The official 12 and 14mm f/1.0 Olympus patent (article here).
Last month I reported that Olympus will launch a new f/1.2 Prime lens series in early Spring. Our reader and highly reliable source “Simon” added some info about those lenses:
Olympus did develop both f/1.0 and f/1.2 lenses. But did choose to produce the f/1.2 only:
“Why ? The production cost for the f1.0 were double as for the f1.2. And the size was 43 % bigger and the wight 230g more. The f1.0 is around 620g. Don’t forget with two very quick & silent autofocus Engine. But we will see no f 1.0. it is the same Story like FT E-7 vs. MFT EM-1. and here it is a question of invest in more glas, what means more expensive + more wight. The diameter was 68mm. so to big and to haevy for mft . The autofocus of the New f1.2 is outstanding und works perfect together with the PEN F. 30 % quicker as EM-1 with the Same les.“
Thanks Simon for sharing those info! I hope you can tell us more about the PEN-F too 🙂
Bit of history: Olympus OM system had two f/1.2 lenses: The [shoplink 56524 ebay]50mm f/1.2 (here on eBay)[/shoplink] and the [shoplink 56525 ebay]55mm f/1.2 (here on eBay)[/shoplink].
—
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!
To get notified on all upcoming news and rumors be sure to subscribe on 43rumors here:
RSS feed: http://www.43rumors.com/feed/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/43rumors
Twitter: https://twitter.com/43rumors
GooglePlus: https://plus.google.com/+43rumors/posts
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
400 Responses
Sounds promising!
There is more to what Simon was discussing back on the 28th Dec 2015 here. http://www.43rumors.com/ft5-olympus-300mm-pro-lens-will-be-announced-on-january-6-at-6am-london-time/#comment-2428815209
WOW! This is impressive. It makes sense that Olympus, a actual camera manufacturing company dedicated to photographers would start a whole new line if 1.2 lenses. I am speechless.
Interesting to hear that the Pen-F with it’s new sensor is faster at AF than the E-M1 – is it an PDAF sensor?
EM1: no PDAF with S-AF (and that’s where they measure AF speed)
How do you know that the same holds for PEN-F?
I don’t. But do we really think Oly is going for PDAF in all models?
Personally I’d love that, but don’t think that is going to happen.
Why not? It is actually cheaper in terms of fixed costs (which is a very large part of costs for low-volume manufacturer like Olympus) to have just 1 sensor with 1 CPU and one AF algorithm than maintain 2 different sets.
Maybe. Or Oly has figured out some way to make CDAF even faster / competent for continuous and tracking focus.
Now I can’t wait for the broken record f1.2 is f2.4 and full frame is better.
Sarcasm aside, I’m curious to see how the new Pen performs side by side with em5m2 and em1.
Well :), depending on what you want to do 35 mm might really be better. If you need wider angle lenses with a large aperture, a larger sensor will make this possible. A 35 mm f1.4 is a possible lens while a 17 mm f0.7 is less likley to be made. I see the real advantage of smaller sensors in the zoom flexibility. With less physical change in lens focal length you cover more fields of view. Thus it should be easier to design zooms that work good across a broader range.
Thank you for the reply, but mine was just sarcasm, I know what I need and I know there are no “best systems”, nor perfect. Just different tools to be used in the right way. 🙂
It’s the “Light Gathering” brigade that gets my back up. Whoever thought up that term must have had too much moonlight on their brain. 😉
Hehe true!
Hi Marco, how are you and your good lady doing. I suggest that we carry a small shovel around with us when shooting in low light so we are able to dig up some spare light to force feed our slow lenses, I understand a specialist Chinese company is developing such a tool.
That whole “light-gathering” talk is silly and annoying. Glad you guys spoke up. Good to know that others feel the same way.
It is unfortunately, a consequence of physics. Total light gathered does matter in overall image quality. The real point though is, do you actually need/want that extra image quality? At what point do advances in IQ have diminished value over other features such as portability. For many of us m43 shooters we are already there… its going to take a few more generations of sensor tech before others come to this conclusion.
Does total light count? If the light per area is the same the brightness of the picture is the same. A bigger sensor needs more total light doesn’t it?
A bigger sensor does need more total light, but a consequence of that necessity is better IQ due to having more light. Its the same reason why a 20MP GX8 image looks WAY better than a 20MP 1/1.7″ point and shoot sensor.
“I’m curious to see how the new Pen performs side by side with em5m2 and em1.”
I think we’ll see the Sony 20MP sensor in it, but that it will AF these f1.2 lens9es) 30% faster than on those OM-D’s is interesting.
For the market Olympus competes on, nevermind full frame — “APS-C equivalence” would be more appropriate consideration.
Fact is u43 needs fast glass like this to compete with cameras using state of the art APS-C sensors.
Unfortunately, those systems with state of the art APS-C sensors somehow don’t have too many state of the art lenses to match. Fuji is the only one doing well in this regard. For the rest, majority of state of the art glass is large and heavy FF lenses.
So for the time being, “APS-C equivalence” usually means mounting FF lenses on APS-C bodies and claiming this is even better, because that’s an upgrade path or some such nonsense.
40mm equiv please!
Exactly! A 20mm F1.2 under 800 USD as a premium kit lens for the new Pen F and I’m happy.
*praying for UWA <10mm*
Aren’t we all. But not for a 1.2, would be a huge and expensive beast. Give me a razor sharp 8mm f2.8 or even f4.
What’s wrong with the 7-14pro if you’re happy with 2.8?
dimensions
That’s true. I think what I’m looking for is a lens that’s smaller and cheaper, but as sharp as the 7-14. In that case, It would probably be 4.0 actually, because otherwise it doesn’t really make sense. 9mm would also be okay.
I honestly wouldn’t really mind the price tag that comes with it, there are no decent astrophotography / low light UWAs on µ43, size is not that big of a deal for me either, i’d rather have it available as an option than not at all
(The 8mm fisheye gets close, but it’s light transmission is on the edge for µ43 sensors)
And for those who tell me to go full frame, nty, i like the compact bodies of µ43, even if the UWA would be heavy/big, i’d still enjoy one, shooting wide is fun, gives a whole new perspective to your pictures 🙂
A little bit disappointed they didn’t go for the extra half a stop. However, it means I can justify getting the Voigtlander 10.5mm now though. I’ll immediately get a 14mm and 25mm 1.2 if the price is right.
I sent my Voight back. Stop it down and it NEVER gets sharp at the edges. Truly a disappointing optic.
The 25mm is a beauty, though.
Thanks for the advice. I’m mainly shooting bands in dark clubs and so getting nice and close with a wide angle I don’t think I’ll be too concerned about the edges like if I was doing astro-landscape photography.
What were you using yours for?
EDIT: Shame to hear though, it would be nice to have it sharp across the frame before 2.8. I’ve got the 7-14pro too which is great for me besides being a bit slow for what I like to do.
I rarely send a lens back. I own the 25mm f/0.95 and it is a WONDERFUL piece of glass. 20-21mm is my favorite focal length, (just picked up the Sigma 20mm F/1.4 for my FF). I was salivating for the 10.5mm when it cam out…but the problem I had is that for that price ( which is not chump change), I could not feel good about owning it. I will say, that it is unique and incredibly built…Loved the rendering wide-open….(like the 25mm)…but as a generalist photographer I could not live with those “always” very soft edges. Maybe I had a bad copy? (I did read others making subtle reference to that issue, though).
Yeah, I hear you. It’s not cheap and you’re right to expect usability across the whole frame after a 1-2 stopping down. I’ll rethink it. That Sigma, though…phwoah.
LOL! It’s HUGE but it is a unique lens. Get really close to a subject wide open with that UWA perspective and you get the most amazingly unique images. I personally was never thinking “bokeh” with an UAW before. Stop it down a couple and it is RAZOR sharp across the board. The lens has its drawbacks…but there is nothing else like it made by any other lens manufacturer.
I think it is 4x the size of the 10.5mm and costs considerably LESS! WTF? (And has AF).
Yo, it’s lenses like that which beg me to run two systems. Olympus for tele, and the sony alpha for fast wides…My bag is full though and I would never get the return on versatility for the weight sacrifice.
I am crazy for running two systems…and I do not have the Sony. 🙁 still using a 5D III.
It’s sill great for my needs. I just can’t throw another menue system, different configuration etc.into the mix. Oh…and the expense….but that is a killer sensor. I think Canon may finally show up with an answer this year. 2016 looks exciting on all fronts, though!
I sooooooo wanted to love the 10.5mm …but just couldn’t. Some love it just for the “look” though!
Well, hopefully olympus are working on a 10mm 1.2. It’s an expensive look. I’m gonna wait a few months.
Yeah…it is hard to believe that either Olympus or Panny have not delivered an UWA prime. Slow or fast?
The Oly UWA pro zoom is pretty sweet though. I love mine.
They had to make the decision to keep it relevant for the system with size & cost though. Basically, they’re keeping within limits & if that isn’t meeting the requirements then the alternative is to go to a larger format if that is what it takes. For some that is necessary (or they think it is).
Pff, canon makes 50 and 85mm 1.2 lenses to cover a Full Frame sensor and olympus bitch about making 1.0.
To understand, 1.2 on m43 is equivalent to a 2.4 lens on a full frame.
I bet it will be very expensive, similar to a full frame lens at 1.2.
Well, it doesn’t matter anymore, with sony monsters like a7r 2 and a7s 2 it’s hard to make sense of anything from olympus.
In terms of optics, f/1.2 is f/1.2. The “equivalence” is only a depth-of-field thing and nothing to do with light transmission.
It has everything to do with light transmission. The shorter DoF is created by all the extra light transmitted from OOF areas. Only light intensity PER AREA is the same.
If it’s framed the same it has the same DOF at the same aperture. What changes is the amount that the background is blurred.
No, no it doesn’t. It only differs when you assume that a 25mm MFT is a 50mm lens. A 25mm f/1.2 MFT produces the same DOF as a 25mm f/1.2 on FF, just the image circle is smaller. Both produce the same “brightness” to the sensor.
DoF is not absolute, it relates to magnification and resolution required. And it is irrelevant to the discussion. Shot noise is relevant, and it only depends on the total number of photons transmitted and captured. If number of photons is 4 times as high, relative shot noise in it will be 2 times as small (because noise increases as square root of number of photons, not proportionally).
And what does that have to do with the cost and construction? Which is what the comment I was commenting was about.
When do you learn something, people. DPR had such a detailed article for physics-challenged people like you.
Are you as “schallenged” by spelling and language as you claim they are by physics, though?
Checkout ISO equivalence. ISO 200 on Olympus is the same as ISO 800 on FF. This from a rabid Olympus user.
Well, you still have to caveat which FF camera. ISO 200 on a current m43’s camera is roughly the same as ISO800 on a current full frame camera. ISO200 on an E-M1 is definitely better than ISO800 on an old Canon 5D.
Bhima, I’d add “allegedly” somewhere in your reply.
I started reading about that two stop comparison back in the days of the G1 and the EP-1 . While never bothered to check is it really was true. Back in the days, it was a $800 with a kit lens camera going head to head against a $6000 camera and who know what lens was on. My reply would be : “At that price, you get 2 extra stops of quality ISO? Great!”
Nevertheless, it would be interesting to compare the GX8 to the current FF, to see if that statement holds.
I’m pretty sure a Sony A7Rii is likely getting 2-stops (ie: ISO200 to 800) advantage over a GX8. Of course, the GX8 can be found for under $900 new (I bought one for $879) whereas the A7Rii is over $3,000. But in principal, it still mostly holds up.
Well that’s cool.
While 2 stops in not trivial, my reality is similar to that of great many photographers : I currently shoot a GH2 and there are only that few occasions where I wish I could push the enveloppe.
Basically, I never start thinking that if I had the Nikon FX tech that was out in the wild during the same period as that of the GH2, I’d have two extra stops of ISO. Totally with you.
Exactly. 2-stops isn’t trivial, but if the IQ from m43’s meets yours (and obviously mine) requirements, there’s no reason to really care about it.
Typo Nazi alert!
Which talks about sensor sizes. f/1.2 MFT is still the same brightness as f/1.2 on any other format.
You’re talking about compensating about some traits of a smaller sensor by inflating something else, but that also has other consequences.
The whole point of the f/ ratings is to have the same brightness on any format. Whether it’s a compact or medium-format. The quality of the sensor and total light gathered may be different, but the brightness is the same.
You’ll also find that 25mm f/1.2 MFT produces the same DOF as 25mm f/1.2 on FF, it’s only the crop that is different, so people start talking about different focal lengths, which clearly changes things.
If only we used AOV or FOV instead of mm then this stupid conversation wouldn’t keep happening.
“f/1.2 MFT is still the same brightness as f/1.2 on any other format.”
Yes, the same brightness, but maintained over 4 times smaller area, meaning transmitting to the area 4 times fewer photons in the same amount of time – just like f/2.4 lens on the whole bigger area would. An m43 lens does not have the glass to illuminate (transmit light to and focus on) the other 3/4th of the FF image circle at the same brightness, f/1.2 or whatever.
1-lane road with cars driving at 60mph does not have the same traffic capacity as 4-lane road with cars driving 60mph, it has the same capacity as 4-lane road with cars crawling at 15mph. To have the same capacity as on a 4-lane road at 60mph with only 1 lane, you need speed (just like lens speed) of 240mph. Not that hard to understand, sheesh.
4 times fewer photons over 4 times smaller area means same amount of photons per area. Means same brightness of the picture to me.
But not the same shot noise (only half of SNR – twice the noise level) in that picture, even if ISO is formally the same.
If you always shoot base ISO (static subjects and/or bright light), it might not matter to you, as m43 noise at base ISO is good enough. But so is good smartphones and P&S, so why even go as big as m43?
Not at all hard to understand, but completely and utterly irrelevant to what the comment was saying – which is suggesting that a f/2.4 lens would be similar construction and cost.
You’re just spouting random stuff from around the Internet for, seemingly, no apparent reason or context.
f/2.4 lens for FF could have similar construction with glass of lower refractive index, or it could have much simpler construction to achieve the same result as f/1.2 on m43. The later is why going to glass f/1.4 and faster makes less sense then upgrading sensor size.
If that were the case, why would I use the 17mm and 25mm and not the Galaxy S wich has an f/1.8 lens too?
And yes, there are slight differences between those two 😉
Total light gathered is different from the transmission of the optics. You will get (with diminishing returns) a better quality image the larger the sensor you have. But the f/1.8 lens on your phone produces the same transmission (within tolerances and rounding etc) as a f/1.8 on any format.
The brightness is the same, the total amount of light is less because the sensor is smaller, but at the same ISO and shutter speed the brightness of the image is the same. Likewise you’ll have a lower SNR, but that’s entirely a result of sensor and size of the lens, not the f/ rating.
“but at the same ISO and shutter speed the brightness of the image is the same.”
Brightness of light on the image sensor knows nothing about ISO (which is just amplification factor) or shutter speed. You can take a lens off you camera and focus the image on your palm, the will be no sensor with its amplifiers (or CPU doing digital amplification), no shutter, but the brightness will be the same with the same T-stop (not the same as f-stop, but usually close for large f-numbers and not very close for small f-numbers). Only image circle with that brightness will have 4 times smaller area, with 4 times fewer photons hitting the area in the same amount of time, and as a consequence, 2 times worse SNR in a shot with the same shutter speed. Or the same SNR as with a lens covering the bigger circle with 4 times less brightness (with T-number 2 times bigger, i.e 2.8 instead of 1.4).
Read up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise
And the DoF equivalence makes that comparison better? Way to not make sense. The F-stop has only one meaning – a ratio based on physical measurements.
Nothing to do with light intensity, but everything to do with total light which is still a useful metric for ISO performance and DR.
“Total light”… You mean that light that doesn’t hit the sensor is a “useful metric for ISO performance and DR” ? Funny… I’d like to hear more about this concept of “Total light”…
Right… the light that doesn’t hit an m43’s sensor because its smaller. That light DOES hit a full frame sensor, and it is one of THE reasons why IQ for the same generation of sensors will be better with full frame. Just like the amount of light that hits an m43’s sensor is one of the most important reasons why its IQ is better than a 1/1.7 sensor. Its the same reason, and it has to do with the tyranny of physics.
and where are the f/1.2 or even f/1.4 lenses for Sony? (there is exactly one, and that is said to have huge problems with the edges)
Sony can’t make lenses, it seems. I prefer µFT to them, because here I can have quality glas (same with my Fuji, but I only have 2 lenses there yet)
Lol, if you think the Sony 35/1.4 has problems and M43 lenses are quality, LOL, you are sorely mistaken. The Sony 35/1.4 outperforms anything from Olympus in terms of sharpness.
The Sony 35mm f/1.4 is sharp. In the center. In the corners? Not really. Nearly every lens is decentered and it’s nearly impossible to fix.
But as we all know: buying a Sony isn’t about edge sharpness or image quality – it’s about the sensor specs
Optically the Zuikos and Panasonics are superior to everything Sony is doing with their mirrorless stuff.
It’s great you have your choices figured out. Now you can go enjoy your a7x. No need to troll MFT sites anymore.
the 1.4 lens’s from sony with AF are H U G E,
But they are for FF sensor.
Still doesn’t make ’em smaller, now does it?
They are what they are: huge.
So what Bob?
And f/2.8 lenses, equivalent to f/1.4 lenses for m43, are pancakes (see Canon 40/2.8). Sony FE “Zeiss” 35/2.8 (equivalent to m43 17.5/1.4) is 120g, and very sharp. Canon EF 40/2.8 STM, equivalent to m43 20/1.4, is 130g and pretty sharp. Oh, and $200.
http://slrgear.com/reviews/data/10/canon40f28stm.jpg
And don’t forget, all lenses f/1.4 and below exhibit lowered transmission (meaning the difference between f-number and T-number will be higher than for more reasonable numbers, requiring you to raise ISO to compensate) and huge vignetting on digital sensors due to insane angles of light they transmit, and require expensive construction to flatten field despite the insane angles.
For that reason, if your job requires primes faster than f/1.4 and zooms faster than f/2.8, you are better off upgrading your format, at least until prices for the larger formats become stupid themselves (like for MF now, and for FF 10 years ago).
As a former full-frame user (Canon), I appreciate the extra DOF of MFT. You can shoot at low ISOs and fast shutter speeds and still get enough DOF. It was rare that I used apertures wider than f2 on full frame anyway. The effect wears off quickly. What changes on MFT is the DOF. The aperture is the same. f.1.2 is f1.2 is f1.2. You need to google DOF and aperture, it seems you are confused and don’t understand the difference between the two.
“You can shoot at low ISOs and fast shutter speeds and still get enough DOF.”
And same noise as FF at 4 times higher ISOs. Like raising ISOs is any problem nowadays, with manufacturers allowing even totally unusable ISOs (like 25k on m43/100k on FF – que the 3M ISO on the new D5, for clearly seeing ugly noise even in postage stamp prints).
I wonder, in a low light situation requiring such ISO, at ISO 3M will EVERY pixel receive even a single photon? 😉
Do you have any knowledge about IQ, ISO, Sensor size in relation to low light ? do you understand that a m43 sensor caps around ISO 3200 and a modern full frame sensor caps at around 25600 and lower pixel sensor around 51200 ISO ?
Do you think 1.2 is gonna save you ? no it’s not, you are gonna carry speedlights.
Hey leo! Who’s bitching?
400g for a 12mm or 14mm that s heavy ;-).I like bokeh for portrait lenses, but for wides I am not sure of the benefits compared to a tiny f/2.
those are just “some random” Oly patents. Don’t think that they are going for that focal length. It would be too heavy for that.
My guess is they’ll roll them out like this: 25,12,50,17.
The interesting thing would be the focal length.
With 400g I’d say it’s probably either an portrait lens (45mm or longer) or some ultra wide (<12mm)
Everything else doesn't add up with that weight
The 42,5mm 1.2 by Pana weighs 700g (correction: 425g), so anything beyond that won’t weigh only 400. The 25mm 1.4 weighs 280g, the 17mm 1.8 weighs 120g. So a 400g lens might be around those focal lengths. I sure hope Oly doesn’t duplicate the only 1.2 lens we already have (at least not from the beginning). 12mm, 17mm, later 25mm, 45mm maybe? This corresponds to the 1.8 (f2 for 12mm) Oly already has.
No it doesn’t. I know that, because I was thinking about buying it for months (and tried it several times).
It ways little over 400g (I think it was 430g). The Fuji 56mm f/1.2 I got instead (because I could get a camera too for the price of the Panaleica here 🙁 ) is even lower with 400g dead.
and both 12mm as well as 17mm should be noticeably below 400g (if taking the small system into consideration probably even below 300g)
When I list 3 lenses, it’s helpful if you specify “which” lens doesn’t “what”.
You are right, Amazon has the weight wrong for the 42,5mm. It’s 425g. So it might be a 45mm, but anything beyond that must weigh more.
the Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.2 is only ~400g (thought that would make sense in context)
12, 17, 25 and 45mm would make sense. 12mm and 45mm would probably be the heaviest at around 400g.
the 17 should be no more than 300g (probably even below) and the 25mm could probably even be around 200g.
If Oly makes a 25mm f1.2 (I hope not), it will be much heavier than 200g since, it will be built more robust than the 200g PL25… more like their PRO line of lenses.
“the Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.2 is only ~400g (thought that would make sense in context)”
And it has OIS which an Oly lens in this FL does not need.
“12, 17, 25 and 45mm would make sense. 12mm and 45mm would probably be the heaviest at around 400g.”
45mm does not make sense, to close to preexisting 42.5/1.2 which already has tiny market due to its crazy price. Dividing that already tiny market in 2 – what sense do you see in that?
It does not mean Oly managers would not decide to do just that – after all, they are incompetent, and very few of their decisions make any sense.
Right but, if Oly goes the way of fuji and prices their 45 or 42.5 f1.2 at around $899, it will pretty much take away any future sales of the Noct.
Seeing the price of their recent offerings, that price is unlikely (although it should be even less, to account to the difference in the image circle size). I mean, they have set MSRP of the plastic and simple 25/1.8 to $400, WTF? Even discounted to $300, it is way more than anything comparable even for bigger systems. It should have been priced to undercut $196 Nikon 35/1.8 for example, given the smaller image circle – so the reasonable price would be somewhere in $150 region. Also similar to FF Canon 40/2.8, which is $149 and like 20/1.4 on m43. That is the right pricing for the format.
Of course f/1.2 should not be $150, especially in pro bodies. $300, even $400 can be justified. But mark my words, they will want more than $1000 for all or almost all of them (except maybe the normal in 20-26mm range), and their T-stop will be like T1.4-T1.6 (depending on their vignetting target, brighter center would only mean higher vignetting), from 1/2 to 2/3EV darker than their f-number suggests.
The PL25 is exactly 204g (with the lens cap on). I just weighed mine on my food scale.
The PL25mm weighs 200g according to B&H’s specifications.
Who cares, they will price it like $2500 (or $10K, no diff) and have approximately no sales anyway.
I care.
But I am afraid, that it really could be overpriced. A fair price would be sub 1000$. Sub 800 would be even better (fairer, in comparison with other manufacturers)
But I fear, this will not happen 🙁
Of course it will not. It is clear that Oly managers are not going to compete with Canon/Nikon and now Sony, and as such do not work to achieve mass sales. They work only too fleece a handful of fools left who still think that 300/4 is the same as 600/4 on FF (and not 600/8 – or any other 300/4 only with terrible vignetting and other optical characteristics on 3/4th of the frame, as it is in reality).
Let’s wait and see and not jump to conclusions!
I keep hoping to see those lenses with price tags below 1000$.
If they are not, there are other places to get them for mirrorless (but the main reason I picked µFT was size and weight, and this would probably hit the limits anyway)
I think Yongnuo and other Chinese companies will soon bring prime lens prices to $50-100 range where they belong. Yongnuo already has 2 AF lenses for FF Canon – 50/1.8 for $47 and 35/2 for $81. I would not mind 25/0.9 and 17.5/1 at these prices for m43 at all, even poor wide open. 🙂 Olympus and Panasonic would want 30 times more for these.
That would be nice as, probably like you, I sometimes get frustrated about stellar prices. Not that I couldn’t afford it but because it would be too much money for my use as a humble hobbyist 😉
The Chinese lenses may do that, but they will have higher LoCA, nervous bokeh, and not be all that sharp wide open. Not to mention they are mostly MF.
Yongnuo lenses are not MF, they are AF. There are plenty of MF lens manufacturers, but there are also Chinese m43 lens manufacturers (see Kodak m43 lenses), and there are AF adapter manufacturers (even M to E like Techart does), meaning they have optical expertise and AF/electronics expertise already, and it is very easy to bring those together as Yongnuo did – and I believe it is just a start. Yes, first examples will be somewhat worse optically and somewhat worse mechanically – and nobody will care as they will be $50-100 instead of $400-$1600, just like nobody cares about Chinese-made everything else.
Yongnuo actually chose very hard market to start, as Canon 50/1.8 is already cheap. Something like 20-25mm f/1.4 for APS-C and m43 mirrorless would be much softer target, as Pana 25/1.4 is $600, Fuji 23/1.4 is $1000, Sony does not have a fast one for E-mount at all and slower 24/1.8 is $1100 MSRP etc. Something like 50-150/2.8 with very fast AF for $200-300 would be immensely popular in any APS-C and m43 system too, even if optically imperfect wide open (as at high ISO resolution is not high anyway, and for sports nobody expects sharp corners) – preexisting $1500 “competitors” are simply useless for the price-conscious smaller-than-FF market. Even the same 50mm/1.8 portrait lens they sell for $47 in Canon mount, if made in any mirrorless market, will sell tonnes. Similar 70mm too, even for $90. 🙂
Ahh interesting! I had no idea Yongnuo was cloning lenses now and not just making accessories like flashes. Their flash triggers and flashes are pretty well regarded especially for their price point. And I agree with you that the Canikon market is likely much harder to break into since there are cheap options already available. Would be good to see them move into the m43’s space.
Edit: I looked at a review of their 35mm f2 for Canon. Looks like quite a good lens overall. It has some CA issues, but nothing that can’t be mitigated in post. The sharpness and bokeh are pretty solid overall though. Wish they’d make a 17mm f2 version of this lens for m43’s at $120 haha.
They don’t QUITE copy them, at least their 50/1.8 is slightly different from Canon optically. And optical design is not that hard these days with all the automation. Maybe design for CDAF, with light focusing group, is still harder.
“17mm f2 version of this lens for m43’s at $120”
They sell 35/2 for FF for $81 on ebay, delivered, why would 17/2 for m43 (34/4 equivalent for FF) be 120?
I think Japanese lens manufacturers are up for a hard awakening very soon.
Please, you should leave those “fools” who enjoy the m4/3 system alone and go comment in your precious 35mm forums!
He can’t. He’s too upset because people with iPhones can take much better photos than him even with superb FF-cameras. His only joy in life is to come here and troll – failing miserably in that too. 🙂
Pretty sure peevee shoots m43s. I honestly agree with most of what he says, but he gets unreasonable with pricing at times.
Yes, exactly.
Fundamentally a lot of us are in agreement here. I understand equivalence and use it regularly, as I understand its basis and its practical value (as well as practical limitations).
But equivalence, sadly, cannot be applied to pricing structures. Those are far more complex, and in the end, somewhat divorced from the physical specifications of the product, let alone the “raw material costs.”
Peevee and I understand each other, I think, but where we disagree is only on price and some of his absolutist statements about quality, which do not manifest themselves in real pictures.
Don’t reject free education. 😉
I think your wisdom dos not do you justice here. 🙂
PhaseOne XF
Pentax 645Z
Hasselblad H5D
Boooo !
Are you still happy with your Nikon “crop sensor”, troll ?
The MF sensors are not the same size as MF film was they have roughly double the area of 35mm . While FF/35mm has aprox 4 times the area of mFT. Unless you are suggesting that double the area makes a huge difference compared to 4 times the area .
What I say is simply : FF is not the Holy Grail. It’s just a kind of system (sensor size, lenses and so on) that can be useful for some kind of work (studio, sport photography…) just as Medium Format is, and so MFT. Usage is not the same, so it’s pointless to compare FF and MFT saying one is “better” than the other. As for “equivalence”, you always forget to mention that you have to stop down your wonderful 1.8 FF to 3.5 to get a sharp shot, while most of MFT lenses are sharp wide open or at least at 2.8. But well, one understands what he wants…
It is not the Holy Grail, but unlike the MF cameras you mentioned, it is priced very close to M43, hence why people compare them.
Erm…
Nikon D4S : about 6000 €
Pentax 645Z : about 8000 €…
There’s Full Frame and full frame, then… Tell me, is there an entry-level full-frame camera at less than 400 € ? If you compare high-end MFT with entry level “full-frame”, be fair and do so to compare high-end “FF” and “entry-level” MF…
If you want to be fair, why did you choose a high-end DSLR and not-so-high-end MF? I’ll be as fair as I can, although it would obviously be difficult. The E-M5 currently sells at 380US, while a Sony a7 for 1100US and a 6D for 1400US. So, roughly 3 times more. What can you buy in MF for 3 times 1400US? Lenses are more difficult, as it simply depends. Some kits in FF can be cheaper than M43.
You can get a Pentax 645D for $2500-3000 USD. And lots of 645 lenses are incredibly cheap…
Fair enough, you found one exception to what I described. You won’t be able to find another. As to lenses, as I previously said, it depends. Lots of FF lenses are also incredibly cheap.
“As for “equivalence”, you always forget to mention that you have to stop down your wonderful 1.8 FF to 3.5 to get a sharp shot”
Which is still produces the same result on FF as f/1.7 would on m43. And is 25/1.7 sharp wide open?
And m43 does not compete with them either. Even if Oly wants superexclusive MF prices for m43 lenses.
To make things easier for everybody: 300mm f4 = 300mm f4.
So believe it or not, a 300mm f4 behaves just like a 300mm f4. And here’s the part of the story that makes some people go crazy: no matter what sensor size. Icing on the cake: It’s true.
If you are going to say it’s going to act on m43 like a 600mm would act on FF, then you could also say it doesn’t produce an image that seems to have been made with a 600mm f4, but rather with a 600mm f8. But that’s just because you only see a crop of the 300mm lens, about the FOV of a 600mm lens. It actually still produces an image like a 300mm f4.
From here on we can start talking in circles. 300mm f4 = 300mm f4. Etc.
“To make things easier for everybody: 300mm f4 = 300mm f4.”
Yes, exactly. Except some (most interchangeable 300mm) lenses are able to produce sharp bright picture on a circle with diameter of 44mm (~1520 sq mm), and this only on 22mm of diameter (~380 sq mm). And this smaller circle is just as bright as the inner part of the bigger circles (not THE WHOLE bigger circles combined).
And how do you know that the image circle on the Olympus 300mm/f4 doesn’t cover FF? Supertelephotos are almost never limited by image circle, but merely the size of the objective lens required to gather light. 300/4 is 75mm, which is already double the size of the image circle required for a FF camera.
A Tele Athenar 300mm f4 designed to cover 16mm film is as large as a Rodenstock 300mm f4 designed to cover 4×5 film (i.e. a negative 150x larger).
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, peevee. Don’t make assumptions that are irrelevant at best at totally misleading at worst.
“And how do you know that the image circle on the Olympus 300mm/f4 doesn’t cover FF?”
Because it is m43, and no m43 does. There is absolutely no point to.
“Supertelephotos are almost never limited by image circle, but merely the size of the objective lens required to gather light.”
It is like saying cars are not limited by speed, just by power of their engines. Meaningless. It does not have the front element to capture more light from larger AoV of FF lenses, and it has no inner elements to transmit and focus that captured light. Even part of that light which will hit the front element will hit the cold hard wall of the lens soon after.
You clearly missed the entire point of my post.
Going from M4/3 to FF, the image circle of a supertelephoto is utterly irrelevant to the construction of the lens. A 300mm/f4 is a 300mm/f4. Even if you want it for C-mount to cover a Kodak Super8, or on a lensboard to cover 4×5 sheet, the image circle is not necessarily the primary consideration in designing such a lens.
Your expectation that because it happens to cover a smaller image circle that it should be smaller is inherently flawed and without any grounding in physics. What matters is whether focal length / f-number > image circle.
Wow you have no idea what you are talking about.
Okay, so the Super8 to 8×10 example is stretching it. But it is true that 300mm lenses for 16mm and for 6×9 or even 4×5″ are the same size. You can easily find this information.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-Takumar-6×7-300mm-F4-Lens.html
Here’s a 300/f4 for 6×7 – that’s more than 4x larger than FF, and 8x larger than M4/3. It weighs…about the same as the Olympus!
Any time the physical aperture is larger than the image circle, you can usually take the latter out of the equation in terms of physical dimensions of the lens required. This is especially true when you are dealing with narrow FoVs.
“Any time the physical aperture is larger than the image circle”
How do you know the size of the physical aperture? 300/4=75mm is the
APPARENT size of the aperture as seen from the front of the lens, the
real aperture can be whatever. Only the whole aperture should be visible not just from the center line, but from the border of the AoV, and for FF, on tele lenses the AoV is about twice the AoV of an m43 lens with
the same FL. And that extra view, extra 3 times of the area of m43
sensor should remain perfectly focused on the flat plane of the sensor
(not curved plane of focus), with CA and other aberrations corrected,
which usually would require totally different, more expensive optical
construction (m43 lens would not care about that extra space at all,
only about the center).
Neither of us have the required physical information about these lenses to contribute meaningfully to the conversation in an objective way. All we can do is conjecture, and that makes for a very silly conversation to get heated about.
(As an aside, I hope neither of us are getting heated, by the way. I really do think we agree more than we disagree. It’s just little things…)
“Going from M4/3 to FF, the image circle of a supertelephoto is utterly irrelevant to the construction of the lens.”
Not true. Otherwise, why not to say the same about P&S? After all, the lens in Nikon P900 is 360mm at the long end.
I am not saying it is the ONLY consideration. But it certainly plays in how big every element in the lens has to be, meaning how much area has to polished and coated. Even if linear sizes are not proportional to size of the sensor.
I do say the same about P&S! The P900 is only an f6.5 lens, though. And it’s an effing big camera!
http://camerasize.com/compact/#612,594.376,ha,t
http://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/e/Q5NM96RZZo-YRYNeYvAi9aeqFMY3fvEkMLBDAiSy_A36wiKOWNXJjr5crKDnKxuLmPDyHEDOyvWzTs7BM06jdGKnKk7oU6JxidQcx4xBppI=/Views/26499_P900_top.png
Why present the lens zoomed out? How the Panasonic 100-400 is going to look zoomed out? Will it cost, with camera, the same as P900?
I presented it with both the lens zoomed in and the lens zoomed out. Click the link. With both lenses collapsed, it is about the same size as the Olympus 75-300 4.8-6.7, as you’d expect given the lens specification.
Of course its lens does not start from 75mm and f/4.8, it is not 4x lens, it is 83x lens starting from f/2.8.
Yep. The ones designed for smaller sensors don’t need to put any light
outside of the 22mm diameter, so they can save some material / weight.
(Not sure why I put this utterly obvious comment here, but, well.. OK)
They can, and they do. As well as cost. But that particular Oly 300/4 turned out to be (due to Olympus managers’ incompetence and some buyers not understanding equivalence) the heaviest and the most expensive 300/4 on the market. They saved on cost not covering 4 times larger area, and then saved on cost by not using modern technologies (like PF, DO) and expensive glass to reduce its weight and size, and then try to fleece unsuspecting customers with ridiculous price, selling it like it is 600/4.
Take the Panasonic 25mm 1.7 for instance. B&H had it for $99, to where it was overy purchased, and have orders on hold, myself included.
That lens should sit around the $189 price range.
The G7 had a brief price drop as well and was sold out in places like B&H and Adorama.
Price.
M43 with these $1000+ Cameras and lenses won’t cut it. They need to be more competitive in price.
I also feel M43 strength is size and small primes. Once you step up in price and larger lenses/bodies, you enter a very niche market, that I don’t see M43 competing.
The GM series should be sold with a 20 or 25mm prime, not a zoom lens. Want something that small with a zoom? Get a point and shoot.
Ah…the voice of negativity..(based on nothing), how refreshing.
It’s no less irritating than all the claims of glorious performance based on absolutely ZERO.
?
Is that ZERO coating?
Yes…back to your comment from yesterday…I think Yun and company have a collected woody based on the “etchings” above. ;-0
The voice of experience. We have seen it with 4/3, and we are starting to see it with m43, with Oly and Pana rapidly losing their market share to Sony providing better value with its a6000 for $398.
Nice troll icon, troll. And people still take the bait and respond. lol 😉
Like you.
Peeveed in your pants again?
Are you 12 y/o?
Trolling this forum ceaselessly is mature?
And it seems that almost every other comment here is by this same troll. You’d think that someone who disses m43 so much would have better things to do than trolling here… Kind of sad really.
Mature? Yeah right… 😀
So what? Maybe it will be overpriced, maybe not. Many things are overpriced, nevertheless they are sold.
Sell a few copies is not enough to pay for the R&D, marketing, setting up mass-production line and other fixed costs in the industry. A mass-market product should be sold in mass quantities to pay for all that, otherwise they will lose money even having 90% of the price as pure margin (as Olympus and Panasonic do with many of their products).
There is no way Olympus can price these over the equivalent Zeiss Loxia/Batis. Their market research must show this.
I see these priced around the $1000 mark.
What equivalent Zeiss Loxia (which are MF) or Batis (which are f/1.8 and f/2, i.e. equivalent to f/0.9 and f/1 for m43, which Oly does not have and is not going to have)? Not to mention that Olympus does not have a half of brand value of Zeiss (which allows Zeiss to overprice its lenses, although even they cannot achieve mass market penetration with that overpricing).
Oly should not be competing with Zeiss or Leica or Hasselblad, they can never have neither their brand name nor performance. They (at least in their m43 offerings) should be competing with mass-market Canon/Nikon/Sony APS-C offers, where most of the money are, using the smaller cost of their smaller sensor, shutter and lenses for that sensor as means to achieve lower prices and more compact sizes and win sales over their “bigger-sensored” APS-C competitors.
With rising performance of sensors per area, people who were satisfied (“good enough”) with their D40s and 50Ds and D3000s should be satisfied with their m43 cameras now, only cheaper and smaller, just like any other electronic toy is expected to progress.
But mass-market will not buy m43 priced higher than APS-C, let alone FF, and a few marginal sales to brand loyalists do not cover fixed costs of R&D and marketing.
Would it be too much too ask for a clickless iris on these? Surely Oly can figure out clickless iris and electronic iris like their clutch focus system.
I’d love to see an aperture ring like on the Pana Leicas. But not gonna happen. Oly decided back in FT that there seems to be no room for retro 😉 xD
I imagine some Olympus engineer is reading this forum and furiously writing down notes, and mutters under his breath ‘and how about a built in makeup mirror and a version in pink…’
-And a velvet, goose down pillow to rest the lens on…
Yeah, because 600mm equivalent is such a video format.
Actually, in video some Olympus lenses should change their apertures smoothly.
This isn’t the thread you think it is.
An Olympus 17.5mm f/1.2 would be a good addition.
Yes!
Anything from 14-17mm would be a welcome addition. But please, for the love of god, I hope we don’t see a 25mm.
Guess what……
there will be:
12mm
17mm (olympus doesn’t do odd balls with .5mm)
25mm
45mm OR 50mm
And maybe 10mm.
Please, 16mm, just so we would not need to mention aperture every time we write on forums. 🙂 🙂
And 24mm instead of 25. Or 23 (although it would clash with Fuji). Or 22 (although it would clash with Canon EOS-M).
Because it will be the biggest usage of this lens in real life,
because nobody will buy 25/1.2 for $1500 when they can have 50/1.8 for
FF for $47 and stop it down to f/2.4 for free. 🙂
Arrrghhh!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRfEgJc60Ss
I don’t use “total light” for my pictures. I use “MFT light”. Which provides the full MFT f/1.2 light gathering I’m looking for.
My MFT 1.2 lens has the color, contrast and creamy bokeh I want. The FF f/1.8 I used to own rendered like a piece of dung – to me. But if you love it great. Everybody has different tastes. You’re lucky you can save money with your $47 lens and be happy. Funny thing is I’m happy buying MFT 1.2 lenses. So we all get to be happy.
Maybe you should go tell people on the FF sites about how much you like your $47 lens. Since they have a camera it will fit on.
Make the lenses razor-sharp with nice OOF areas, one 18mm and one somewhere between 45 and 60mm and you have a costumer.
Those would be the Leica, especially the 25mm f/1.4, so sharp it makes your teeth hurt.
Please, the 25/1.4 is soft in the corners. It is most def. not an example of a razor sharp lens.
Wide open vs stopped down?
Hopefully Olympus can keep the prices reasonable – they seem to have been releasing only premium priced PRO lenses over the last year or so. Especially if these are only available as weather-sealed, metal body (though these do have some merits)…
Has any manufacturer ever released an f1.2 lens at a ‘reasonable’ price?
Let’s
see now, I take we are ignoring sensor size and the material demands that
covering much larger image circle entails? We have the Panasonic 42.5mm F/1.2
£1049 , Fuji have 2 56mm F/1.2 lenses one at £685 the other £877 , Nikon has
the Nikon CX 32mm F/1.2 at £595 . So I guess reasonable price is a matter of
opinion.
I think that Olympus and Panasonic take advantage of the gullibility of the mFT
anti-equivalence brigade to charge them much more than they should for their
high end options. The 300mm F/4 being a case in point
The 300mm f/4 is undeniably expensive. But of note, it is only slightly more expensive than the only other 300mm designed in this millenium, the Nikon 300mm/f4 PF. And undeniably better, optically.
See for yourself.
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zsamples/olympus300f4m/VFA/zolympus300f40vfa0300f40_em1.jpg
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zsamples/nikon300f4e/znikon300f4vfa300f40_d7000.jpg
The irony is, normally this conversation goes the other way around. “Yes,” we say, “the M4/3 lens isn’t as sharp at 100% as the full frame lens, but it’s so much smaller, lighter, and cheaper!” And now here we have an M4/3 optic that is larger, heavier, and more expensive, but that apparently outperforms anything under $5000.
It’s actually really remarkable. You can peruse through the SLRGear archives and see the other mega-exotic offerings. In terms of pure sharpness and resolution, the Canon 400mm/f4 DO doesn’t compare either. You need to get into the 500mm/f4 and 600mm/f4 uber-lenses, or maybe the 400mm/f2.8, to see comparable quality. That’s almost unbelievable to me.
The m.Zuiko 300mm f/4 actually outperforms every Canon and Nikon 200-800mm range (600-800mm with the TC).
You need to get 600-800mm for Canon and Nikon full frame and use 36-50Mpix sensor to get the resolution benefit so you get the same level sharpness by downscaling higher resolution to 16Mpix. but the funny thing is that you can upscale 16Mpix to 64Mpix and get better quality than those full frame natives 😀
You cannot compare slrgear graphs between formats. Without doubt, 300/4PF on Nikon D810 will have A LOT MORE resolution than Oly 300/4 on E-M1.
You will note that I’m not comparing SLRGear graphs between formats. I am comparing SLRGear images between formats.
If you can’t compare images, what on earth can you compare? Why do you even own a camera?
And do you think that 300/4PF on the D810 will have a lot more resolution than the Oly 300/4 on E-M1 once you’ve cropped it to 9MP for the same FoV?
This pevish troll probably doesn’t own any camera at all. Through his numerous posts he has demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the most basic optical laws and photographic principles. He just read some article about “total light” some time ago and thought he saw Jesus.
Don’t cheat. If you want to crop it, why use FF lens?
And now try to “uncrop” Oly 300/4 to FF. How much resolution it will have on 3/4th of that FF sensor? About none at all.
You can look at the images compared on an APS-C body (D7000) or a FF body (D800E). Neither look as good as the 300mm/f4 on the GX1.
If cropping is “cheating” then would you prefer I compare it against a 600mm lens?
If you do that, the 300/f4 still looks (much) better than the Sigma 150-600mm on the FF body, either at f6.3 or f8. The 500mm/f4 and 600mm/f4 look at least as good when downscaled to 16MP, but that’s the comparison everyone hates.
Sigma 150-600 f6.3
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zsamples/Sigma150-600f5-63c/1dsmkiii_vfa/zsigma150-600f5-63vfa600f63_1dsmkiii.jpg
Sigma 150-600 f8
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zsamples/Sigma150-600f5-63c/1dsmkiii_vfa/zsigma150-600f5-63vfa600f80_1dsmkiii.jpg
Oly 300 f4
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zsamples/olympus300f4m/VFA/zolympus300f40vfa0300f40_em1.jpg
Canon 500mm/f4
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zsamples/canon500f4is2/zcanon500f40vfa500f40_1dsmkiii.jpg
I gotta admit, that Oly really IS impressive. Great compilation here Turbo.
You present JPEGs, differently processed (in camera probably), with very strong sharpening artifacts on the Olympus for example, not downscaled to the same resolution from higher-res FF cameras.
And of course these pics are not light limited, being base ISO.
without doubt, the Zuiko 300/4 would have A LOT MORE resolution than the Nikon were there some way to mount it on the D810.
Without doubt, mZuiko 300/4 will cover just about quarter of the frame of D810.
Oh dear, the Nikon 1 J5 is like a CSC from about 3 years ago. Next.
Bad comparisons
You really have to own one of these new fangled m4/3 things as well as a Nikon FF like the D600 to see which works best, and it’s not the Nikon.
Nikon 1 might seems like a 3 year old CSC to you, but so does M43 to most people. The tech literally hasn’t improved since the E-M5, and the sensor is a joke compared to what’s available nowadays.
“Fuji have 2 56mm F/1.2 lenses one at £685 the other £877”
The other “£877” is a highly specialized device for very tiny market of portrait specialists, and should not be compared to the general usage lens.
So at £1049 for Pana vs £685 for Fuj, taking difference in image circles into account, the Pana is overpriced at least by the factor of 2, even compared to Fuji which is not a value leader by any means. 😉
They must drink some strong sake there in Pana headquarters. 😉 Spiked with something extra. 🙂
It is easier to make lenses for larger sensors. It would really help you if you had basic knowledge.
Yes. Fuji’s 56mm f1.2 is every bit as good as the Nocticron. It is basically $899 new, whereas the Noct is still $1,499.
The Nocticron has OIS, though, for whatever that’s worth. I will agree that the Fuji is certainly a better value, which is a departure from their normal pricing.
It is departure for Panasonic, to the “totally crazy” territory from their previous “very unreasonably overpriced” territory of 7-14 and 45/2.8 and 25/1.4. For Fuji, $900 MSRP for 56/1.2 is not that different from $600 MSRP for 35/1.4, after all it is 1/2EV faster and 50% longer (in the “above normal” territory, where cost grows with FL), why it would not be 50% more expensive?
Of course all Fuji are overpriced too, just not as laughably as that Panasonic.
Really, how so? Bodies are comparable or cheaper and so are the lenses. Their latest 35mm f/2 is $399 and weather sealed.
For comparison, equally APS-C only Nikon 35/1.8 is less than $200. Faster, and twice as cheap. And no, a couple of rubber strips do not cost extra $200.
And the special mention is deserved by Yongnuo 50/1.8, $47 on ebay, an FF lens with the same AoV on FF as this one on Fuji, and Yongnue 35/2, and FF lens with the same FL, $81 on ebay. But it will be the next stage of price evolution, compared to which even value-priced Canons, Nikons, Sigmas, Tokinas and Tamrons will look horribly overpriced, let alone Fujis, Olys and especially Panas with Leica badge and Sonys with Zeiss badge which are horribly overpriced already.
I’m sorry, but the Nikon is a bigger body, compared to my XE2, and my faith isn’t there with the Chinese brands as of yet. Quality and output needs to improve. Some will ignore that because of price, but not I.
OIS isn’t worth much in terms of cost. Best example of this is the Panny 42.5 f1.7 with OIS retails for the same as the Oly 45mm f1.8 retailed when it released.
“they seem to have been releasing only premium priced PRO lenses over the last year or so”
Probably because the rest of the lower lenses have been reasonably well covered so far & now they are finally adding in all the Pro range of lenses that have been sort after by many for a long time & now extra bright primes that have long been sort after too.
OM Zuiko 50mm F1.2 + E-M1
If you click on it you should see an animated gif of stopping down to F8
Shweet. I own several excellent OM Zuikos and have been eyeing an Olympus OM-4Ti.
Nice – me too. I have a 4-Ti and a 4 that has the 4Ti circuit that I really should get rid of.
I’m glad they keep it small(ish) and lightweight to some extend.
Everything else would defeat the purpose of MFT in the first place.
Good move Olympus!
Hope they are affordable. I guess they will be around 999 – 1499 USD or so.
Probably to expensive for me, but certainly OK for those who actually really need such lenses.
Ah – the old compact, lightweight and affordable – pick any two.
😎
Compact, affordable
That is my lenses .
Great combination for the new PEN .
But where is the 50mm lens with similar aperture ?
I think the original f1.0 rumour from Simon said Olympus were intending 12, 25 and 50mm, so you might get your wish.
50mm F1.2 makes just so much sense as a portrait lens they would be quite insane not to make it.
Yeah, I could see a 50mm f1.2. It differentiates itself enough from the Noct (though I have a feeling Oly’s f1.2 will be cheaper than the Noct anyway).
I’ve been looking to dump my 5d2 to get something light for family excursions. as someone who’s been watching u43 since its early days I’m happy to see how well the system has grown and continues to grow. It looks like any of the new of these new cameras and lenses will do the job.
EM10 and panaleica 25mm – light and very capable combo 🙂 also you’ll probably be able to buy the combo with money from 5d2 sale.
I have a few lenses I also want to offload. the 24-105/4L, the 70-200/2.8L, sigma 12-24, canon 50/1.4. and the canon flash 580 ex ii. that should net me a little extra cash for future expenses. Thanks for the suggestion.
Price price price! I would gladly swap out my 25 and 45 for these just for the build quality alone…but that price. Olympus, Sony has the Batis line and it is hot right now. Voigtlander has us covered with .95’s and the Nocticron has come down in price quite a bit.
I seriously look forward to these lenses, but price!
$1299?
The Panasonic 42.5/1.2 is $1,500 so don’t expect it to be very affordable.
The fact that Panny is charging for the Leica licensing gives Olympus some leeway to undercut them… cost will probably come in at $1,099.00 List and $899.00 on sale. A fair price IMO if the AF is super speed as mentioned.
Price should be around 800-999€ range to get them to sell alot. But knowing Olympus range, it will be 1399€ for each.
400g? Orly?
Canon 50/1.2 545g, but for FF cameras! A sensor four times bigger!
50mm is the easiest construction for FF. Not really fair to compare that to the wide angle patents shown above. If Canon made a 24mm f/1.2 you can bet it’d be a whole hellava lot heavier than 545g.
True, but this is because of the EF mount flange distance, which is about 46mm. It’s easier to design compact lenses when the FL is near that of the flange distance. For M43, its about 19mm, which is one of the reasons the 20/1.7 is such a small lens. A 25mm lens on M43 has the same benefit that a 50mm lens has on a DSLR. The mitakaon 25/0.95 is only 230g, clearly smallish very fast lenses at 25mm are possible on M43. I understand that’s a MF lens, AF, build, sealing etc all adds weight of course.
It’s mainly because of the view angle (image circle size). The 20/1.7 is a small lens because it only needs to cover a m43 sensor, and have the same field of view as a 40mm full-frame lens. A 20/1.7 full-frame lens would be significantly larger and heavier regardless of flange distance.
My OM 21/2 weighs 250g while the 50/1.2 weighs 385g
What is your point? If the 21mm was f/1.2 it would weigh much more than the 385g of the 50/1.2.
True.
The flange distance has nothing to do with the lens construction! As lens designer you can make the mount as far you want from the rear element!
It is just question of your own design. You can integrate the adapter to the lens mount in factory for given mounts and this way easily just use same lens for all formats with different flange distances when you don’t need to do anything else than change the mount distance to rear element.
Do you know what you are talking about? No.
Would a lens-construction for a 10m long tubus deliver the same result as a telecentric lens-design with a 1:1 ration for sensor diameter/flange back. Of course not.
The flange has very much to do with the lens design, if the flange is too long, the design needs to be more telecentric. This is a big factor in why the Panasonic 7-14/4 is about half the size and weight as the Olympus 43 7-14/4.
Certainty, you can artificially make the flange longer by adding a tube to the lens, but that is neither here nor there and would not in nay way help to design a smaller optic, which is the topic at hand. We can safely file this one away under “technically correct, but irrelevant”.
preston: Fuji also makes a very small 18/2, in fact it’s the smallest prime they make, no surprise that it is also essentially the same FL as the flange. Having a short flange alone does not mean any lens with FL near the flange will be small, but it’s a lot easier to design a compact lens with a FL near to that of your flange than it is for lenses that are shorter or longer than your flange.
As others have said, the flange distance does not determine which focal length is easiest to correct. See Fuji for example. Flange distance is 17.7mm. Fuji 16/1.4 is 13/11 lens construction and $1000, 23/1.4 is 11/8 and $900, and 35/1.4 (normal FOV) is 8/6 and $600.
All that matters is how well the lens performs wide open.
The Canon 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 are both a little bit dreamy wide open.
To get around that, feel free to step up to the Sigma 50mm/1.4 ART, made with the same modern design philosophies as M4/3 lenses. That lens is excellent in every respect, and it weighs 815g.
Seem a bit more apples-to-apples now?
“Little dreamy”? I would say they are ALOT!
You need to stop to around f/2.8-3.5 to get them acceptable and down to f/4-5.6 to get them sharp. At f/8-11 they get ultimate sharpness.
Bleh, 400grams is pretty hefty for an m43’s lens. Its the weight of the 12-40mm. I know people diss plastic, but Panny’s 25mm f1.4 is only 200 grams. It seems reasonable to think we could get to f1.2 at just under 300 grams.
There’s a big difference between 25mm and 14mm. The wider view angle at 14mm means it takes more lenses (and larger ones) to correct for all aberrations, field flatness, distortion, etc.
My OM Zuiko 50mm f1.2 weighs 285g and is all metal-glass construction. However, wide open it’s soft enough to wipe a baby’s bum with so to get something sharp wide open, a newer design would likely need more than the 7 elements it has. The Sigma 25mm f1.2 patent has 9 elements. Add some AF related stuff and I can see why 400g is more likely than 300.
http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fegami.blog.so-net.ne.jp%2F2015-04-22&sandbox=1
Once again, the 50mm is a normal lens which is much easier to correct than a wide angle like in the patents above.
The Nocticron 42.5mm f1.2 has 14 elements.
It is not in their best interest to make a f/1.2 lens as light as possible. Then it wouldn’t be perceived as having the highest build quality level. Then they wouldn’t be able to justify a premium price. And you’re comparing it to a normal lens (25mm) which is an easier construction compared to the wide angles of the listed patents. By the way, the Panasonic 42.5 f/1.2 is 425 g while their 45.2 f/1.7 is 130 g, so that goes to show how much more glass is required for f/1.2. FWIW, the Voigtlander 42.5 f/.95 that doesn’t have an AF motor is 570 g.
I’d argue that the Nocticron is a special case even outside of the fact that it is f1.2. Again, the PL25 is f1.4 and its 200g. Take that same lens and enlarge it to handle f1.2, and I doubt we are talking about a lens heavier than 300g.
You are right about construction as a selling point. I am likely in the minority here, but I’d give up some of that metal construction for a lighter overall lens. Its the reason I went with the Panny 35-100mm f2.8 instead of the Oly 40-150mm.
The Panasonic 25/1.4 is a dog of a lens, Olympus better invest in some more decent glass even if it bumps the weight.
How so? I find it to render more pleasing than the Oly 25 (I used both, but chose the Panasonic) and I didn’t find a huge difference in AF speed.
The Four-Thirds version of the lens, designed by Leica was much better, but so much bigger and heavier.
Question: whats the Light gathering difference between 1.8 and 1.2?
It’s the difference between giggitty and super-giggitty.
1.25 stops
Oops, I think that’s AV. 1.17 stops
Bunk. Light gathering improves only marginally past f/1.8 on any system.
It’s not a wishy washy arty made up thing, it’s a mathematical scale.
Not sure that metric really matters when talking about the same format. In terms of transmission, 1.25 stops from using f1.2 vs. f1.8 is the difference beween needing ISO3200 at f1.8 to expose the image or using ISO1250 at f1.2 to expose the image. That is a huge difference in shooting envelope IQ.
Is physics that hard for you, Mike?
The light gathering of the Pansonic Nocticron is T/1.6, so still quite poor. Not sure if the Olympus lenses will be better, the designs look very complex.
Light gathering != Light Transmission.
f/1.2 and f/1.8 has light gathering difference of 1.1 EV.
f/1.0 < Standard (f/1.0, 1 second, ISO 100)
f/1.2 < 0.5 EV slower (0.5 EV stops)
f/1.4 < 1.0 EV slower (1 EV stops)
f/1.7 < 1.5 EV slower (0.5 EV stops)
f/1.8 < 1.6 EV slower (1/3 EV stops)
f/2.0 < 2.0 EV slower (1 EV stops)
I agree with Mike, transmission is technically what matters in terms of light gathering. i.e. transmission is what is actually used to set the exposure on your camera.
The difference in light gathering power between T1.8 and T1.2 is 1.2 stop.
And meanwhile they have the patents on those f/1.0 designs so other manufacturers won’t be able to release anything too comparable. 🙁
Well, those other companies could come up with their own f/1.0 designs then. .
If u43 were my only system I could see getting these lenses. As it were, it is not, and therefore I can see maybe getting one if it stellar. The 35, 28, or 24 for travel.
These lenses will be beasts. Price it $1099 and every second person from this forum will buy one of these lenses – his or her favourite FOV.
Yun isn’t happy because he doesn’t need new lenses but new sensor, badly! Yun is just unhappy for few months old 4/3″ sensors in E-M5 II and E-M10 II or GX8.
Yeah, I’m hoping Oly is looking at what Fuji has done here and we see retail prices at around $1,000. If they go full Nocticron on us, many of us will just sit this out until we find a good used deal.
Interesting, but too late. Anyone in the market for what these lenses will cost is already using Loxia/Batis lenses on a full frame camera. It will be hard to bring those users back. I don’t understand why these lenses weren’t released 3 years ago.
Not true. Not everybody wants to go FF. And these are AF + WS. In 2012-13 ppl were satisfied with F1.8 but the bokeh madness changed the thinking even in m4/3 universe. Today it is important for every photo vendor to deliver at least one super fast prime lens.
Everyone wants to go FF? Really? How about MF – ant advantage FF has, MF has even more of.
It gets tiring when people mention FF vs MF. Medium Format is way more expensive, compared to full frame. The comparisons between them need to stop.
However,
You can find MFT, APS-C and Full Frame cameras at similar price ranges. And there’s the problem. Sure, M43 was smaller, but that’s no longer the case anymore. M43 has a large lens selection, yet Fujifilm is nipping at their heels with a great lens selection as well. M43 has the smallest sensor of the three, and the lowest image quality.
Even Sony is competing with Panasonic with 4k video.
Olympus and Panasonic can make faster lenses, but if they don’t price competitively, and in all honesty lower their prices on everything, how will they survive?
Medium Format is NOT more expensive than FF. in fact I purchased a MF kit with bag and 3 lenses for <1k USD. Only thing is, I just have to develop and scan at home 🙂
M43 is already way ahead of my 135 Om4t cameras, so people complaining about FF vs m43 really need to take a breath and enjoy using whatever tool is placed in front of them and getting results.
Here we go with the SPIN again…
I know you’re trying to be funny, by mentioning the affordability of a FILM MF body, but we’re talking digital here. And the price difference between that and FF is distant.
MF price and quality is far from FF price and quality, so fanboys need to stop trying to use that lame response, when someone mentions M43 vs FF or APS-C.
I was saying that m43 is better than 135 film, not digital. I think we should be happy as most everything happening in all formats is pretty much incremental at this point.
Oh yeah, please speak for everyone more, mr president of the world, all-in-one superhuman being
Even though I mainly use Leica for assignments, I’m still interested in m43 gear. Count me among those who will buy these lenses (if focal lenght is missing in my collection or it’s interesting), don’t count me among those having or looking for a Loxia/Batis.
Had they even been designed three years ago?
14mm 1.2 looks very tempting… Hope there’s a 17mm in there too. Time to save some money)
As a working, full time wedding photographer, I’m super excited about these 1.2 primes. I do have a FF Nikon that I pull out on occasion, but 90% of my day is shot on two EM1’s. The lightweight has helped me improve the past two years as I’m less tired during wedding season. Great images are all about lenses and good light, so this is all very welcome and since the current lens lineup is outstanding, I’m very confident in preordering these as soon as I can. I hope to get them for the summer wedding season!!
Steve, what are your preferred focal length choices for working a wedding? Or perhaps an ultra fast prime + zoom?
I’m using the 12-40 with bounce flash for getting ready and the 42.5 1.2 for available light. For ceremonies, usually the 75mm or 40-150 2.8 depending on location and movement allowed. I use a lot off camera flash for portraits. For reception, I use the 42.5 or 75 for candids and the 12-40 with OCF. I picked up a used Nikon FF camera last year and break it out on occasion in super dark situations with a Sigma 35 1.4.
“As a working, full time wedding photographer, I’m super excited about
these 1.2 primes. I do have a FF Nikon that I pull out on occasion, but
90% of my day is shot on two EM1’s. The lightweight has helped me
improve the past two years”
A7 weights about the same as E-M1, costs about the same as E-M1, and f/2.4 lenses for it (or even f/2 and f/1.8, like the existing 28/2 and 55/1.8 and even Zeiss Batis 25/2) should be lighter than f/1.2 m43 lenses (if the m43 lenses are indeed 400g), and actually have better transmission and less vignetting.
Batis 85/1.8 is about the same weight as Pana 42.5/1.2, only the Pana needs to be f/0.9 to match it, so there. And the Zeiss is actually $400 cheaper and weather-sealed and will have much better resale value due to the brand (stupid, I know).
I know, physics and math are hard for photographers, but make an effort, it is your livelihood.
Peevee, are you paid by Sony?
He gets pocket money from his parents, but has high hopes for the future. They are counting the minutes.
Check my posts at sonyalpharumors. 🙂
I was and still is very critical of Sony, but a6000 is without doubt is a huge success, and clearly demonstrates what policy is a winner in this market segment. CLEARLY. Finally, they have done something right. Just like Olympus have done something right (for the time) with 40-150/4-5.6, E-M5 and then E-M1 and then lost momentum and squandered their success with their usual stupidity.
A standard A7 is a dog in terms of responsiveness. I’d never, ever consider it as acceptable for wedding photography. The IQ is there, but my god its pokey.
If only that A7 was half as good of a camera as E-M1…
My one is many times better than my E-M1. Only fanboy novices would say junk like this.
Have fun with your smaller viewfinder, your non-touch screen, your bad ergonomics, your plasticky non-weather-sealed body, your slower AF, your slower flash synch speed, your snail-paced continuous drive, your breakable lens mount, no IBIS, your cooked RAWs,
Yes many times better…
Ahahahaha! Fanboy novice I see.
Nah, it’s just a peevee level comment, there’s no reason to be seriously discussing anything here. So I might as well say that A7 operates like a point and shoot or a bridge camera compared to E-M1. And I bet it’s great as a bird scarer with that shutter of its.
You said you have a A7R II, that is 3x as expensive as an e-m1.
The original A7 was slow and clumsy camera last time I used it.
A7rII seem to have fixed moat of these issue’s.
However for 4000 Euro I bought a complete m43 system with quality lenses, from portrait prime to macro to HQ constant zooms(most of those aren’t even available for a7). That would buy me the a7rii with 1 lens.
That’s fine, I didn’t say it was cheaper or the same price. I have m43’s as well for various reasons, but it isn’t because my E-M1 is in any way better. But cheaper and still very good is certainly a valid argument.
No doubt the a7 (a7ii in my case) has an edge in IQ. It’s not a world apart though. What is a world apart is how fast the E-M1 responds to user input compared to the a7ii. I assume a wedding photography prioritizes responsiveness above the ~1 stop improvement the Sony has.
2 stops at the same f-number.
I own both an A7 and the inspiring E-P5. The so called difference in image quality is not worth losing words about. What’s nice about the Sony is the ability to better understand the character of my vintage manual lenses.
I guess you shoot only in good light then, or static subjects.
Any real answer needs a lot more time than I’m willing to invest. The takeaway for me is making art, not pixels.
Hey I am with you. I own same cameras + Fuji X-E1. And I feel it the same. E-P5 is an inspiring camera. I do not know why but I love shooting it. It has MANY MANY flaws. IQ is good but A7 in good light is noticably better. Fuji stays in between them.
Anyway the more I shoot the more I like old vintage lenses. It brings something special into a sterile modern lenses look. And that’s where m43 falls apart. 20mm ultra-wide lens becomes normal lens, Normal lens becomes almost short tele. Almost any lens needs to be stopped down 1 or 2 stops so that it’s usable …
But on the other side take Oly 45mm f1.8 or 12mm f2 and hey what a nice combo. Small, light,very good IQ, fast AF that’s where m43 shines.
+1 for the E-P5, this is what I got for my carry everywhere DSLR replacement 🙂
I have an A7R II and before that an A7S. I also have an E-M1. For fast paced work the A7R II is a far better and more polished tool.
E-M1 is nice though, while the Sony is small there aren’t that many slower / smaller lenses for it. I would be perfectly happy to replace the E-M1 completely if I could get a nice set of f2-3.5 primes for the Sony (hopefully soon) but at the moment I only really have two, so m43’s fills some gaps.
When I need low light the RII and big FF fast lenses comes out.
I can’t quite believe what I’m reading. You’re telling a working photographer what equipment they should use? How do you make your living? Poring over spec sheets?
Incredible.
Sure, the A7 is a great system, but it wasn’t in November of 2013 when I got my EM1’s. Also, keep in mind a benefit of crop sensor in wedding photography – depth of field. When I shoot a church wedding with the 40-150 at 2.8, I let all that light in and get father and bride both in focus as they walk down the aisle. The gear is unobtrusive. Where FF camera systems have an advantage is when you want to go the other way – totally cream that background in a portrait. These primes will shore up that gap. The 75mm does a great job, but FF does have an advantage in that respect. The Nikon does better in extremely low light – ISO 6400 and above, but really that is rarely needed. If someone with zero investment asked me, I’d suggest the EM1 AND the A7s or A7II for wedding photography. One great tool doesn’t necessarily cancel out the other one. Oh, and I do believe those Sony FF lenses are heavier and bulkier, but I can’t say for sure.
“Sure, the A7 is a great system, but it wasn’t in November of 2013 when I got my EM1’s.”
That is a totally valid argument and in 2013 E-M1 (and m43 in general) ruled. And then Olympus and Panasonic lost their bearings, asking >$1000 for lenses performing worse than $400 FF lenses (pana 42.5/1.2 vs Nikon 85/1.8G, Oly 40-150/2.8 vs almost every 70-300/4-5.6 etc).
“Also, keep in mind a benefit of crop sensor in wedding photography – depth of field”
There is no such benefit – use 2 stops slower lens at 2 stops higher ISO, and you will have the exactly the same DoF and exactly the same noise – only 2 stop slower lenses are much cheaper and lighter when compared to ultrafast lenses like f/1.2, and/or have fewer artifacts. But if you are not DoF-limited, you can use wider effective apertures to achieve lower noise.
You can dig a fence post with a teaspoon but it’s easier with the shovel. Just what you want to do: Fool around with the aperture to get sufficient DoF as your subjects walk down the isle! LOL
FWIW he’s not the first wedding photographer to say that a smaller sensor can be an advantage. Then again maybe he just finds a smaller and faster f/2.8 lens superior to a larger and heavier f/4 lens? Maybe he likes to use three cameras when shooting and prefers not to use a wheelbarrow? Or am I mistaken in thinking that not all wedding photographers use MF, which of course would be superior?
I was under the impression that few wedding photographers have used Medium Format since the 1990s.
Ha ha. My point.
… BUT where are the telephoto lenses in the Sony system? Or reasonably fast standard zooms? The Sony system is not ready yet… I suspect that the m43 will always have the advantage at the telephoto end and this is precisely why I got into it. I just wish the m43 cameras concentrated on sensor development and reasonable telephoto lenses.
Sony not even have a high quality Standard zoom like the OM 12-40 F2.8 Pro which very important for event or wedding photography
Truly, you have never used the 40-150 f:2.8…which is much sharper than my 300 f4L IS. And the 75 f:1.8 betters my 135 F2L.
You know, for equivalent light you would need to stop down both of your FF lenses.
And why do you need sharp corners with 135/2, it is a portrait lens?
Why don’t you pkease move to a Sony forum? The peevee in your pants just smell had.
Another elementary school failure.
The noct is just as sharp as that Nikon when they are both wide open, and is likely quite a bit sharper stopped down to f1.8:
Noct: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zsamples/Panasonic43f12/VFA/zpanasonic43f12vfa043f12_gx1.jpg
Nikon:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zsamples/nikon85f18g/znikon85f18vfa085f18_d7000.jpg
Only one is $400 and another $1600. And you can stop down the Nikon all the way to f/2.4 to match the light of the Pana wide open, and it is surely EVEN SHARPER then.
Just stupid to pay $1600 for the Pana.
I agree about the Noct price. It should be just under $1,000 like the Fuji 56mm.
I agree. Both systems, FFx42.4 and μ43×20, have a place in the market and as very useful tools. Shooters also have a right to weigh the trade-offs and choose, especially in regard to the expense one can manage, and not be subjected to dismissive criticism. Much as I think I would like an A7R-II, the expense of the lens system pours cold water. Besides, I am not hitting walls with the OM-D. Quite the contrary, I am adjusting my shooting habits, but only on days when I stand farther away to get the bokeh (not a be all end all) with a longer lens.
Put another way and much like you said already, iff (shorthand for if and only if) I had an A7R-II and a few of the best native lenses I could get my hands on (all bigger and heavier), I would still shoot with the OM-D and many lenses, most of the time. The rationale to use cheaper lenses on the A7-type cameras does not appeal to me at all. I would have to think about the A7 proposition for a very long time, because there is no sense spending money on redundant capability. Even then, if I found a less-well-supported-on-μ43 niche I loved, an expensive lens that covered the shortfall would be a preferable option. As is, I carry a six-lens system around, in a bag that is hardly bigger than my wife’s purse. Uh huh. And I have not yet spent $4000 for all the fun I am having.
How much does Sony pay you “peevee” to constantly troll other brands and promote their stuff I wonder….
There is more to photography than physics and math. Why can’t you accept that what is best for you isn’t always best for others?
But to the lenses and sensors – it is just physics and math. Because that is how they are made, not with wishful thinking and ignorance your crowd is demonstrating.
Do you go on car forums and tell people they’re idiots for getting one brand of car over another too? I mean, it’s just physics and math, so there is only 1 best option for the money, right?
Wrong, people’s requirements differ. In cameras and lenses, there are plenty of people who would (and should) sacrifice ultimate performance for lower weight and cost, and they do. It is just with some products, you sacrifice performance AND have to pay more for that. And in some cases have to carry higher weight, like with the latest Oly 300/4.
Right, cause those 600mm lenses for the A7 are super cheap and light. Oh, I forgot, you can just crop in a 300mm lens and still get better image quality (which I’m willing to bet isn’t actually true for this lens but look forward to seeing a comparison). That has plenty of horrible drawbacks that you probably won’t recognize, cause, troll. Crappy autofocus with lens on adapter, small picture in viewfinder since the focal length isn’t what is desired for the end product, annoyance of cropping every shot in post, etc.
If you crop 300mm to m43, it is the same as any other 300mm on m43, including native.
Do you really not understand what I’m saying after all that arguing about how math and physics makes A7 better than m4/3?
If you want a 600mm field of view on an A7 you have to use a huge lens (cause of physics). Not to mention that this doesn’t exist, so you’d have to use an adapter to to mount a 600mm lens on the camera, which usually negatively impacts autofocus speed/accuracy and image quality. Or you could just use a 300mm lens on m4/3 to get the same field of view.
The cropping I was referring to was the idea that many put out there of using a 300mm lens on a FF camera and then cropping it in to what would be a 600mm field of view. This is out of the question for most serious shooters.
“The cropping I was referring to was the idea that many put out there of
using a 300mm lens on a FF camera and then cropping it in to what would
be a 600mm field of view. This is out of the question for most serious
shooters.”
Why? Sony FE cameras even have APS-C mode for cropping right in camera if you are so inclined (with image properly stretched in EVF).
Sorry, I don’t have time for this anymore. You’ve clearly made up your mind on the matter.
And the Batis 85mm is considerably cheaper and lighter than the Nocticron + 75mm Oly together, which is easily what you get with that lens and using crop mode on/off. Plus you don’t even have to swap lenses or have two bodies to achieve that.
Troll.
Indeed.
As regards exposure value, f4 is f4 regardless of mount or sensor. If an aperture only allows 1/4 the light and illuminates a sensor 1/4 the area, it’s even steven, same ratio of intensity relative to the shutter and ISO.
Let’s talk cost: A7R-II + 25mm + 35mm + 55mm + 85mm runs $8300. E-M1 + 12mm + 17mm + 25mm + 45mm runs $3500, full MSRP both ways. It seems a bit more economical to adjust your habits and stand farther away to get that bokehlicious photograph. Ahem, that $4800 extra for better bokeh and one stop on ISO is up to the photographer. If you can afford it, go for it. But evangelize as you may, it will be cheaper to buy an f1.2 lens or two, because the performance on bokeh and noise compared to FF f2.0 is very close. Besides, the sell on the A7R-II is the 42.4 megapixel, zero-moire sensor. It is awesome and bests anything Nikon or Canon can throw. Your audience is elsewhere. μ43 shooters “get” it and largely reject the pitch because they are not hitting any walls with the nifty kit in the small bag.
Why do you compare FF 85/1.8 to m43 45/1.8, which is like 90/3.6? How about 42.5/1.2, which works like 85/2.4 (closer, isn’t it) and costs $1600?
Regarding 12, 17, 25 – all 3 are replaced by a single 24-70/4 zoom. On FF DSLR, 24-70/2.8 (like 46 f/1.4 primes on m43) bests all of them, and Tamron SP VC, with weather-sealing (unlike those lenses) and stabilization is $1200.
Of all the folk who chime in here, to hold everyone else to account for not seeing things “correctly,” I owe you no explanation whatever. You are a full frame demagogue who sees no value in anything else, and in this regard YOU are wrong. The post was about COST STRUCTURE. The trade-offs are a different subject I briefly touched upon, and you misjudge the informed μ43 crowd as if we weren’t well aware. To wit, I acknowledged “that $4800 extra for better bokeh and one stop on the ISO is [a decision] up to the photographer,” a fact and point of view you have trouble stomaching. So, all I can says is, I hope you are quite annoyed that we are having fun without your recommendations and criticism.
Of course I see the value in m43, after all, I am in that system. But not all products in that system are priced properly – OBVIOUSLY.
let’s hope they don’t forget the weather gasket on the back.
What are they, Sony? 😉
I was going to say Canon and Nikon. It’s such a boneheaded thing to leave out but at least these two “dinosaurs” get that once it starts raining, that’s no reason to stop shooting.
Seriously, PLEASE olympus, seal these lenses, and seal the Pen F
Maybe someday, Olympus will offer a 8.5mm Shift lens optimized for smaller aperture sharpness for architectural photography. One can only dream.
Olympus also had a f/ 1.2 lens for the Pen F
And a 40mm f1.4, as well as the excellent “basic” 38mm f1.8 I’ve used for many a photograph that’s been published.
I am using for the following fast primes:
1. 10mm F1.8 for star-landscapes and when the 12-40 F2.8 is not wide enough or fast enough.
2. 20mm F1.2 for environmental portraits and when the 12-40 is not fast enough.
3. 40mm F1.2 for portraits and then the 12-40 is not fast enough.
I just have a feeling I will more likely get the 12/1.2, 17.5/1.2, 25/1.2 and the 50/1.2
Anyhow, it will be a while before I can buy any more lenses after ordering the 300/4.0. 🙂
Why no Mitakon 25mm f0.95??????
…because edge and corner sharpness are poor. The usual argument “against” the manual primes is that automation on a better lens is worth the wait and expense. The argument “for” is the take-homes and keepers you can have today.
Oly and Panny are forbidden to make anything under 12mm (except fisheyes) as well as the Americans are to land on the Moon 🙂
10mm would be fine and 20-21mm as well
A 7mm f1.2 for landscape and capturing the stars please.
Would be ginormous. might even bump up against your hand when gripping the camera.
Would use it via the app on a tripod to capture lovely starscapes 🙂
Touche.
Just put it on the Olympus Air A01?
If correct, I think it’s a pity Olympus didn’t choose to complete the m43rds system with more compact, but optically excellent f/1.4 lenses. It’s the balance of size, weight, weight distribution and form [Gestalt] that makes it a uniquely compelling case for enduring photographic lust.
Agree, f1.2 and f1.4 for different FLs to stay small, even upgrades of existing primes would have been welcome
You are onto something important, yes. Photographic Lust. I have 17mm, 25mm, and 45mm f1.8 lenses and 50mm f1.4 OM lens among others, and the case in favor of f1.2 nowadays is entirely different. We are not using 100 ASA film anymore. Like you, I think an f1.4 line would be interesting. I think f1.2 will be interesting too, but I think it will be an expensive proposition.
I like the OM 50mm f1.4 a lot – just wish it had a longer focussing throw. It renders nicely, and also makes a good case for itself on 135 format.
Maybe Panasonic will step in with 1.4 lenses? Although that might be too close to the many lenses that already have 1.7 (15, 20, 42,5). Yeah, I think it’s pretty unlikely we’ll see 1.4 lenses from Panasonic.
If Panasonic is smart, they will revisit the 25mm, 45mm, make a 17.5mm and a 12mm. All 1.4, all with aperture rings and all under $800-$900.
They need to really focus on price.
Not the worst idea, actually.
Before the GX8, I really though Panasonic “Got MFT Right” when they introduced the GX7 and smaller sized lenses, like the 15mm and the other GM sized lenses.
Then they released the GX8 and I slapped my forehead.
Sure, it does a lot, but the size and price to ME is ridiculous. To someone fully vested in M43, that’s their desicion to make. But I see now that Panasonic is making video its “ibis” of their cameras, and that means no removal of the sensor filters for people that just shoot images. And that means as much as I like what Panasonic does, I have to take my choice of cameras elsewhere.
In my opinion, Panasonic messed up BIG TIME. They have GH and G series of cameras that focus mainly on video. The GX series should have focused on Shooters, journalist, street photography… it’s shaped like a rangefinder! Do we really need 4K?
I’m going to pick up another GX7, not for IQ or Video, but simply because it is a FUN camera to use. I’ve went out the door with that over my Canon 6D! But I really think Panasonic is going overboard with 4K and are listening to the wrong people in the Lumix Luminaries camp. Not everybody NEEDS or WANTS Video. -See Fujifilm, they get it. They know there are shooters out there that just shoot stills. I don’t know why Panasonic stuffed the GX8 with video. A rangefinder body with 4K and a flip out screen? FAIL.
Oh my goodness. 272 comments and counting! Is there a way to sort by relevance and insight? I am looking for others who might be willing to speculate as to how the AF on this new f1.2 lens can be 30% faster on the PEN-F than on the E-M1. One obvious implication is that ALL lenses would benefit from new camera trickery.
Total_Focus_Time = n * (capture + compute + seek); // 5 < n < 12
I think what this boils down to is a stacked, Four Thirds sensor with PD cells. PD can cut the value of "n" in half, and "stacked" can knock the fluff out of the capture time. "seek" will not vary because it is not in the camera, same lens. The alternative would be an Olympus version of DFD.
Any other ideas?
Better AF system in general on the PEN-F than in the E-M1 is likely the answer. I doubt its just this lens that one will see an AF improvement. Hopefully it does use a hybrid PD/CD system and is not lens centric like DFD.
Faster readout by new sensor? My GX8 is faster than E-M1 with the same (non DFD) lens.
I’ve got mixed results between the GX8, E-M1, and GH4.
Probably be cheaper overall if they just threw in a larger sensor so you didn’t need such fast lenses.
Shooting with fast lenses allows you to keep you ISO lower and your shutter speed higher.
It’s not all about shallow depth of field.
Sure, that’s gives you more exposure options, but it’s not the end-all, be-all.
Jeffharris:
I agree, it is not all about DOF! My point was about noise, too. A 23/1.4 in front of an APS-C sensor would let in somewhat more light than a 17.5/1.2 at the same shutter speed, giving lower noise in the same size image view even after amplifying to equal the brightness either by increasing the ISO in camera or pushing a slider in post. Stopped down to 1.6, the 23/1.4 would give the same DOF and noise as the 17.5/1.2. And be cheaper, easier to make, and have fewer optical issues, which was my point. Even a 23/1.8 wouldn’t be enough short of the DOF and noise of the 23/1.2 to really tell, and would be even easier to make.
Sakaphoto:
Yes, of course, that is exactly what I meant! You read my mind, I want Olympus to fold space and time! While they are at it, perhaps they could just squeeze a view camera in there?
My experience with the Nikon D7200 is not all that great in lower light, even with the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 and Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 in comparison with the Panasonic GH4, GX8, or Olympus E-M1 with the Olympus 8mm f/1.8 fisheye, Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8, Panasonic/Leica 15mm f/1.7, Panasonic 25mm f/1.7, and other lenses.
Sure, Olympus should start a Medium Format line…in bodies not big enough to hold the sensor.
400g suggest a lens slightly bigger and/or heavier than the 75mm f1.8. Construction and weather sealing could be adding to the weight.
More precisely, the elements to take the lens to f/1.2.
So much trolling today. I know in the short run that might increase traffic but it will eventually burn out the people who are serious about the system.
I am intrigued by the idea of these new lenses…but to tell you the truth…I have so many good/great lenses now…and these will be expensive and large most likely….I do not know if I will be lunging to get them….I think I would like to spend my money on a camera with a much improved sensor. I am not talking about the small incremental improvement in the GX8…I am talking about a much bigger change. That I would get excited about…these lenses…not so much, although I do think they are a welcome asset to MFT.
Yes, if the Sony 20MP sensor is the next level we can stay with current cameras…
I will…no compelling reason to step up. (i do not shoot video…so I will have most likely no real reason to upgrade.). I hope we are hit with a compelling surprise, though!
What I have read from spec, the 20MP sensor isn’t BSI like the one in A7RII.
Last year’s spec? If rumors are true that PEN-F can out-focus by 30%, you should suspect a new sensor with faster readout. It is probably true, all future Sony sensors will deploy BSI, and many of them will be stacked as well.
Whankers still crying about the m43 format….nothing changes. For the vast majority of these morons the m43 format is still way above their skill level so they think 135mm format makes them better somehow lol 🙂 🙂
It is the panacea.
Yeah and unlike them you seem like a real expert… What exactly is 135mm format?? I only now 35mm or 135 format, but 135mm is new to me….
It is a bad typo smarty pants
Cameras, lenses do not make great photographs.
Passionate photographers do. A good photographer can work with any lens, any system.
But that will not going to improve picture quality no matter how good are you if you are left far behind with your equipments .
Such comment Is just praising yourself , make you feel better .
Wake up & ask for more is what a true photographer should demand from time to time .
I agree with you but some tools expand what you can do in a domain. For street night life having faster is better, but I support the design choice in going F1.2 due to the size/image quality constraints.
Yeah, thats why in my and all other professions, the tools are unimportant, my company wastes millions a year on new and better tools, how stupid of them.
Tools are very important. And more important how to utilize it…
yesyesyes… And the greatest carpenter won’t build a house from scratch with just a 12v drill a hammer and a hacksaw…
As much as I would have liked F1.0 I totally understand this choice. Small and still high quality is important- so, so be it.
12mm and especially 14mm… sorely needed.
Not.
400 grams? These lenses will be quite big, at least for m4/3 standards; still good move from Olympus.
If you want a f1.2 weather sealed lens usable wide open with IQ quality to rave for, you have to expect significant size and weight in the trade off.
Well, the Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.2 is 425g. So most likely it is just the way it is.
F1.2 is quite enough for me. I was thinking about the 17mm f1.8 because I need this focal length and speed (for night time as well). A 14mm f1.2 would be excellent.
Though m4/3 system have one of the best lenses around the bodies need thorough upgrades as well to cope with sony a7 and fuji competition.
Lets wait and see, hopefully Olympus will be forced to speed up bringing e-m1 mark 2 to the market with supposedly hand-held high-res mode!
It would be great to have different FLs than are available on the market today.: a 10mm – a 14mm – a 20/21mm – a 50/55mm => no new 25mm and no new 17mm + there is enough diff. between each lens.
We also need: a longer macro + an UWA/2.8 + a 12-60/2.8-4.0
Sorry but 20mm is too narrow often. There is reason why 17mm is so popular.
Good options would be:
10mm, 14mm, 25mm and 45mm would be just enough. If wanted to go more traditional then 12mm, 17mm, 25mm, 45mm would be perfect.
I happen to disagree. Mildly. Maybe I’m a minority… I had the 20mm for years and the 17mm for a short period of time. While I could tell the difference, both roughly served the same purpose and felt just fine. Basically, if I had to choose, I’d probably take the 17mm, but then, should the deluxe option in that range be 20mm, I’d be totally fine with it.
The 25mm that replaced my 20mm feels narrow a bit too often to be my default and then when I compose with elements in the background in mind, it’s the pro zoom I long for.
1. The 20mm and the 14mm would complement each other. But I see no point having the 14mm and the 17mm. Not much diff.
2. Oly 14/1.2 vs Panny 14/2.5 + Oly 20/1.2 vs Panny 20/1.7 makes more sense than scenario where Oly 25/1.2 fights angainst Oly 25/1.8 and Panny 25/1.4 and many more lenses on this FL; the 17mm again Oly has 2 lenses here and many are very close.
3. The 20mm FL suits m4/3 well, look at the 20mm/F1.7.
4. Lets get this to a horse whose head is bigger than human’s 🙂 I hope we will see a proper roadmap for this super fast primes during CP+
Cheers
You can be pretty sure that if they release this series, they will be standard focal lengths. Except for maybe the 42.5mm, because there already is one lens like that.
I’d pay $1000 for a 12mm f/1.2 as I really like my f/2. But any more than $1000 and my head starts spinning. At that price range, there are sooo many alternatives to lenses, because lets face it, as an amateur, no lens is really a must have. And if Olympus starts releasing good lenses at $2500 price tags, unfortunately, that is just not for me.