According to rumors we received form our sources there will be also three new converters you can use on the 14-42mm kit lens. There should be a Fish-eye, a Wide-angle and a macro converter. That means no new Micro Four Thirds lenses will be announced with the E-PL2 launch. But according to our sources you will not have to wait a lot of time to see the new Olympus High-Pro lenses. They will be announced in February-March 2011!
We have quite a few Olympus and Panasonic rumors we are working on. So stay tuned!
If you have rumors to share feel free to contact me at 43rumors@gmail.com or use the contact form on the right sidebar. You can avoid to send me your name or email address but it would be nice if you could use some kind of nickname. it will make me easy to recognize you in future. thanks!
P.S.: Our partnerwebsite X-rumors (leaded by our friedn Andrea) leaked the Samsung 85mm f/1.4 lens. Nice, butI hope Olympus can do better 😉
48 Responses
There will be no high-pro Oly lenses for m43. What for?
First of all, excuse my English.
I agree with Janko, why would Olympus need to release high grade / pro lenses for MFT? Olympus should keep MFT lines for entry level users, and develop better SLR bodies and lenses for advance / pro users.
If Olympus wanted to make pro MFT bodies, then it should be using FT lenses mount from the start, so there won’t be any overlapped lines between FT and MFT lenses. A total waste in production’s resource.
P.S.: Our partnerwebsite X-rumors (leaded by our friedn Andrea) leaked the Samsung 85mm f/1.4 lens. Nice, butI hope Olympus can do better 😉
I hope they will, but this is deffenitely something difficult to beat!!
Admin,
This rumor does not make any sense. It’s long been known that Olympus has had a fish-eye, a macro and a wide-angle PRIME LENS on their micro 4/3 road-map, not “converters.” They need to releases these to keep up with Panasonic, who already has all three in their lens line-up.
A camera system that uses interchangeable lenses has no need of “converters.”
You best re-check your sources on this one. I give it FT-0.
FT0? Wanna bet with me? 😉
OK….if they really do release three “converters” for the 14-42: a wide-angle, a fish-eye, and a macro, I’ll but all three converters for you, along with the 14-42.
But–if it turns out to be three primes: a fish-eye, macro and wide-angle, you have to buy all three for me, along with the new 14-42. 🙂
If they do both: release three converters for the 14-42 and three new m4/3 primes, then we are even.
It would not be hard to produce three high quality converters to do exactly what is being specified here — I used my EC-14 with my 14-54 Mk II and 35mm macro to boost their macro performance, but any teleconverter has that capability. It could also be that the macro “converter” is just an extension tube.
As for the fish-eye and wide-angle: that’s just a inverse of a tele-converter: go 1.4x or 2x wider rather than 1.4x or 2x narrower. No big deal really.
But the problem is that an EC-14 for standard 4/3 is a $400 USD converter. Given the higher prices that micro 4/3 lenses have been selling for, I don’t see how Olympus provides these at a price that makes sense for one to use these “converters” instead of primes, unless they are low quality.
Anything’s possible…but I still don’t believe it.
I have to admit that I’m skeptical as well. This sounds like something out of the Sony NEX playbook and image quality of “converters” like this is questionable.
deal 😉
As someone who hasn’t touched his 14-42 lenses (yes I have two, an ordering error on my part when I bought my E-P2; I would have rather had the pancake kit) I really like this “re-use” of what is now surely the least-used m43 lens out there. (I really prefer my 14-150, which can take shots at power-up.)
Thanks Olympus, looking forward to much cheaper and more compact alternatives for occasional fish-eye and macro photography. (And hopefully much better quality than the filter-mount adapters.)
Oh, but if it’s FT5 it’s sooooo stupid. Front-of-lens converters always (without even a single exception) are of extremely low quality. Maybe, on a prime lens, one could be made to work correctly, but nobody’s ever really done it right. Or perhaps, the right way is to disconnect the lens and put the lens you wanted to use on the camera.
Yes and no. Rollei’s Mutar conversion lenses were of extremely high quality, and there are a few very expensive front-of-lens converters made for video that also are high-quality items. But they still don’t deliver results as good as an equivalent prime lens, because of the inherent limitations of the converter concept. Olympus, WTF?
(At least this is one time we can use the term “prime lens” CORRECTLY — it means a lens that serves as a base for add-on converters, NOT just any fixed-focal-length lens…)
I don’t see the reasoning behind releasing three (!) converters for just one lens, that has 37mm thread, used by no other except the 17mm. Maybe some other new lenses will use 37m thread?
If they’ve given up copying Panasonic fisheye lens in favor of making a converter, that is good news.
There is a possibility that the converters will be mounted on the back of the lens, but that would be a small revolution 🙂
just fyi, the updated 14-42mm 3.5-5.6 kit lens released together with the E-PL1s is using the 37mm thread.
if the converters are reasonably priced, then yes, it is a good idea to release it to accompany the upcoming new camera.
“the updated 14-42mm 3.5-5.6 kit lens released together with the E-PL1s is using the 37mm thread.”
That’s what I meant – the only other lens besides 14-42 mkII with 37mm thread is 17mm.
I think the rumor is wrong, it is more likely that Olympus will copy Sony: announce 12mm F2.8 ( as another kit lens, as some older rumor said ) and three converters for it. It’s just unbelievable to me that there could be converters made exclusively for a zoom lens.
This all makes sense for the EPL1 as a consumer camera. Buy the lens and the body, get three cheap converters, have a small kit for a bunch of uses for family/casual shooters.
I am using the NEX3 w/16mm and fisheye converter, and it’s an absolute blast for tromping around with the kids. FE lenses are great fun for video, as well.
But I do agree converters CANNOT be used for serious work. The NEX FE converter is fun and easy to use, but the pictures are unsharp for sure. But for $150, and having at attachment that is so easy to manage without a camera bag, it’s worth it.
If Oly did an FE attachment, I might have to buy their kit lens back, though I’d rather have it on a wide prime, instead.
Like others, though, I SERIOUSLY hope Oly does a LOT more than these before the summer. If they don’t, then it’s a real indictment on their ability to meet market needs (which is already suspect at this point, in my opinion).
Lame. Olympus obviously has decided that a big chunk of the mirrorless market consists of doofs and cheapskates who just want something one step up from a phone cam. Maybe that’s true, but it’s a disappointing turn for serious MFT users.
Pros aren’t flocking to the m43 system and, if you can believe the trolls on this website, they’re turning away from the 4/3 line. Olympus needs revenue in order to develop a serious camera, and the best way to do it is with inexpensive products for the typical entry-level DSLR purchaser.
They sure aren’t getting any money from people complaining that they’re not delivering. Olympus is an imaging company, outside of the medical field they don’t have any other business lines. They’re not like Sony or Panasonic, who can take extra cash from one division and pump it into their consumer imaging department.
it makes sense that these “gimmicky” add-ons will be announced along with the entry-level PEN Lite.
the high-grade lens will likely come along the high-end m4/3. patience people.
Will I be able to use these adapters on my 17mm?
no….
???
I won’t ask why, we’ll see the images in a week’s time, but I find that quite stupid. Sony’s converters are ( so far ) compatible only with their 16mm lens, but that’s a pancake prime. Olympus m4/3 14-42 mkII is a zoom and is much longer than a pancake.
Converters make sense:
— From a price perspective, Sony released a converter, so Olympus must compete with an equally cheap offer. Offering macro and wide-angle in addition to fisheye is good, so Oly can claim to offer a comprehensive offer for the budget conscious vs. just one option for NEX cameras. Most people don’t want to spend a lot of money for something they won’t use that often.
— From a photographic perspective, customers who tested and enjoyed the converters will upgrade if they want to the corresponding prime lens to get better quality, so that’s more money for Oly (converter+prime vs. prime only). Plus these very customers may not spend the budget of the prime to begin with if they cannot spend time to enjoy the visual effect by themselves. To draw a parallel with the App Store: App that offer a cheap lite version are more likely to sell their full version.
— For video, it’s generally not necessary to have the high resolution of photo lenses.
Sorry for a question from the zoom-spoiled me: what the 85mm focal length is useful for?
85-135 are typical portrait lengths. On a Samsung APS-C NX camera it will be closer to 135 which provides a little more working distance for subjects who like a little more space between them and the camera. Really nice for headshots, imho.
The angle of view on an NX camera is close to a 130mm lens on 35mm film, i.e., a traditional portrait length. It would be mildly annoying for Samsung to release a nice portrait lens when we STILL don’t have one for micro-4/3 after all this time.
Thanks.
admin, so there will be no E-P3 (or other E-Px serie successors) announced during CES? 🙁 pls, tell me.
Not yet. But the next MFT camera should be announced in february-March 😉
CES == >>Consumer<< Electronics Show. Hence emphasis on consumer camera
what a garbage idea , olympus truely has no idea where to go
+1
Converters make sence for selling a 200$ camera with non interchangeable lenses
Most p&s upgraders think that this e-pl2 is such a boost in IQ that this lens will be the only one they will have. Eventually one they think to mount an old lens with an adapter.
For sure some entry level users (aka e-pl2 target) buy camera thinking that E-PL2 with kit lens is a more expensive non interchangeable lens camera with great IQ because reviewers said so.
For these users adapters makes sense to have the extra reach. It is better than nothing. It is better than buying a lens to take a couple of pics a month.
For you and me, we know there is a drop on IQ.
Still to post on Facebook probably is more than enough.
Just because some pro photographers (Kirk Tuck, Steve Huff and others) started using E-PL1 it didn’t make it a pro camera, it is still an entry level and should be judged by it.
If E-P3 does not come with and articulated screen or weather sealing I understand that some of you may be disappointed.
Um, dumb question…Are we sure the converters are for the FRONT of the lens? I am not an optical expert but perhaps they could go between the lens and the camera, for possibly much higher quality…?
Well… m4/3 lenses do focus and aperture through electronic signals. If the adapter are placed between the lens and camera, wouldn’t it just make the adapter more complicated with need to connect the electronics between the body and lens ?
It does make more sense to put it in between the lens and the camera since the front element rotates. Even while adjusting filters, rotating it manually would cause some error to pop up.
Admin,
I just realized a couple of things that makes me doubt the existence of these “converters” even more so than I already do….
First, the 14-42 is a zoom lens that ALREADY DOES WIDE-ANGLE. Why would you need a wide-angle converter for a zoom that already has that?
Secondly, why give your zoom the same capabilities as your latest prime lens offerings? Why buy a dedicated fish-eye lens, if you have a converter that will already do that for you? Olympus would kill their own lens sales with such a bizzare strategy.
And, of course, the micro 4/3 lenses are so small already, offering converters makes no sense.
However….I could easily see Olympus offering these for their new XZ1…as a matter of fact, it makes a LOT of sense for them to offer such converteres for a camera that has a fixed lens.
I think you should go back a double check your sources….if there’s any hint of truth to this, those converters will be for the new XZ1, not the E-PL2 and it’s 14-42 kit lens…
Olympius
Not if one is a fisheye and one is a wideangle. None of the lenses currently made could stand to have their image circle made smaller without vignetting to an absurd degree. You can do it with a full-frame lens on a 4/3 cam, but can’t do it with a micro four thirds lens on a micro 4/3 camera.
screw on filters pretending to be ‘lenses’ make me want to vomit
probably cost $10 to make $100+ to sell, like printing money for those that don’t understand quality optics, might make financial sense but really Oly this is poor
I love that people are going there without even seeing them, or their form factor, or images made with them.
welcome to 43rumors
its only a week from now, they couldnt even wait first how it looks like
camera companies have been making screw in converters for years already = junk!
… the one exception is the Canon close-up filter (250D I think it’s called) it’s about £80 for a 52mm filter and it’s brilliant, worth every penny
An achromatic macro converter would be nice, but an entire lens would be better…
These filters only make sense if there are no cheap alternatives for prime lens >_>
I brought Raynox DCR-250, quality is enough for my macro needs and the only micro43 lens dedicated to macro costs 20 times more than it >_>
Micro43 needs lens like Canon 50mm f/1.8 Mark II or Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF…. cheap bright primes that provide some nice image quality … CCTV lens are not the answer…
Fisheye addon is a great “idea” (can you call idea something stolen from a competitor?), especially if it’ll be cheaper or same price than the NEX one. To people complaining about quality, ask yourself: do you really need that quality on a fisheye lens? And do you have all that money to buy a dedicated fisheye? And don’t care about the additional weight in your bag? If you said yes, then micro four thirds is not for you anyway, please buy a top-of-the-line Nikon and stop bothering us on this site. Otherwise, stop complaining about this (very welcome) addon to Olympus’ line – but see below.
Wideangle addon is lame, so I won’t comment.
Macro addons are already on the market: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-up_lens so Olympus will get the buzz and the money with zero investment in R&D and very little investment in manufacturing. Cunning.
Real problem, is that (if admin is right) these addons work only with the 14-42mm kit lens, which is not a lens I own or want to own. Not even on the 17mm. Now, if these were going to work on the Panny 20mm, that would be a completely different story, I would be very excited, because that is the must-have lens in everybody’s bag, and the fisheye/macro addons would have been the must-have addons for everybody.
Bottom line, as are, these are useless.
Forgot an important detail: of course this doesn’t mean I’m happy with Panny or Olympus lens offerings.
The only (photographic – I don’t care about video and zooms) lens worth owning is the Panny 20mm.
They are still lacking the super-important portrait prime (e.g. a 50mm f/1.4), which is the most important reason for me to not buying a m43 yet (more here: http://blog.javacorner.net/2010/11/micro-four-third-frustrations.html )
And they also lack a decent wide (e.g. 10-12mm f/2.8)
So, don’t confuse me welcoming these addons in the previous comment, with happiness about lenses: they must release better lenses.
Sad thing, Samsung is going to beat them up, and probably it will succeed! Sony appears to be much slower, but they could speed-up…
Happy New Year
Maybe, but from the picture in the “Medusa” post, it doesn’t look to be a screw on filter at all. 🙂
Damn, that was supposed to be a reply to dCap, but the avatar kept displaying in front of the captcha image.
Oh wait, are these converters only for their NEW 14-42 lens? I hope they’ll work with the current 14-42, or else mine’ll remain wasted space.