The Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens design
–
It doesn’t happen very often that what we see on patents will make it as a real final mass product. But lately it happened with the GX7 and it’s now going to happen with the new 12-40mm lens too! Olympus will announce that new lens along the E-M1 and it has almost exactly the specs of the patent we posted months ago:
12-40mm with constant f/2.8 aperture (Source: Egami).
39.081mm – f = 12.249 focal length
Fno. 2.88
30.85 ° – 2ω = 85.27 angle
BF 16.194 – 16.192mm
131.16mm – 140.24 Length
Mod 0.35m
13 images in 11 groups lens configuration
5 three aspherical surface
3 ED glass sheets
I don’t know the price yet but I have been told the quality s higher than the [shoplink 31225]Panasonic 12-35mm X lens[/shoplink]. Olympus is expected to announce the E-m1 and the new lens around September 10-11.
—
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
261 Responses
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
Now 40-150f2.8 please!
or a light 40-200 f/4
and affordable… below 500 usd!! =D
Sure – and add a time machine to it as well so we don’t have to adhere to physics laws …
Tamron is developing this.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/01/29/tamron-announces-development-of-14-150mm-f3-5-5-8-for-micro-four-thirds
Typical cheapskate. And you’ll never even buy it even if it were $500.
i know that i would.
I would even pre order it for that price.
But that would never happen…….
my dream too
Has anyone noticed that at 131-140mm this lens is a monster almost twice the the size of the Panasonic 12-35mm?
And we can expect it to be weather-sealed and freeze-proof as well, correct?
Wow! About time!
Weather proofing for sure, if this is the kit zoom for the E-M1.
Cool…I may be able to afford the accessory lens hood……
Freezeproofing makes me wish for my old manual OM-1, which I used down to -50C without any problems.
I was looking at APS-C dslrs and Pentax K-30 is weather sealed and freeze proof at $500 price point. Why can’t olympus make something like that for non-pros?
Where do you see the K-30 for $500?
470$ body only in red or white and 509$ in black at amazon. 556$ with WR 18-55 in black. The 16-50 F2.8 wr sdm Pentax is 1000$
That’s pretty good.
indeed. It looks like a sweet little camera. A little bit more dynamic range than OM-D, weather sealed, freeze proof, built-in intervalometer, electronic level, works with all K-mount lenses, nice pentaprism EVF with 100% coverage etc. etc. Looks like a really nice outdoors camera that E-3 and E-5 were when they were released.
…and this looks like an advertisement from Pentax…….mole?
Or perhaps someone who has been using 4/3rds for the past three years and is exceedingly frustrated with the fact that I am left with very poorly priced HG zuiko glass and an E-510 but I am not able to afford the upcoming pro model?
I can only sell the glass at a huge loss, my camera’s image quality is light years behind what is possible now and gets in the way of my pictures, I am yearning for having more than three autofocus points and being able to pull the shadows and olympus gives me E-PM2 in the $500 price range which I am not able to hold still due to its diminutive size.
I’ve been waiting for years and I’ve had it with olympus, which is why I am looking at other systems and expressing my frustrations by comparing the offerings of other companies. Olympus cameras are objectively very expensive for what they are. Read the OM-D by review by Thom Hogan, he expresses it better than me.
I meant past 6 years.
Whats the problem with holding the cam two handed? One hand at body and one at the lense?
You can use your hg 43 lenses on pm2 as well with adapter. Just focus manual. Where is the problem?
Oh you want the best and newest features?
Okay, than you have to spend more. Thats how it is.
Where in the world PDAF is the newest feature? And if other companies offer it at the third of a price, then what’s the point of paying for the brand? Olympus is becoming more and more like Leica.
I own the K30. It’s a great camera for the price. But it does not have the amazing 5 axis ibis the OM-D has. The burst rate is also lower. It’s incredible for the price but the Om-d is the better camera. The Pentax system is also limited in new lenses lately, and most lenses use the screwdrive AF. This is a lot noisier then what Nikon offers for example
I think the reason is twofold. 1) Pentax paid for the product development along time ago. The K30 goes back via the K50/K5/K7 and the K7 was lauched ~4 years ago. 2) Pentax can be compared directly with Canon/Nikon DSLR offerings and need USPs such as weather protection (Pentax DSLR *are* great value for money btw).
Olympus EM-1 is competing directly with GH3 and the next GH. Panasonic demonstrated a market for 4-figure M43 bodies with the GH3 (by providing strong video features) and Olympus wants a piece of that market.
I think the OM-1 will have to delivery PDAF CAF for m43 lenses to find a large enough market – just an opinion.
And my point is that olympus has become very expensive and maybe even a little bit boutique (and E-P5, a lot, not a little bit).
They can take fine pictures and they have their uses, but I always hoped that the smaller sensor, will mean lower costs.
Smaller sensor will mean lower costs, sorry and very sorry if you will have silcon to lowe pice is the FF camera a better choice. 😉
I would say FF would be better for some things. It would have to have bigger lenses to make them fully telecentric and sharp edge-to-edge wide open. I think the image quality is good enough from any current-generation camera, either four thirds or APS-C. The full frame is great, but a slight overkill for my needs. It is pretty remarkable how good the cameras have gotten over past 10 years.
Keep in mind that is the close out price on the K30 and cost a lot more when first introduced. It’s replacement is the K-50. It is a good camera though which is a very minor upgrade (mostly a wide choice of colors with a couple of refinements). Same sensor they been using for a few years in all their APS-c cameras but they get the most out of it. Kit lens is okay but soft at wide angle unless stopped down, and has above average CA. Of course that is correctable, but should be aware. Will be larger and heavier then m43. They can get those low prices because they have really just been refining and slightly modifying the same basic platform for the last few years.
It is a good deal, if it meets your needs. But you won’t have the latest tech or speed. All comes down to what you really want or need.
I completely disagree. The K30 does have the latest “tech and speed”. The replacement K50 has hardly any differences. I have the K30. It is a great camera and currently an absolute bargain.
13 lens elements, three of them made from ED glass, in 11 groups. That’s a pretty complex lens design. Hopefully it doesn’t rely on software correction to yield good results.
What is wrong with using software correction when designing lenses? It certainly can help achieve smaller size and lower price, while keeping really good IQ. Nothing is free, correcting everything optically can add other problems.
Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100 are good examples, expect the price. Really small for constant f2.8 and rather impressive performance. If the olympus will be actually better, lets hope it won’t be twice as heave and more than twice as expensive than pana. Both pana and oly certainly don’t like to start at reasonable prices 🙁
Nothing wrong unless you use the wide end for landscapes or architecture. The corners will be somewhat soft due to pixel “stretching” if nothing else.
It’s not exactly problem of software correction by itself, more like what they wanted to make and which compromises designers were ready to make. Pana 7-14mm using even more software correction, but even extreme corners are quite sharp. Of course not exactly nikkor 14-24 f2.8, but for it’s price and especially size really impressive.
For the size it’s impressive indeed however not for the price.
The Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 will kick it’s butt in corner sharpness.
And this is faster and cheaper.
I think the corner pixels aren’t streched.
I’ve noticed (using an unsupported RAW conveter) that the captured RAW file is a bit wider an taller than the image you see through the viewfinder or in an supported convertor. The barrel distortion seems to be corrected by compressing the borders instead of stretching the corners. This actually increases border performance, leaving corner performane intact.
This is probably why the ‘effective megapixels’ are less than the on chip megapixels.
Smaller size and lower price aren’t my main criteria.
I mean, what’s wrong to use software correction to get really good result? Not like software correction is inferior to pure optical design, especially with processing power now available. If the purpose to get best result possible think software correction is actually better. Panasonic 12-35 is good, but they sure were more focused on size rather than corner performance. Not like 12-35 is bad, but slightly worse in corners than 12-60, though distortion on 12-60 is annoying.
SW correction is definitely inferior to pure optical performance. SW correction will have to stretch and manipulate pixel data, and simulate resolution that just isn’t there to begin with. You cannot sharpen or correct blurred corners, straighten out distortion or remove CA without replacing the “bad” pixels w/ interpolated guesswork. So you have to pick your poison I’m afraid – either optical supremacy w/ added bulk and weight, or smaller and light w/ loss of IQ.
Well said.
In other words, ‘you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear’.
Hope you don’t think that correcting everything optically is free, it’s already proven, that some things are better left to SW correction. More elements introduce more problems. And they can be even more difficult to correct. Lens distortion is also not same. Best is to find balance, panasonic 7-14mm is nice example. It’s really sharp right from it’s widest aperture corner to corner. Which is amazing for really wide angle, especially at it’s size and rather low price. Only one thing would be nice, add more flare protection.
Neither You can correct everything optically – the more complicated lens is the more prone it is to several other distortions and it’s bigger and more expensive. Software correction is lesser of evils and several m43 lenses show that you can have a good software corrected lenses (12-35, 35-100, 25 just to name few)
That does not make sense. You always have restrictions in cost and size when you design a lens. Given a certain budget for size and cost (which you ALWAYS have), software correction can give you a solution with higher IQ.
Yes, of course there are compromises involved in any lens design. Had that not been the case, all lenses would have been flawless. But nonetheless, the better the optics, the better the resulting IQ. Any SW correction just has to guess what a flawless image would have looked like, and strive to mimic that. Simply due to the fact that it has less *factual* info/IQ embedded in the image pixels. Therefore the best optics will always win for IQ. But then again, the rest of the concerns in lens design kicks in, like bulk, weight, brightness, price – which inevitably will force design comprmises into the picture (literally). In that respect SW correction can help out, but it will never surpass the truth thrown by an optically flawless lens.
I’ve heard this claim repeatedly, but never seen any evidence of it. On the contrary, although direct comparisons are extremely difficult, all the evidence I’ve seen suggests that, in practice, SW corrections result in little, if any visible image degradation. Furthermore, they can be much more precise that optical corrections, which always come with their own image quality tradeoffs. Can you point to actual examples of the image quality compromises created by SW correction?
There is no such thing as optically flawless lens, you fix one problem, introduce another. Depends on FL, always will have one or another problem. Adding too many elements for fixing minor problems, that could be easily fixed by software, can lead for example, to loss of contrast or introducing weird distortion that is not so easy to fix. If the engineers for m43 lenses could actually go for best possible IQ and include SW correction into lens design, disregarding size and price, result would be better than rely completely on optical design. For example it’s almost completely impossible optically to get rid of distortion for UWA. Even the godly, super expensive and huge Nikkor 14-24 f2.8 has almost 4% barrel distortion left. While rather cheap and tiny pana 7-14 only about 1% after SW (before SW a bit more than 5%)
Unless You want to pay for the whole R&D yourself You should consider it as well. If Olympus is going to produce again big and expensive lenses m43 may as well go the same route as 43 – do You want that?
@Anonymous
“What is wrong with using software correction when designing lenses?”
– well on if there is extreme multiple white balance or range of exposures when you try to adjust in post it goes belly up.
– on panning shots you can get some strange effects.
– like wise I’ve had strange effects when photographing reflections of moving subjects.
I would NEVER buy software corrected lenses again.
for zooms, you might as well buy in a big system therefore. The point of m43 is slight compromise on quality (smaller sensor, some level of soft correction) to gain on size.
If you loose the size argument, what’s left? and some software correction is ok. Think it this way: for the same size, you can design sharper lens corner to corner if they are not to much corrected for distortion. Well, add the distortion and we’re back to some level of dropoff on the edges. If well done, results might be overall better than optical correction in a small lens
> The point of m43 is slight compromise on quality (smaller sensor, some level of soft correction) to gain on size.
1) I don’t think soft correction is an acceptable compromise any more. It was a cool idea, I’ll grant. The monster design of this lens suggests, hopefully, that Olympus is taking a no-compromise approach, like they have with the primes.
2) Conversely, I think µ43 is now a far cry from a “compromise in quality”; more like “sensor technology is so advanced now that in vast majority of cases the smaller sensor is no longer a compromise”. My humble example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leicaapostate/9454359843/
3) I don’t think lens quality compromise is needed for smaller size. For lower cost, yes, but not for smaller size. Leica M lenses, for instance, are very small; in fact, that is one of Leica’s design parameters.
Oops! I just realized that shot was an ISO200. Sorry… (Embarrassed!)
Here’s an ISO800.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leicaapostate/9457139478/
“The monster design of this lens suggests, hopefully, that Olympus is taking a no-compromise approach, like they have with the primes.”
I am no sure i would paint such a broad picture the 75mm and 60mm macro are both excellent bits of glass and similar in performance to the best of FT. tHE45mm is a decent performer with low end build quality the 17mm f2.8 less said the better, the 17mm F1.8 doesn’t measure up nor does the 12mm.
Some people here have forgotten how big a flop Four Thirds was it was FT losses that the huge financial cover up was well covering up!.If you are genuinely obsessed with squeezing out maximum image quality given the increasing price of mFT gear what real sense does it make over FF
“”Conversely, I think µ43 is now a far cry from a “compromise in quality”;””
The best mFT cameras are at a clear disadvantage regarding image quality to FF sensors . Obviously some people are easier satisfied than others ,lucky them ! look at the dominance of mobile phone shots on Flickr Facebook etc. mFT is a wonderful travel companion for me it lacks in DR, color depth ,high ISO and resolution its only blessing is size and weight
> lucky them!
Yes, I feel quite lucky.
http://leicarumors.com/2013/01/08/guest-post-why-i-am-leaving-leica-for-micro-four-thirds.aspx/
“Lucky them”
I thought the guy meant lucky people who are happy with their mobile phones for photography.Leica is really little to do with real photography it has very mediocre sensors in ridiculously expensive bodies.They are more just another brand box to tick for the rich, or for collectors regarding final image quality there is no advantage using Leica compared to Nikon or Canon ,a D800 with the Sigma 35mm F1.4 will cost a fraction of the Leica set up and deliver better results.The sensors in our E-M5 and GH3 can compete with Leica sensors
Full frame is a whole lot more expensive than micro four-third.
Prices with the Apsc competition are almost the same.
Differences in image quality are then small. The latest micro 4/3 sensors actually outperforms Canons sensor. They sell the most Dslr camera’s. So it’s not that bad
None of the things you described get corrected in lens correction software. White balance? What?!
“What is wrong with using software correction when designing lenses?”
Because it reduces resolution/sharpness/ and options (as far as RAW converters one can use)
But most of all.. it’s just plain sloppy.
I don’t disagree except to say that it is possible to make a nearly perfect lens without software correction. Leica and Zeiss do it. It will cost you many thousands of dollars however.
And yet the tests say they’re not the sharpest lenses oit there.
It’s quite different from Panasonic’s 12-35. Much longer. In fact it will be quite massive compared to a PEN or GX. With all this special glass I expect it to be optically corrected. Oh, and brace yourselves for a hefty price tag (~$1400).
Since it’s going to be large anyway, I hope this lens has internal zoom. I’m not crazy about the extending barrel on my 12-60.
Does not seems so from the patent. It will extend from 131 to 140mm. Not much, but still.
Was checking 12-60 for landscapes to use on m43, but then realized, that distortion produced by 12-60 is rather annoying to fix. It’s amazing lens, but i could not find profiles for it, that could fix the distortion well enough. Hope new oly zoom lens using benefits of software correction to produce even better result than 12-60 🙂
12-60 is hardly your best option for landscapes. My favorite lens is 11-22, which is nearly distortion free.
Unless you are takling landscape pictures of buildings, no noe, including yourself will notiser the distirtion in the 12-60
The patent drawings suggest extension of the lens rather than an internal zoom.
Internal focusing = Bigger lens and far more complex lens. Much easier to weather seal tough and nice in a macro like the Sigma 150/180 macro. No extension on close up. For M3/4 this would annoy people due to the larger storage size. Imagine the vapors.
Collin, I believe you meant to write “internal zoom,” because internal focus is a given, since a light-weight group of focusing elements is required for fast 4/3 and m4/3 lenses anyway.
As much as I like my 12-60, I’d prefer it to have internal zoom. The size issue is overblown, because those who don’t need fast zoom lenses will buy slower, lighter and smaller lenses anyway. At least I, if I want small, I stick a small prime on an m4/3 body.
Then there is still the benefit and the convenience of one fast zoom replacing a bag full of primes. Of course, it depends on what you are out to shoot. If I go hiking, I carry the 14mm and the 60 mm macro. If I drive to a shooting location, I don’t give a flip about how much my gear weighs or how big it is.
If our data is correct this means:
– possibly the first of many. a sort of new HG line for m43?
– a new sensor is behind the corner (probably next year, but starting from EM5+ already?).
Personally I have been waiting for this. It’s been a long time in the making, but finally, it is coming.
“New sensor behind the corner” is always true, but how did you deduce it from this rumour?
It might be wishful thinking on my side, but I was thinking at the introduction of the 75mm/1.8. Here again they might be stepping up the quality together with size (now that a sizable body line has been finally introduced). Certainly pure speculation for what we know, but it would make sense to push for quality on this one, instead of iterating again on an average kit zoom. Not much data, admittedly, but knowing Olympus proud engineers that’s where they want to go..
131 mm in length!?!?! Thats even longer than the 14-35 2.0 FT! That’s gotta be a mistake!
Holy shit sherlock, that sucks man. They add 5mm and end up with twice the length .. which is just not worth it. Really hope this patent is just filler when they’re actually planning to do a 12-60 F2.8-4. Otherwise what’s the point.
Well, you asked for it. A longer FL than Panny’s 12-35mm, constant f/2.8, less software correction, and even better IQ. So, here it is, a big lens. Nothing comes from nothing.
F2 means bigger lenses but because 12-40 has longer focal length is is gonne be logner. 🙂
12-60 is only 98 mm long…
This lens, should these specs be true, sure takes the micro out of m43!:-(
The 12-60 with MMF-X is 115 mm long. With lens shade it’s 153 mm long.
I can see why this lens was not released earlier and only released now, as it needs a bigger camera. I do not mind the big lens so much, if it delivers the same quality as the 12-60mm.
131 mm is only 2 mm shorter than the FF Nikon 24-70mm…
That’s a bazooka! I don’t want to carry a lens that big. The Panasonic is a better option for me.
An M1 “Bazooka” is 4.5 feet long. 😉
At least $1,500 for this lens, possibly more. No doubt the quality will be there, but will it be worth the final price?
Looks like a ploy to promote the sales of stocked FT glass.
And them the EM-1 kit will sell for 3000 USD/EUR with this lens? Huh…
them=then
I think 3000usd/euro will be quite lucky with recent prices from oly… Feels like it will be priced at least twice as much compared to pana 12-35, not like 12-35 is good value, even now it’s barely adequate
“Feels like it will be priced at least twice as much compared to pana 12-35…”
And how can you “feel” that?
Pure conjecture, to say the least.
It’s gonna cost due to the quality, but the kit ought to be less than 3000€ to be competitive…
Anyone can tell me what does this means?
131.16mm – 140.24 Length
Could it mean that it extends?
That is the physical length maximum and minimum as it is zoomed.
Sweet but will come at a price. Also it’ll go down as the most expensive m43 lens and be sure it’ll also be the most picked on lens for the equivalency crowd. Looking forward to it
140.24mm seems awfully long… isn’t the Pana 12-35 somewhere around 8 cm only.. ?
The Lumix 12-35 size makes more sense for the typical m43 camera, if those specs are true.
And all the people here complaining about software correction on the pany, and preaching about pure optical performance! Come on, it is supposed to be micro 43! If you don’t care at all about size, just go for a DSLR. Even most primes for m43 are software corrected.
Boring…
A self-assessing comment. Cool!
Nice but let’s see its optical qualities first.
With the EM-1, it will have two prestigious in-house concurrents : the 4/3 14-54mm and 12-60mm.
It has to be at least equal optically than the 12-60 to sell well.
If it is, it will be a winner. But my gut feeling is that it won’t be as good… hope I’m wrong.
kinda bummed was hoping for something different ?
the panny 12-35 is a great little lens already and many already have that
I still think they would have sold more of a lens that is unique not another option to something many might already have
dreaming but a 12-60 2.8 would have been killer 🙂
but even a 12-60 f/4. would have been nice since it would be unique to M4/3 users who want a constant and better quality and a nice range
also would have liked to seen a 7-14 or 7-17 or something in a 2.8 since the panny has such issues with purple flare junk going on ?
With the 12-60 I and anyone else can easily do without this lens. But let there be lenses …
This is a darn good lens in term of optical performance and AF speed. It is almost silent during operation. More to come.
So less impressive in terms of build quality? Is it sealed?
Build quality is very good. I will let you guess whether it will be weather-sealed. Hint: Pro grade lens.
Whoo – hooo!
Thanks 🙂
How bout talking about the fact that its bigger than the 100-300?
@O
good,good, just give admin a few pointers to the patents 🙂
I will leave that to his/her trusted source.
It will cost $50 Olympus is making this gesture to give their apologies for previous price shafting though the hood will cost $1200
@O
Share something about the lens size.
Are you sure that length is the actual length of the lens? It would be strange that it only extended a few milimiters…
Not really.
The 14-35/2.0 also extends very little, just a few mm, w/ its longest at around 18mm FL.
Well the 14-35mm is already gigantic compared to the sensor size sure its a stop faster than the Panasonic 12-35 but it starts at 14mm instead of 12 and its quite surprising how well everyone else’s 24-70mm equivs do at 28mm even the cheap off brand options .It costs well over double the Panasonic , it weighs 2.5x as much and it is 75% longer. I am not mocking the quality of the lens I know it is excellent. I just do not understand the logic in carrying that much extra weight on a system that has a small sensor. Especially as until now { hopefully for you guys] you have been stuck with a sensor 5 years behind the times.The C-AF of Olympus FT is hardly state of the art. My attachment for mFT is down to size and weight while still maintaining good enough image quality.
If i was totally concerned with image quality enough to spend that kind of money and that kind of weight I would be shooting FF.
what’s the point if it’s bigger and more expensive than a 12-60 + mmf3 now that the autofocus is supposed to work???
the f-stop of the 12-60 at 40mm is what, 3.5? can’t really see the point of such a lens if it’s that big
At 40 mm, the 12-60’s aperture is 3.8.
The 12-60 also has some funky distortion at 12mm but overall it is still one of the best ever kit lenses.
Yeah, it’s a $900 “kit lens.” 😛
Well I bought it in a kit with my E-3 ,Canon also have the 24-105mm F4 as a kit for the 5D123 and it is also a pricey kit lens at $1100 but it is a kit 😛
F4…? 😛
Exactly. Olympus has some 12-60s that need clearing.
Finally a fast zoom lens will it be splash and dust proof? Oly has gone a step further. 🙂
Unbelieivable reactions. Endless moaning about M4/3 not having any fast high quality zooms and when they are delivered, more moaning about the price and size.
Get another hobby.
I think this is a wonderful announcement and just as much importance as the E-M1 announcement.
If you want to talk about big, heavy and expensive, try my OM Zuiko 35-80mm f2.8 – 650g, 100mm – 127mm in length with a 62mm filter thread. 16 elements in 14 groups with ED elements. In todays money it cost about $1990 originally. It’s performance exceeded that of nearly all the Zuiko primes within it’s focal range, except probably the 50mm f1.2 and 50mm f1.4 with serial no > 1m and it was one of the best zooms in the world at the time.
Oh, and I forgot – absolutely NO software correction needed whatsoever.
😉
That is good if you don’t mind the downside of no software correction , namely larger heavier more expensive lenses that in the end deliver little more for the final image.Software correction is not a flaw it is an intrinsic part of mFT lens design enabling lenses to be smaller lighter and on occasion cheaper :-).
The absolute image quality of a lens is not the only factor that matters to the buyers my attraction to mFT is down to the size and weight of the gear while still delivering great results.The disproportionate size of the higher end Olympus lenses[ in relation to sensor size] was if anything a disadvantage of the system. In essence to get the best lenses in the system you had to carry FF sized & weight gear that in many markets actually cost more than the respective FF glass.I hoped that Olympus had learned the importance of size but maybe not,at least it will appeal to the small group of Olympus rules fans :-).An mFT version of their 14-54 would have been more welcome for me
Do astronomers build and design cheaper telescopes with CA and distortion and try and fix these with software?
Astronomers don’t design and build telescopes, just as doctors don’t design and build endoscopes or X-ray machines. They use them, engineers design them.
tell that to Newton, and your comparison is a false syllogism; let’s get pedantic, astrophysicists actually do design and manufacture telescopes because astronomy is not a “retail” science. Making your own tools is part of the science.
Medical doctors tend to be specialists these days in a industry that is industrial retail supported. But again, it’s not uncommon for a specialist to improve, invent and create new tools along the way. Depends on their medical field?
Such comparisons don’t really belong comparing them in what is obviously consumer photography.
(now let’s see if this one gets moderated?!)
I don’t know if that is the best simile, because the first thing I think of is the Hubble Space Telescope. A dog at launch it was fixed with hardware and software kludges and made it one of the most important astronomical tools in visual astronomy … just saying.
Newton has been dead for some time, so what “astronomers” did in his time is irrelevant. (BTW- there were no “astronomers” in Newton’s time.)
if Flamsteed Halley, and Huygens were still around, they might argue with your opinion about the status of astronomy “back then”. Really I only mentioned Newton because his little idea in the 1660’s is still one of the best selling telescope designs to this day. An example of a good optic idea with just a little bit of holding power. What’s that 300 years and change?
Change may be good, but a good ideas, don’t go bad.
The old OM 35-80 f2.8 noes need software correction for the serious barrel distortion at 35mm. Otherwise it is the perfect lens.
Close focussing distance is rather ‘long’ as well…
Your Zuiko 35-80mm f2.8 – 650g, 100mm – 127 was designed for a FF camera so the size and weight are not so bad
You expected anything different from all the whining, hand wringing and gnashing of teeth over this ? 😉
I only wish it were 12-50mm or 12-50mm. Can’t have everything!
Me? Speaking of not needing software correction, I’m curious what the next M4/3 Voigtländer Nokton lens is going to be.
Wait a minute…the big and heavy lens you described is smaller than this lens!!!!!!! Hahahahahahah
Theres no defending it, ITS BIGGER THAN THE PANA 100-300! Are you kidding?
Werent you not so months ago saying pana was stupid for going big? The 35-100 is too big?
This is a joke
You should probably join an anger management class or you will get your self a stroke or heart attack. Try som valium or something like that.
How about an 12-40mm f/2.8 that is actually 12-40mm and actually f/2.8?
What is your complaint here? The three main specs for minimum focal length (12.249 vs 12), maximum focal length (39.081 vs 40) and maximum aperture (2.88 vs 2.8) are all less than 3% off the intended value. That is really good measuring.
What is filter size of this lens?
I’m ready to bet that the patented length includes the entire optical path, including the sensor (“C” in the graph ?). So you can already take 20mm away from those measurements, i.e. 120mm. Then there is the fact that the mount usually sits a little further in front of the back element. I expect a 11mm long length lens or thereabout.
11cm, sorry.
Thats what I expected to hear.
Is MTLAB a abbreviation for Meth Lab?
I was thinking MATLAB (you’re watching to much BB like the rest of us)
It’s my understanding that when lens lengths are shown in patents it’s the length from the front element to the imaging plane – so you must at least subtract the flange-to-sensor distance off of that to get an estimate for the length of the lens itself.
The distance from the rear element to the lens mount varies from lens to lens.
And what will be weight and size (if we compare it with Panasonic 12-35/2.8)?
Next a compact 40-200/4, and then a 6-12/4.
Then we’ll have the holy trinity for m4/3! 🙂
In case you missed it…
The Holy Trinity of M4/3 Lenses is already here…
The Voigtländer 17.5mm, 25mm and 42.5mm!
Yes indeed, it is the Holy Trinity. I’m just ordering the 42.5. I don’t need any other lens.
My 42.5 shipped yesterday from CamerQuest 😀
Wow… in stock at B&H.
Same here.
Mine shipped from Camera Quest last night!
Can’t wait!
The 17.5mm is next on the horizon for me!
I’m completing my Trinty 😛
Don’t hijack great Olympus lens thread with over 80s retirees’ poseur MF crap.
A Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM is $1898 on Amazon. This Zuiko will be the equivalent of 24-80mm and be weather proof. No reason why anyone should expect it to be cheaper than that.
To equal the Canon 24-70mm F2.8 you would need a 12-35mm F1.4 a FF 24-70 F5.6 if such a slow lens existed would do the exact same job.It is also designed to cover a sensor nearly four times the area.And no its not just DOF its total light otherwise we would all throw away or junk mFT and DSLR cameras and get our hands on a Panasonic FZ200 with its 25-600mm F2.8 lens,or do you possibly think that sensor size has an impact on the effective aperture.
I was told that the F2.8 m43 lens exposes each unit area of the m43 sensor with same intensity as the a F2.8 FF lens would on a FF sensor. Since the FF lens has to expose a large area it lets in more intensity in total. That’s why those Speed Boosters can achieve that jump in effective aperture.
The drawback of the FZ200 is its small pixels not the small sensor itself (except for shallow DOF of course). If you would use those m43 pixels on that sensor, the image quality would be as good albeit with much lower resolution (something around 4-6 MP?). The same would happen if the m43 pixels were FF size. So if we assume the D800 pixels and the 4 times bigger FF sensor, this would result in an m43 sensor with 9.5 MP but saime noise and DR, but course lower detail and resolution.
This is how I understood this topic.
That’s why those Speed Boosters can achieve that jump in effective aperture.
The speed booster effect is simple its the same as holding a magnifying glass up to the sun while focusing its rays to a smaller zone thus concentrating the light . The much smaller sensor can allow for this though edge performance is not perfect.
That is what I implied by:
“Since the FF lens has to expose a large area it lets in more intensity in total. That’s why those Speed Boosters can achieve that jump in effective aperture.”
You are right about relative aperture and brightness, but not entirely about the speed booster.
Relative aperture is diameter of the entrance pupil / focal length.
When using a speed booster, you add a reducer behind the lens, this reduces its focal length. Because this reducer is behind the lens, it does not change the entrance pupil (it would be if it were in front of the lens).
Now, if the entrance pupil stays the same, but the focal length gets shorter, the f number gets lower, and hence the projected image will be brighter.
If the lens in front of the reducer does not cover a big enough image circle, you’ll get vignetting, but the brightness in the center will not be affected by this. The ‘speed’ comes from the reduction in focal length while keeping the same entrance pupil.
No, f1.4 is not needed to be equivalent, unless barking up the depth of field tree again.
f2.8 is f2.8. The illumination of the sensor in terms of photons per unit area is the same.
So, the Zuiko has a greater range for equivalent illumination of the sensor and is weather sealed, so there is no justification to think it should be any cheaper, if anything, it would not be unreasonable if it was more expensive. You can bet Canon would charge more for those extras.
I wish chucking my Zuiko 35-80mm f2.8 on my E-M5 gave me a f1.4 zoom, but it doesn’t
“”No, f1.4 is not needed to be equivalent, unless barking up the depth of field tree again.””
The DOF tree and the total light tree you guys amazingly remember to multiply the focal length while conveniently forgetting the effect on aperture. The lens will also use a fraction of the glass and materials of a 24-70.It is the total light hitting a sensor that matters
“”I wish chucking my Zuiko 35-80mm f2.8 on my E-M5 gave me a f1.4 zoom, but it doesn’t””
That’s because you mounted it on a camera with a sensor a fraction of the size thus throwing away most of the light that came through the front of lens. What lets in more light a large window or a small window.If you took the lenses off a mFT and FF then pointed them in the same direction which camera would allow in more light now add a lens that are both F2.8 for their respective system an F2.8 lens is a ratio meaning the window! for a FF lens is larger hence more light gets through this is a simple fact
Just to extend your “argument” you firmly believe that a 25mm-600mm F2.8 zoom on the FZ200 is equivelent to the same effective focal length on a mFT or FF
The volume of materials is near irrelevant. By that logic, an ultra thin Patek Philippe watch should cost less than a hulking great Breitling because it is made from less material.
The illumination of the sensor in terms of photons per unit area would be the same. Do you deny this?
Logic is not really for you stig…
The description “total light” says it all if a few Olympus [always Olympus] users cannot grasp simple physics then so be it but repeatedly making a fool of yourselves is beyond it. I am not so patient as those who explain the facts time after time , attempting to teach a monkey to type may be funny but it gets really boring really quickly.FZ200 25-600mm at f2.8 here I come !!!!F2.8 has the same effect and results on any format according to you lol
Beaten to death, I’d say. Ignoring DoF, we are only left with *actual* image quality (as in S/R ratio). FF should always better. These days, it’s about one stop, I hear, but photographers have a hard seeing the difference.
Now, for the real world: image quality for iso 1600 at f/2.8 can be meaningfully compared between m43/APS-C and FF. I know what I’d choose; not the bigger, heavier and more expensive FF zoom setup. For iso 3200, FF may be more relevant for some people. For iso 6400: if you really need it (especially at f2/.8), you’re very special. Regardless, I’m betting the Oly lens beats just about everything else wide-open in optical terms.
I shoot m43, APS-C, FF and MF. The relative strengts and weaknesses are not that hard to comprehend, really. Maybe that’s because I’m not stuck in theory.
Really “oilymouse” (yuck), stop that crap, someone might even believe you.
You’re simply wrong. Sorry, wish I could be more diplomatic, but you’re spreading misinformation. 2.8 is 2.8 as far as light gathering is concerned. If you used a hand held light meter and it says 2.8 at 1/125 second, then any camera/lens/format combination that gives you 2.8 at 1/125 will give you the same exposure. Period. DOF is different because even though the field of view will change on different format sensors, the focal length of the lens doesn’t. Thus a 25mm lens on a m43 sensor will give you an equivalent 50mm field of view of FF, but it’s still a 25mm lens with it’s inherently greater DOF.
Here is a good article on that aperture topic. The same F-number yields the same exposure on any sensor size if the same ISO and same shutter speed are used. The difference is only due to less shallow DOF and the sensor differences between a FF, APS-C and m43 sensor.
For me, this is an advantage, since I can use a wider aperture (with faster shutter and/or lower ISO) to get the same exposure without the shallower DOF a FF.
The lens will be covering an area 4 times as small.
So you need less glass weight and cost to make it.
There is a reason i’ve payed only 400,- bucks for my tamron 17-50mm F2.8.
That was new in the store. I agree that the build quality of the olympus will be superior but please check the Apsc lenses for comparison. they are much cheaper than the full frame ones
You know very little about optics and lens design it seems.
Hint, if you reduce horizontal and vertical size by a factor 2 while maintaining pixel count, you need an increase in resolution by a factor 2 in both directions.
That is totally bull. F2.8 is Always F2.8. A lie doesn’t become true because you repeat it a million times. Your lie has become on of the FF boys favourite lie, but still not true.
I know this is hard to grok but it is true that a larger sensor will give you a larger signal-to-noise ratio than a smaller sensor all else equal. If you trust Wikipedia, they have an ok explanation of the mathematics. What this means is that for an equivalent amount of image noise (shot noise) ff can use a higher ISO than 43 and so is better in very low light situation where noise matters.
I shot m43 and am very happy with it. The additional noise is rarely apparent in my pictures. I would never go for a heavier bulkier system.
because your Canon lenses goes with >2000$ bodies, up to what, 4000$?
it’s harder to justify such prices in m43 land
There are Canon DSLR cameras that cost $400 that can natively mount AF/meter a 24-70 lens apparently crop factor or real effective aperture don’t matter here.Then there are off brand options like the Tamron 24-70mm VC with image stabilization weather sealing and fixed fast F2.8 aperture that can be had for $1100
don’t see the point
I understand Canon can charge a high price (>1500$) for Pro lenses because they are primarly targeted to people ready to pay >2000$ for a body.
Of course you can do 2000$lens on a second hand 300d if you want, or mounting a cheap 50mm on a 1dmkIII, so what?
Olympus does not have a base of customers shelving 2000$+ on a body, therefore it will be more difficult for them to sell lenses that cost as much as Canon top offer
You “real stig” obviously work for Olympus. For the poor uninformed readers: no Canon 24-80 F5.6 with tiny image circle exists, and it would be cheap if it did. Only sukkers keep a company with those prices from bankrupcy.
Instead of spending time here, do yourself a favor and compare IQ for an FF lens stopped down to f/5.6 to an m4/3 lens at f/2.8. Of course, you will need to adjust iso. See what happens at different iso settings. See where m43 and APS-C have benefits.
Instant enlightenment can only come through direct experience 🙂
FF at 5.6 and iso 800 vs M43 at F2.8 and ISO 200: I’d take FF any time. Of course you’d take the M43, you work for Olympus, right?
Would you also take it when its 1600 vs 6400? Or do you actually believe theres any full frame out there thats a full 2 stops better than the best m43s sensor?
Ill save you the google search, the absolute best ff sensor is 1.67 stops better than the em5 sensor in the best case scenario. Average is 1.52. So no, your image wont be better at iso 6400 with your full frame
And who said that? DXO? Your two-decimal-digit numbers? How old are you really?
There’s more (of course), but if you search dpreview, there was a test a few months ago featuring the E-M5.
Good for you. With a good lens at 2.8 on m43, I will have comparable depth-of-field and in practice the IQ for anything up to iso 1600 is very, very good on m43 (even for commercial work), provided I get my exposure right. This situation came about only recently of course, but this trend (practical value of m43) will continue with increased sensor efficiency during the coming years.
So, sure you can take FF regardless, but I enjoy an additional choice of small and light.
If I’d work for Olympus, I sure hope they’d tell me to spend my time better. Actually, I’m just a guy who said it’s best to *judge* for yourself, because your one’s own carefully developed opinion always beats that of any passing forum warrior. As Mr. Huff would put it: that’s A FACT. 🙂
Direct experience shows that larger sensors take better pictures, fullstop.
I’d take a 135 at F5.6 and ISO 800 anytime over a M43 at F2.8 and ISO 200.
Olympus and others could not afford sensibly-sized sensors, nor proper lenses (ie those that don’t require heavy software corrections) so they made up this “format” and priced it… well… suicidally. You might have to look for a new employer soon mate.
Direct experience shows that larger sensors from yesterday take worst pictures. Fullstop.
64k is enough for everybody.
Who will ever need electricity in his house?
Experience shows that experience can’t tell the future, only the past.
You keep it up, yet the essence of my point was not dogma (seems your favorite), but actually going out and shoot (even it means renting a an E-M5 and/or a D800).
Am I getting through? Because you keep avoiding the message, my dear chap. I’m guessing that’s significant to others reading this.
Well you only need to adjust ISO in specific conditions as many subjects allow for significant changes in shutter speed without impairing the image.I am a landscape guy and looking through my shots the most common shutter speed is between 1/500th and 1/750th shooting at 1/250th or 1/125th wouldn’t make any difference.mFT is about the weight and size would I like the image quality of a D800 or MF digital damn yes! Do I want to heave all the extra weight across the Chilkoot Trail that I did last spring God NO !there is no doubt that the best FF sensor will outperform the best mFT sensor,that is obvious
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/793|0/%28brand%29/Olympus/%28appareil2%29/814|0
/%28brand2%29/Nikon
What doesn’t seem to be obvious to FF trolls is that we don’t care it is all about finding a tool that delivers image quality good enough and at a size and price that will get you shooting.
You seem confused. But go on, Olympus needs fellas like you, to pay those prices.
I take it your offering to sherpa his/her equipment you are recommending?
Whoops, even more experience! Indeed, if you’re not shooting in edge cases (like max aperture, shutter speeds to slow to hand hold etc.), the theoretical difference vaporize.
Our FF friend seems to have run out of steam, though. Let’s see who turns up in the next round, hahaha! 🙂
Great news!
Any rumor about the dimension and weight?
If the new lens is more light weight, I may consider replace Pana~
Perfect focal lengths at both ends . Let s hope the IQ is going to match and maybe we an hope for a hood :))
Harold
Great piece of news. Hope it’s gonna be “affordable” (cheaper than the pany)
Expect it to be about 70% more expensive.
I can see Olympus reading these comments and annotating every price guess from commentators to use for the actual MSRP, like an auction, waiting for ever higher quotes with a grin on their faces.
Why should this lens be twice the price of the pany ? just because of an extra 5mm ? hell no!. Sure, I’m not expecting this lens to be $500 by any chance but a $3000+ kit price for the E-M1 and 12-40mm!? are you people out of your mind !?
This ain’t MF, FF DSLR, or Leica, this is m4/3! whatever happened to those first claims from Oly and Pany when they unveiled the system ? what was that about smaller production costs because of fewer parts and smaller glass ? Don’t give me the economies of scale arguments, if that’s the case that should’ve applied since the beginning and yet m4/3 is getting more expensive by the hour, and Fuji should be worse if that was the case. m4/3 paid its R&D a freaking long time ago, I’m not trying to sound like a cheap bast@rd but when this systems starts to get FF kinda pricey it’s a bad sign, and it’s an even worse sign when consumers actually EXPECT (and even justify) those prices. If I’m paying FF price I may a s well get a FF.
m4/3 needs to validate itself within today’s ILC market(mirrorless or not)and specially in front of consumers, and cornering itself into a niche like Leica is not the way at all, specially when competition is so aggressively priced. Sure, no other system can display such a big lens catalog but that has made little difference in terms of marketing success so far, and these prices could actually hurt the image of m4/3. Smaller sensor but pricier than DSLR ? with DSLR sized bodies and zooms? What salesman is gonna try to sell or defend m4/3 against a DSLR or other mirrorless alternative when a customer asks them about it ?
Salesman : ¨well, this is a m4/3 camera, it has the widest lens selection and they’re very good¨
Customer: ¨why is it so expensive, what’s the difference with this canon over here?¨
Salesman : ¨Well,um…uh…this one has a smaller sensor but it’s still quite good¨¨
Customer: ¨But what about the lenses, how much are them ?¨
Salesman : ¨Well,um…uh…they’re more expensive, but they’re smaller…¨
Customer: ¨But this lens over here is actually quite big…¨
Salesman : ¨Well, you see…¨
Customer: ¨Yeah, thanks but I think I’ll just go with the canon, thank you¨
I know very well that physics and economics a unavoidable but Oly and Pany are doing very little to work around them. This trend to make m4/3 the absolute opposite of what it was intended to be is the worst strategy ever. Just because DSLR are doing better than mirrorless doesn’t mean they should go back to DSLR standards, it just means their marketing sucks and people haven’t gotten the message behind mirrorless.
Oly & Pany are shooting themselves in the foot by making the bodies and lenses bigger and bigger with each iteration, m4/3 is supposed to be a COMPACT and portable alternative (or companion) to a DSLR, that’s the whole point behind removing the mirror and prism and shortening the flange distance and software correction to shrink the lenses. I know people will argue that I should stay with slow zooms if I want small and cheap, well, what about NO. This system was designed from the ground up to be able to deliver fast and small, I think this has more to do with Oly’s and Pany own perception of the market than their actual capabilities. They feel secure people will pay whatever they charge for whatever they come up with, why wouldn’t they ? we’ve done as they wished so far, why would that change? How do I know that ? I know because they were able to produce small gems like the 20mm and 45mm for an adequate prices in the past, if those lenses were released for the first time today, they would be far more expensive.
Now we have DSLR sized bodies with a smaller sensor, big lenses, big prices and bad marketing, it’s 4/3s all over again. If m4/3 can’t compete in equal terms with DSLRs it will never grow beyond a niche, it needs to stay comparably priced to DSLRs, at least that way the size advantage can be emphasized more strongly. There cannot be a price penalty for small size, not this late in the game, m4/3 should’ve become cheaper, not more expensive.
Is 45/1.8 in metal or weather sealed? If what you’re a saying is that we need cheap plastic but good IQ lenses, I may agree. But we can’t ask for durability and weather sealing at a low price: maybe we lost our references (since now we throw away our gears every year or so, see the smartphones) but “made to last forever quality” surely has a price.
How much does your average 85mm F1.8 cost.
They are also not weathersealed
The 45mm F1.8 Olympus is a great lens. It maybe plastic but it doesn’t feel cheap.
The sharpness is astounding
The target audience for this body and lens don’t need an education by some salesman, my friend. Your example is therefore surreal at best.
However, although your efforts to put your feelings in writing should be applauded, you’re basically denying Oly and Pany the right to market high-end products. Put bluntly: someone like you should be criticizing the actual retail prices of the E-PM2, E-M5 and all the other m43 stuff less than say USD/€ 1000,- This clearly is not your territory.
Still, if you really can’t let it go, just let the free market do what it does best.
Oh, I do trust the free market, believe me, like many here I’ve been defending m4/3 against trolls for 2 years on this site but it’s just a matter of looking how fast m4/3 and mirrorless in general accumulate stock and then depreciate rapidly. That is the whole point of my post: m4/3’s market perception.
Olympus has failed to sell m4/3 in vast quantities and now thinks the best strategy is to charge more per unit hence making a bigger margin per unit instead of more profit by mass sales. They’re just cornering themselves into a niche, just like Fuji and Leica, and this recent announcements are proof of that. But that’s utterly wrong and misguided IMHO, m4/3 has the potential to be a mass market system, the new portable camera standard, like how 35mm became the standard against MF.
The reason why m4/3 hasn’t been able to sell as well as DSLRs is because it’s seen as a lesser system. This is all due to their poor (generously speaking) marketing. They haven’t gotten the message across to consumers (amateurs and pro’s alike) People are simply not willing to pay Oly’s prices because:
a) It’s not an established technology yet(in the view of the average consumer)
b) It has no market presence (no one knows about it, how can I trust it’s as good as a canon or nikon)
c) It’s small, therefore it should be cheaper (DSLR vs P&S analogy)
More to the point, it’s awesome that Oly is re-entering the pro market with new products for m4/3, that’s good for strengthening the validity of the system in the view of consumers, but truth be told, no Pro is willing to spend this much on a smaller sensor system. As you said, contrary to the average consumer portrayed in my post, ¨The target audience for this body and lens don’t need an education ¨ indeed, they know too well about m4/3 disadvantages(and vice versa), Pros value quality above anything else, they know their gear, they choose FF for technical reasons, they’re very much gearheads like any of us mundane hobbyists, and because of that they view m4/3 as fun portable cameras, dslr companions, not workhorses. It’s not until they try them on the long term that they often switch completely or partially.
Oly can’t justify their prices, not to the average consumer, nor to the Pros. They should’ve gone with the market’s perception and actually go down in prices, that’s what the market is telling them, that’s why these recent announcement are not as well received as they should be.
> Olympus has failed to sell m4/3 in vast quantities and now thinks the best strategy is to charge more per unit hence making a bigger margin per unit instead of more profit by mass sales.
They actually also have bodies like the E-PM2, which I think are competitive already. So I do not believe it’s one strategy, as they differentiate between at least three segments.
> They’re just cornering themselves into a niche, just like Fuji and Leica, and this recent announcements are proof of that. But that’s utterly wrong and misguided IMHO, m4/3 has the potential to be a mass market system, the new portable camera standard, like how 35mm became the standard against MF.
It has the potential indeed, but current incumbents are big and very well known. If I were Olympus/Sony/Fuji, I’d try to generate a buzz with every new product first (they all do that nicely). Failed massive marketing efforts can ruin a company or division and/or its reputation.
> The reason why m4/3 hasn’t been able to sell as well as DSLRs is because it’s seen as a lesser system. This is all due to their poor (generously speaking) marketing.
Well, little marketing has one big advantage, it saves you millions of dollars. Besides, I think pros can be more easily reached than the average Joe, provided the goods are ok (E-M1 + new lens = ok). Websites, magazines, word-of-mouth, Internet forums: pros know their way around.
> More to the point, it’s awesome that Oly is re-entering the pro market with new products for m4/3, that’s good for strengthening the validity of the system in the view of consumers, but truth be told, no Pro is willing to spend this much on a smaller sensor system.
I think the exact opposite. Pros really dig the decrease in weight and size! Because they invest in a whole system, it all adds up (or subtracts, really). And a few 100 bucks/euros more or less don’t make much difference to a working pro. I’d say their concerns are mostly a) Oly customer service and b) write-offs.
> Oly can’t justify their prices, not to the average consumer, nor to the Pros. They should’ve gone with the market’s perception and actually go down in prices, that’s what the market is telling them, that’s why these recent announcement are not as well received as they should be.
For consumer products, they have the option to go down with prices (provided they can deliver more than they currently do). However, Canikon apparently rule the entry-level DSLR segment. A firm can loose big time if it overplays its hand in a race to the bottom.
For the pro market, I have to strongly disagree. Olympus should do what Fuji and Sony (FF) are doing: deliver the good stuff to pros, establishing credibility. Expensive is okay as long as you get what you pay for. IMHO, Fuji did not do this when you consider a) the build quality of the X-Pro1 and its lenses and b) focusing speed. Both do not say “pro” to me. I think Oly will (and must) do better on both.
In sum: dangerous times lie ahead for Fuji, Sony and Olympus, but as long as they cater for both pro and enthousiast (witness the FF Nex and the X-A1) they have a chance. May all systems be around for at least five more years.
I think the E-M1 is “ugly” so it will be taken seriously by bigger-is-better customers. 🙂
Who cares what it physically looks like to the fashion-conscious? It’s functionally beautiful. 😉
“If I’m paying FF price I may a s well get a FF.”
Then you should.
“m4/3 needs to validate itself […]”
Ah, the lingua of a GAS affected person. As soon something new is released, everything else, released previously, is immediately forgotten.
“Oly & Pany are shooting themselves in the foot by making the bodies and lenses bigger and bigger with each iteration […]”
You are trolling. Or blind. In later case, an eyesight test:
http://camerasize.com/compact/#354.94,382.94,455.30,448.287,380.368,ha,t
Note how the G6, one of the larger m43 cameras is still smaller than the smallest of DSLRs, the Canon SL1. That even before the lens is attached. Note how smaller the E-PL5 is, compared to its predecessor, the E-PL1.
You seem to be in auto-response mode, because you’ve missed the whole point of my post, so just chill. I’m not trying to criticize m4/3 as a system nor its advantages, I’m a m4/3 user, have been for years now, I’ve been defending it against NEX, Fuji and canikon Trolls just like you for a long time. This is the system I’ll live with for the coming years, you could say I’m even emotionally invested in it, I deeply care for its well being, not because I trade gear (I don’t, I only have 1 body and a couple of lenses) but because I want to see it grow and reach more people, huge and heavy DSLRs are simply unable to bring passion back to photography for people, they’re left at the house gathering dust, m4/3 on the other hand has change many people’s habits and could even be said to improve people’s skills, that’s what happens when you live your daily life with a camera at your reach.
Please tell me I’m wrong on that, I dare you.
By increasing prices Oly is cornering m4/3 into a niche, people are not willing to pay such high prices for something that is perceived as a casual system, specially by pros. Putting FF prices into m4/3 cameras are not gonna make them any more attractive to Pros, even if they were technically superior, which we have to admit (even if we love this system) they’re not (but only technically).
BTW, I never said recent m4/3 cameras were bigger than DSLRs, they’re still smaller, we all know that, but it is a fact that they’ve gotten bigger recently in comparison to past generations (G6, E-M1, GH3), It’s clear that after the recent sales figures vs DSLRs Pany and Oly are trying to target m4/3 more aggressively towards DSLR users, that’s no secret, but is it a good strategy ? how well did that work for 4/3 in the past ? increasing the prices is not gonna help with that either. M4/3 should become CHEAPER than their comparable DSLR offerings, Oly and Pany should make it clear to both pros and consumers that you can get comparable performance for less AND in a smaller package! that would make m4/3 skyrocket into success. High MSRP is what’s holding back this system, just look at amazon ratings, look at what cameras are the best sellers historically, look at the E-Pl1. What happens when m4/3 and other mirrorless (canon M for instance) reach a low price ? their sales go through the roof. That ‘s obvious you say, but keep in mind those people could’ve gotten a cheap DSLR instead…As I’ve said, price and poor marketing are holding this system down and Pan+Oly are walking in the wrong direction.
“By increasing prices Oly is cornering m4/3 into a niche, […]”
…increasing prices of mid/high end gear is pushing nothing into the niche.
“BTW, I never said recent m4/3 cameras were bigger than DSLRs, they’re still smaller, we all know that, but it is a fact that they’ve gotten bigger recently in comparison to past generations (G6, E-M1, GH3),”
Again: where are the E-PLx/E-PMx/GFx lines???
That’s why I’m saying: you are under GAS. You disregard completely existing up-to-date entry/mid level gear, concentrating exclusively on enthusiast models. Enthusiast shit always costs more. Always.
(German lowest street prices, body-only unless stated otherwise)
Canon 650D (and 700D): 550€ (recent)
Canon 1100D: 350€ (kit only, 2+ years old now)
Nikon D5200: 650€ (recent)
Nikon D3200: 350€ (kit only, 2+ years old now)
Pentax K-5ii: 800€ (recent)
Pentax K-30: 500€ (recent)
Olympus E-PL5: 600€ (recent, kit only in Germany)
Olympus E-PM2: 400€ (recent, kit only in Germany)
Olympus E-PL3: (officially not available anymore; via Amazon Marketplace: 175-300€ kit)
Olympus E-PM1: (officially not available anymore; via Amazon Marketplace: 250-300€ kit)
Panasonic G6: 550€ (recent)
Panasonic G5: 390€ (one generation old)
Panasonic GF6: 470€ (recent, kit only in Germany)
Panasonic GF5: 270€ (one generation old, kit only in Germany)
If anything, P&O were listening to you: prices for m43 gear are lower than for the DSLRs.
“Please tell me I’m wrong on that, I dare you.”
As factually showed above, you are just a bag of hot air. 😀
I agree with the Olympus bodies getting smaller.
However Panasonic bodies are increasing their size.
GX7 > GX1
G6 > G3
GH3 > GH2
GF6 > GF5/GF3
Still i believe in increasing the size slightly for better handling.
However the lenses are expensive and there is no cheap alternative.
Tamron has no lens in the system yet and the sigma’s are to slow to be viable options over the native lenses at any price. If Sigma would make a 12-50mm F2.8-F4
at 500,- this would be a game changer. We know they can becouse of the excellent 17-70, however they’re not risking the investment.
A lot of pro’s shoot crop body’s for their extra reach and cheaper body’s.
However Panasonic and Olympus do not have good long primes for these pro’s.
They’re also lacking in tracking AF.
The Micro four third system has a lot of potential. However this will remain untapped if Tamron and Sigma will not make their move soon.
“This ain’t MF, FF DSLR, or Leica, this is m4/3! whatever happened to those first claims from Oly and Pany when they unveiled the system ? what was that about smaller production costs because of fewer parts and smaller glass ?”
Wahwahwahwah its too expensive!!! wahwahwah.
If it is 2x the price of the Lumix 12-35 it probably won’t sell, but we have a perfectly fine alternative and Olympus will have learned another lesson, one they probably already know anyway, so a $1800-2200 price is well, not very likely indeed.
There is a whole host of alternatives besides the 12-35 when looking at the E-M1 or just considering the available primes, so what is your problem? Buy something else. Just your entire ‘salesman’ part shows that you are in an entirely different market segment as what either the GH3 or E-M1 and their kits are aimed at anyway, those people don’t need a salesman.
For those of us interested in an E-M1, there is a whole host of good lenses available, 2 of which directly compete with this 12-40/2.8, the 14-54 and the 12-60, if you go look at list prices for those lenses you’ll probably get a very good indication of what to expect for the 12-40 also. Probably a bit more expensive, but not by a huge amount.
We should be glad that if this is true (the optical performance) we now have the choice between 2 standard highend primes with different market position: a small and yet great Pana and the execptional and uncompromising (has yet to be seen and verified) Oly.
But I also hope that it is not too big and that @MTLAB is right and it is “only” 110mm long making it 30mm longer than the Pana and not 50mm!
BTW: The Oly fanboys should calm down. If you want Oly to offer a direct 12-35 F2.8 competitor than you have not understood the idea of the open m43 system and the coorp-rivalry between Oly and Pana…. Don’t let brands fool you and get the Pana if size is important. But if you want “awesome” (as mentioned is this to be verfied) optical qulity than physics rules certain small sizes out.
What really annoyes me is this “who´s got the biggest dick” competition Oly and Pana are running. Instead of sharing the research and development costs by bringing out DIFFERENT lenses within the one system for us, they try to outbeat each other with similar lengths and zooms all the time. Pancakes, kitzooms en masse, 40-150, 14-140/150, 75/100-300, now 12-35/40… WTF?
A 12-50 or 12-60 with 2.8-4.0 would at least have made sense. Now it is gonna be like within all these comments: which has better corner microquality, price, weight, blabla… and a decision for the one or the other and the “Clash of the Fanboy Titans”, instead of having 2 high quality optics worth to buy for different situations and target groups.
Those extra 5 mm I can crop out anytime from a great 12-35’er image!
My two cents.
The bottom line is that while Panasonic and Olympus share the same mount they are still very much business rivals.The small things like Olympus cameras not correcting the same things as Panasonic do when mounted with a Panasonic lens are I believe motivated by business competition.Its unfortunate for us but no surprise
Totally exaggerated. Especially with primes, Oly and Pana serve very different focal lengths, and if they are close, max aperture and performance are still different: 12mm, 14mm, 17mm, 20mm, 25mm, 42,5, 45mm (macro & affordable protrait), 60mm, 75mm. Only 45mm has lenses by both companies.
Overlapping kit and superzooms exist because they are kit zooms, and Pana uses OIS, Oly IBIS. Can’t share there, really.
That would be Olympus.
Except for GX7, panasonic needs OIS. Maybe that’s why you have similar lenses from Olympus and Panasonic.
Roberto, a ‘standard’ wide to short tele zoom is unavoidable for both companies as a ‘kit’ lens for their respective ‘pro’ models. No, Olympus simply is not going to sell the E-M1 with a Lumix kit lens, and neither is Panasonic going to sell the GH3 with a Zuiko kit lens, it simply is not going to happen.
And the same is true in less expensive parts of the market, so all the lenses that you’ll find in kits or popular bundles are going to be duplicated by both, that is simply unavoidable and it is totally pointless to complain about that.
That said, I do agree that there should be a step up from the standard kit zooms without going for the very expensive high-end lenses, but even there you will keep seeing equivalents to popular ranges. Those ranges have been and are popular for a reason.
Does that mean Olympus couldn’t have made a 12-60/2.8-4 instead? I’m sure they could, and I think they should, just not as a kit lens for the E-M1. Also, if Olympus is going to take video more serious with the E-M1, or at some point after that, a variable aperture lens like the 12-60 simply won’t do the job for serious use, constant aperture so you can stay at the exact same brightness without change to shutter or sensitity when changing focal length is rather significant there.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been waiting for this exact lens since day 1, my planned setup has always been a 3 primes + standard fast zoom kit. I was VERY disappointed with the 12-50 when the OMD was announced, I was also somewhat disappointed with the short range and price of the 12-35. I’ve dreamed of this lens for a very long time but the lenght and price are gonna be decisive. I’m just trying to say we, and more importantly Oly, should put things in perspective, sure this lens is a speciality lens but everything that makes it special is there to compensate some drawback intrinsic to the format (small sensor, 2x crop, body sizes, etc), those things should be taken into account. This is not a lens for a FF system with clean ISO 3200, this is not something that puts m4/3 BEYOND competition (REAL competition i.e. DSLRs), this is a compensatory measure to keep m4/3 comparable to other alternatives.
If Oly wants this lens to make any difference to the success of their imaging division and for m4/3 as a whole then they needs to sell a LOT of these lenses, and pricing it beyond $1000 is just going to keep this lens on shelves with ever affecting in a positive way the sales and perceived image of m4/3. If you don’t believe me, then look at how little the Pany 12-35mm did to improve the consumer awareness of the system or its sales. Sure, this lens is not meant for casual P&S upgraders, but those upgraders could be convinced more easily to join m4/3 if lenses like this one were more accessible than competition, and the whole ethos and engineering behind m4/3 allows for that.
The basic flaw in your reasoning is that the very very large majority of people who buy cameras with interchangeable lenses, mirrorless or otherwise, never ever buy any lenses beyond what comes with their kit.
Hence no, such a lens being more in the $600-800 range is not at all going to make a difference for consumer awareness or acceptance, as the very large majority of them will never ever buy it anyway.
Its not the general consumer who buys lenses, its the gear collectors, enthusiasts and pros who buy lenses.
That doesn’t mean that m4/3 isn’t in dire need of a range of medium price and quality range lenses with somewhat bright apertures, but that is for the enthusiasts, and has absolutely zero to do with the general consumer.
The real problem was clearly demonstrated to me today by a colleague who is in the market for buying a new camera (she’ll like a typical consumer go buy a kit and never any lens). Now I do much of the official company photography, so she was wondering what kind of camera I was using. Explaining to her that it looked like a small DSLR, but in fact it isn’t was more then a bit of a surprise: “but but I thought that for taking good quality pictures I need a dslr” was exactly what she said. THAT is the problem, and not 12-40/2.8 constant aperture and weather sealed lenses costing more then $600.
Nice.
“131.16mm – 140.24 Length”
Huh? Really?
Can´t believe it – it would be much longer than the huge canon 24-70 – macro four thirds would make the system useless
Totally agree. The whole point of m43 is to have a smaller package. I don’t understand how this lens could be bigger than the 24-70, which is covering full frame. I don’t think the specs are accurate.
The price enigma:
12-60 is $1000
12-35 is $1300
14-35 is $2200
Canikon’s latest 24-70s are ~$2300
Now, a 12-40/2.8 can’t cost less than the 12-35 (wider range, “better” optical quality, properly sealed). It can’t cost much more than half the 14-35 (half the brightness) and Canon/Nikon’s offerings. It should cost a bit more than the 12-60 + adapter (to sell some of those to E-M1 users). $1400 makes a good estimate IMHO.
Of course, this lens will be bundled with the E-M1. I expect the kit to be priced at ~$2200, a very good value for the lens.
I agree the kit price is the key. Wouldn’t rule out the possibility price will be quite close to the current price of the 12-35 Pany, though.
Knowing them I think Olympus management will try to go against the big guys, luring in CaNikon pros and affluent hobbyists with this offering. I mean if it is really that good quality-wise and you have 5 axis IBIS and freezeproof and all the rest, then why not? The diminutive size of m43 lenses is still there after all.
They should play the same card they played with the EM-5, IMHO. Planning for large numbers and lowering the intro price. A question regarding the wide appeal would be around new on-chip focusing non-43 lenses as well, which we still don’t know (and probably not so good or we would know by now).
Hard to say about the price, but depending upon their estimated volumes I would say in between 2200 – 2500 USD/EUR for the “pro kit”. Although higher prices would be a mistake IMO, although a way safer bet for them.
+1
Hmmm… I thought I replied to a different thread?
Considering the Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 has OIS and the Olympus will not, I think the new Oly lens will be cheaper. It will be around 1000 $ in the US or 1000 euros in the EU.
I’m a Nikon D60/D90 user and I want to build a new system and I think it will be Olympus. E-M1 + 12-35 f2.8 + 45mm f1.8 + 60mm f2.8 + Fl-600R will represent the build I need for landscape/architecure/macro/portrait/street photography.
Then I would consider this baby instead of the Panasonic 12-35. But I guess we all have to see the reviews and announcement.
I’m a Nikon D60/D90 user and I want to build a new system and I think it will be Olympus. E-M1 + 12-35 f2.8 + 45mm f1.8 + 60mm f2.8 + Fl-600R will represent the build I need for landscape/architecture/macro/portrait/street photography.
Nothing wrong with that system especially if you don’t want to carry a larger kit . Only problem is that the E-M1 will not do the software corrections on the 12-35mm. The 12-35mm is also weakest at its wide end which may be an issue for landscape and architecture. For street personally I would be looking for a fast wide to standard prime [12mm F2, 17mm F1.8, 20mm F1.7, and 25mm F1.4].
I have given up DSLR now but that new Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 is pretty tempting, I am seriously considering the NEX 7 replacement as I could use it on it with an adapter at native focal length and aperture. I shoot a lot in the 28-50mm range and this lens though not exactly tiny would do a great job .
Sorry, I wanted to say the 12-40/f2.8 (aka the new m4/3 in the article)
Panasonic 12-35/2.8 is very nice lens. Good IQ, OIS in the lens, x3 zoom, 58mm filter size, weight 305g, small. Only price is weak point – too high.
Olympus 12-40/2.8 is withou OIS (sensor has stabilization), but it should be small – it is micro43, MICRO !!! 130mm looks too hughe for micro43… With 130mm it will be longer then Panasonic 35-100mm !!!
Price guesstimate:
E-M1 +12-40mm : 2400$
12-40mm : 1200$
Length of 131 mm is enormous! The 60mm F2.8 macro lens is 82 mm…
You have to consider that E-M1 will be bigger and will have better handling than the E-M5. This is a pro lens intended for a pro body, not for the E-M5 or the E-P5. Maybe they will consider in the future the release of a 12-40 or 12-45 with f4 that will suit better the mid-level bodies.
let the whining start. strange i never hear complains of ff glass needing to be 1/4 price to mf lenses since ff only covers 1/4 of a mf image circle.
It mostly is a quarter the price have you seen the price of good MF glass 🙂 the MF lenses are also typically slow
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ns=p_PRICE_2|1&ci=467&N=4288584244&srtclk=sort
wish it were a 12-25 1.8
+10^10
drool
I always get surprised by Olympus’ very high prices whenever they release a new product and now they are getting closer to the FF territory.
THIS IS MADNESS! MADNESS?! THIS IS OLYMPUS!!!
“I always get surprised by Olympus’ very high prices whenever they release a new product and now they are getting closer to the FF territory.”
If only FF cameras and lenses size-wise were getting closer to m43 territory.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.286,289.336,459.336,ha,t
or even
http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.30,380.368,468,459.94,ha,t
But it is still sad that Oly is inflating prices so much.
Pretty cool. 🙂
If they sell this lens for $700, m4/3 will literally kill all other mirrorless offerings.
If it’s going to be below the 1000 $ mark it will be 990 $ 🙂
Dat front element.
It will feel well balanced, when paired to the new E-m1, given their size.
Anyway, even MZuiko75mm was considered a big and expensive lens, but all who tried it could tell that it’s worth every cent.
Let’s wait the IQ first.
why? why? why? we already have the panny!!!! Make something different!!!!
Competition is the essence of the free market. Communism has little benefits as far as innovative photography gear is concerned. However, it can teach us the value of social responsibilities. Like behaving respectfully in forum such as this one.
@admin Look at this: http://news.julur.com/uploadfile/2013/0823/20130823113111505.jpg it’s a long time since Olympus make ads for Zuiko Digital!
Well I think that is no need to imagine the price, but the lens is, yes what we all was waiting for or what? The price will be what it’ll be, or Oly can get a reverse on the way up. Look at the sells on Ep-5 and luxury model…Who needs an expensive alternative? I’m looking at Leica and thinking… ;-(
Yes, it came to me too that Oly might be tempted by the Leica’s way. Sad since it began by bringing Leica’s quality to the masses…
It is a mistake one pays – look at the prices of those HG 4/3 zooms on eBay now. Seems that the same who were defiant towards us proles can do away with their male jewelry.
And I see the cycle starting again with m4/3… But ask those proud owners to show their piccies, and you’ll find the most banal genres. Just collectors loaded with cash, ending up in getting bored 🙂
People complaining about the price of a constant f2.8 zoom when its supposed to be expensive when not made by a 3rd party. M43 users must by inherently poor, thats why Olympus is doing so poorly.
… but then of course one explanation to high prices is that a m4/3 lens must have twice the resolution of a FF 135 lens in order to compete.
So that entails a degree of precision work and tolerances for which the Tetsuno factory is known the World over.
CAD however should bring the prices, so the whole thing is debatable…
So what you are trying to say is that your f2.8 is f2.8’r than mine.
You clearly missed the message about the PDAF support in the E-M1. Please get that camera or change systems immediately.
Whoops, replied to the wrong post it seems. Apologies.
I have been waiting for a “fast” olympus zoom since the day i bought the em5. The pricing of this lens will make or break my continuation of the u43 system. Weight and size sure, it is important, but if the price points continue to become closer and closer to FF equivalents, then i think i will leave u43 land and go to a system that is already mature in their lens lineup.
We STILL do not have a long fast telephoto prime in the 100-400 range, we do not have a nice wide angle u43 native olympus zoom, and i am not going to buy a 900$ lens from panasonic to only dump 60$ more in to fix flare issues on olympus bodies.
It is very disappointing to not see any mass ads, media etc promoting the u43 system. If they spent the money on marketing, then maybe they would have money to design and make new lenses and get them out faster. I am a very impatient person and i am continually left frustrated by olympus… this lens “release” will be the last straw…. How many times have we heard the 42.5 pana announcement, still no lens release, still no 150mm prime……………..
You clearly missed the message about the PDAF support in the E-M1. Please get that camera or change systems immediately.
It must be about the same price as Panasonic 12-35mm 2.8, even it has better glass it has no OIS in the Olympus lens.
One must play on the strengths of the system.
Since getting the E-M5 gave me two stops sensitivity and two stops more IBIS, I realised that I could do v. well with the Sigma lenses, which are a constant 2.8 after all…
And indeed those well proportioned primes have probably the same resolution of an ungainly zoom.
To be unconventional is all, I don’t have to put up with the Joneses. To have ideas and original projects is much more important than having the latest lens. That’s a pleasure for engineers.
Yep, e-m5 with the 19 and 30mm primes from sigma, and possibly the 14/2.5 and 45/1.8 makes for a very capable and fun to use setup.
Yes indeed, with the 14/2.5 and the 45 you have a small, inexpensive series, and yet with fine resolution.
Other than that , check the old 14-54 mk II on eBay which now goes for some 300 EU. PRO lenses should really be left to Pros, LOL. They can recoup the expense 🙂
I wonder how much Olympus will charge for the hood?
How much does Olympus charge for the 12-60’s hood? Exactly zero. And the 12-60 is only an HG lens and not an SHG lens. I expect the Zuiko “Pro” lenses to be the m4/3 equivalent to 4/3 SHG lenses. I’m sure you’ll get a free hood and lens pouch. Otherwise you can get a nifty aftermarket metal lens shade for a few dollars. I have a nicely made metal lens shade for my 60 mm Oly macro, and it cost me under $10.