The Olympus zoom table (Patent US8928993)
UPDATED: The United States Patent US8928993 discloses a new zoom with f/1.8 aperture at the wide end and f/2.8 at the tele end. It’s designed for smaller than MFT sensors (1/1.7 inch for example). I really do hope Olympus will make fats zooms for MFT too. It’s a long time now people is asking for a faster than f/2.8 zoom lens from Olympus. Just like they had with he Four Thirds system with the [shoplink 25320 ebay]Zuiko 14-35mm f/2.0 (here one Bay)[/shoplink] and the [shoplink 25319 ebay]Zuiko 35-100mm f/2.0 (here one Bay)[/shoplink].
39 Responses
Give us 12-60 1.8-2.8 !
That will be €2200 please sir – ka ching.
I believe many would still buy a such.
Yet I don’t really get it as 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro is so close to that, as difference between 40mm and 60mm is in most cases just one step.
don´t know where you see f1.8 here…. but maybe you dropped out of school early….
it is customary that a slower lens (like f/1.93) gets marketed as f/1.8, everyone does it
Yes, and the same goes for focal lengths.The numbers are almost always rounded. And it’s not just compact camera lenses, they do it with interchangeable lenses, too.
Here’s an interesting link to Imaging Resource, where they measured the true focal lengths of some superzoom cameras. Quite a large difference between the real numbers and the marketing numbers in some cases:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/best-superzoom-2014/best-superzoom-2014-pg6-true-focal-lengths.HTM
i don´t know how you round but 1.93 is closer to 2 than it is to 1.8.
Well, obviously they don’t follow the usual rounding rules. Why would you market an f/1.93 lens as an f/2 lens, when you can market it as an f/1.8 lens? We’re dealing with businessmen here, not scientists.
New Math™
you are wrong… only m43 compayns do it.. but they lie to their customers anyway…
5-24? sound more like a lens for a compact camera with a smaller sensor….
Yes, this is for 1/2.3″ sensor. We can be sure because angle of view is provided.
Even a 1/2.5″ sensor, I reckon a crop factor of 5.6
Yes, indeedy. 76.6 degrees is approximately 28mm equivalent on FF. So 28 divided by the listed 5mm focal length…
This is not for MFT: look at the angle of field values.
Too bad – 5mm would be so awesome for us UWA lovers…
Would have been a circular fisheye then. Widest rectilinear ever done might be the 12mm Voitgländer for 35mm sensor. That would be 6mm for m4/3. Everything else is fisheye then.
Canon has a 11-24 FF rectilinear lens, which would translate to 5.5 – 12 if made for MFT.
Granted it would be heavy, expensive and not super popular, but I’d buy one
Looks very similar to the Stylus XZ-10 lens (4.7-23.5mm f/1.8-2.7). Definitely nothing to do with m4/3.
Is it for the MFT format, or for compact caméras ? Sounds bizarre, since the new MFT wa zoom isn’t even shipping yet.
You have my interest. DO IT.
FT -1
This is not a rumor.
There already is a fast zoom lens close to these aperture values for m43. It just happens to be bolted on to an LX100.
And that is a Leica which doesn’t run with an Olympus patent.
And why a US patent which are anything but international.
Whereas patented in country of origin can be used for basis of international patent.
Going by the angle of view, that is not for 4/3, but is for a much smaller sensor. I’d say smaller than a 1 inch sensor.
It ain’t gonna happen for u43 any time soon. maybe sigma if they get their act together could do something for us.
Based on angle it’s for 1/1.8″ sensor. Shame on you.
It is also easier to make a fast lens for a smaller sensor than a large one.
The crop factor (angle of view) makes the necessary focal length shorter, which reduces the objective lens size needed for f/1.8
I believe this is for next Tough series camera. What is good as the latest doesn’t have more than wide angle optics.
But I am not really interested anything between 12-150mm now. As Olympus has awesome Pro line to cover that if wanted best quality out there and tough good design.
Then the premium line has awesome f/1.8 prime objectives, 17/25/45mm. Then there are 12mm f/2 that is admired by many astrophotographer and rated it best rectilinear out there for that task.
The next interesting (by optics and focal length) are Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8 and 8mm f/1.8 fisheye.
The Pro line gets very very good by those two. Straight to the required field of views. But that fisheye to really shine, it needs to be perfect by coma, like Samyang 7.5mm f/3.5 is. At that point it will win everyone heart who use fisheyes, except those who just doesn’t have m4/3 body or can’t afford it.
But I am waiting longer focal lengths zooms and shorter primes.
Yes, many say it is crazy expensive and crazy big. But Pro line screams 150-400mm f/2.8. Yes, it would be a “bazooka” but it would be THE objective that gets wildlife and sports photographers to run on m4/3 system! Why? Because even with single one heavy large objective, rest are still small and light, like Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8.
Example, here is 4/3 mount 300mm f/2.8
http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_files/recensioni/olympus_300.jpg
And here is the OM mount 350mm f/2.8
http://mkoptics.net/m/images/11031.JPG
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/29767913
Many laughs because they think that mirrorless cameras should be small and light. Sorry, but if you want small and light, get to compact cameras like Olympus SP-100 where you get space and weight savings.
The idea of the system cameras is that we can buy the needed and wanted objectives and when we need them, mount it and when not needed unmount it. If we want to get lighter and smaller combination, we get that. No one is forcing anyone to buy a expensive large and few kilos weighting zoom.
Example, we can go and look what others needs to use on wildlife photography:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzDF6oC1Jmg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxEvCBMbrek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKrIA05I6LY
The other side the m4/3 really needs are the UWA that are priced lower. Rectilinear 7mm or 8mm with f/1.8 or f/2 and build like 12mm f/2. Or make it even cheaper with f/2.8 or f/4 design and build like 45mm or why not like 17mm f/2.8. Those would not be threat to Pro line as no zoom and no weather sealing. But many would love to get their hands on example 8mm f/2.8.
The problem with m4/3 objective lines is now that we have too much choices between 12-60mm focal lengths. Great low light suckers from Voigtländer, great portrait objectives from Panasonic, Olympus and Sigma, Cinema objectives from many others, even from Zeiss etc.
Throw to combo a couple tilt-shift objectives and there really isn’t much that most would be missing.
If Olympus would add a 2x teleconverter to such 150-400mm f/2.8, that being compatible as well to 1.4x, it would be a dream to many wildlife and sports photographer.
Not bothered about a zoom faster than f/2.8 for m4/3, but some super fast native primes to compete with the Voigtlanders and Panasonics would be very cool.
Olympus *should not make* faster zooms for m4/3rds. It’s the mistake that cost them the market with 4/3rds. They would be too big eroding the size advantages of the system.
Focusing on fast primes is the way to go here. Zooms at F2.8 are already fast enough and big enough.
There are plenty of fast primes in the typical ranges. Zooms are the requirement for long range and wide range in m4/3 system. But this patent is not about 4/3 sensor but smaller.
It might be for the XZ-3
That would be my thoughts too.
This fits the mystery camera Ming Thein discussed here:
http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/02/18/review-mystery-camera/
I am a big fan of the olympus e-m1. I just wish that olympus would just make those unique fast f2.0 zooms for mft, then it can really distant them from other mirrorless cameras. I, for one, would definitely jump in to buy one if they make a 40-150mm f2.0 pro lens.
Both Panasonic and Olympus have to work on faster zooms. Faster then F2.8. As. On MFT F2.8 is not F2.8 in 35Mm terms. More like f5.6 ( or f4 ). They of course need to improve sensor as well. Lower light ability, do what Sony and Samsung have been doing. Backlit. Olympus is doing well to up MP
Seems like organic sensors few years off.