Image on top shows the Panasonic 20mm pancake.
I got info from a source saying that Olympus will also launch a new 25mm f/1.8 lens along the new low-end OMD model that is going to be announced in late January-early February. He told me the lens is a tiny bit thicker than the current Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 lens and cheaper than the Leica 25mm f/1.4.
I hope more sources can tel me soon if the rumor is correct 🙂
—
For sources: Sources can send me anonymous info at 43rumors@gmail.com (create a fake gmail account) or via contact form you see on the right sidebar. Thanks!
For readers: Don’t miss any news. Join our group on facebook and follow our tweets.
Rumors classification explained (FT= FourThirds):
FT1=1-20% chance the rumor is correct
FT2=21-40% chance the rumor is correct
FT3=41-60% chance the rumor is correct
FT4=61-80% chance the rumor is correct
FT5=81-99% chance the rumor is correct
226 Responses
YES!!
Yes, but hopefully it is not just a pretty face like the 17mm f/1.8. I don’t mind if it is plastic like the 45mm f/1.8, but have really good IQ like that lens.
In fact, I would rather that Olympus release a 17mm f/1.2 or f/1.4 instead and get a decent IQ this time, the third time.
If you believe DXO. the 17mm F1.8 is better than the Oly 12-40mm F2.8.
And I don’t hear people complaining that is a rubbish lens.
A prime doing better than a zoom lens? Incredible !
You should also jump to DXO conclusion :
” the new image quality of the M. Zuiko Digital 17mm f/1.8 is not up to scratch, as not only does it have quite high levels of chromatic aberration and distortion but it also fails to impress in outright resolution and acutance. ”
The biggest problem of this lens is the pricing. Sold as premium, but just normal performance.
DxO tests lenses and reports results without applying distortion correction first, so some of the worst data they report comes from the corners which are not going to be in the final image after distortion correction. Pretty useless numbers for lenses made for digital.
Distortion correction eats resolution for breakfast, just like peripheral illumination correction can really hurt your dynamic range. It’s a trade-off whether you test the software corrected lens or the RAW lens performance. RAW is simpler. I doubt the score would change much if they made the other choice.
If primes aren’t better than zooms, they’re bad primes. 😉 I make a point of never buying a prime unless it actually offers a significant advantage, whether it’s sharpness, speed or size. The Panasonic 20mm is great because it has all three. The Olympus 17mm is larger, slower and less sharp. Even ignoring all other metrics of image quality, it’s an inferior lens. But it does look nice, and it does have that fancy focus-clutch system. I guess someone might be happy with it.
Correction of terrible 5% barrel distortion can reduce resolution by as little as 5% and only in the border regions, but it can push corners with much lower resolution and higher CA and vignetting out of the frame. So you end up with wrong numbers for resolution, CA and vignetting.
And yes, correcting 2EV of vignetting in the corner might bring out noise at higher ISOs. But if distortion correction pushes that corner out of the frame and you have only 1EV in the new corner – it is a different matter.
And lateral CA correction is simply distortion correction made separately for each channel. For example, instead of correcting each channel for 5% barrel, you might want to correct blue channel for 4.9% barrel, green channel for 5% barrel and red channel for 5.1% barrel – the results are not going to be worse than 5% for all, but that specific part of CA will disappear. Now longitudinal CA is a different matter and much harder to correct for, with more unrecoverable loss because of it (basically you have to have separate sharpening profiles for each channel, but sharpening cannot recover lost small details, just make preserved bigger ones look better).
Reporting both kinds of CA in one line, and especially including CA from corners which would be pushed out of frame makes sense for film but just stupid for digital.
This discussion about corners is rather pointless since we don’t know how DxO weighs performance over the frame and at which points in the frame they actually take measurements. The only measurement not affected by this is the MP rating because that weighs the whole area the same, and since it is an additive benchmark (not an averaged one) low resolution over a smaller area has only a very, very small effect.
“Correction of terrible 5% barrel distortion can reduce resolution by as little as 5%”
Sorry but that isn’t quite true IMHO, they resample the whole image (as m43 only allocates a little bit of info for distortion correction) and even if the centre pixels are only moving by 3% or something similar it still knocks about 12% off the centre sharpness. (The best examples of this are probably the photozone tests of some Sanyo lenses as they did a with and without correction measurement.)
BTW interestingly on some lenses they throw away a lot of data, on my 12-35mm Panasonic lens a scary amount of the raw image (maybe 4-6MP on a 16Mp sensor) is ditched in distortion correction. DXO’s more accurate corrections actually keep more of the info, but then which version is actually the correct focal length (Raw, m43 corrected or DXO corrected)? I don’t know, I asked DXO and they basically said they fix the distortion then crop the 4:3 area they get out of it. They certainly give me a wider FoV (on this lens) than anyone doing the simplistic m43 correction
That is just wrong. If you have 17.3 mm of sensor sampled by 4000 points (in 12 mpix sensor) in the top and bottom lines of the sensor, then 5% barrel correction samples it with 3800 points if you pull the corners out. Exactly 5% loss. Center would stay the same if you don’t touch it.
That’s fair, I slightly guesstimated, sorry but was rushing, anyway on the 12-25 at the wide end a noticeable amount of image data does go missing and the rest is stretched to suit. It is surprising how much extra coverage the lens gives. It is most interesting to compare the Raw, Raw processed with DxO (which does its own corrections) and JPEG or Raw processed with a converter that just uses the m43 data (which has the same FoV as the JPEG). If you compare the middle strip with the bottom part here you can see how much goes missing:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52279842
While you didn’t ask about the effects of software distortion correction here’s the Samsung data I found interesting:
http://www.photozone.de/samsungnx/696_samsungnx30f2?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/samsungnx/694_samsungnx20f28?start=1
(Mouse-over the MTF graphs.)
Which while not being m43 lenses perhaps does give an idea of the magnitude of the effect.
Software is no substitute for optical excellence – it’s a fudge.
At first glance this is true, but it is quite a simplification.
Using some software distortion correction for a zoom lens can reduce the amount of optical correction it needs, which in turn can significantly reduce the complexity of the residue distortion, leading to better end results.
Exactly. Correcting for distortion optically is not free, it de-prioritizes other things which are not as trivial to correct if possible at all.
Better ??? it only has a better overall score because of f1.8 vs f2.8 but go to: measurement -> sharpness -> filed map Set both at f2.8, set 12-40 to 18 mm and you will see the 12-40 is sharpest !!!same for vignetting, distorsion and aberration…the 17 mm is soft…
Yes indeed! I suspect this lens will be released at a very accessible price point, it’s the only way it can compete with the Panny, since the later is pretty much perfect optically.
In fact I suspect this is designed to be launched as a kit lens for Oly’s premium bundles… Considering the 17mm was way too expensive and it made those cost quite a pretty penny, compared to say, a GX7 + 20mm.
Uh no, if the AF is allready faster and the sharpness is the same as 20mm or a little better than 17mm, everyone will ditch the Pana. 20mm is an awkward range anyway and it’s only popular because it was the only pancake F1.7 for a long time. But the Leica smokes it, but is to expensive in comparison.
Seems logical… Cheaper OM-D body, and cheaply built STD lens, made like their 45mm lens…
Yep, I hope it is in the grade of the 45/1.8. Cheaper construction, great price, good optics.
+1
Any clues as to grade i.e, 12mm vs 45mm? It’d be nice to have another 45mm style lens regards performance/cost.
Sounds like a replacement for my pany 20/1.7. IQ from the pany is good but the AF is embarassing.
Why 25mm and not 20mm?
Because Olympus already gave us a 17/1.8?
I switched from Pana 20/1.7 to Leica 25/1.4 for exactly that AF reason. Im pretty satisfied, the 25mm can give you some trouble in street photography though….
Sounds like a huge mistake to me.
The line-up Olympus needs to have now is :
12/2, 17/1.8, 25/1.2 PRO, 45/1.8, 75/1.8
Olympus needs to upgrade the 45mm f/1.8 to the same high quality metal housing as the 12mm f/2.
The 25mm needs to be f/1.2 and not f/1.8, as an initial step to a line of “PRO” primes. It should then be followed by a 17mm f/1.2 PRO and 45mm f/1.2 PRO.
Everything less is garbage, and one would be MUCH better off looking into the Leica 15/1.7, 25/1.4, 42/1.2 trio.
Yes, thats the lens I’m waiting for. The Pana 20mm has slow af , the 25mm is expensive and has the rattling-issue on oly-cams, the oly 17mm is expensive and not really sharp, the sigma 30mm is to slow. I hope it will be dust- and splashwaterproved, but I would buy it when it isn’t so.
I’ve got the Panaleica 25 for my E-M5. I’ll likely be swapping out an Oly 17 and 45 as soon as those other two Panaleica’s come to market. I’ll also be swapping out the Oly 12 for the first manufacturer that makes a high-end, fast UWA zoom for m43. Panasonic seems about to turn the Olympus prime selection, other than the beautiful but odd focal length 75, into the middling option.
Mike I see it in a different perspective. PanaLeica has a huge advantage: it was the only 50mm equivalent available. Those interested in that focal lenght already bought it (well, perhaps not all, but most).
Now Olympus has two choices: do a PRO version, faster (it won’t happen, Oly president declared that they won’t go faster than 1.8, but who knows?) and quite expensive.
How many people will sell their “old” PanaLeica to gain that bit of stop of light gathering? (Not me for example, but again, who knows?)
From what we read here, lenses are claimed to be ultra fast, be small and inexpensive: the hard truth is that you can only pick up two qualities, the third will be a cons.
And from what I read here, Panasonic 25mm is considered quite an expensive lens.
The second choice is in my opinion that of offering a cheaper alternative, to make the lens more interesting to those who havn’t already bought the PanaLeica.
I would go for this second option
Exciting. Exciting. . . .
Very nice. Should have decent optical quality, somewhere between the 45 and 17 and cost roughly $400. Hope it gets a zone focusing clutch like the 17’s.
My main gripe with Panasonic glass is its colour signature. I have been resisting the urge to get the PanaLeica 25 for a long time.
Poor man’s Leica 25mm. What else for?
Are you implying that that’s a bad thing? All manufacturers have a cheaper slower lens and then a faster more expensive version of that lens. Learn2market.
Rather see the Panny/Leica 15mm and Nocticron available for purchase……when, when????
Or the Tamron 14-150mm… where is that??
AF Primes Baby…AF Primes!!!!
I’ve been missing a cheap 50mm ekv. Olympus had their OM Zuiko 50/1.8 back in the days which were the kit lens to most of the OM-models. A cheap 25/1.8 seems very reasonable.
Good move Olympus. Please make a 9mm prime next, preferable f/2.8 but f/4 is fine too. 🙂
Give me 10mm or 12mm pancake sized as 20/1.7, could be f/2.8 but f/4 is fine too. 🙂
Lets pretend it happens, your 9mm pancake without heavy sacrifices on digital correction, overall IQ and speed. I personally doubt that there will ever be any pancake UWA, but I’ve been proven wrong more than once. Anyhow, my question is how cheaper than the Olympus 9-18 would it realistically sell?
This question goes without mentioning that the Olympus 9-18 is *at least* as fine a performer as you’d expect from any pancakes and that is it a far cry from being bulky.
Interesting news :), can’t wait to hear more about it. I hope it’s within the line of their premium lenses.
At long last! The original “basic” lens that came with every SLR back in the day (50mm f1.8 or 1.4). I’ll snap it up as soon as it comes out. I hope it’s focused (pun intended) on being good rather than just cheap.
I’ll use this 25mm f1.8, the Oly 45mm, and a wide angle. Nice small lenses, and with bigger apertures than the beautiful 12-40mm. I recently examined the 12-40mm, which is a great lens, but returned it as too heavy and bulky for my purposes.
Why don’t you use Pana 25/1.4 now? Too expensive? True. But what makes you think Oly is going to be cheaper? They priced 17/1.8 at the same $500 as you can buy Pana 25/1.4 after all. And even if they price it at $400 as their 45/1.8, would you really save just $100 and forgo the speed advantage of the Panasonic?
Now, if they would come to their senses and priced the lens at $50 as it should be priced in relation to $100 (and sometimes $90) 50/1.8 lenses for full frame DSLRs, it would be a different story. But they will not.
PeeVee:
The Leica f1.4 is fine. But in my case I want something more compact and lighter, and don’t want the bulk of the 1.4. I am quite happy with f1.8–what with image stabilization and low noise at high ISO we’ve already got an amazing half-dozen stops more than we had in film days: that’s more than plenty!–without needing f1.4. The shallow DOF that f1.4 offers is valuable, I do admit. Others–you?–may reasonably want the f1.4 not 1.8.
There’s plenty of room for more than one lens at 25mm! Manufacturers have always had a number of alternatives at this focal length equivalent.
I had the choice between buying into the Nikon system or the Olympus system. That choice was pretty easy lol. Now people who have spent a fortune on the tiny sensored, very expensive, under-performing low MP Olympus cameras need to justify their purchase to themselves, while deep down realising what a dumb decision they made.
And when, in 5 years time, Micro Four Thirds inevitably fails and dies, these folk who comment on this very website, will finally have to come to terms with their massive blunder, and come out of their deep denial.
So, NJ, WTF are you doing here then? Some water passed under your bridge, bringing you second thoughts?
I must be your evil twin, selling all my Nikon gear and moving to M43.
I did the same- and the one thing that I miss from my Nikon gear is that cheap 35f1.8… But what a coincidence that 25f1.8 could be the solution 😉
Same here. Nothing left but a few 52mm filters.
Im happy with my photography on an E-PL5 right now. What else do you need?
If Micro Four Thirds fails commercially, it doesn’t take any of that away from me. Because the point is, the equipment that suits you best is a subjective matter, and not something determined by sales, or market performance.
PS: At least it’s better than people like you who don’t have their own style and needs, but rather need confirmation by other people to be satisfied with their gear. You’re a sheep.
It’s Full Frame! You can tell by the retarted way he writes. Admin please ban this moron’s IP. He contributes nothing but pisses off your guests.
Yes please. These discussions are getting tiring…
Ask yourself why you felt the need to come here and warn people 😉
Why? It’s like asking me why you would want to warn someone not to get onto the titanic. Micro Four Thirds disciples are spending thousands on a system that will become dead and worthless very soon. Instead of insults maybe you should show a little gratitude, as my warning will save you thousands of dollars/pounds/euros/etc.
No, you are just an insecure Nikon idiot who want everbody to have oil splatter dusty sensors on expensive huge cameras that can’t focus! If I want oil I can buy that at the nearest gas station instead of buying a Nikon.
With the EM1 beating sensor performance on canon 7d and newer 7d, it seems to me apsc is the one that might die out. With m43 and ff, apsc might get squeezed out in the long run. Tech will always get smaller and better. Oly gambled too early with 43, but they seem to have it right with m43 for now.
Forgive me but I don’t trust you: if you want to do something good to help your soul or karma you should go down the streets, and help those in really need.
This is a m43 forum, you should be aware that most of people here love that system: when you’re a guest you should behave properly.
I don’t think many of readers here are going to Nikon rumors writing why they don’t choose Nikon cameras.
Enjoy your gear in peace 😉
Very well said 🙂
I tried reading your response, but I couldn’t get passed the first sentence as I got very distracted by your very chiselled cheekbones.
And you haven’t seen my blue eyes! 🙂
Maybe you should consider moving to the other side of the camera.
Well, I’m much better a t taking photos. 😉
This really is the point. It’s just so ridiculously pathetic that people come here to insult users. I would never even think about heading to a nikon site to abuse people with different preferences than me. I mean WHAT? Who would do that? It’s just so laughably lame. It actually amuses me more and more.
And for the record . . It’s highly unlikely that anyone spending thousands on M43 gear is unaware of Nikon and many other alternatives and their respective pros and cons.
I tell you this. If this is a dead end ship then let us go down with it. Does this make our cameras and lens unable to take pictures somehow? Does this make our hands unable to take pictures somehow? Does this prevent our brain to reach higher level of composition? No. If this whole thing fails we will still use what we have at that time. We will still treasure our time spending with these M43 equipments even if we move on to some other things. Because this is a hobby, not a trading floor.
Why do dick-heads like you have to go around to preach to us what we should use or that we will fail? Instead of spending our time with your family, your friends or doing actual photography, you spend your time creating so much annoyance for those on this site intentionally. No you are not interested in helping us. You don’t provide any logic, any fact or examples. You entertain yourself with the idea that others will fail. You are so insecure that you have to brag about others’ possibly mistakes. You are so coward and lazy to create a profile. What is this place to you? A place where you can trash others who have true interest in something? Is that called helping?
Sincerely,
GTFO
…but Nikon Jane….ask yourself..”Why are there oil spots on my sensor?”. 🙂
Too much measurebating!
Next Nikki Jane will go blind from it… 😉
🙂
Hi.
Could you tell us how many great lenses you bought for your Nikon? Are you sure theses lenses will be sharp enough with, say, future high MP sensor Nikon will probably put in its cameras 4 or 5 years from now?
Subsidiary question: Does your choice make you a better photographer? (be careful, this one is tricky)
Which Olympus camera did you end up getting?
Massive blunder? Lolol. So dramatic. It’s a camera system, not a life and death decision! m43 may not survive, but it would be a shame if it didn’t. m43 offers such a good balance of size and image quality. If more people understood it, Canon and Nikon would be very worried. This entry-level OM-D could be a game changer.
That’s great. How about posting a link to professional photography website so we can admire how much better your photos are and maybe purchase some to hang on our walls. Ofcourse, we’ll claim we took those photos we buy whenever houseguests asks.
Oh~ James.. tsk tsk tsk
Our fellow Nikon James is not happy that we are happy.
Deep down inside of him, he wants to be happy like we are, but he does not know how to be happy..
So instead, he made naive decision to ruin other people’s happiness, since that is something he knows how, so he thought..
You see James.. I hate to break it to you.. but what you are trying to say(to ruin) is very familiar to us, and it only reminds us why we chose what we chose.
It’s okay James (or should we call you Grinch?).. we understand.
You see.. you are always welcome here.
One day you might be able to be as happy as we are. 😀
Oh! So your the one who bought the nikon 1.
i would welcome at least one lens from Olympus faster than f/1.8!
why don’t olympus make anything faster than f1.8?
Maybe because it’s a good compromise between fastness and size?
Anyway especially at the 25mm focal length it would be wasted research, because of the pany f1.4 lens is quite good-it would be stupid to try selling a similar product.
after that 25mm lens the basic lenses are all available at 1.8 from Olympus, so there is a chance that after that they develop faster primes as well…
@childish @oluv Olympus said that they won’t go wider than f1.8 because they don’t want to face obvious issues. Anyway, I understand faster lenses are desireable, I use them for low light photography for example, but I think also that bokeh is too often the last bullet when trying to defend a broken photo.
http://www.the.me/f-stops-bokeh-mania-monstrous-lenses-and-lazy-composition-plus-sony-a7r-with-zeiss-otus-comparisons/
+100!
Fast lenses to get the shot, not for “arty-ness”.
-100!
to stay within the realm of the m43 format, the ironic thing is that we dont need fast lenses for that, but we do for the sake of shallowness, which seems to be translated by too many people as an overused way to make a shot.It’s a subjective matter after all. The author of that article is only human too, as he would have loved to join that f/90 club 🙂
Ulli, the article was written taking into consideration Sony 7r and Otus f1.4 lens. M43 has the advantage (to me) of its double depth of field. I saw photos of models with just one eye in focus, the other being completely blurred, and I don’t like it.
I’ve been told “you go full frame for this”. No thanks, not for this, not me at least.
Bokeh is overrated today, here’s an example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcosartoriphoto/9777475362/in/photostream/
The photo is nothing special, the actress has a lovely smile and was really kind, that’s why I like it.
A young photographer saw that picture and said: “it’s a pity that you didn’t put the whole bokeh up left in the photo”.
Marco i read the whole article, but as a lover of subject isolation I felt the words about dof stronger. Ofcourse its kind of a rule by the book, that both eyes should be in focus. But plenty portraits are not done like that, and you have the correct attitude by saying you dont like that, instead of assuming its a beginner’s mistake. The photographer’s intention in this case could be to make the portrait more expressive and three dimensional, while everything in focus can make a photo flat. “Overrated” is due to the fact that you see so many input from internet. IMO the area where alot of overdone shallowness is obvious, are the many postings here at this forum when videographers are showing off with a new superfast lens they just aquired. BTW I like that shot of the woman. You say its nothing special, but i consider it a snapshot style portrait. I didn’t really inderstand what the photographer meant with his comment, sounded rather vague 🙂
I would add that where larger sensors have a huge advantage with subject isolation is in wide-angle shots. With µ43, it is near-impossible to isolate a full-body shot from a wide-angle background. At the same time, in tele shots, macros, and tight portraits like Marco’s example, of course, larger sensors cannot get much in focus at all when wide open, so advantage µ43.
This was shot with 14/2.5 at f/2.5:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leicaapostate/8874218468
This could all change if Voigtländer puts out a 12/0.95, of course. Or 9/0.95!!! 🙂 Lens line-up definitely erases a lot of these sensor-size advantages, and µ43 has small lens size as a unique advantage.
@Ulli that young photographer did not even look at the subject, he looked at that incomplete “ball of bokeh” and I find it quite explanatory of the situation today.
Reading that article I raised an Amen 🙂
Of course subject isolation is part of portraiture, but try to imagine a half body picture, the model slightly turned to her left: there was a clear distinction between her right eye and the rest of her face. It looked almost as a badly photoshopped photo, broken by a wrong Gaussian effect.
My friend zoomed and showed me pores of her skin on the focused zone.
Stunning details, but.. Who cares about a 100% zoom in to pixel peeping, if the photo is (to me) almost disturbing?
Things are somehow exagerated I think, and I can’t say if that trend is caused by Companies trying to overpass physic’s limits or by people who feel the need to own cameras that are powerhouses but not knowing why.
@JShin too good 🙂 it’s hard to take a bad photo of someone that nice! She and Kim Ki Duk were really funny, despite their movie. Nice persons, really.
> Ulli, the article was written taking into consideration Sony 7r and Otus f1.4 lens. M43 has the advantage (to me) of its double depth of field. I saw photos of models with just one eye in focus, the other being completely blurred, and I don’t like it.
+100
Of course, I agree with Ulli that your portrait is a triumph of your skill… 🙂
Why this endless confusion of DOF and bokeh..? 🙁
How com people don’t learn the difference and meaning of those terms!
They are different things. Do your homework, and don’t spread the false doctrine any further.
I’m not sure who you are talking to, but definitely an important point to raise, that they are not the same thing.
I just read the thread over, and I think we are fairly consistently talking about DOF (“subject isolation”) here…
Absolutely!
Bokeh is the most misused word in photography. It refers to the quality and aesthetic of the out-of focus areas, not just generic ‘blur’.
My homeworks are not your business, I don’t want to be arrogant but you should learn to read and look at comments before suggesting people to go to study.
Please read again my comment: the first part of it is a reply to Ulli and I’m talking about thin depth of field focused area vs. blurred out of focus area.
The topic is that of the article I linked somewhere above. You can read it, it’s nice.
The second part of my comment concerns bokeh and as always I brought my personal experience providing a link and a short story about the photo in the link.
About bokeh being overrated, to make my story short, when that young photographer saw that picture he simply commented that it was a pity that the top left bokeh was incomplete.
No words about the actress, about her smile, about use of existing dim light. Only bokeh.
Fast lenses certainly are needed to keep the ISO as low as possible.
Shallow DoF is not the goal for me. It can be fun to play with, but often it comes off as techiquey.
I agree about the overuse of shallow DoF. It seems to be used as some sort of trick to mask shortcomings of creative vision, technique, or both. It’s ever so fashionable these days. Marco is correct when he mentions the deeper (?) DoF as a distinct advantage for M4/3.
Back in the day when I shot film, much emphasis was placed in trying to get as much as possible in focus. Oh, how times have changed. 😉
ofcourse a fast lens can help to keep iso low, but if you ask me to shoot with a 1.4 or 1.8 lens instead of a 0.95 for lowlight scenes, i would go for the cheaper options and just turn up the ISO one stop. Unless you prefer to watch your files 1:1 all the time, you wont see any difference on screen sizes or printed.I would even settle for a 2.0 lens. The claim that “shallow dof is used to coverup weaknesses in composition” is easily said if you just watch random internet samples. If you just take the time to find good photographers online, you will see that there are as many good samples as there are bad ones, like in any genre of photography. In the film days people buy a fast lens and stop it down alot because the optics were not as good as it is now. Even today people do that, buy an expensive fast lens and stop it down one or 2 clicks. These are pixelpeepers and dont care for the rendereing of a wide open lens.
The rendering and image character is what got me hooked on Voigtländers, as much if not more than the f0.95 aperture. I use them in all lighting conditions and f-stops. Working with them and the way they feel just right adds to their appeal.
Exactly so. This trend towards beautification a’ la Marriage/commercial hacks has got so wrong that headless chickens are not afraid to give up resolution for absurd apertures, not to say DOF and perspective composition, which is the very heart of composition, and photojournalism.
We are dealing with barbarians, those of the vast corn belts of the Neanderthals 🙂
> i would go for the cheaper options and just turn up the ISO one stop
Good point. In the old days, we used TMZ and no one complained about the grain… Ah, well, people these days don’t know how good they have it.
And, yes, in the old days, we had to walk in the snow fifty miles to get the film to the DP&E shop, pulling the two-ton hand cart, piled high with exposed bricks, all on our own, without Thinsulate, without breathable fabrics, just with hand-knit woolen gloves and tattered rubber boots. The stench of acetic acid stop bath permeated the air in the cruel, distant city… And how much those hypo stains made us cry! We worked hard to pay for those extra per-step push processing fees… How often we wished we could expose each frame at a different ISO, and pined for the golden age of sheet film which had, in fact, allowed us to do just that, and cursed the 250-frame-reporter-long-roll “fad” of the time as we fumbled with our changing bags… When we tried to develop and print on our own, we had to carry our own trays full of caustic chemicals, broke our back hoisting the monstrous enlarger heads up and down, and pulled our wrists trying to get the air out of the bottles of developer…
So, be thankful for what we have!
Sorry… I have a bad headache. 🙂
It’s simple….Bokeh is just another tool for the photographer to be creative with….you use it creatively to make the shot “you” want. Who cares if everyone else likes it or not (“everyone” never will)….but you need a fast lens, (especially in the MFT format)..or you will not have that tool at your disposal….I agree with what someone said above..at this point you do not need a .95 lens to capture an image in low light (especially with an IS body)…it really is not necessary 90% of the time.
See also here:
http://www.dpmag.com/how-to/shooting/go-deep.html
The Voitlander 21mm skopar is a little wonder. It seems to know what the subject is and pops out but leaves the rest clear. http://www.flickr.com/photos/54912595@N02/10793388815/
Finally! I hope for a 25mm brother of the 45mm lens. with great optics, ok build & cheap price tag.
if it’s about the size of the oly 17mm. It would be perfect for me.
I don’t think it will feature the clutch mechanism focus ring, or metal build housing like the 12/17/75. To make this a success against the pana 25f1.4 it has to be small and cheap, with almost as good optics then the pana…
I use the 20/1.7 due to its form factor, aperture and technical image quality. I still don’t like the fact that it is 20mm, still does not feel “normal” to me.
I’ll swap instantly.
> “I use the 20/1.7 due to its form factor, aperture and technical image quality.”
& price!
Why another me too lens????? The pana25 is such a great lens why compete?? Why not fill the gaps in the line up – stop spending money reinventing the wheel! Give us super telephoto and ultra wide primes first please!!!
Richard, one of m43 strenghts is the fact that you can mount Pana/Oly lenses (Voigty and Sigma too) on Pana/Oly cameras.
Let’s not forget that this is a plus for users, but if Oly wants to gain some money, they need to sell their own version.
My point is they would make more money for the r&d they spend if they meet unmet needs. Maybe the uw primes are too specialist but the system badly needs better long lenses. The 100-300mm pana is a soft and awful lens, the oly 70-300 is not much better. Oly are talking about a long telephoto pro lens in 2015. This will be higher margin and more profit than a cheaper crappier 25mm than the pana. All for duplication if they do it well enough that it makes me want to give them money – ie for something better than current offerings. I’m glad a uw zoom is coming. Just wish they would fix the long end of things. Currently use a 150mm f2 with tcX2 but it’s huge and heavy. A 300 f4 and m43 tc1.4 would allow oly to win over sports and wildlife photographers and sell more lenses and cameras too. What does a slower 25mm get them?
i’m not sure if they would make more money on the top end of the line, then with a cheap entry allround lens.
This 25mm/f.18 fits in a nice spot in the lineup -if its cheap with good quality optics, as the Panasonic 25mm is a great lens, but its expensiv and huge.
The 50mm equ. focal lenght is one of the most universal prime lenses in all systems. so i think its a smart move to fill that gap, because as the mFT System is growing, there will be a lot of new customers who will need a 25mm Lens. Its great if there is choice between cheap&small vs fast&big. Nikon for example offers the 35f1.8 and the 35f1.4 lens-i’m sure the most pros will choose the 1.4 version, but Nikon will sell more of the 35f1.8 Version by total numbers.
When i m asked by friends what to buy when they want to get into photography, i always suggested a slr with a fast normal prime lens insted of a kit zoom. the Name on the Camera isnt to important, a nikon body with the 35f1.8 would be a good choice, i also liked the (not so fast) Olypus E620 with the 25f2.8, or a Pentax with the 31f1.8limited lens.
So finally there is a Option from Olympus again:mostlikly that cheaper OM-d with 25mm kit lens will be a great choice to start a System…
One of the main reasons why i think that mFT had a good start is that the 20f1.7 was one of the first lenses-and sadly panasonic missed the chance to update the focus speed in the second version. A cheap 25mm could be the next musthave lens for beginners. 😉
Richard, I agree with you saying that good and affordable zooms are missing, still consider that 50mm field of view is quite an easy focal lenght to plan, and if not über fast it should be also quite simple and not expensive to produce.
Selling it at the right price (<400 euros) would be quite attractive to those looking for a classic 50mm focal lenght but don't want/need to spend more for the (really good) PanasonicLeica.
A 50mm is perfect prime to improve composition skills also.
I think Oly will sell quite a lot of them (if they don't exagerate with the price) and recover quickly the low R&D for this lens.
I largely agree with you, but I don’t think most people looking for cheap primes will consider 25mm “normal” I know technically many people call it that, but I think that focal lenght appeals more to older enthusiasts, and i suspect that pana will simply drop the price of their 25mm if this one starts to take market share… more long lenses please oly!
How about we switch the term for a 25mm/50mm equivalent prime from “normal” to “standard”.
You and others may not prefer it, but 50mm remains the standard. It’s not just a bunch of film-era geezers who prefer it, either. There’s a reason why certain prime focal lengths are considered “standards: 28mm, 35mm, 50, 85mm, 135mm, etc.… just don’t ask me why. 😉
Convenience? Habit? Or taken as a whole, they compliment each cover with their incremental differences in field of view.
I agree. These numbers are also useful to understand what lens suits you better in a given moment.
I was “raised” with primes, I find zooms easy to use (they are a must if if you’re in the wild waiting silently for that bock to walk in the distance) but they can make you lazy.
Using only primes can be annoying some times (read change lenses often), but I have learnt to look at a scene and know exactly what focal lenght I need to frame it.
Same here as far as being raised on primes goes and seeing things like a specific focal length… or angle of view?
When I use zooms, it’s usually at the extremes, so for me, they’re more like double-primes. 😉
I also use the 150/2.0 and a tc2x and I agree with you that we need a longer tele prime for m4/3, but I would like a 400mm or even 500mm, if they could make it lighter than the 150/tc2x combo.
Agreed. f/4 or even f/5.6 in the 300mm – 400mm range would be fantastic.
I wouldn’t mind even if it is just an achromat or triplet lens, like the old Leica Telyts, because µ43’s small image area will be quite usable. I’m even eyeing that 250/5 mirror patent.
http://www.43rumors.com/olympus-250mm-f5-0-mirror-lens-patent/
What about the 50-200 +2x give you 100-400 and comes up quite well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnsSFrYeaSc
The 50-200 43rds lens is not a patch on the 150 f2. I think it’s just so much easier to make quality prism than zooms, and size too – the 40-150 is already as long if not Longer than the 50-200. The 40-150 is already on the way, so I’d love a 300 f4 and a 1.4x teleconverter
This lens makes a lot more sense when you realise it isn’t a competitor to Panasonic’s 25mm, but instead Olympus is making it so they’ve got a solid new kit lens to use to sell with their bodies.
Plus one
Richard,
Perhaps the Leica 25mm is exactly what you want. Fine for you. But I don’t see this Olympus 25mm as a “me too” lens at all. Having a choice of just one single 25mm lens (the Leica) is not very much of a selection. Canon and Nikon now, and Olympus back in OM days, always have had multiple lenses of different apertures at one focal length in their lineup. At present Olympus doesn’t even have a single one at this basic “normal” focal length, which is more widely useful than exotic specialty focal lengths. It’s not exactly a huge oversupply! We are gradually moving towards a wide range of lenses–that’s really good.
The interview from previous Panasonic head would lead to believe this lens would have an aperture ring as well.
Aperture ring, now that is something I could get excited about, bring it on for all models.
Rich man’s Leica 25mm plus poor man’s EPM-2 (high high-ISO capacity): a marriage in heaven.
Poor man’s Oly 25mm plus vain man’s E-M1: a marriage in what? 🙂
A marriage captured on a long exposed star trail night with as yet unheard of milky ways and galaxy’s being captured that no one had ever seen before. Oh hang on, do I need to do a dark frame subtraction on that…..
Says the man who admits he judges camera equipment by one criteria only, high iso.
Still, there will always be people who are ignorant about photography.
PS I’m the man who hasn’t used above 400ISO in the last 3 years.
oh hai jerkoff, you still think people care what you have to say?
Good, pleased to see an affordable 50mm f/1.8 equivalent coming! Comparable to Nikon/Canon’s 50mm f/1.8 that you can get for about a hundred bucks or so easily. Except with m4/3 we really need f/1.4 to make the DoF and light gathering comparable-ish to f/1.8 on a DSLR.
However the 25mm f/1.4 is waaay more pricey than the 50mm f/1.8 DSLR options!
And it seems this 25mm f/1.8 is going to be still more expensive than the comparable 50mm f/1.8 DSLR options :-/
I am really hoping for a 25mm-ish lens which at least comes at a comparable price (or less!) to the 14mm f/2.5 (& hopefully faster too! As although there is the Sigma 19mm and 30mm, they’re designed for APS-C and are slower).
Ah well, one can only dream…. perhaps if Sigma joins m4/3 we’ll see an explosion of cheap but decent quality lenses!
A 25mm will always be more expensive to make than a 50mm.
The good news is that a 45/50mm portrait lens on m43 will always be cheaper than a portrait lens on FF.
For 19mm flange it is not really more expensive.
Yes, but guess what: Sigmas choice of max f/2.8 might have been a deliberate one: to better match the super resolution of the Foveon which faster lenses couldn’t.
They simply wanted to make lens which would cover largish APS-C image circle and still be profitable at $99. The same lens would be about f/2.2 if made specifically for m43 with slightly higher curvature of a couple of elements.
Liar.
Finally!
Recently posted Zuiko lens lineup ( http://www.43rumors.com/ft4-new-7-14mm-f2-8-pro-zoom-coming-in-2014/ ) looks like, to use C. Levy Strauss image, a mouth lacking a front tooth!
I wait for a pancake with good image quality and fast focus, a price tag close to 17 mm, and a metal finish to follow the trend. I will love a clutch system, but I’m not sure if it’s realistic for a pancake.
It’ll be a great plus for the system, as we don’t have a compact standard and it’s the whole spirit of the standard focal lens to be an all-around focal, being able to get a nice piece of landscape AND a portrait without too much distortion. The compact aspect of a pancake make it ideal to m4/3 compacity, on an EM-5 or an GM1 ; ).
To explain such a long wait, I can imagine marketing strategics reasons, as going first for empty segments (17 mm to occupy classic semi-wide 35mm segment), and technical reasons, I hope, as getting better IQ after the critics on 17mm.
At least a (hopefully) cheap and fast 50mm equivalent.
It is hard to recommend either the 20 or 25 mm Panasonics to non-enthusiasts or people new to photography or getting into u4/3. There is no cheap “nifty-fifty” prime which is the standard Nikon/Canon first upgrade from the kit zoom. For example from this blog here: http://prolost.com/blog/2013/12/11/how-to-take-good-photos-for-under-1000.html
20mm Panasonic (nice and small, nice images, nice price, but too slow focusing at night or for photographing children)
25mm Panasonic Leica (lovely rendering, fast focusing, but expensive, large, heavy)
I have both Panasonics, but if this Olympus is small with good image quality (like the 45mm) I might sell both the 20mm and 25 Panasonic lenses to free up some cash.
great …just bought 25mm 1,4 …but still dont have time to played with it more then some shots at night
what I am surprised is that 1.4 allows me shot pretty decent iso at lamp ligt only, no flash needed.
Only now I understood what the owners of mighty voitglanders says about night shooting at 0.95 🙂
WOW.
This is actually kinda creepy. I was driving home from the gym earlier and thinking to myself ‘I wonder why Panasonic or Olympus hasn’t made a 50mm equiv lens besides the ‘premium’ Panny 25/1.4. Olympus should make a 25/1.8 to fit in between their 17 and 45. Then I come online and see this.
I’m scared.
Don’t. This was only logical. So logical that everyone (you and me included) were wondering about it.
I hope it will be a small sister to the 45mm F1.8
+100
The question is why did it take so long to bring out an inexpensive (hopefully) 50mm equivalent prime. Maybe the 20mm was close enough and good enough not to bother.
It’s good news, at any rate!
They’d better hurry 40-150/2.8 and think about weathersealed 8-16/2.8 (and better yet 11-70/2-4, sealed and collapsible of course) rather that making another useless normal prime.
Always interesting to see the American ignorance compounded with the European one. For your information Olympus had a 25/2.8 pancake in the 4/3 flavour when Panasonic was still running naked after the boars in the Savannah..
This one is a faster PANCAKE, therefore an appreciable lens. Let’s remind the unwashed that the panny 25/1.4 id NOT a decent lens at full aperture, but much worse even than the 17/2.8 at full aperture – according to Lensrentals’ R. Cicala, The panny 25/1.4 has only 500 lines at the center at f/1.4, which is ridiculous.
Those who sing and praise ultrafast lenses as if it was the end of Apartheid, are just absolute cretins because they act as if we don’t know how little resolution they have.
It was no accident that Oly never wanted to go below f/2 for the whole time 4/3 lasted, not even for its best lenses – so, enjoy 🙂
You’re so what correct.. they were shooting boars with the P/L 25mm 1.4l lens for Four Thirds.
guess you didn’t know that huh? That Panasonic also had a 25mm lens for four thirds cameras?
ignorance at its worse.
Do you just make this shit up? Roger’s review of the Panny/Oly/Voigtlander lenses can be found at lensrentals.com blog entitled Wide-Angle Micro 4/3 Imatest Results.
The 14/2.5 & 20/1.7 offer great quality but the 25/1.4 is better than any other lens at 1.4 (i.e the Voigtlander 0.95 optics). At f/2.8 there is little difference between any of the primes except for the crappy 17/2.8. Oh, and at f/2.8 it craps on both the Sigma 19mm & 30mm. So much for them matching a Foveon sensor.
Liar.
Again, go to Roger’s blog. The data is what it is. You either accept all of it or none at all. You cannot pick & choose to meet your own goals. Pull your inflated ego out of your ass and try working with facts.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/05/wide-angle-micro-43-imatest-results
Running naked chasing boars LOL that’s another nice image 😀
amalric, you must be high.
According to photozone.de tests:
http://www.photozone.de/olympus–four-thirds-lens-tests/740-pana25?start=1
25/1.4 has about 3000 lines in the center at f/1.4. About 2200 on the border, 1600 in the corners.
Perhaps they were celebrating the Fest in a Munich brauerei?
Fact is that Lensrentals tested the sad result of the 25/1.4 over SIX lenses with the universal CIPA test and they found 690 at the center and 530 at the edges, only a bit better of the horrible Voigt 17/0.95, and worse than 17/2.8, all at full aperture.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/05/wide-angle-micro-43-imatest-results
You should learn the facts of life, Mr Peepee. Resolution wise fast lenses give sad results.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/05/wide-angle-micro-43-imatest-results
Amalric, did you happen to notice that the numbers you mention are with the 25mm set at F1.4. A score higher than the voightlander options. Every other lens on the chart is slower it is pretty silly comparison between one lens at F1.4 and another at F4 that is 3 full stops difference.
The most interesting result for me is the 14mm F2.5 which gives excellent results for such a small cheap lens.
So now you state that the Pany 25/1.4 “universal CIPA test and they found 690 at the center and 530 at the edges… …at full aperture” yet in an earlier post you stated “The panny 25/1.4 has only 500 lines at the center at f/1.4… ” Make up your mind, you sad sack of excrement. At f/2.8 this lens craps and I mean craps on the 17/2.8 amd both Sigmas at the same aperture.
First I quoted by heart, and then I verified – not a great difference.
Instead for your foul language you are only worth some prison term, if that’s not where you are coming from.
Let’s hope Admin does soon a cleanup of petty criminals, like at Mirrorless Forum.
B bob is right .
Same for me .
Just sold my 14mm , waiting to replace it with the 15mm . Of course the Nocticron remain my priorty .
At least a (hopefully) cheap and fast 50mm equivalent.
It is hard to recommend either the 20 or 25 mm Panasonics to non-enthusiasts or people new to photography or getting into u4/3. There is no cheap “nifty-fifty” prime which is the standard Nikon/Canon first upgrade from the kit zoom.
20mm Panasonic (nice and small, nice images, nice price, but too slow focusing at night or for photographing children)
25mm Panasonic Leica (lovely rendering, fast focusing, but expensive, large, heavy)
I have both Panasonics, but if this Olympus is small with good image quality (like the 45mm) I might sell both the 20mm and 25 Panasonic lenses to free up some cash.
@admin: Nothing about a new kit zoom?
Why does Olympus hit the invisible f1.8 barrier? None of their lenses are faster.
A litte bit more speed won’t hurt.
I think the panaleica is still a better lens.
At a 500€ pricetag verry affordable.
I doubt Olympus will sell this lens for less than 320€
So we have another optical engineer who took the wrong career.
On what basis you ‘think’, since you have no MTL graph, no nothing?
As I said with CIPA figures R. Cicala showed that at 1.4 the PL is a very poor lens.
BTW, this lens will be half the size of the 1.4, and probably better resolution at 1.8
U know it won’t kill you to be a bit nicer to people…not much just a bit.
There seems to be no way to get banned here so Amprick can be himself,alas when he is himself elsewhere ,banning quickly and inevitably follows.He is a racist ,lowbrow ,misogynist with all the photographic skills of a drunk Monkey.
Let us be blunt ,if I woke up every day and saw that face in the mirror. I would also find it difficult to maintain an air of decorum. Perhaps if you removed the sunglasses which you hide behind you would be able to see at least some of the flaws in your uniquely warped vision of the world.
You sleaze after women in the street.Despise any one with more money than you , which appears o be a rather large group. You are fundamentally racist with a particular dislike of our American friends. Of all the posters in this forum you are the one whose removal would do the most amount of good.
Seems I have disturbed the wild board of the wide Neanderthal Plains between the Rockies and the Appalachians, a rarissime species in the way of extinction.
Does anybody know what type of seed, fruit or tuber he eats? Seems that he has lost his temper, poor pig…
ok the 1.4 is not the greatest lens ever, but still it does f1.4, something the oly just cant beat in terms of light gathering and dof.
at f2 the f1.4 is sharper by a large margin then the oly 17mm f1.8
f1.4 isnt magical, it can be done. (at a cost)
Mrc4nl, Olympus president declared that they won’t go wider than f1.8, period. Perhaps they will change idea in the future, but looking at their old products I would not hold my breath..
ah well, i cant change it, so be it.
maybe olympus will release more pro lineup primes that are wheatersealed, and lets say f2, like the 50mm f2 for 4/3 or the 150 f2. Both excellent lenses.
Panasonic seems to have postponed the 150mm f2.8, i guess there more potential buyers for the 42.5mm
+1
It is not that 1.8 is unwanted or unusable, rather 1.4 is just that much more desired.
It will get bigger I am sure and cost more, but I have faith in Olympus’s ability to produce very reasonable balance in size vs. cost vs. performance that is f/1.4.
I would welcome a good small 25 1.8 lens, but if it’s silver again, then I’ll just stick with my Panasonic.
pardon me for my lack of interest; what is the point? more specifically, how does this lens serve to expand the capabilities of the system?
both panasonic and olympus seem to be releasing overlapping products that serve no purpose other than to milk users and compete amongst themselves. its not like the 25mm f1.4 is overpriced. so now there is a two 17s, a 19, two 20s, two 25s, a 30, not to mention some other third party ones. why?
How many 14-42mm kit lenses does one person need?
25mm is a standard focal length and I presume that it will be offered as a kit lens. If it really is a pancake, then so much the better. Then Oly will have a nice compact 17mm, 25mm, 45mm set of relatively… thanks to the higher priced 17mm… inexpensive, small, classic primes. That’s great for the system!
How do we know that the lens will be inexpensive? Will it be any less expensive than the Panasonic 25m 1.4.
What’s so difficult to understand? Companies need to gain money. Panasonic sells its own 25mm, why should Olympus not do it? I’m much more surprised it took that long to take that decision.
M43 is a good system where different brand lenses can be attached to the two companies camera bodies, and it’s a nice feature for us users, but this doesn’t mean panasonic and olympus are not competitors.
Still waiting for a metal-body 25mm F1.4 MK II from Panny 😀
oh mixed feelings… id love for oly to have a 25, its my second fav fl. but i have the pl25, and its my fav m43 lens for character. but the pl IS a tad bit large when i dont have the grip on my em5… oh god, ill have two 25…. O.*
The only valid reason for Oly to be introducing such a lens is for it to serve as a kit lens with a E-PM3 (or E-PL6, etc.), with phase-detect. If that were the case, I would welcome it wholeheartedly. Oly fanboys, go after me now again, please. 🙂
Uhm, what does phase detect have to do with this at all?
Metal body with aperture ring would be a welcome update for the Panasonic 25mm lens. this would also put some more distant between the pro pana-Leica 25 and the hopefully nifty fifty m.zuiko from Oly. 😉
Interesting lens if the performance and price is right, but it seems a bit pointless with both 20mm F1.7 and 25mm F1.4 available. I can understand that Olympus want a piece of the normal lens sales though.
I say rubbish…
Why yet another lens around 20-25mm? What goal are they trying to accomplish, whats their target group? There are already 7 lenses around that focal length…
There is :Olympus 17mm f/2.8
:Olympus 17mm f/1.8
:Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 (two versions of it)
:Panasonic 25mm f/1.4
:Sigma 19mm F/2.8
:Sigma 30mm F/2.8
(lets not talk about the Voigtlander 25mm or the anounced Panasonic 15mm, or the 5 or 6 kit lenses that cover that FL)
Some will say that 25mm isnt the same as 20 or 30mm. Thats true, but whos is going to buy another lens at 25mm, when the market is crowed for years with similar focal lengths? Even if it will be cheaper that Pana/Leica 25mm (i doubt it), is inferior in terms of aperture. Is it going to be cheaper than sigma 30mm, whos is briliant in IQ? Is it going to be superior optically than the Pana 20mm or even cheaper than that? (i doubt it again)
Where are those 9mm-10mm f/2.8 or f/4 primes? Where are the telephoto primes?
IMHO,a mediocre move from Olympus, not because the lens is not going to be good (im sure it will be good and expensive) but because the market is already saturated around that FLs…
I see where you’re coming from, and to be fair, you’re probably right. However, when I got my fist PEN, the first thing I thought was “where’s the normal?” I was expecting to see a fast Olympus branded 25mm lens. The one they had sucked: 25mm at f/2.8 with terrible optical quality!
Now, this announcement sucks for one big, fat, hairy reason: I’m shooting micro four thirds!!! I want faster glass than I was shooting on full frame, but all Olympus seems capable of producing are slow 1.8 and 2.0 lenses. This is annoying! This is the company that makes the best microscopes and medical imaging equipment in the world. You’d think they’d be turning out the fastest lenses in the world by now. Where are their f/0.95’s and f/0.7’s? Seriously, I’d pay a grand and a half for an f/0.95 auto-focus normal prime. I’d pay two grand if it were f/0.7. They’d have a huge competitive edge with lenses like that!
My Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4 virtually never leaves my camera, and it’s looking unlikely that this will change in the near future. Great lens! Totally worth the money. But it’d be nice if it had a couple more stops so it would really be up there with a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.2 on full frame.
This anouncement could suck you. No me . My overpriced and overrated and big and heavy pl25mm is going to leave my bag soon. And I said leave my bad because since I bought the fantastic oly 17mm 1.8 it is no more in my cam. I sold the 20mm pana for the 25pl years ago….a mistake imho the 20mm is a much better and small lens. Now with the 25mm oly this “jewll” is going to fly away from me definitivly.
Now everything is ok I own the “soft” 17mm (of course this is a joke) 1.8 and wait for thr tiny oly
I also sold the 20 when I got the 25/1.4, already owned a 17mm.
I disagree with what you say. The 20 is a very good lens, lets be clear about that, but its not wide enough to replace the 17 (and no, ‘foot zoom does not help when already with your back against a wall), and its just too wide to replace the 25 (meaning more cropping, again getting closer isn’t an option when you are already as close as physically possible or safety allows).
Its not as fast as the 25, and only a fraction faster then the 17. Its AF is slower then both, and its out of focus rendering is horrible compared to both the 17 and the 25. Selling the 20 was the right choice for me.
I don’t see me buy the 25/1.8, through, it depends a lot on price and size. If a pancake for a reasonable price, I may want one afterall.
??????
Unlike you, I don’t consider selling off the 20/1.7 a mistake, rather, I consider the 17 + 25mm duo to be more flexible and doing a better job, for me.
Not saying that your choice is invalid, just that it is a matter of how you use things and preferences if you’d pick one over the other
Well, it depends what you are looking for. All th 7e lenses that you call in some way “same” are very different. Even ignoring the difference in focal length, here are some food for thought:
– the Sigma are cheap, not great, not much faster than kit zoom and non small. In my opinion they are useless, but that’s just me
– the Panasonic 25mm is expensive, large and heavy. Not sure if it has the “true” quality, but at least it pretends to.
– the two Panasonic 20mm (I own the old one) are the smallest of the list, but they are small enough for GF and PENs. They are not small enough for the GM. They have good image quality, are very fast (as much as aperture is concerned) but sluggish as much as focus performance is concerned (not terrible to be useless, but certainly not up to what I want)
– the two Olympus 17mm are really too wide to be included in this list, but even ignoring that “problem” they are different beast:
** the f/2.8 is the poor’s man version of the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 (poorer image quality, not much faster than zoom kit, especially now that we have the tiny and superb Panasonic 12-35 zoom from the GM1)
** the f/1.8 is larger, heavier and more expensive, it might have a certain overlap with the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 (but the focal is different enough)
How this new Olympus would fit? I don’t know, but I do know that there is space for more options.
For example, I need a 20mm f/2 which is smaller than the 20mm (to fit on the GM1) and with internal AF, because I need something focusing faster. Say, something like the Panasonic 14mm pancake (but slightly faster in aperture and longer in focal length). Make it f/1.4, even with poor image quality at that aperture (to keep size and weight down), and I’d jump on it immediately even if it’s pricey.
All you have said are correct,(Similar FLs, not exactly the same, i have said that).
My point is exactly that : Where is the new 25mm going to fit???
How many sales do they expect to achieve with this new lens???
Imho and already said once, it will be good optically (not excellent), not much cheaper than the Pana/Leica 25mm, maybe lighter in weight, probably smaller in size. A mediocre option for a saturated market.
Unless, as others have mantioned, its just a kit lens and we have fallen victims of Olympus hype…(wont be the first 🙂 )
What about a good but “cheap” kit lens to compete with those fixed lens APSc cameras? Would that be a “bad move” from Olympus?
High quality, competitive price, and on top of it you have an interchangeable lens system (if you wish to).
Well, dear chap, there’s only one other 25mm out there, and it’s 1) bigger than a pancake and 2) expensive.
And 3) this is the basic, fundamental, “normal” focal length (50mm equivalent); camera manufacturers used to make 3 different aperture versions at this focal length, routinely. It’s hardly an unimportant focal length and there’s room for several lenses. It’s a no-brainer and should have been in the lineup a long time ago.
First, i dont know what chap means, but i will get over that…
Second, so you think its a good move by Olympus to present another 25mm?
Do you think that will bring them the desirable profit?
Kika, as I wrote somewhere above, a 50mm focal lenght does not require a great and expensive research, nor a long development. Not even a high production cost, if it’s not super fast.
I’m not surprised about this lens: I’m surprised Olympus waited so much to present it (well, not yet).
And I find quite logic that they want to gain some money selling their own product.
There will be people choosing a lens because of IQ, because of its price, because of its brand.
I went with PanaLeica years ago and I won’t buy this Zuiko, but at that time there were no alternatives.
Those you mentioned are differend lenses coming from different companies: I would not complain about choices.
Taking a landscape with a 17mm is different than using a 25mm. 20mm seems more near to 17mm angle of view, if I don’t recall bad, from Pekka Potka article.
A short distance portrait taken with a 17mm will look really different than the one taken with a 25mm from the same distance.
As long as they consider it another kind of in-expensive kit lens, which wont cost them lots of time and money and its quality will be good+ , i can understand that Olympus didnt have that FL and just wanted to complete the lens line.
But history has shown us that Olympus charges extra for “premium” lenses! If thats the case, how many will purchase that lens? It competes with excellent choices,similar FLs, which are around for 2+ years and almost anyone has already bought one…
We don’t know the price yet, but if it will be <400 euros/dollars, then it will be a cheaper alternative to the PanaLeica one, and more interesting to those not willing to spend 500 euros/dollars.
There is absolutely nothing strange about a camera company wanting its own branded ‘normal’ prime to use a kit lens option for its cameras.
It is strange that it took this long.
Please be weather sealed please be weather sealed…wouldn’t a WS normal fast prime really contribute to the system the philosophy of a high quality, take anywhere, compact system??
I’d love to shove my em5 into a jacket pocket to take pictures while I’m out in the city in the rain or snow
I’m praying with you 😉 but I doubt it… I think this lens is rumor ed fit so long, that I bet it was planned in the premium series of lenses, and sadly those are not sealed :-\
although it would be a great separation from the pana as well..
Weather sealed please!
Hope the rumor is true and that the lens will carry the DNA from the 45/1.8! A 50mm equivalent is what I use a lot. The Pana 15/1.4 is great in IQ but bulky and expensive.
Next would be a 12/2.8 to fulfill my wishlist.
A slower lens?? That’s pure nonsense. What we need is faster lenses. What’s the point on a 25mm f1.8? Size? There’s already the 20mm f1.7.
Would you buy a 75mm f4? A 200mm f8? They could be made small, but absurd and even unpractical due to the slow speed. Since you need a bag the system isn’t pocketable anyway, therefore it’s silly to sacrifice aperture for a few milimeters savings.
What M4/3 need is more f0.95 primes. A 67.5mm f1. Even f0.7 primes. I’m sure M4/3 users would buy like crazy a 12mm f0.7, 25mm f0.7, and 42.5mm f0.7. They want more speed, more DoF control, don’t want to be limited with P%S-ish DoF control.
+1
Marco posted this link back up the page.
I think you should read it. Note the reference to the 50mm MD lens.
http://www.the.me/f-stops-bokeh-mania-monstrous-lenses-and-lazy-composition-plus-sony-a7r-with-zeiss-otus-comparisons/
+100
A while back 4/3 rumors carried a rumour about an Olympus standard pancake, that extended with a sort of built in extension for more close-up ability. This is technically quite feasible as it would be easy to have a built in helicoid extension tube. With the short focal length of the lens you could get a lot more magnification with only a small degree of extension.
If Olympus did introduce such a lens it would be massive for naturalists like me who also use cameras for recording. Presently I use a Panasonic LX7 for this as it focuses much closer than most other compacts. I mainly use RAW and the sensor is a bit noisy as all small sensors are. I’ve been using a 4/3 system for a long time so I’m more than happy with the image quality. The difficulty for me is that whilst I could use a m4/3 with a pancake as a carry around, is that they don’t focus close enough for me. I could carry an extension tube and this is what I’m considering. But then I’d lose infinity focus, and I don’t really like taking lenses on and off with a carry aound camera for opportunistic recording.
You can use the classical +1 +2 and +4 additional lenses such as these http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/22754-REG/Hoya_A52CUS_52mm_Close_up_Kit_HMC.html (of course these are of the wrong size, I just picket the first Google hit).
However those are probably too heavy for the 20mm stupid “everything moves” focus system. But I do use them pretty successfully with the Olympus Kit zoom.
Yahwn a 50mm f3.6. Wow just wow.
I I know that your not to smart, but even in your own logic it would be a 50f2.6
H
Just check what those funny numbers behind the f. Mean 😉
Think Viezevure is right actually (in his equivalence paradigm). Egg face interface.
OMG did I just say V was right ?!?!?
Sure got you to click on it, though, didn’t it, Mr. Big Camera / No talent?
Another freaking prime in the short-range. Boring. Give me a wide fast prime or long telephoto primes.
This would definitely be a logical choice- a lens I’ve been expecting from them for a while. I’m hoping the price and IQ are in line with the 45mm 1.8.
Too bad for Panny they didn’t speed up the focus speed of the new 20mm, this will probably steal a lot of sales over to the Olympus side if the IQ is up to snuff.
This surely is going to be a nice addition to the Olympus lineup, and if they can make it similar to the 45 in terms of price and quality, it is going to be just as successful.
However, I can only agree to all people that say that an UW prime is overdue…
Now, what kind is a different question.
There have been people asking for a cheap one, for a small one, for a fast one, …
I am currently using the 14mm/2.5 with the Panasonic wide converter, which gives an okayish 11mm, but I don’t like the size… and I don’t care about the f-number at all, it’s for landscape shots :). And the zooms are too expensive :(.
I would wager that this lens will be just as much as the P/L 25mm, but not as good, overall.
This is also one reason why I don’t think M43 will never reach the masses and may even go the route of Four Thirds.
Olympus Greed and the fact that they (Plus the Olympus Fanboy) think that they’re the only M43 camera/lens manufacture. Instead of filling any holes in the lens selection, they make similar focal length lenses that Panasonic already has out.
That, and the OlyFanboy fail to acknowledge that Panasonic is a Partner. The constant bashing, when Panasonic’s Lens/camera selection is actually just as good.
Another joke is that this lens will be slower, yet it’s being praised for that. If it were a Panasonic lens, this lens would’ve been ridiculed.
Hilarious, really… Hilarious.
Yeah, it’s ridiculous.
My hope is that once they have the f/1.8 line filled out (17, 25, 45, 75) that they’ll go back and do a faster line of lenses at the same focal lengths. Say and f/0.95 line, and maybe an f/0.75 line later on. Or f/1.4 and f/1.0
I would be really very disappointed if the f/1.8 is their idea of fast. It would make little sense if it were. In my view, they have to at least one-up the f/1.2 lenses from Canon and Nikon to compete in the professional market. That means f/1.0 would be the absolute slowest they could stop at. f/0.75 would make them fully competitive in DOF and low light performance.
With regard to light gathering and DOF control F1.8 on Nikon/Sony/Pentax does the same job as an F1.2 lens on mFT.
Any way I am pretty sure that ultra fast lenses and shallow DOF are just crutches for the talentless or some such rubbish lol. With all the desperation shown for super fast glass in a vain attempt to “match” larger formats it rather begs the question why choose mFT in the first instance
I completely agree. I come at it from two angles:
1) I rarely use the lowest f-number on my MFT lenses, even when shooting a portrait. If I were shooting full frame, I’d be stopped down further still to get the results I want.
2) It is technically possible to make super-fast lenses which match or exceed the performance of a full frame system for a wider range of tasks like extreme low light and extreme background blur. They could go this route if they wanted, and you can technically do this now with a speed booster or even a Voightlander lens.
But you’re completely right in saying that it’s pandering to the amateur’s preconceptions about photography. Many treat shallow DOF as the holy grail of photography in the same way that megapixel count and focal length multiplier have become consumer metrics for point and shoot cameras. The main reasons I got the E-M5 were the lens selection, handling, features and the fact that I took great pictures with it.
So I’m more than happy with my purchase. I can’t imagine taking a DSLR the places I take the E-M5, and indeed, when I shot FF I took dramatically fewer pictures.
based on a dxo and I dare to say among the users the 25mm 1.4 is 2nd best AF lens in m43 right after 75mm 1.8 .
both are not cheap
…I would say 25mm 1.8 will end like famous 17mm 1.8
Why in the hell have Panasonic or Olympus not made a Ultra Wide Angle Prime for this system! I will pay top dollar for a high quality UWA Prime – Not Fish-eye and i’m sure there are a lot of others who would do also. I dont care if it has a fast aperture.
I think that for the majority UWA are not that big a deal combined with the fact that there are already two options available. The 7-14mn F4 is a very reasonable performer and though slow an F2.8 prime covering the wider end would be larger and heavier than the F4 zoom. Conversely if the lens was slow to keep it small the zoom would cover more and already exists
I really really fail to see what the excitement is about. Another boring f1.8 prime from oly? what am i missing? unless its gonna be 149$ I seriously dont understand why would anyone buy it
If its small, good IQ and affordable, I quite see the point as an alternative to the 25/1.4, otherwise, no.
I see this lens as filling an entirely different purpose than the PL 25/1.4, as it is a pancake lens that can allow for better pocketability with small bodies. With the pretty darn good and tiny GM1, I think a decent line-up of pancake lenses can co-exist with higher quality (or at least larger aperture), larger lenses of the same focal length.
Yes we do need pancakes for the GM1. However this is larger than the 20mm which is already too large for the GM1. We need something of the size of the 14mm f/2.5 (but it should be f/2 which is possibile since it would be non-retrofocus — the flange distance is 20mm)
A 25mm pancake is just what I have been waiting for. It would fit perfectly on my Epm2. Only lens I would ever need for the m43 system. I would have bought the pana 20mm, but slow af AND heavy banding issues above iso 800? Its a joke of a lens, well at least at the price they are charging.
There are some banding issues, but ‘heavy banding issues above iso 800’ is quite an exaggeration.
E-M5, 20mm at f/1.7, 1/30 iso 1600
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrobjective/6990053476/in/set-72157632662090671
And that was actually an E-M5 with a sensor defect (Olympus took it back as DOA and replaced it), see if you can find the problem.
I get noticeable banding only at ISO 25,600 on the E-M5. 12,800 has slight banding but only if live view (or the EVF) has been activated for several minutes before taking the shot.
A tip I often give people with the E-M5 is to put the EVF on auto switch and shut off the LCD. Then when you’re not framing, the sensor has a chance to cool off. It’s dramatically better in low light when it’s cool. I’ve shot some pretty sharp color shots at 6400 and 12,800. It can be done. 25,600 isn’t too bad if you shoot with a cold camera and don’t shoot anything too colorful. 😉
I’ve also gotten over 1000 shots on a battery charge by using live view and the EVF sparingly. There are reports that you can get up to 1200 shots this way, but I haven’t managed that.
Ensuring the sensor stays relatively cool absolutely helps, with the E-M1 its no different.
As a compromise (and everything is a compromise, right?) it will be a decent addition to the line if the IQ is on-par with the 45 with a similar price. I have a little fear that it is going to be a slightly redesigned 17/2.8, with similar problems.
Well it depends. I had the 25/2.8 pancake in m4/3 mount and it was a remarkably useful lens, in terms of resolution, It only had a bit of distortion.
What the headless chickens continue to ignore that the main problem with short distance to flange is to achieve even resolution across the frame. With high sensitvity sensors absolute aperture is less of a need, while it tends to ruin resolution in the edges.
Headless chickens should invest in courses, instead of lenses.
Errata: “in 4/3 mount”
Yet m43s lenses have continuously performed more evenly across the frame than other formats
That’s the lens I’ve been waiting since 45/1,8. If true and the price range will be similar – Olympus you’ve got my money
As demonstrated below geeks have lost al relationship with photography. Olympus didn’t OC:
http://www.the.me/f-stops-bokeh-mania-monstrous-lenses-and-lazy-composition-plus-sony-a7r-with-zeiss-otus-comparisons/
It is exactly because we care about composition and max resolution that we don’t want exaggerated aperture. It *because* m4/3 offers twice the DOF of FF35 that we enjoy it.
If Neanderthals don’t get m4/3 let them buy elsewhere, why do they care grunting here, trying to display their miserly urges?
You do realize you can stop down an f/1.4 lens to f/2 if you desire, but can’t open up an f/2 lens to f/1.4?
Just asking…
It’s a v. silly argument, because optimising a lens for resolution – ‘sharpness’ – means not optimising it for aperture.
It also means not optinising it for size, weight and price. That is the reason why lensmakers made different lenses of the same focal for photojournalism and for portrait, one slower and the other faster.
Its not a silly argument, its simply the other side of the coin, you get smaller size and lower weight and get a different price/quality compromise, but give up some flexibility.
And that is also why I don’t exclude buying this 25/1.8 if it has the right mix of quality, size and price.
Funny, as you quite seem to realize why there used to be, and actually still are lenses more suitable for photojournalism and portraiture for example, but don’t seem to realize the narrow-mindedness of your own argument here.