Image courtesy: ePhotozine.
The picture on top os of the OM-D E-M1 sensor, and the area in the middle is the phase detection area (seen with the lines). It’s part of the full E-M1 review article posted on ePhotozine (Click here). The camera earned their “Highly Recommended” award
As the first Micro Four Thirds camera with no Anti-Aliasing filter, this means this camera should be, and thankfully is capable of the highest quality photos of any Micro Four Thirds camera, and when used with high quality prime lenses, the difference can be seen, although is quite subtle at times, with the previous model, the Olympus OM-D E-M5 already providing very sharp and detailed photos with prime lenses.
Also the Australian guys from Photoreview tested the E-M1 (Click here for the article) and the 12-40mm lens (Click here for the article). They also like the E-M1 a lot and this is what they write about the lens:
The 12-40mm f/2.8 lens is an impressive performer, delivering quality that rivals that of many DSLR+fast zoom pairings that target serious enthusiast photographers. But its great advantage is being able to do this in a more compact, lighter-weight unit. Fast focusing and near-silent AF operation also make this lens attractive.
Preorder Links:
Olympus E-M1 body at Amazon, Adorama and BHphoto, Amazon DE (via DL), Amazon UK (via DL), Amazon ES (via DL), WexUK, Topshot FI, CameraWorldUK.
Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO Lens at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, AmazonDE (viaDL), Amazon ES (via DL).
Olympus E-M1 with 12-40mm Lens kit at Amazon DE (via DL), WexUK and CameraWorldUK, Amazon UK (via DL), Amazon ES (via DL).
Olympus E-M1 with 12-50mm Lens kit at Amazon DE (via DL), WexUK, CameraWorldUK, Amazon UK (via DL), Amazon ES (via DL).
Olympus EP-13 Eyecup for E-M1 at Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus HLD-7 Battery Grip for E-M1 at Amazon, Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus LC-62D Metal Front Lens Cap for 12-40mm at Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus LH-66 Lens Hood for 12-40mm at Adorama and BHphoto.
71 Responses
i thought that there where more m4/3 camera’s without AA filter.
as far as i know the E-PL1 had a light AA filter
Also E-m5 has weak AA filter: I have noticed moiree effect on some photos, but not so often.
Yeah, didn’t they state something like that – no or at least only a weak anti-aliasing filter – about the GX7 as well?
EPL1 is identical to E5
The photoreview.com 12-40 lens review is nice but felt a bit cursory (even though they seem to cover a lot of bases). I am also a bit surprised they did not seem to notice the near-macro feature of the lens even though that’s very much in the spirit of “more in a small, versatile package”.
I very much look forward to this and the follow-on Olympus “Pro” lenses (telephoto 40-150, fast prime 300 (?), and ultrawide 6-12 (?)).
wish this lens a good luck on doxmark lol
but this lens will be a great combination for my em5
The reason for the lower scores for lenses on smaller formats on DXO is simply down to sensor size.The end results a photo is made up of both lens + sensor.Look at the best mFT sensor {E-M5 etc vs the best FF sensor D800e }. Just to compete with the resolution of a FF camera a mFT lens must have double the native resolution.
Tests of lens + camera will always favor the FF sensors.I would consider any other type of test pointless testing one part of the chain in isolation of the others doesn’t really tell you anything worthwhile. mFT is more than good enough for me and I suspect most uses there is no denying the image quality advances the best FF delivers compared to the best mFT. Looking at some RAW samples from the D800/E makes me wonder what the possible Sony 7r or whatever its called will be like I can see me using it with a couple of adapted primes , the Sony options are either poor or bloody expensive. I love my mFT gear too much to replace it but I can see some potential in the 36mp Sony if it is real
I’m thinking quite the same about A7/A7r. Right now I’m using E-M5 + Voight M-mount glass and D700+Nano f1.4 primes. I use my E-M5 for family trips and D800 for daily jobs. The introduction of A7/A7r makes me hesitate to upgrade my E-M5 to E-M1. A7/A7r may be a game change for mirrorless market since it is likely to be my compact D800. Anyway, I wonder about their native autofocus lens lineup. Time will tell. Let’s see when it actually comes out to market.
> mFT lens must have double the native resolution
43rds lenses do
It’s an impressive lens, regardless of whatever optical tests DxO perform. It’s the first micro Four-Thirds lens about which I have zero reservations.
DXO Mark…..DxO schMark………(rasberries)….I want one of the new 12-40mm f/2.8 beauties. It’s top-O-the-class!
Only just received my E-M1 today from a local brick & mortar shop. I leave for a photo safari at 4am tomorrow.
From a very quick test, IMHO, the RAW from the E-M1 has a greater advantage over the OOC jpegs. This is more a testament to the great TruePic engine than the sensor. I believe once more people have more access to RAW viewers and converters we will see written about the greater difference between M1 and M5.
IMHO, with both side by side, unless you want or need the new features, weather seal and ergonomics , E-M5 owners will do fine with what they have until the next generation. If you want to take advantage of those 4/3 lenses collecting dust, just upgrade you will be very happy.
I think that you are playing the wishful thinking game using Olympus viewer the native RAW software for the E-M1& e-m5 the differences if any regarding image quality are insignificant. The E-M1 wins hands down for build quality, feature set and so on but I am simply seeing no worthwhile difference at any settings I would use. I have my E-M1 + 14-40 on order as I am very happy with my E-M5 image quality so I am not hunting for huge differences.
I think we will see a repeat of the E-M5 story when it first came out there were some claiming multi-stop advances over the GH2 etc which simply did not stand up to the scrutiny of independent non-biased tests. There is a lot more than just sensor to a good camera and the E-M1 looks to be a wonderful camera cant wait lol
Let us know how everything goes! Deff write a hands-on review + share photos.
I’m very interested in this camera (D3 and E-M5 owner) and it’s small form factor.
Please remember to post representative shots on the 43rumors Flickr group! Very excited about this camera, although I probably won’t end up with one myself.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/43rumors
Had the chance to try out the E-M1 at the Cologne Olympus event, even got to talk to Mr. Terada. I made a couple of suggestions regarding functionality and was surprised he took notes. Seems like a nice down to earth guy. I suggested the grid be applied to either all the live views or a choice of a specific live view. I don’t need a leveling grid to be in my face the whole time, but need it when composing with a fisheye in conjunction with the electronic levels. Turning it on and off is an annoying dig in the menus and not easily reachable with just an info press. I also suggested that the old way to get to shadow and highlight control of pressing the up button (if you have the arrow buttons set to direct function) followed by info should pull up both shadow and highlight control simultaneously. We do have two wheels, it’s not a PEN with just one wheel now is it. This one was my gripe with the E-M5 as I had to sacrifice the shadow and highlight control for DOF. Anyway…
Mini-REVIEW:
The camera is indeed not much bigger than the E-M5 with grip. Build quality is solid, grip texture material is grippy reminded me of my old E-500. But, I’ve spent long days with an E-M5 and heavy 4/3 glass via adaptor (manual focus of course) and no grip, I never felt hand fatigue like I felt after maybe an hour or so of using the E-M1. The grip for me is too narrow, or maybe the combination of that depth and that narrowness,or maybe because the grip was there I was favouring my right hand for weight, dunno. My hands are not exactly big, while it did give you an initial better grip and confidence, within an hour my right hand was not happy. Moral of the story get your hands on one and spend and hour to see how you feel. Onto a more positive note…
One nice touch I noticed is that in magnified view the image stabilizer is automatically engaged, no half press required. So you don’t have to choose mode two anymore, you can still have the image stabilizer engage and once you’re done focusing a shutter half press will dump you out of magnified view. That’s something you really can’t do comfortably with the E-M5, unless you half press first, then engage magnified view via another button (especially if you’re using non-electronically coupled glass, not so much a problem with native m43 or 4/3). The number of customizable buttons is great, you will run out of ideas before you run out of buttons. For those who use the latest PENS and E-M5 there’s not a whole lot of surprises when it comes to menus.
I long suspected the phase detect was at best a quick way to get to the general focus area, but wouldn’t be accurate enough. I think that is the case, I tested the 7-14, 11-22, 50, and 150 4/3 glass with this camera. Mind you these are lenses they had for public testing, so take the following with a grain of salt, I don’t know how much these lenses have been abused. The shorter glass was quicker than the 50 or 150. The 150 especially had problems getting a good focus lock, not happy. The 50 wasn’t doing that great either, my ancient E-500 could do better. With all the 4/3 lenses the final AF lock was with a judder of I think 3 steps of back and forth, something noted in other reviews. I suspect they are using the phase detect to get there but using a final contrast detect back and forth for accuracy. While it is miles better than what 4/3 glass does with any of the previous m43 cameras, it still didn’t feel as fast as a proper phase detect with these same lenses. I own the 50 and the 11-22, and I know for sure they are faster on the E-500 when set to only the central cross sensor. I for one was disappointed and will give it a pass at this price. Will probably wait till they really nail down the on chip phase detect. I’m quite happy to continue to manually focus up to 50mm with the IS making it that much easier.
Hope that helps some in their decisions.
Thanks for the review!
“I own the 50 and the 11-22, and I know for sure they are faster on the E-500 when set to only the central cross sensor”
already we know the 50 is faster on EM1 that on E5. You say faster on E500?
pffft!
and how exactly do you know this? pffft
From Robin Wong’s review, and he’s an Olympus employee now:
“The focusing speed of Four Thirds lenses on the E-M1 is NOT as fast as how they are on DSLR E-5, E-3 or E-30. It may not have fulfilled my expectations, but in all seriousness, the focusing speed was FAR from disappointing. In comparison to previous focusing on any micro Four Thirds camera, the focusing speed on E-M1 has increased by quite a far leap, and is now very fast and reliable. For some lenses, the focusing speed was very close to the DSLR E-5. The fastest focusing lens out of the series tested was undoubtedly the ZD 14-35mm f2 SWD lens”
oh and the E-500 autofocus tested to be a fast as 0.1s and that was with a non SWD lens by DC resource, they were using the kit lens. So before you assert your informed ramblings (sarcasm in case you were wondering), check your sources.
> ‘even got to talk to Mr. Terada. I made a couple of suggestions regarding functionality and was surprised he took notes’
this should tell you this is some clowns fantasy island day trip
b u l l s h i t
http://www.dvf-fotografie.de/news/news-anzeigen/article/olympus-om-d-e-m1-event-tour.html
” Toshiyuki Terada, Leiter der Produktentwicklung bei Olympus in Tokio sowie Profi-Fotografen stehen für alle Fragen zur Verfügung.”
Translate for yourself BS clown.
not a word of that supports your assertions other than Terada was there
weak comeback…
Maybe I should have taken a hair sample for DNA proof? or posed like a moron “can I take my picture with you for my facebook page”?
Those are my conclusions and my decision to stick with my E-M5 despite most of my glass being 4/3 and sometimes missing AF, take them or leave them, and I do state to try one out for yourself.
You remind me of an old saying about a certain type of person (translated it loses some of it’s folksy charm but here goes) “Give them good advice or screw them it’s all the same”.
What a joke. Photozine gives the E-M1 5 stars for Features, Handling, and Performance, meaning that this is a 5 star camera. But only 3 stars for Value? When a canera is that good, it is most definitely worth the price that Oly is asking – which is NOT unreasonable. This is just like a lot of the whining cheapskates on this forum who want every feature under the sun, but don’t want to pay more than $500 for it. Either ante up for a top notch m43 camera like this (that also works well with 43 kenses) or go back to your cell phone.
Of course it’s overpriced, but a lot of new models are compared models that have been on the market a while. E-M1 is comparable in fetures to Canon 7D, Canon 70D, Nikon D7100 and Pentax K5 II, better in some areas – not as good in other, but a lot more expensive. Three stars seem about right to me.
German ColorFoto gives the 70D and the E-M1 identical total score. The 70D is listed at €1100, the E-M1 at €1500. HOWEVER, if you toss in the kit price of €700 (?) for the 12-40/2.8 while a similar Canon lens is considerably bulkier and more expensive (e.g the 24-70/2.8), is the E-M1 still overpriced?
you should compare 12-40/2.8 with proven 17-40/f4L or Nikon 24-120/f4 Nano in order for the same IQ and similar 3D image dimension.
Once again this crappy non sense f conversion…
>and similar 3D image dimension
3D image dimension you need 3D lens. Aperture will not get you there.
3D image dimension?
Sounds like Star Trek – Engage the 3D image dimension multiplier and boldly go where rational logic cannot take us!
just putting a few random words together doesn’t give it meaning – but it sure fools the plebs.
Yeah, some reviewers miss the forest for the trees. Compared to Oly E-5, it’s a bargain (but that camera is old). And the bargain run (e.g., D600) CaNikons can’t hold a candle to its build quality and ergonomics. So I’d say it’s a bargain for anyone who can use the extra build quality, performance, or appreciates a rugged, high performance mirrorless camera. I’d say it’s a solid 4 star camera for price (and will eventually be 5 stars if/as street price comes down).
However, the five stars for performance seems odd to me. They have to be looking only at photo quality and not all around modern camera performance (movies). The lackluster movie performance (despite, or especially in light of the invaluable 5-way IBIS) should be worth -1 stars. Olympus supposedly knows that now, but there are no guarantees that the E-M1 will benefit from any firmware updates to give it complete movie performance. So I’d give the E-M1 a (very) strong 4 stars for performance, and note that it loses a star for incomplete movie support (MIA: 24/25 fps, high nitrate modes).
OTOH, I am very happy I have one and really look forward to testing it out in the elements (and seeing if I can figure out how to take interesting photos in poor weather, while I’m at it :-).
Oh, and I don’t think the E-M1 will really shine until the basic set of Olympus “Pro” line lenses are in circulation:
12-40mm
40-200mm
300mm (?)
6-12mm (?)
Assuming the entire “Pro” line of lenses are as good and versatile as the 12-40mm is reported to be, the E-M1 + “Pro” glass will likely make the best pound-for-pound system around.
that’s 40-150 not 40-200
Thank you, Balthier Bunansa.
I’m very excited about the new PRO line. For me the 12-40 + 40-150 + 6-12 (I think it will be f4 or f2.8-f4) and the 60 f2.8 macro (premium line) it’s all i need for my kind of photography. I will add eventually a 25 f1.4 or f1.2 (I think in the next 3-4 years Olympus will produce that kind of lenses)
CC the em1 gets 5 stars for its gadgets but image and video quality is way below apsc and ff quality. So 3 stars is a good overall score for this camera.
Eh? German ColorFoto claims that the image quality (IQ) for the E-M1 equals that of the brand new Canon 70D (actually slightly better at low ISO, slightly weaker at high ISO).
So much so for your gadget theory. IQ knowledge apparently is not your strong side.
A joke? Calm down mate. It does make sense.
I don’t question about its features, but the fact is that this camera is overpriced, especially when comparing to cheaper GX7. Moreover E-M1 pricing is now in the same category of FF DSLR body and coming-soon FF A7/A7r from Sony, which is now called “compact D600/D800”. This makes people hesitate of course.
The 12-40 test is “based on JPEG files from the Olympus OM-D E-M1”. Sigh. So we have to wait for a test which the lens itself and not the image processing algorithms of the E-M1.
I have the strong impression that the 12-40 is not quite as good as everyone thinks. According to Olympus itself, the E-M1 is the first camera to apply lens-specific corrections. I wonder what the true optical quality of the 12-40 really is, especially on the image borders.
Will need to test it on a GH3/GX7 to find that out. That said, software lens correction is valid, as long as it is available across the format. If it allows us to have fast compact glass without CA and other artefacts, it’s a good thing. After all, this is digital imaging we’re talking about.
Said it many times, but one of the strengths of m43 is the choice it offers. We can use old MF lenses from other times, we have new MF lenses with glorious wide apertures, and we have the latest in technological tricks in new lenses like this 12-40/2.8. Choice is good.
“According to Olympus itself, the E-M1 is the first camera to apply lens-specific corrections”
Oh no… I’m disappointed to know that. The lens-specific correction will work as designed only if body and lens are the same brand. Why? This correction logic requires specfic parameters from glass designing, lens parameters, lens alignment, etc. Of course, this information won’t be shared to others.
Panasonic body also implements this function, if I’m not mistaken. Pana 7-14 works okay for Pana bodies, but will create a lot of purple flare or blob on Olympus bodies. (http://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=45013). I’m wondering that 12-40 may not work as designed perfectly on Panny bodies.
The 12-40mm is for Olympus only. On Panasonic bodies you don’t have stabilization…and that’s a big inconvenient for MFT because of the high ISO used to counter shake, resulting poor IQ (from ISO 3200). A tripod might use, but you can’t use a tripod everywhere (museums, concerts etc).
You’ll be able to use it on the GX7 with 2 axis IBIS.
Isaac,
Please don’t write your facts that aren’t correct:
“E-M1 pricing is now in the same category of FF DSLR body and coming-soon FF A7/A7r from Sony, which is now called “compact D600/D800″. This makes people hesitate of course.”
Well yes you can pick up a 6D for the price of an E-M1 and it has been out for over a year whilst the E-M1 has just been released – and you’re comparing apples and oranges, at that price you wont get proper weather sealing, lower minimum shutter speed, half the fps and a much heavier package – and at that price point IQ is much of muchness between FX, APSC or FT sensors. The FF variants may pack a slightly higher IQ and if you are willing to trade a weight excess for that it may be a good option for you. But to say that MFT is playing in the same price bracket just because the top end MFT meets the bottom end FF price is BS. As for the Nex FF’s, expectation are for those to be 2.5k+ so they are not in the same ball park.
and this, wtf?: “The lens-specific correction will work as designed only if body and lens are the same brand. Why? This correction logic requires specfic parameters from glass designing, lens parameters, lens alignment, etc. Of course, this information won’t be shared to others.”
You are outright wrong again, seems to be a habit of yours. Oly can profile other companies lenses til the cows come home – imatest and a decent lab setup and they’re good to go, how do you think DXO, Adobe, PTLens etc build their profiles. Hell Olympus may even license the lens profiles form DXO to save themselves the effort – and if Panasonic want to sell more lenses im sure they would be more than happy to share lens parameters with Oly.
I havent seen it measured yet
but the 12-40 is a clear improvement over the 12-60 especially at the edges
and remember an E5 with 12-60 could defeat D3 Nikon 12Mp FF with 24-70 G for resolution
the 12-40 has more CA than the 12-35!!! wasnt the ca ridiculous in the 12-35 according to the idiots here? werent you all so sure the 12-40 was gonna be so so much better? baaaaackpedal fantards!!! backpedal!
yeah that what I was thinking first but 12-35 was tested on GH3 with in-body CA correction, 12-40 tested on E-M1, let’s wait for dxo to see the performances on the same camera and using RAW not jpeg…
Until now, the 12-35 and 12-40 looks pretty close but:
– 12-40 has 5 mm more
– 12-40 is better built
– 12-40 has a more important magnification ratio
– 12-40 has that pretty nice manual focus ring
– 12-35 is smaller
– 12-35 is lighter
I have the 12-35 but that 12-40 mm looks better for me, more versatile…
thats the thing, the em1 is supposed to have in body CA correction, so those are CORRECTED files. imagine how awful they are uncorrected. Also resolution is all over the place. Good on some focal lengths and then horrible at others. its quite soft at 40mm. You also have to stop it down for decent results. If you look at the 12-35 on that same site resolution is very linear and equally excellent across the entire zoom range right at f2.8. Corners are better too. And thats tested on the GH3 with an AA filter. There isnt much of a point for that whole list if image quality is worse
y r u @ 43 ?
I don’t know who the “idiots here” are. I’m checking this forum relatively regularly, although not every day. I have not observed any strong comments on the 12-35/2.8. Perhaps from a few, but not in any remarkable way that has changed the impression of it being a good lens.
—
A more obvious observation is the few who come with very strong statements about m43 vs. ff or the quality of lenses, with virtually zero foundation. Wrt. the 12-40/2.8: I am pretty sure it is a good lens — based on tests in e.g. PCMag, but also based on statements by Ming Thein and Robin Wong. Whether it is on par with the Pana 12-35/2.8 or better, and how it compares with the offerings from Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. is too early to say. In this respect, I put no weight at all on “Simpsonian” types of statements.
Then you havent been here for more than a couple of weeks. Go to the 12-40 announcement and read the comments. It all “this is gonna be optically better than”. Incidentally I see none of tthose posters here. Matt the real stig, about 2 dozen people claiming how much sharper and better ca this lens would have because olympus makes better lenses. And then when news like these come out they’re nowhere to be seen or statements like yours come out, “what people and comments are you refering to?”.
Lens variation is one thing, but its not that varied. The lens is not gonna get much better copy to copy, especially when it comes to ca. When it comes to sharoness there is some variation but not in ca.
y r u @ 43 ?
I know where I am, did I say something bad about m43s? Is there a point to your comment?
“fantards” etc ? u troll. y r u @ 43 ?
Thats not trolling if its a fact. Theres an abundant amount of oly fantards here who talk out of their asses and when posts like these prove them wrong theyre nowhere to be found. You sir, dont know what a troll is
None of these reviews, good or bad, can be taken in isolation.
Sample variation occurs in all lenses and you can only get an idea of the potential quality by reading many reviews.
And then hope you get a good copy (which may be good in some ways and bad in others) when you buy the lens.
Read this and it will explain. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-perfect-lens
Resolution may vary, but not ca. If its bad in onw copy itll be bad in all od them
“DELIVERY ESTIMATE We need a little more time to provide you with a good estimate. We’ll notify you via e-mail as soon as we have an estimated delivery date.”
Dammit Amazon, I am in the dark here. People have already received their E-M1. At least tell me when I can expect to get mine.
admin black gx7 in the us is available with the 20mm as kit
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-LUMIX-Camera-Tilt-Live-Viewfinder/dp/B00F4MU0KO/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1381392440&sr=8-3&keywords=lumix+gx7
Yep, ships from Japan or Hong Kong 🙂
I put it in basket and it says it ships next day usa
Whether it’s overpriced or not depends on your taste and viewpoints, but I absolutely agree that GX7 is more interesting from the pricing point of view.
I’ve had my E-M1 a few days now, and I’m not too pleased with the way that the on-sensor PDAF is implemented.
The chips are all in the same horizontal orientation, and this is painfully obvious when attempting to focus on a subject which has mainly horizontal features. I was using a 12-60mm in this case.
Another issue is my 4/3 9-18mm – in poor light it hunts all over the place and sometimes cannot focus at all. Although difficult, low light focussing is far superior on my E-M5. So far as I can tell there is no way to select whether to use CDAF or PDAF for lenses, as was the case on older E-series bodies (E-410, E-620) – the E-M1 gives you no option.
I bought an E-M1 primarily for the 4/3 lens performance and wireless. As I’ve found the wireless to be troublesome I’m left wondering if it was a wise purchase, even though I really like the size, grip, many buttons, and other features.
Good to know, because my 4/3 9-18 is the only slow to focus on the E-M5, so it’s not worth for me considering trading cameras.
However it might be that it was never very quick, even for 4/3 cameras. One idea might be to select Vivid and a smaller green frame, focussing on some contrasty feature.
I need to do some more testing, on the E-M1, E-M5, and E-620. I’ve never paid too much attention to speed as I primarily shoot landscapes, but I immediately noticed the hunting on the E-M1. Still, it’s an untested opinion so far!
I’m sure that some folk would suggest buying the micro 9-18mm, but I think I’ve spent enough on kit this year, and anyway this old lens is a very firm favourite of mine – give it up? You’ll be prising it out of my cold, dead, hand.
Yes, I kept it because I think that it is better than the m4/3 lenses. However consider that CDAF needs light and contrast, so you can’t use it indoors, unless you use it with speedlights.
43rds 9-18? not the fastest lens even on E5
def. slower on GH2, but not unmanageably slow for what these lenses do
GH2 doesnt require any AF assistance indoors even at night
that is until AF is impractical even for pdAF SLRs
I cant see it being slower than Gh2 on M1
Speed isn’t the problem for me – it’s the hunting and failure to focus at all. =:-(
The only reason that comes to my mind is that the PDAF points are too rare and in between to cover the enormous FOV of the 9-18.
The OM-5 OTH uses CDAF, so it has many more points to rely with.
IF so the only way is to help the lens with MF.
I cant recall a single instance this lens hunts on GH2
with 7-14 OTOH, its a way of life
About the lens test: strange sample pic of vignetting at 12mm… How can it be like this? http://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/lenses/m4-3/olympus-m.zuiko-digital-ed-12-40mm-f-2.8-pro-lens#SAMPLES