, 35-100, and Olympus MMF-3 adapter.

I believe I have conquered my problem with the viewfinder freezing during shooting.  Panasonic ships the body with Auto Review enabled, as if it was a consumer-oriented camera.  Since the viewfinder is just another electronic monitor, it does exactly the same thing as the larger, rear display.  Burst mode shooting seems to be affected very little now that the function is disabled.  I also learnt that the noise reduction is high, as though the GH3 is a consumer camera.  I was advised to set it to -5, but without some help, I don't think I would have found the setting.  Why hide important settings?  I realise that I don't know Panasonic camera bodies, so it will take some time, but that's rather important.

I was a bit surprised about the inability to change the language to Japanese.  I immediately changed my E-1 and E-5 to Japanese but the GH3 only allows English or Spanish and the English takes some acclimation.  Something else surprised me: the GH3 (and the 35-100mm premium lens) has "Made in China" on it.  I can understand that they need to save some money, but it's a shock, given that my Olympus bodies were made in Japan (as I was).  The US$400 difference between the E-5 and GH3 seems apparent in the two but I thought that the E-5 was overpriced when I bought it, and thankfully, I got it at a good discount.  The E-5 lacks dials and the GH3 lacks a top-mounted display.  I can hear someone telling me that there isn't room but I would tell them to look at the E-1, which was a marvel of ergonomics.  I'm still learning the GH3 but it seems efficient.

I was reading about a GH3 firmware update due later this month and I decided to find out how to update firmware.  Given my success with the E-1 and lack of success with the E-5, I hoped for a good experience.  The web page was a bit of a disaster but I found that the 45-200mm lens I bought had an update that had not been applied yet.  I worked through the instructions:

1. Download update
2. Extract update
3. Place the update on  an SD card
4. Insert SD card into camera body
5. Attach the lens to be updated
6. Power the camera body
7. Press play and wait

It's that simple for lens updates.  Of course, it's probably more interesting for body updates.  Standing on the left foot, singing the national anthem, etc.

The 35-100mm lens is very expensive given the plastic.  Sure, it's sealed for weather and dust but it's all plastic and some is shiny, tacky-looking plastic.  In reading about the lens, it has a few optical problems but then, so do the Nikon and Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses.  I wasn't expecting a miracle.  One thing that concerns me is that the range of the lens may not be 35-100mm.  I was looking at a previous photo of the group of wrestlers I went to photograph last week.  I took one with the E-5 and ZD 35-100mm and another from the same position with the GH3 and Panasonic 35-100mm.  Assuming that I was paying attention to use the 100mm setting (opposite rotation), there is a slight different in the view in the images.  It's not a bad lens, but if you pay for a certain focal length range, you should get that.  I tried the lens hood today and noticed that there are gaps where it meets the lens where light could be an issue.

The lenses are damned expensive for what they are.  I guess I'm just (too) accustomed to Olympus' ZD HG and SHG lines, but paying US$800 for a lens that isn't weatherproofed and doesn't include a lens hood is nuts.  I don't mind that there are so many fixed focal length lenses (although I want fast zooms) but seal the lenses for weather and dust.  That's my major concern for my Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 on Four-Thirds.  It's a magnificent lens but I must shelter it from environmental issues, when I'm accustomed to being able to shoot in hurricanes.  Most of the micro Four-Thirds lenses are like this and I must pay more attention to what I'm buying since there are so few weatherproofed lenses.

Olympus has shown that they want to keep things small.  They just re-introduced their 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7.  Yes, that really is the maximum aperture.  It's that slow.  Of course, you're probably not worried about subject isolation from a distance or you'd be working with something else, such as the ZD 90-250 f/2.8.  I'm expecting too much, I'm sure.

I got the Olympus MMF-3 adapter so I can use my Four-Thirds lenses on the GH3 or any other micro Four-Thirds body.  What's interesting is that the GH3 focuses the lenses more quickly than the E-1 for which they were designed.  Of course, the 14-35mm f/2.0 and the 50mm macro f/2.0 hunted but that's their typical behaviour.  If the GH3 wasn't as big as it is, it wouldn't be able to handle the lenses well.  The 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 feels right at home, as does the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5, since the GH3 isn't much different in size from the E-1.

I'm pleased, and learning, and getting work done with the new equipment, and that's a good feeling.  I've yet to just walk with it but it's not all that warm outside.

Update: I've paid attention to testing both 35-100mm lenses on the GH3 (using the MMF-3 adapter for the ZD 35-100mm) and if there is any difference in the long end (the 100mm), it must be minimal.