.
A source just told me that Olympus is likely going to announced the new 7-14mm f/2.8 Zuiko MFT lens very soon! He also sent me the price in non $ currency. I made a rough conversion and the lens should cost $1,799 which is also the price of the Four Thirds version (here on Amazon). But the FT version is one stop slower. I have been told the lens has an extremely high quality.
[poll id=”239″]
Many Thanks to the source for sending me this!!!
—
For sources: Sources can send me anonymous info at 43rumors@gmail.com (create a fake gmail account) or via contact form you see on the right sidebar. Thanks!
For readers: Don’t miss any news. Join our group on facebook and follow our tweets.
Rumors classification explained (FT= FourThirds):
FT1=1-20% chance the rumor is correct
FT2=21-40% chance the rumor is correct
FT3=41-60% chance the rumor is correct
FT4=61-80% chance the rumor is correct
FT5=81-99% chance the rumor is correct
454 Responses
Gulp! Thanks…for that price I will just continue to use my panasonic 7-14mm f/4.0.
I’m on your boat.. Quite expensive, I hope this price is wrong!
+1 even though I use the Samyang for whenever I need a really wide angle. Other than that, the 9-18 is just fine, too.
7-14/2.8 is a specialist lens for astronomists etc. who can afford it.
Well maybe it’s not for amateurs like you.
The 7-14mm F4.0 FT was the same price MSRP at launch. Quite a number of FT owners bought this lens, and the lens is far from mediocre.
That lens must be perfect, if a genius like you talks it up.
The Canon EF 16-35mm 2.8 L II USM is cheaper!!!!! With more glass inside.
Hope you like massive amounts of field curvature.
2mm more on the wide side is no joke man.
The comparison should be with a Canon 14-28 F5.6, but they don’t make one, they are too serious.
I barely can afford 9-18 …so this is not in my budget …but nice to see new & new lenses for m43
BTW, 9-18 is totally worth the 500€ I have put out for it.
It’s a perfect always-on lens – small/collapsible, versatile range – when you do not need the tele.
yes I am realizing it more an more that such zoom wide to normal is perfect lens
I am lazy to switch 25 to 14 ( my current combo) and during day the f4-5.6 is more than enough….so this is on my lens list on top …but first the new body ….em10 or possibly gx7 …then the gas for new lens starts again 🙂
On my GX7, it sits like a glove. On smaller and lighter E-M10, it might be less so. 9-18 is large-ish and heavy-ish. It does look like a kit lens – but it is most definitely not.
PRO …. Preposterous, Ridiculous, Outrageous!!
More expensive than the Panasonic GH4! More expensive than Leica Nocticron 42.5mm f1.2
Most expensive piece of gear in the entire m4/3 ecosystem!!! (probably not a speck of metal in it’s construction). Unbelievable
The Blackmagic Studio Camera with m4/3 mount is more expensive. Go get a life.
Zing!!!! Wow you really told me! Seriously Bub, YOU need to get a life. This lens isn’t worth fighting over. It looks just like the fragile Olympus 12-40mm plasticon lens @ nearly double the price.
You buy it.
BTW, I never would have considered the BMSC to be a part of the m4/3 ecosystem. If you need that to slam me …. be my guest. Your point would have been better taken by throwing the Panasonic YAGH unit @$1999. at me. Have a lovely day!
You gotta give it to trolls, there’s just no one else in the internet with that much imagination (BS) that would call the 12-40mm a failure of a lens. I bet if canon or nikon had come up with this system and had just released this lens for 2500 you hypocrite trolls/sheeple would be all over it regardless of all your sensor talk and whatnot…Anyway how are their systems doing, oh, nevermind…
WHOA . . . slow down there, Hoss! If you are insinuating that I called the Oly 12-40 a failure . . . show me where I said that?
I am not a “troll” . . . I am firmly in the m4/3 camp. I have mostly Panasonic gear (my new GH4 should arrive Saturday), but I also have an E-M5 and the O45 – f1.8.
Don’t assume that any criticism of Olympus gear constitutes trolling. I usually find myself in agreement with your posts.
I don’t like plastics, never will. I machined metal all my life, I have bought Voigtlander NOKTON m4/3 lenses just because I love the feel of metal.
BTW: My guess is that neither of us will buy this new lens.
Sorry about the name calling but you did say the lens was fragile, and fragility is an engineering failure. In any case metalic build does not warrant safety for any kind of lens, I’ve seen metal lenses being bent and dented or even broken while plastic ones just bounced like it was nothing (not my lenses btw, I’ve never had one of mine drop). Not all plastics are equal btw, there are even ones tougher than many metals. I would prefer a plastic lens to a metal one any day if that meant saving the lens from damage. Now, tactile feeling, sure, metal is reassuring and nice to hold but other than that it’s pretty psychological.
I accept your apology. I don’t troll and I despise liars.
I try and not let shallow-brained posters rob me of my joy in the m4/3 system. Additionally I like gear from ALL manufacturers including Canon and Nikon as each company brings something unique and valuable to the table.
I didn’t not intend to inflame passions (I basically said what most are saying, “the lens is too expensive”) but having seen the reaction I wish I had said that it was priced beyond my reach. So too, is the Leica Nocticron which would fit my uses better.
Nice set up, looks lovely. Yeah, I agree with the general notion, this lens is priced beyond its pretended usage range, the fast aperture and weather sealing are commodities which are not crucial for this type of lens and thus do not justify such a steep price from the rest of the line up, specially the previous pro lens (a couple $ hundred more sure, but $800 ? hell no)
I seriously doubt this lens would have a plastic mount so there goes your theory about lack of metal (nevermind all the metal bits involved in AF and the fact that it’s weathersealed). But yeah, the price is just not reasonable for this specific lens.
Your panasonic fanboyism hurts my eyes.
OK, this lens is pricey but, as you know, it’s the quality that works. And yep, Nocticron 42.5mm is crap comparing to less expensive Oly 75mm.
Both of you need to cut on the brand fanboyism and realize this is a shared system, there are not Olympus or Panasonic users, there’s only m4/3 users. You’re still stuck on the Nikon vs Canon mentality, just stop and enjoy the best of each manufacturer.
And it won’t sell, at all. This is a lens that B&H wouldn’t even want to carry. WAY overpriced!
Are you a decision maker at B&H Photo? You must be to have this inside information.
Are you my Shadow? My Personal Troll? Are you going to comment to EVERY comment I make? Does my words touch you in such a way, that you must say something?
Does being a Personal Troll pay well? If not, please persue other intrest.
Sweet lens but not for pro photographers – maybe some pro athletes, successful businessmen, supermodels or software engineers who will buy it for them 🙂
you talk as if there’s just one type of pro photographer or just one type of photography assignment. There are tons of pros already making money using GH4s and EM1s with the existing fast zooms from pany and oly, why would this lens be different? I don’t see any technical reason why this lens is not adequate for pro use. I do find the the price ridiculous though.
A professional photographer can actually produce quite cheaply, even with this kind of gear. The Olympus system is excellent value-for-money, in my opinion. (better than any other camera system, even)
I’d say it is quite expensive compared to most systems out there.
I’d say why complain, if you were never to buy it anyway. It’s simply not for you.
Why do ppl complain about m43 prices like there is a link between size and price. It is a PRO lens for the m43 format, why can’t it be what it is.
Don’t get me wrong I’d like it to be cheaper as well, but so do I wish the D4s was cheaper and I could justify buying every camera I wanted/needed.
As a Pro I buy what I need and use often, I don’t have a camera store so I need to buy my own tools and rent equippement that I seldomly used. This is for me the best business strategie. If I would use the 7-14mm most of the time buying it would be a no brainer.
First of all, I disagreed with Lourens’ opinion. Second of all, the system was on my list a year ago and I didn’t invest precisely because of the prices (actually, it still is). It can be what it is and it is what it is, but it certainly isn’t a better value than any other system, in my opinion. Don’t bring my comment where it wasn’t supposed to go.
Have fun with your 50mm f/1.8!
I am, it’s a great lens.
I did not realize software engineers are grouped with supermodels and pro athletes. Speaking for male software engineers everywhere I would like to ask you to keep spreading the word to women everywhere about our new status, most of them seemed to have missed that memo.
I assume the supermodels you speak of are women. If those ladies would buy this lens why wouldn’t successful business women? Let me clue you in on something. This lens will sell off the rack. It will be purchased by people of all walks of life, pros and non-pros.
Cannot really see the reason of this gear.
You have a grand total of zarro DOF and bokeh control at this focal length anyway so the big aperture itself is not relevant.
The only argument would be the low light shooting, but the current wide angle zooms have F4 which is just 1 EV darker at less than half a price, and the better and better sensor technology will surpass this handicap quite soon.
So this lens is not for you. Fine. I can see a lot of reasons for this lens.
yeah, the value proposition is rather poor, as you said, for such a huge price difference there’s not much advantage in going f2.8 against f4, then again there are times when you just don’t have the luxury of going up the ISO scale. I’m sure this lens will be amazing but the price is just wrong, I cannot see myself justifying that kind of money just for weather sealing a a slightly faster aperture. $1299 would be more reasonable.
Actually DOF and bokeh is all matter of technique, distance of camera to subject, and subject to background. I get amazing bokeh at f/2.8 with my m43 lenses
Not sure how you can do it on 7 (or even 14) mm, regardless of aperture, unless getting prepared for a huge perspective distorsion.
The same “extremely high quality” as the Olympus 12-40?
A good lens, but not one I would assign that phrase to, such as, for example, the Oly 75mm,
You do realize you’re comparing a zoom lens, which regardless of quality, will ALWAYS be inferior even if slightly, to a prime, right ? And not just ANY prime but you’re comparing it to one of the best ever prime lenses, that’s kinda unfair. Anyway, zooms just by virtue of being zooms (variable FL lenses) have to make more compromises than fixed lenght lenses, it’s just inevitable.
That said, yeah, as much as I want or need this lens, it is WAY too expensive even for this system, there’s no way I would pay full MSRP. (oh the troll is gonna have a feast with this post)
I agree with your overall point, but please stop saying that every zoom is lower quality than every prime. There are plenty of junky primes out there. I don’t think you mean to imply that the 12-40 is inferior to (for example) the FT 35mm macro or a Canon nifty fifty. Are the best primes better than the best zooms? Yeah, probably, but let’s not overgeneralize, please!
As I said, zooms have to deal with a lot more design challenges than primes, that sets the bar differently for each of them. Now, if some companies are prodigious enough to come up with zooms that excel most primes, then all the better, but that’s usually not the norm (in fact, m4/3 is one of the few system that can say its zooms are competitive with the best primes out there, not an easy thing to do for most)
How would you know without having seen and used it? You keep posting negative stuff about m43 (using a different user name each time). Why don’t you stop worrying about m43. People have right choose whatever format fits them best.
Too expensive
the 9-18 oly zoom is a great IR lens, no hot spot. I wish it was f2.8 then I could hand hold it. But it would be tough to shell out that kind of money, it would have to be a mind blowingly good lens.
I thought the 12-40 was too much…still do…I got rid of that one as there are better choices…if this price rings true it is outrageous…I have switched happily to the fuji X-T1…their lenses have become really nice and at a much better price…such as the fuji 56 1.2 vs the panny 42.5 1.2…the fuji is about 500 dollars less and on par with the panny/leica…some say the panny is a tad better…but not 500 dollars better…I think other systems are starting to pass micro four thirds…I’ll still keep my E-M1 but do not think I will invest in it much further…The GH4 now has a quicker autofocus and image quality is just a tad above the E-M1 . But for portraits I think fuji cannot be beat…and especially in camera black and white…I know the whole camera industryis hurting …I think Olympus needs a change of direction…and this is coming from a big Olympus fan…but I am a fan of many different cameras and systems
I’m curious what you think was the “better choice” than the 12-40? Is there another fast, constant aperture, weather sealed zoom with commendable sharpness even wide open? The Pany 12-35 is a nice lens, but costs more than the Oly. Other than those, I’m really at a loss as to what you could be considering a better choice…
at this price…could cause Olympus to file for bankruptcy…I do not see a wide market for this lens…most people are hollering for a long 2.8 zoom…the system is lacking…I would think they would have that in the 2,000 dollar range as well…the death of micro four thirds ?
so because you think a particular lens is “too expensive” that signals the death of an entire multi-vendor camera system? you must be very powerful.
Are you serious ? do you read what you write before posting ? just how can one single lens mean bankruptcy for a whole corporation (in case you didn’t know, Olympus isn’t just about cameras). If you’re hoping this system dies I have bad news for you because A) there’s no way m4/3 will disappear while being the largest mirrorless system. B) If it really was at risk of such a thing there’ wouldn’t be such a steady increase in 3rd party support (the largest of any other mirrorless) and C) M4/3 disappearance would hurt the whole industry, just as with DSLRs, there would come a time where monopolies or duopolies would form and innovation would stop, there would be no pressure for APS-C/FF mirrorless to improve, so it wouldn’t be good for you either.
It’s the largest system, with the least amount if marketshare. M43 has been loosing ground, three years straight.
Tell me, how many times do you think Olympus can come out with expensive M43 gear that doesn’t sell? They are sitting on a Ton of 43 lenses and bodies, the PEN series is a dud, yet they’re dropping a new one with the guts of a OMD. Their lenses aside from the 42.5 aren’t selling and now they’re goingto drop an even MORE expensive lens?
Yeah, the writing is on the wall… Olympus will bow out. It’s only a question of when…
I recommend you stop worrying about micro four thirds cameras. You are welcome to embrace any format you like.
Who’s worrying??? I’m just CLEARLY STATING THE OBVIOUS. And I do embrace other formats, FF, APS-C and M43.
Stating the Obvious is not worrying, unless YOU’RE worried.
I’m worried about you, just as your family probably is considering your age.
Olympus knows that this lens won’t sell in huge numbers, they have the 4/3 version to predict sales numbers from. The R&D costs have to recouped somewhere, it makes sense to claim them from the consumer! Funny how everyone whinged about the cheap, slow 9-18mm, wanting something faster and wider. Now everyone complains about how expensive this is, and that there is no point in it being this fast!
It’s not that there’s no need for this lens, but for the use it’s gonna receive and the market reach of the system the price being charged is unjustifiable. No one was asking for such an expensive lens, something faster and more expensive than the Pany 7-14 was fine by most, something along the lines of the 12-40mm price-wise, if not a tad more expensive…but this is too much
People have been predicting Olympus’s demise for years and years. Sorry to burst your bubble but it isn’t going to happen.
Well… I own the Panasonic m43 7-14. I bought it for 30% of the price of this lens. It makes great picturesand I don’t see any reason one should buy this too expensive Olympus lens:
– f2.8: who cares for a 7-14 on a stabilized body?
– design: will be big. much bigger than my Pana lens.
– image quality: you don’t buy a 7-14 for details. And I doubt the image quality will be much better than on the Pana lens.
My guess: smart people will stay away…
On this I can agree with, suddenly the Pany 7-14 doesn’t look that expensive and large anymore…Oly just did a huge favor to Pany with this one (if price is true)
It all depends on the quality of the lens. Too expensive for me, for sure, but if it’s good then I may one day save up. An 8.5mm prime would have been nice, though.
The quality will be there, I wouldn’t be concerned about that, the problem with the price is not the IQ but rather the applications this lens is meant to cover, and in light of such a limited market range this lens, however good it is, is just too expensive (for what it proposes). Olympus is making the same mistakes they did with legacy 4/3s, they got all excited with the idea of upgrading m4/3 into a prosumer product that they’re once again pushing their system into a niche…Let’s hope Pany and all the other 3rd party manufacturers can put some sense into Olympus by sheer market pressure.
Very very true !
Quite true. Let’s hope that the price will be lower than what has been reported.
Good point, although I wouldn’t count on Panasonic to save us. The price of the 42.5 is ridiculous, regardless of how good it is.
I only want a good and small weathersealed lens for my E-M5(the 12-50mm isn’t small and optical good). I switched over to MFT because of size and weight an now it becomes bigger and bigger.
Thank good we have plenty of choice in both lenses and bodies then. I too worry that we’re going back to 4/3 largeness but then again we have more choices now, if you don’t want GH4 or EM1 sized bodies there’s plenty of PENs, GX and even GM cameras, same goes for lenses. Remember, even tough this lens MIGHT be relatively large within this system, it is still comparatively small against APS-C/FF counterparts, and even then, it’s not like you don’t have alternatives within the system itself, there’s the Oly 9-18, the pany 7-14, the 12-32, etc..
Not true !
Yes we have tons of basic kit zoom lenses. But where can you find any 7mm m43 lens that is not either large and very expensive (oly 7-14) or has many problems with Sony sensor + is expensive. 9-18 is nice but corners are not good enough + it’s not wide enough. Super wide prime is missing too. Just look at Fujifilm how they work ….
Samyang 7.5mm is tiny – stop whining
I own this lens !
Yes you must know that it’s a fisheye lens so stop insulting me please !
Fortunataly we have even other manufacturers in a m43 camp that can bring excellent lens for an affordable price.
I will buy ! Nobody force you to buy. Quality and development is expensive ! Please DO NOT say it is expensive. You don’t have to……….
It of course depends on the money you have ;o)
But compared to the 7-14 Pany, is it wise to pay 2,5 times the price, just to gain one stop?
I can tell you the Pany makes excellent pictures. So why go for this new lens?
In the future, would you say a $3500 f2.0 7-14 is not expensive, or a $7000 f.1.4, or $14000 f1.0, etc.?
The closer it is to optimal quality, the more exponentially the price will change. You can’t say that because the 7 – 14 takes good picture then this expensive lens is not justified for those who want absolute quality.
this is a f5.6 lens…..
Just because you keep repeating it doesn’t make it so. If you’re going to play the equivalence card, you should understand how it actually works.
Wow, you are really stuck on this. The DOF is equivalent to f/5.6 but the amount of light that is controlled by the aperture is f/2.8, like any other f/2.8 in any format. Geez, Louise, dude. Give it a rest.
Idiot.
The price is a real problem if it’s a 1800$ lens considering it will have tons of barrel distortions (correctable but resulting in big losses of resolution from a 16mp sensor of mft size…).
How can you assure any of that without any proof ? Are you a optic engineer ? do you know every detail behind the optical formula ?
He is clearly an arrogant know-it-all type…who doesn’t really know much at all.
I’m not sure the distortions will be that huge. This is the case on cheaper UWA lenses, but I think Oly will control the distortions.
Otherwise this lens is completely useless.
Even the 12-40 which is easier to build has a staggering -8.53% barrel distortion (uncorrected) @ 12 according to photozone…so this will go the same way.
I’ll pay what they want for the 40-150 (where is it??) but I have the pana 7-14, so won’t need this.
Given the normal £=$ conversions in UK allowing for tax & duty, that’ll be twice the price of the Panasonic 7-14. I’ll stick with my 9-18 and 7.5 FE, thanks.
No reason not too.
“to”, sorry. I hate typos.
With the fierce competition Japanese company will face, Olympus is right to go to a high-end positioning. Samyang will sooner or later produce a nice $350 UWA zoom (their 8mm m43 fish-eye is a good lens, not great, but good: I own and love that lens), and Oly will not be able to compete against that.
So Oly is right with this market positioning. The question is, is this lens relevant at this stage of the products roadmap? And here again, I’m not sure: most enthusiast amateurs would rather contemplate a f2.8 75-300, or a great macro lens, etc.
There is already UWA. Why not TS instead, Oly?
I really need a WA T/S but seeing the price of this simple WA, I’m afraid of what that one would cost…Might as well buy the new rokinon 10mm in F mount and stick it into a T/S adapter.
I was wondering: do the “speed boosters” work with the T/S/TS lenses?
P.S. I have tried the UWA (with 9-18) and I like it. But I have never tried TS. If there would be a way to acquire a cheap TS (no, please no “lensbaby” advises; ok, the Loreo PC looks interesting) I’d love to jump on it. TS lenses, even second hand are incredibly expensive.
If the adapted lens projects a large enough image circle (which most T/S lenses do) I don’t know why they wouldn’t work.
There are plenty of T/S adapters for m4/3, you just have to pick a mount. The problem with this setup is the availability of ultra wides, because as you know, there’s a 2x crop factor penalty with m43, so even if you get a wide angle on a T/S adapter, it’ll become a normal, so you need really ultra wides lenses and there’re not that many mounts that had those, and of the ones that do they’re still expensive and the T/S adapter+UWA combo ends up almost as costly as a true T/S lens.
A solution would be if they could come up with an all-in-one T/S speedbooster adapter but I fear the glass wouldn’t allow for any movements and the cost would sky rocket. Best bet right now is the Rokinon 10mm on F mount and a F mount T/S adapter. Another idea would be a Rhinocam for m4/3.
When was it that the last made a Tilt-Shift lens, the 1980s?
Isn’t there a LensBaby accessory you can use?
Canon relatively recently refreshed their 24mm. IIRC before that Nikon too. Then Zeiss was announcing remakes of their “PC” (perspective correction) lenses, but with their prices I hasn’t even bothered to look further.
Lensbaby is relatively expensive and limited (tilt only), unfortunately. They had in the past cheaper models, but not in m43 mount.
Loreo PC body lens/cap style TS lens looks OK – but not available for m43 mount.
Another cheap alternative are the adapters for foreign mounts with tilt function. They are unfortunately tilt only. (And I do not have legacy glass.)
Sure, but Olympus hasn’t made a Tilt-Shift lens for so long. I doubt that they’d be interested in making another. One of those might be okay, but you’d have to use an adapter.
Hope the 40-150mm f/2.8 is not that overpriced … ^^ If it is overpriced, I’ll sell my equipment, and go over to Fuji or something …
Yeah because Fuji is anywhere close to offering the vast lens catalog that m4/3 has…and even then, you’re back to square one in respects to lens size vs DSLRs…good luck with that.
Wrong. Fuji currently has excellent offerings in the (equivalent) 15-36, 18, 21, 28, 28-82, 35, 50, 85, 90, and 82-300 ranges. And the constant f/2.8 24-82 and 75-210 zooms are coming soon. It’s a myth that Fuji’s lens line-up isn’t well-rounded. It is, unless you have a strong need to shoot beyond 300mm. m43’s “vast” lens catalog contains a ton of overlap and some very mediocre offerings. I say this as an m43 shooter, so no bias.
Fuji makes a great product. When more lenses become available I will likely add Fuji to my arsenal.
They have a compact line, XC, as well as the higher image quality line, XF.
They’ve covered important focal lengths already.
Even so, as I said, m4/3 is already far ahead and will always, inevitably be smaller overall, so why bother waiting for Fuji to catch up only to end up with the same bulk as DSLRs…The fuji system is nice, I put it just below m4/3 in my ranking but in the end it’s just Fuji backing that system, they’re alone in their effort, whereas m4/3 is a lot more robust, you Pany, Oly, Kodak and Blackmagic (and even Sony to some degree) behind this system, and that’s not even counting the immense number of lens manufacturers.
I’m with you to a certain extent.
I really considered the X-T1 and the upcoming 50-140mm f/2.8 lens until I saw that it wasn’t very responsive, in contrast to the E-M1 and GH3/GH4.
I only wish that Olympus or Panasonic or both would engender a loyal following by listening to customers and making regular firmware updates that matter to customers.
Well I for one am waiting for the Fuji 27mm lens to be in stock and the X-T1 will be my Primary shooter. I’m just about to give in and pick up the Kit and sell the lens once the 27mm comes in.
M43 may have more lenses, but Fuji covers the lenses I use the most, 50mm, 40mm and 20-21mm.
I’m sorry, it’s only a matter of time before Fuji overtakes M43. They’re becoming the size of M43, while M43 is matching lens size and even larger of the Fuji X series.
You have to put everything in context. The 40 – 150 2.8 will not be cheap, but if it holds it own against other systems’ counterparts considering its price (it already get 1.5 the reach of a CaNikon 70-200) then why ditch MFT just for that?
Agreed!
If you think this is overpriced, you’re in the wrong business…or should I say, hobby.
If it is your hobby, buy only what you need–which is what business people do anyway.
This lens is for professionals and prosumer shooters who don’t mind this price range if the lens delivers. I shoot for a living, so this price does not bother me, as I know it will eventually pay for itself.
If you want this zoom range and need this kind of speed, then this is the price you have to pay. ( same goes for other professional camera systems )
You are correct. 🙂 It seems appropriately priced to me.
Hahahahaha the price, what a joke. LMAO
yeah and that for a f5.6 lens……
So you’ve said. FYI. It’s a f/2.8 lens. You obviously don’t understand what the f-stop number means. Here you go. Educate yourself for once. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number
He was talking about the Full frame equivalent terms. You would never pay 1800 dollars for short focal length f5.6 FF-lens, would you?
Does it take filters, i wonder?
No that is the killing argument against…..despite the price…..but if it has had the price would have benn more jusitifed…outstanding feature….
looks like the hood is build-in… so no filters. I have seen people waving a black card in front of their panasonic 7-14 instead of a gradual filter… seemed to work well for them.
Yes, at a price:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/05/29/accessory-review-fotodiox-wonderpana-freearc-filter-system?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu
It takes Art Filters.
If THAT’S the price, Then we’re Looking At Inventory and It will Be joining its 43 mate on Olympus shelves.
Olympus is killing themselves. Question is, are they doing it in purpose?
off topic, another Japanese CEO got arrested for fraud, claiming they sold Millions more than his company actually did. Olympus can’t walk that road anymore.
The only thing we know for sure is that you, MrALLCRAP, are an idiot.
Wrong as usual.
I agree about the price of this lens, but is Olympus killing themselves?
I think that the EM10 looks like pretty good value to me. That or the GX7, that’s my dilemma
The price would be fine and acceptable if it would have had the ULTIMATE OUTSTANDING FEATURE IN THE UWW LENS COMPETITION in comparison to the color / purple fringing Pana 7-14 f4 but it is sadly missing although Toshi Terada promised me at an omd roadmap meeting that this lens will definetely have one especially for landscape phototgraphers (he said he loves/does landscape photography as well in his rare leisure!;)) and he sees a market and benefit for this feature/purpose to use ordinary screwable nd filters in the lens competition :
FILTER THREAD IS MISSING……WHAT A BUMMER !!!!!
It seems he could not convince the management to do one with filter thread…cheaper to use old lens design of the OLY FT 7-14 f4 pro lens (bulging front lens element like 14-24 nikon 2.8 as well) they had definetley enough time for making this possible…..
One more reason to switch to fuji …. XF 10-14 f4 OIS (filter thread)…..
A black day its pathetic!
Multi sunt causae bibendi…..cheers!
There was never going to be a filter thread for this lens.
It needs a convex front element to conquer the distortion of such an ultra wide angle.
You are wrong my friend!
Nothing is impossible…..even with 14mm-24 2.8 ff (7-14mm 2.8 m43) it should be possible to intergate a filter thread….it is only a fact of engineering costs, price, size and the motivation to get it done….if you wanna have “a masterpiece of lens engineering and outstanding feature in the competition with gaining lots of attention/respect for your innovation/efforts (e.g. sigma art 50 1.4 nearly matching zeiss otus for 1/3 of the price or the introducing of d800 with 36mpx two years ago)”….it is lens engineering/physic definetely possible nowadays….
so 1mm less wide and f4 stop and it is already possible ….as in the case of fuji 10-24 4 ois, nikon 10-24 3.5-4.5 dx, tamron, sigma uww lens for dx/aps c starting with 10-….
As Steve Jobs said…..”Innovation distinguishes between leaders and followers”
So, which of those lenses has a 7mm end? None of them.
I’m sure, if Olympus had been able to easily add a filter thread to their Four-Thirds 7-14mm f/4.0 lens, they would have done it–or provided a drop-in filter slot at the back end, as they did with the 90-250mm f/2.8 lens, that would have been a design inspiration.
They did not. The Four-Thirds sensor is not for easy wide angle use. If someone is a landscape photographer, they need to go with Medium Format or at least, 135 Format for easy wide angle.
No but 7mm m43 is equiv. on ff 14 and 10 apsc is equiv.on ff 15 so only 1mm less wide (i know only nikon 3.5-4.6/fuji 10-24 4)…..
Mr. Terada told me he thinks it should be possible (from an lens engineering point of view) but he has to convince his boss/persons above him in order to make it possible ( development cost, more time etc.)….
So it is clear that he couldn t convince them and that the leaders dont use their own products (lens/cameras)….
the companies are lead by so called financial experts, accounters, marceting gurus etc. who play with numbers focus solely on money…..lens engineers,product developers, physicians, r&d department have less or nearly no impact/power on the decision/ in the decision making process…..
but that is the case in every big company….sadly…
we can see it everyday….
all products could be much better…..
The equivalency to 135 Format only matters if you’re using the lens, not designing it.
Designing a lens at 10mm or 14mm wide ends is much easier than designing for 7mm.
If Olympus had brought a lens with a filter thread to market, it would likely cost another US$700-$1000, and cost millions extra to research. That’s too much for a niche product. They enhanced the maximum aperture and that’s a great thing.
The price is absurd. I would rather change the system instead of paying these prices.
Nikon, Canon, & Sony will cost you more.
The FF bodies cost a little more on average that´s about it.
Sony A7 with the new 16-35 f4 FE lens is going to be less expensive than an Oly OMD EM1 + 7-14 lens.
My Canon 6D + the new 16-35 f4 lens is less expensive than the Oly system.
I just can´t justify mounting a 1800$ or EUR lens on a current mft body – I could mount it on my e-Pl1 or the OMD EM10 and at iso 100 the e-Pl1 would look better^^ No mft body lives up to a 1800EUR lens.
No it won’t. If you picked A7 and upcoming 16-35 f4 FE lens, it would cost you less. Also you probably won’t gain any size/weight advantage if you used Olympus, but we’ll have to wait for final specs to be sure. Also with FF-camera camera and f4-lens have of course DOF and S/N-ratio advantage over f2.8m4/3-lens.
“upcoming 16-35 f4 FE lens”
Two things.
(1) Why all Sony lenses are always “upcoming”? Is that a new lens feature?
(2) The 16-35 f4 is not as wise as the Pana 7-14 f4. Former is rumored to cost $1200, the later has MSRP of $1250 (street price now $700-800).
“Also with FF-camera camera and f4-lens have of course DOF and S/N-ratio advantage over f2.8m4/3-lens.”
But with FF you have the *disadvantage* of the shallower DOF. Anyway you spin it in WA shots corners would look better on m43.
And with Sony EF, as it evolves right now, one is again stuck at the same old lens crossroad: cheap but poor IQ lens vs. good IQ but effing expensive and heavy lens.
The FujiFilm 10-24mm f/4.0 lens is very nice, and it’s economical, but it’s not weather-sealed, and it’s a bit slower.
Well, I’m out! I’ll keep using my trusty 9-18 which works just fine.
Hopefully pricing has not been set in stone. I find it interesting that Panasonic’s premium 42.5mm lens list priced at $1,599 has recently sold via several vendors, granted in small quantities, at around $1,300. I indicated “Don’t know it yet” but at $1,799 my answer really should be “No”. I own the EM-1 and 12-40mm and consider myself “in the market” from Olympus’ perspective, but not at $1,799. think there is a premium that the micro 4/3 market is willing to pay for improvements to existing products like the Panasonic 7-14mm, but not $1,799. A market needs to behave as such.
Please people. Can anyone say that the FT version is bad? I doubt so and this is even one stop faster throughout the range at same price and may be even lighter. This lens presumably will have ultimate quality for its range for MFT. Of course this lens is just one stop faster than Pana 7 – 14, but that one stop is for the 1% of photographers who absolutely need it and therefore it will be so bloody expensive. Its not for you. The 9 – 18 is for you. That one stop may not mean much quality improvement but for those who want every bit out of the system they have a choice now. Price will adjust to demand. In any case I don’t think it’s fair to judge until we can see what it’s capable of.
Admin, you made the mistake of converting directly from another currency. Euros and Pound pricing is always much higher after conversion. I expect we’ll see this come in under $1500.
So many people are commenting on price. You get what you pay for and always have done! This lens is a fast PRO lens to give the best quality results and would be the equivalent of Canon L lens but nobody screams about the price of those. It is credit to Olympus that the E-M1 is gaining in popularity with professional photographers and it is right to support them with the right lenses. If your budget is in consumer territory then buy a consumer grade lens but please don’t put down good equipment or the good name of Olympus simply because you can’t afford something.
it´s f5.6……
No, it’s not. The focal length divided by the aperture is 2.8. That’s what the number means. Why would you express the performance of a lens in terms of a format that the lens isn’t intended for? Many people have never used a FF camera, so equivalent focal length and aperture means nothing to them.
You idiot.
Price is relatively high but it all depends on the quality, both IQ and construction. It could be very much worth it.
m43 already has the cheapo 9.18 zoom (with the 43 DSLR version as an alternative), Pana offers a cheaper but slower 7-14 and there’s always the old 7-14 lens on FT DSLR. You people have choices yet you complain.
Even more amazing is that some of you expected this lens to be somehow cheaper than the Pana 7-14mm lens. Not with those specs.
well you m43 idiots are fooled by panasonic and olympus all day.
this is a f5.6 lens not a f2.8 lens.
Wrong again. It is a 7-14mm f2.8 lens with a 14-28mm FOV. You seem to be confused.
well you are morosn who have no clue. F-stops is a mathematical fomular…. you can not change one a parameter and say the equation is still correct. idiots…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtDotqLx6nA
yes and formula is based on focal length and aperture. The FOV is not a part of the formula.
Aperture is a physical component of the lens. It’s a ratio between the focal length of the lens and the diameter of the iris. There’s no equivalency conversion. If you want to talk about equivalent depth of field, then maybe, but that’s simply due to equivalency crop. This video is roundly incorrect. 2.8 is 2.8 is 2.8.
Do your own thinking next time, mate …
Actually, it’s a f/2.8 lens.
no it´s not idiot…
3444343aa speaks like a man who has never used a light meter.
and you speak like someone without a single class of math in his life.
hint: ISO. that´s what pana,olympus uses to cheat you to believe it´s the same exposure.
But it’s still wrong to say that the lens really is a 14-28mm f5.6 lens. It just behaves as one, if you’re talking in FF terms. But in terms of physical measurements, it really is 7-14mm f2.8. The specs written on a lens refers to its physical properties, not it’s equivalent performance.
The f-stop is a relation between the physical focal length and aperture, so it’s certainly an f/2.8 lens. However, in terms of DoF and image quality, it performs as an f/5.6 lens would do on a FF camera. But to say that the real performance of a lens, is the performance it would have on a FF camera, is ridiculous. The real performance is the performance it has on the cameras it’s intended for, in this case m4/3.
This is the first sensible comment I’ve heard so far on this post. Yes its a 2.8 lens but no it will not give you the same effect of using a Full frame camera with 2.8 lens. You can’t bend science.
The intensity of light hitting the sensor will be the same, that’s the main point. Arguing about depth of field control with such a wide lens is ridiculous.
If that is true then
3444343aa=6888683zz
So take your darkness elsewhere.
Not at that price 🙁
The price is a little high. The m43 promise was that the cameras and lenses will be cheaper than their dslr equivalents because of the smaller sensor and lens size. If the price of this lens or other m43 lenses approaches the price of its full frame pro equivalent lens then the price advantages of m43 as a system are lost and many people would consider dslrs for their higher image quality.
bottom line is…it can be expensive but, it needs to be considerably cheaper than this price.
Oh people please stop.
Release of one new lens is not an end of the world.
As ridiculous prices go, the E-P5 was already released – and we all are still here.
Please, show me this promise.
the price is a joke… but i am already waiting for people comparing their MFT bodies and this lens to a D4 + nikkor 14-24 and telling us how much cheaper it is.
Did not even blink after converting to pounds. Never thought it will coat less then 1000 pounds and I am fine with that. I will wait for reviews to see the QI and then I will say will I buy it not cry like a baby and complain (grow some balls you stupid people). Your complaints are just for you so keep it to yourself since people who have the money, who will find a good use for this lens thy will buy it and you can look at their photos and go do whatever you do with you wide angle lens. You say no difference at 7mm f4 and f2.8 well good – use whatever you prefer but I see the difference in close up shots and difference in 1EV. Less photoshop for correction – fine with me if this lens delivers the IQ. Cant wait for 40-150 mm f2.8 price and to see all the crying babes coming from the dark dark bushes
2 posts and you are already spouting filth like our resident FF troll. Isn’t that special?
it is ok, i am totally with you… if i was stupid enough to buy overpriced chunk, i would pretend to see a difference too.
Why would you want to buy overpriced “chunk”.
Covert to pounds plus 20% VAT plus 6.7% duty plus Olympus UK management’s “think of a number and double it” philosophy
Well in that case you live a very difficult life 😀 becauseI only paid VAT for my EM1 and the rest if my gear – not a penny spent for VAT. Even if it cost more it wont be double 😉
One troll, so many different user names. Started out as 20 identical posts from SteelD and turned into 20 different user names. Such a small man trying to look like so many liars must have a serious point to make.
Yesterday he posted dozens of times exalting his “manhood”. Step away from the crack-pipe.
This site needs better moderation. It’s sad that one inexplicably angry young man is able to cause so much havoc.
I would like to see 7mm prime, with a hope for a lower price too. I can’t afford this ultra wide zoom lens at this price.
well you are morons who have no clue. F-stops is a mathematical fomular…. you can not change one a parameter and say the equation is still correct.
idiots… without school education that´s what are you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtDotqLx6nA
Well… I hope you’re not going to deny this lens would be an F2.8 one and nothing else. Just check the definition of F-stop, please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtDotqLx6nA
I have no time right now to watch 37 minutes and 35 seconds but I’m pretty sure the guy tries to explain that this lens behaves in many aspects like it would be 14–28/F5.6 on FF. But this doesn’t mean that it is NOT an F2.8. IT IS.
Yes, it’s a mathematical formula. Focal length divided by aperture is the f-stop. This lens is physically a 7-14mm f/2.8 lens. On FF that would give equivalent results (DoF, noise, diffraction) to a 14-28mm f/5.6 lens. But that’s not what it is from a physical standpoint.
I don’t see “sensor size” anywhere on my light meter. An m43 camera will shoot the same scene at the same ISO, aperture, and shutter speed as a FF camera.
well watch it moron:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtDotqLx6nA
idiots… i hate you idiots….
ther is nothing as the “same ISO”.. that´s what yopu guys miss.. ISO is not FIXED!!!!
That’s because APS-C/M43 systems amplify their light signal in order to reach an equivalent 35mm film sensitivity standard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtDotqLx6nA
watch it your morons:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtDotqLx6nA
all m43 idiots should watch it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtDotqLx6nA
all stupids without basic math education should watch it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtDotqLx6nA
I have masters degree in maths but all I can say is you’re a real moron… 🙁
f2.8 IS f2.8 light gathering regardless of form factor, DOF eqv. will be 5.6 though…
People are usually buying 2.8 lens to get a fast lens, not because they want shallow DOF…
I’m shocked how this Tony guy missed the point here and calls Oly, Panny & Sony as cheaters…
Seemly Nikon & Canon are sh…ing themselves on this video 🙂
clueless wannabe m43 photographer please watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtDotqLx6nA
You seem very frustrated posting the same video 8 times with bad name calling. No real life? Go get one. It also could be that you are very insecure about the system you are using. Go take some nice pictures with your own equipment.
I consider this a must have lens on m43 if the quality is up there.
I agree that some folks think they will get the same photo as if they used a full frame camera with a 2.8 lens. However I don’t understand why folks have to call people moron or other names and put people down because they don’t fully understand the science/math principles.
Instead of name calling why not use your energy to educate?
Very few m43 shooters think their cameras are the equivalent of FF, or that equivalent shots taken with equivalent equipment will look identical. That view of m43 photographers is perpetuated mostly by FF users as a way to put down people who choose m43 as “idiots” or “morons.” People choose m43 because it is good enough for their needs, and because the size benefits are important to them. Many of us could have afforded a FF set-up, but we choose m43 with our eyes fully open after calculating the relative costs and benefits of each system. This choice may baffle FF shooters, but that’s because we each have different subjective value preferences for our photography. We don’t need to be “educated.” We *are* educated. We simply made a different choice.
Troll alert . . . you’re Busted
You simply make a stupid choice, because you are not educated. That’s clear.
WOW, this lens has everyone’s panties in a bunch!
It simply makes my knees weak with it sexy, expensive hulking profile!
You posted this as “Adamant” . . . heads up so everyone will recall that you are just 1 troll.
I don’t get why most people comparing lenses don’t take sharpness into consideration. F2.8? If it’s not sharp and have to stop down to 5.6 or 8 whats the point of 2.8???…. luckily Olympus has a good track record for sharpness.
You posted this as “Adamant” . . . a reminder so everyone will recall that you are just 1 troll.
Excuse me!!!! I am no troll and this was no trilling comment, pleae reread!!
This NerdBuster/Hulk/33433 guy has lost his mind. Why is there no moderation on this forum?
To let fools like you be properly laughed at.
Usually, “Artists” are not so full of hate as the “photographer”, who has filled this forum with ad hominem attacks & discredited spam.
Not an “artist” but a very childish angry hater hiding behind a camera.
W T F
P R I C E
You posted this as “Adamant” . . . just so everyone will recall that you are just 1 troll.
I don’t want to sound rude or a troll, but I would like to ask from all the people that are now using m4/3-equipment: Why do you think that Olympus and Panasonic could be any more successful with m4/3-format, when they failed with 4/3-format? Looking at the price point of upcoming lenses makes me wonder why new people would choose m/3-format over the mirrorless systems that have bigger sensors? Sure Sony, Fuji and the others have still catch up to do with their lens selection, but they will get there eventually.
For me situation at camera market is pretty clear-> Sensor size with mobile phones and compact cameras is growing all the time. That will happen also with the interchangable camera market. Full frame becomes cheaper and in couple of years we could see price go way under 999 dollars. Heck we can already buy Sony A7 close to that price. Also cheaper medium format cameras are lurking around the corner. If your only reason is to prefer small lenses, that is also an excuse. There is absolutely no technical reason why you couldn’t use smaller lenses with FF-cameras, the lenses just would’t cover the whole sensor area. If Sony wanted, they could release m4/3-size lenses , but just for the E-mount. Combined with upcoming high-resolution FF-sensors, you could still have same amount of final pixels as in the dedicated m4/3camera.
So do you think there is really a role for m4/3-format in the future?
I sold my FF gear for a m43 gear. No way to come back to reflex. I shoot for 8h without hurt my arm. Quality? Pretty the same. Portability? Cannot be compared. 500g vs 3kg for the same configuration.
One important variable in this equation is sensor technology, e.g. organic sensors that Sony/Fuji/Pana are working on. With such tech we’ll soon get to the point of diminishing returns with larger formats. It’ll be interesting to see how things unfold. I’d personally never drag a FF camera on my travels again (lightweight is my motto in mountains and heavy terrain). But in a controlled / studio setting the situation is obviously different.
m4/3 has a brilliant future ahead of it, especially when you factor in how important video is becoming for almost any market. The Panasonic GH4 is currently the “King Kong” of affordable large-sensor video cameras, and really has no competition at this moment.
Many pros are adding m4/3 systems to their kit ( or switching entirely to the m4/3 format ) because these cameras can produce excellent work in the right hands, and are a lot more compact when you factor in $5K – $8K worth of lenses and accessories.
I switched from Canon to Panasonic three years ago, because I shoot more video than stills work, and the Panasonic GHx cameras just crush the competition. ( especially now that the GH4 is out )
I expect Panasonic will take things to a whole other level again when the GH5 comes out and has a 14+ Stop DR organic sensor. Things are still heating up for m4/3, so I can’t wait for more high end lenses and bodies to arrive. Woo Hoo!
the relatively small size of comparable lenses in the M43 world are very enticing. I can carry pretty much everything I need in a small backpack.
Shouldn’t it be evident by know that in order to shrink a camera system, you need to shrink the sensor? So hard to get? Fuji X lenses are larger than m4/3 siblings and the offerings of the FE mount are even bigger (the FE 4/70-200mm is actually quite huge). There is no trend to larger sensors in mirrorless system. The A7 is so far the only one. It does not sell that well and you can hardly call it a system yet. With its mediocre f4 zoom lenses, it has a mere one f-stop difference (not necessarily an advantage) to m4/3 systems.
You would think a larger sensor would make m43 irrelevant, but honestly, most companies are dropping the ball. Sony doesn’t make enough lenses to actually create a mature system, Fuji can produce great files but aren’t very innovative and tend to be seriously slow shooters, Canon and Nikon seem to have stopped serious innovation in 2008, Pentax… do they still make cameras? Meanwhile, m43 is innovating blindingly fast and creating really fast shooters that provide files good enough for 95% of commercial applications. Fast shooters with good files will convert a lot of folks, both pro and amateur. Olympus IBIS is pretty spectacular. Not only does it let you get significantly better shots in lower light, on the streets, or at events, it lets you use any lens ever made (almost) with great stabilization. And Panasonic? My God, they are the most innovative camera company by far over the last 3-4 years. The GH4, at $1700, should scare the hell out of every camera but Sony, and like I already said, Sony hasn’t created anything close to a mature system out of either of the two mounts they have created in the last 4 years.
Yes, you would think Canon, Nikon, and Sony could swat m43 like a fly. I won’t say they can’t, but they haven’t, and there is nothing to indicate they will. And now we are at a place where m43 is better than most mid level DSLRs and starting to bump up against the best DSLRs around in EVERYTHING but DoF. If Nikon, Canon, and Sony don’t respond soon, m43 will offer everything and more than the best DSLRs can offer (aside from DoF), at 1/3 to 1/4 the price. Thats how you win the game.
Is the photo “real” or fake (photoshop-ed)?
Wouldn’t it have been slightly more sensible for landscape / architecture application if it had been a slightly cheaper, slightly smaller F4 lens that accepted filters ?
My thoughts exactly. With landscape/architecture shots you’re likely to use a tripod anyway and you can afford longer shutter speeds. Depth of field control on extreme wide angle lenses is not so important or not even possible. Night sky photographers might use this but for that price they can buy a set of wide angle primes from Samyang 🙂 If someone can genuinely enlighten me, I’d be thankful. This is not meant to be ironic.
You can use the lens however you like. Its not only landscape/arhitecture lens. maybe this is the more common use, but you can do a million different creative things with that aperture and focal length.Just be creative! I never understood the labeling of a lens in only a specific category of photoshooting…
As you do I don’t see this lens as exclusive for landscape / architecture photography indeed… but I’m not sure the additional customers that will be attracted by the f2.8 aperture will compensate the people who won’t buy it for its apparent inability to accept regular filters and other potential problems arising from its design. One of my friends call the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 the “greatest lens he’ll never use”, mostly because he needs the use of filters for what he likes to shoot, finds its flare characteristic problematic and think it’s too bulky for hiking.
What I’m mostly questioning is the design trade-offs that have been chosen by Olympus. I’m not being sarcastic, I’m sincerely wondering if these specifications are the best balance they could have chosen. Perhaps it would have been a little wiser to choose an f4 aperture for the 7-14mm lens, and then make a 9-17mm f2.8 for example.
for video F/2.8 is great to have around.
Well, I hate to say it, but Panasonic lenses, for the most part, render better than the Olympus equivalents. I think this is a smart move for Olympus. Making it f2.8 will clearly differentiate it from the Panasonic offering, and market it to a different user base. When Olympus offers an equivalent lens to Panasonic, at best they match the Panasonic offering, but are often significantly worse.
from the first, the main reason why F-number of micro 4/3 body have been multiplied in comparison with FF sensor is that we merely needed to compare “DOF” with FF body. nothing less, nothing more
I don’t understand this marketing. FF to APS-C to M43: all boast the same F2.8, yet the iris size between the lenses of these systems are not the same. How can you get the same amount of light across all 3 platforms when the opening in the lenses are a fraction of one another? If I have 3 pin-hole lenses of varying diameters, how can they gather the same amount of light? The only way this can be possible is if the sensor is amplifying the signal produced by the light.
Thing of it as a measure of intensity of light hitting the sensor – it’s not dependent on sensor size.
*Think
14mm / 2.8 = 5mm diameter opening of the aperture at the tele end.
No matter what the sensor size is.
Not that I am any expert in lenses construction, but one could simply
use different coatings on the glasses to absorb different amount of
light.
different focal lengths.. smaller pinhole but concentrates the light more therefore the same intensity
Absurd. Concentrating the light does not make more of it. You can’t just make up light. If a hole is 4mm in diameter, you can’t get any more light out of it than a 4mm diameter hole can allow.
imagine a sheet of paper illuminated by a light bulb.. now cut the paper in half.. will the intensity of light change for each half? no. same with sensors.
Imagine a cardboard tube in front of the light bulb. Now get a cardboard tube that is half the diameter of the first. Did the amount of light hitting the sheet of paper change? Same applies to lens iris.
it doesn’t make more light.. it just pulls it from a wider angle
Pulling light from a wider angle while maintaining the same iris opening does not create more light. You’re still limited to the light that is allowed through the given iris opening.
ever wondered why tele lenses have a large front opening but comparatively smaller aperture? that’s because your analogy is wrong.. the lens acts more like a funnel
I’ll put it once more this way… take a big loupe and remove the glass.. you will have the same opening but it won’t burn your skin.. you see, concentrating light DOES increase the intensity
And since the manufacturers constantly push this equivalency thing, let’s talk equivalency. I have a Lumix 20mm F1.7 and a Konica 40mm F1.8. Equivalent, yes? Why then is the iris size of the Konica almost double the size of the Lumix? Do these 2 lenses gather the same amount of light as the manufacturers want us to believe with their “equivalency” statements. How are they able to squish down the beam of light to fit the smaller iris of a M43 lens while maintaining an equivalent amount of light gathered through the iris opening of FF lens? The only answer again is amplification of the signal. Not light concentration, not megapixels, not magical sensor technology.
I own both an Olympus Pen and a Sony A7 and I enjoy both systems. What I don’t get is how Olympus/Panasonic can charge so much for their little lenses when they contain require less material to manufacture and gather less light than their “FF equivalents”.
Equivalent in what? a) First define what you understand under equivalence. Equivalent FOV and Intensity/unit square, then both are equivalent. If you want equivalence for DOF, FOV, total light gathered, then of course aperture needs to be multiplied by crop factor. b) Definition of aperture diameter: focal length/f-stop. So it’s clear your Konica has a larger iris size.
Matt is right, brightness is equal for same shutter speed, ISO and f-stop (hand-held light meter give you exactly that. But of course, DOF, noise is different.
Designing an excellent pro grade lens is expensive. It’s not only about material cost. m43 lenses are sharper, too (Voigtländer for example reach over 80lp/mm, Zeiss Otus over 50lp/mm) to compensate for the smaller sensor size and higher pixel density (the lp/mm needs to be multiplied by the sensor dimension for the total number of line pairs/ph). There certainly is no linear equation saying s.th. like prize(m43)=prize(FF)/crop. Read Lloyd Chambers take on the FT-pro grade lenses. They are considered among the best ever. Furthermore, why complain about the prize, if you can’t afford one, don’t buy one. Not everybody drives a Porsche.
That´s true – I´m won´t complain though. It´s just like it is – we want lighter weight and accept a little more noise but as sensor tech evolves we hope that it gets better.
But you are right of course – noise levels of smaller sensors are higher because the signal has to be amplified in order to compensate the lesser light gathering capability. All things being equal the signal has to be amplified about two stops and should exhibit 2 stops more noise. But in reality its not exactly 2 stops – depends on sensor tech, noise reduction etc.
No, it is definitely not true. Read my reply above. Smaller sensors don’t require amplification to be equally bright any more than a smaller person needs to be amplified to be as bright as a larger person. That’s not how light or film/sensors work.
Say it’s raining and you set a kiddie pool next to a cooking pot on the street outside. You want to fill both 6″ deep with water. The pool has a larger area to collect the falling rain, but the water level in each rises at the same pace. If it rains harder (wider aperture) they’ll both fill faster and both need a shorter – and equal – time to reach the desired fill level (faster shutter speed).
Aperture tells you how intensely the stream of light can travel through the lens and hit the area behind it, and that area will “fill up” with light at the same speed regardless of the size. A larger sensor just has more surface area allowing larger individual light gathering nodes, and the size of these is where noise and clarity differences arise.
It doesn’t matter how big a piece of film is, it exposes at the same speed. Sensors are designed the same way. A smaller piece of film doesn’t need to be amplified to expose as brightly as a big one. Same with sensors.
It´s about the total amount of light. It´s the same no matter how big the sensor. It has to be amplified because a smaller sensor gathers less light – 2 stops less – but to reach the same brightness you need to compensate for that loss. It´s not enough to “fill up the area behind the lens” with light – for an mft sensor that means 2 stops less light (total amount light compared to what an FF sensor would have gathered with the same lens aperture and shutter speed) is gathered by the sensor – that´s why the signal has to be amplified – the aperture of the lens doesn´t matter, f2.8 “fills up” the sensor area faster than f4 though – it´s just shutter speed.
Ok, I don´t know anything about film and I depend on Tony Northrups videos but what I “see” with my cameras and what I understand about the math involved fits that theory say.
Say you need 2 litres of water (for a certain exposure). You have an FF bucket and an mft bucket. To gather the same amount of water (it´s raining) the mft bucket needs 4x the time (2 stops longer) of the bigger FF bucket^^ Is that clear now?
let’s just put it this way.. you can trade off multiple buckets for less noise.. but cropped sensor is the same thing as cropped image in photoshop given the same exposure
I get what you’re saying, but you’re wrong. In the analogy you don’t need to gather the same volume of water, just the same depth.
You’re using Northrup as your reference ? pffff, that’s like using Kai for serious reviews or Ken rockwell for factual info.
Kai and Ken are not smart enough for you?
I’m sorry, you’re incorrect. Whoever told you this was incorrect also. f/2.8 at 1/100th and ISO 200 will expose the same regardless of sensor or film size. Field of view will be different and because of that depth of field will be different (at least if you compose different sensor/film sizes similarly), but the sensor/film will expose the same.
I’m just trying to help clear things up, because whatever resource told you this was absolutely wrong. If it’s Tony Northrup, stop watching his videos. He’s wrong.
And a tiny M43 sensor will give you 4 times as much noise than a larger one, whenever you expose with the same aperture, speed and ISO.
Actually, two times as much. Shot noise (to be exact, the signal-to-noise ratio, SNR) scales with the square root of sensor area.
This whole discussion would be much better off with a few formulas instead of analogies.
This ! a 1000 times this!
Aperture numbers are proportional to the lens diameter, they’re not fixed to a standard like say an f2.0 lens must be x cm in diameter. Also, light travels at the same speed regardless of sensor size and lens.
A smaller piece of film produces a more grainy result. That’s why 110 film (same size as MFT) never became popular. When you use the same pixel density on MFT as on 35mm, you get fewer pixels. When you want the same amount of pixels, you get less light per pixel.
Don’t feel bad, physics is hard for a lot of people
Based in most of what I am reading here we could change the site name to idiots.com.
True, I often find myself reading the “rumor” and skipping the comments. At this point Admin could as well disable them.
He doesn’t give a pickle about this site anymore, the more traffic the trolls produce, the better. Just how many people have called him on this thread about the troll infestation already ? he doesn’t care anymore. I’m this close to erasing this bookmark and getting my news elsewhere, this place just got ruined
Do as I do: use the site’s RSS feed in a good RSS reader, like Feedly. You still get all the news, without bothering about the comments.
Good idea, this site is as good as dead
Absolutely true.
Reading comments used to be interesting, funny and amusing…but now it is really getting over the top with people calling names, trolling and just making this comment section more sad than interesting…
This comment section used to be informative as well, If it wasn’t for some users in this community I wouldn’t have found about a lot of things, this was an oasis from sites like DPR and the like, now there’s no community at all. Admin let this situation go on for too long, might as well kill this part of the site and just stick to news and rumors, the comments on this site are worse than Youtube, if anything, this section is showing the worst possible image to new users and doing a disfavor to the system.
the 4/3 version of the OLY 7-14mm lens is actually an f2. How to check is by depressing the shutter release button and look at your live view or evf/ovf. ( Make sure you support the attached lens )For some reason Oly relased this lens as an f4. Look it up on dpreview oly forum. Sorry don’t have the link to it.
I tried it. Thanks for the info.
So Olympus sold a f2 UWA zoom as a f4 because they ‘forgot’? Yeah don’t really think so.
Seems to me somehow is micro 4/3 envy and threatened. If you have this equipment why don’t you try it. Maybe you’re just all talk and no brain. Remember when you tap an empty tin can it is louder than the one that has something in it. Hope you can follow directions.
Wow, m43’s users really are all just angsty trolls. Maybe you could explain why a company in the business of making money, any company, would do what you describe? Next show some.empirical evidence to support your claim that it’s actually true, other than ‘I saw it on a forum, can’t link where’.
I can’t make much sense of what you wrote, but recommend you change pusher.
wow look who’s talking…TROLL hahahahseriously stop complaining and start practicing.
Actually OlymPan is half right. The Oly 4/3 7-14mm was designed as an f2.8 lens (not f2). Olympus decided to stop it down to f4 via firmware because to them there was too much vignetting at f2.8 for a “Super High Grade” lens. By depressing the lens release button (not shutter release), you break the connection between the camera and the lens allowing it to open to f2.8. 4/3 lense’s diaphragms are wide open when not connected to a camera.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3047913
Boy all this equivalence police talk again… If I ever buy this lens, it is to use it to take pictures using a m43 body. End of that debate.
I am really looking forward to see how that lens delivers and how it compares to the Panasonic 4/7-14 !
Yeah…got my Panasonic 7-14 for $900. With a little CA tweak in Lightroom the lens is great….and I an also guessing that it is a lot smaller than this new Oly…so I doubt that this lens is worth more than twice the price to me. I guess to some it will be.
I got my Panny 7-14mm new for $775. It’s my most used autofocus lens.
The new Oly 7-14mm f2.8 looks pretty compelling for those extra 2+ stops, but size, weight and price are all quite hefty. Will it 2x better for more than 2x the price? It’s doubtful…
BUT f2.8 is still f2.8 AND it would be a tax write-off for my business…
so maybe… 😉
Its 1 stop faster – and you wont notice any DOF diffrences because of the wide angle,
plus, you can easily shoot at very slow shutter speed (as low as 1/20) and still get a sharp shot – which negates the need for fast W/A lens,
That being said, it could be nice lens for astrophotography.
Finally, someone talking sense
yeah.. I may have got mine for less…I bought it a little while after the release..I remember waiting for some discounts..but cant recall.
It is a great little lens… This lens must me quite a bit larger…and to tell the truth for a lens this wide…f/4 for this format is fine for my needs. I have the Oly 12mm f/2, and the Panny 14 f/2.8 to take up the slack.
If I am hauling a lens this large and expensive I am just going to grab my FF gear and be done with it and have a lot more options.
Well it certainly wouldn’t be for using on anything else.
Posing, maybe 😀
Well m43’s just gets more expensive by the day. Soon people will be justifying it because of that m43’s ‘pop’ and treating that little ‘M’ badge like a badge of wealth…. Look out Leica red dot!
Then you shouldn’t be here then. Go use your camera properly whatever system you have. It’s not about the equipment but the person behind it. There are books for it. You just need to know how to read and follow instructions.
What a strange reply. Will reading books make it less expensive? Maybe I get a coupon?
A food coupon perhaps would help you better.
I did not see any lenses or body’s getting more expensive. You are complaining because m4/3 get some nice expensive lenses? Don’t worry, Olympus and Panasonic will keep making nice affordable lenses. It’s not a bad thing that a system has more choices.
well, there was no PRO lens before, no there is. No surprise the PRO lenses get out more expensive no? same for the bodies. They haven’t discontinued the 9-18, or the 7-14 pana no?
How is it getting more expensive? This lens (if the price is accurate) will be one of only a couple M4/3 lens that will be cheaper than it’s equivalent competitor. The early M4/3 lens were more expensive than their Canon/Nikon counterparts. However, since they were at inexpensive focal lengths, the total price might have seem low, but they were still overpriced. This may be one of the few Olympus lens that is not overpriced.
Admin. too many trolls. comments are becoming unreadable with so many troll comments to sort through.
Like this one?
Like your mom?
Wow that’s two troll posts complaining about troll posts. Pot, Kettle, Black.
Your mom wasn’t complaining.
1700$….pffff
this is FF equiv of 7-14 5.6 lens.
no
Equivalence police trolls usually get the focal length right.
True, it will be 14-28 5.6, thanks for the info, dear Jules
show me on my meter where to adjust ?
to some folks like you 35mm frame size is the center of the universe so again show me on my sekonic light meter where I have to adjust for sensor size ? how do I adjust my light meter when shooting med format or M4/3 ?
So many iditos here, wow.
I actually own a 43 system, but I am not going to pay 1700$ on a 5.6 DOF lens. The Nikon 14-24 2.8 cost almost the same, for FF, a pro lens.
Yes because everyone is just itching to get shallow DoF with an ultra wide angle lens *shakees head*
That’s is not the point, the point is that its too expensive for a 43 lens.
If Nikon 14 24 2.8 for FF cost 1900$, this lens is way too expensive.
+1, but you can’t argue with fanboys.
Well, the MSRP for the Nikon 14-24mm is $1999, so this lens is already $200 cheaper. Also, if you compare actual lens specs on existing Olympus 4/3 & M4/3 lens, Olympus lens are normally sharper than the Nikon equivalent. The Olympus 7-14mm will not only have a slightly longer focal length (28mm is pretty useful), but it’ll most likely have better glass. The Nikon 14-24mm is a great lens with amazing corner to corner sharpness, but Olympus has done better before.
Is the Nikon smaller?
I like to have one base reference for FoV. I really do. It turns out to be 35mm. We live in a FF centric world and I am comfortable with that.
But I never knew that pricing of lenses must to respect an equivalence formula guided by Nikon Fx. Really?
No, I am sure that M43 systems suppose to be expensive as FF systems. That make sense: more distortions, less resolution,less DOF control, but same price (almost). Have you ever tried to sell mirrorless used equipment? value is not saved, never.
Same price as a FF pro lens, yes, that make sense.
LESS distortion. Go get a clue.
And don’t come back.
Great to know ahead of release that the Olympus 7-14 will be of lesser quality. You played with pre production samples by any chances? 🙂
You are right, I’m not, so why would I not just buy the panasonic for 1/2 the price?
Because you want a likely sharper lens and a lower ISO for the same shot?
Well, we don’t yet know if it will be sharper. The 12-40mm isn’t really sharper than the 12-35mm. It will be bigger, and it will gather 1 stop more light, but as others have said, I doubt that extra stop of light is a deal breaker. 1 stop? For twice the price? Your choice, but I have different priorities for my gear.
Of course they are similar, they are similar in almost every aspect including price!
But the 12-40 is also cheaper than the Panny equivalent. I would argue that it is actually a bit sharper, though it renders differently. I doubt Oly would just charge more for shits and giggles if its basically just the Panasonic but a little faster.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA sure, you own a m43 camera…good one. GTFO
Good luck with your desire for shallow DOF on an ultrawide lens. You obviously haven’t used a 14-24.
On your ISO selection
Except your ISO stays the same on m4/3 as it does on FF with the same f-stop and the same shutter speed.
It’s signal processing. No matter how you look at it, a 50mm F/1.4 on 35mm captures four times more light than a 25mm F/1.4 on MFT. The MFT camera has 25% of the amount of light to work with, so that has to be compensated one way or the other.
For the upper tier of new FF cameras, you are right. But this doesn’t apply to all FF cameras. I know everyone likes to trot out the ol’ “this captures more light, ergo the image quality will be better” argument but there is more at play than just sensor size. An EM-1 on a per pixel basis (which is exactly what you are arguing on… light gathered per pixel) is less than 1/2 EV difference in ISO to both the Canon 5D Mark 2 and the Nikon D800. In terms of DR, its DR is actually higher than the 5D Mark 2. So, besides the obvious fact that the FF cameras just have more pixels to work with, there isn’t much of a difference in the quality of what they are capturing per pixel.So while it may be true that an FF camera’s sensor is capturing “4 times the amount of light”, I’m not sure the “four times more light” thing is amounting to much of anything besides a talking point.
We aren’t shooting film. I can change my ISO to achieve the effect I need.
I could shoot 14mm at 2.8 on an e-m1, ISO400, or I could shoot 14mm at 5.6 on a D800 at ISO 1600 and get much better image quality with similar depth of field. From a metering perspective, yes, it is the same, but I care about output IQ, not what ISO I shot at.
For a wide angle lens there are so many considerations, and in the above comparison, lens size/weight is probably chief among them. This is why direct equivalency arguments, out of context, are stupid. But it is disingenuous to say 2.8 on m4/3 is the same as 2.8 on FF when the sensor makes up more than 2 stops light gathering ability in terms of performance.
Check the charts again David. While the ISO performance is the same in terms of SNR on an EM-1 at 400 vs. a D800 at 1600… their DR is not. The Oly is about 1.5 more stops on DR at ISO 400 than the D800 is at 1600. Also, your comparison is a bit disingenuous to begin with as you are comparing the D800 which is $2,800 new to a camera that is $1,400 new.
Whatever. At the end of the day, we all make our own choices. I am happy with the DR of basically every modern camera with 4/3 or larger sensor. In terms of noise, I think there is still a lot of room for improvement, but we are still living in great day, as compared to film.
I only commented because occasionally I get pissed about illogical augments. The real argument for m4/3, and especially mirror less m4/3, is smaller size for similar performance. To a large extent mirrorless, across the formats, has delivered on that performance. As for m4/3, it is more about accepting compromises. That is the entire point of a different system. They ARE NOT equivalent. One isn’t empirically better than another. Problem is people who have bought into one or another mount and will only feel good about their life if they believe their choice was the best. Tough luck fellas, there is no “best” and at the end of the day DOF, IQ etc mostly pale in comparison to good subject, good framing, and good marketing.
And that is bad because? (well other than the price). Hell Canon 16-35mm f2.8 might as well be a f11 as that’s it’s only remotely usable aperture, so this will be at least 2 stops better 😉
Yet another user name from the same person who hasn’t a clue what he is talking about. “Pro Photographer Girl”, to name one of many, many others.You’re not very imaginative in your user names. The lens is f/2.8 like any other f/2.8 lens. Light controled by the aperature is the same. DOF stands for depth of field. This is controled by distance of camera to subject to background. That fact that you think DOF on a m43 camera is the same as a phone camera tell me you have no idea what you are talking about.
Yet another idiot that think he has a clue about photography, and think me for someone that I am not.
You’re not fooling anybody dude. get a life and stop coming to this site, go to dpreview or something like that, you’ll have more company there
Sssshh M43 fangirls don’t know optics and photography and don’t want to…
If money were no object I would buy it in a heartbeat. Since money is an object I’ll stick with the FT 9-18mm I got for $300 used..
wow, how and where did you get that price? sounds amazing. i will shell out $300 for that lens too!
LOL at paying this much money and still getting poor performance from your tiny little sensor JUST LOL
You really have a lot time on your hands to be posting all this nonsense under different user names. Keep it up. It’s great entertainment. If you get smart one day you seriously should look into the m43 format. It’s a great system. That’s if you even know what a camera is.
are you being gender biased? stop harassing her! #yesallwomen
Keep up. You’re not fooling anyone, dude.
That dude killed 5 men and 2 women. But chicks are bad at math so….
So let’s see, you’re using 4 accounts today…This transgender persona, the CNN guy and James Rusell, plus you’re guest voting your own post…how pathetic can you be ?
What, exactly, do you get out of being an obnoxious jerk all day long?
Only true idiots would put this much money into a dying system!
Go back and re-read the post.
It’s for m43 not for FT.
I think he knows that, he’s just trolling, don’t feed the trolls, flag their posts and spam admin demanding actual moderation, that’s the only cure for this site
Only true idiots troll forums about products they don’t understand.
Only true idiots feed trolls knowingly. When you know it’s a troll, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.
Rude.
Where is the evidence to support “poor performance” and “dying system” claims? There is nothing pro about saying things without evidence. I use FF to compacts and I am still boggled as to why people sensor/system troll. Who here just uses a fork? Wait… let me guess… all pros…
why not just use cell phone? same DOF and the sensor is just as good
BZZZT! Wrong on both counts.
Olympus must be on crack if they think people will pay this. Absolutely insane…the freakin 9-18 can be had for 450.00 or under all day long. I love Olympus, but if they want to kill their brand go ahead and release this overpriced lens.
Price can change easily.
Thank you Olympus …for making FF look better and better as you increase size and price of the half sensor
Nikon and Canon
my 26-ounce full frame dslr is too heavy , i need something small but yet still not pocketable , and i would like lots of noise in my photos at iso 800. so would m43 be good for me???
this place used to be nice.
People used to be nice. These days they are all just a bunch of self absorbed smartphone zombies infected with the fanboyism virus fighting in a world wide flame war.
The internet is a haven for trolls. They just can’t imagine anyone thinking differently or having different needs than themselves. Not to mention, it’s their only form of entertainment. I imagine their skills in photography or videography are limited at best.
The lens is a bit to pricey – I rather go for the Panasonic 42.5mm F1.2 – so for wide angle I will just have to do panos with my Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 or dig up my Sigma 10-20mm on my FF –
If the lens was about 800-1000 then a different story
For 800-1000, you can get the Panasonic 7-14mm. That would be my choice anyway. I usually shoot around F/5.6-8.0 with wide angles, so I don’t have any need for F/2.8.
Why don’t we wait for the reviews – maybe they will provide an answer. I have no paying photo job to justify the cost but for a pro this is not a lot of money. Olympus has vast imaging expertise from the medical side of their business to bring to their cameras. To have brought m43 this far this quickly is no small achievement. I wouldn’t count them out yet.
You say it like they’re a medical company just joining the photography industry…Olympus have been around since the beginning, they’ve had an impressive reputation as a lens maker for decades, they don’t need this lens to prove anything, as far a lens makers go Olympus is up there in the top 5 (3 IMO). Now, in terms of marketing decisions…yeah, they might as well have appeared last year.
But you have to remember that price can change quickly, quality can’t.
Yet another mft lens that is way overpriced! No wonder i keep buying legacy glass instead. Silly comparison but for that i can get a Canon FD 85 1.2L, Canon FD 24mm 1.4, Canon FD 135mm + focal reducer.
Um… the Canon 85 1.2 is $2,200 by itself. Try again.
He is referring to the older FD version. Try reading again.
Yes, buying a used lens will be cheaper than buying a brand new one. We know this already. I’m comparing it to what you can actually get at a camera store, and that 1.2 is $2,200.
Again, the original poster is talking about buying LEGACY glass so why do you insist on talking about non-legacy glass?
You know, they invented a thing called AF…
Based upon what I have read in the comments section lately, I think comments should just be disabled. The ratio of rational and topical comments to trolls, off-topic comments, sarcasm and meaningless bickering is about one to twenty.
Well I would not go that far, free speech and such.
But I must say that there are a lot of stupid, useless and misinformed comments below.
I suspect that the evolution of men peaked in the previous century and it’s all downhill from here 🙂
Except for the Arts, I’d say mankind peaked in the 18th century.
Victorian era + WW1 was probably the last time men had any dignity 🙂
I disagree, spandex didn’t exist
Man, You said it!! Finally a smart guy on the internet!! The 18th century!! Widespread slavery, Napoleon ravaging Europe, Genocide in the Americas, good old filth and poverty… not to mention the plagues that spread like wildfire because of the filth and poverty….
I’d gladly trade our internet trolls, Obamacare and overpriced cable service for that!
Slavery is still around, it morphed into the plantation voters of the Democrat party. Zero political and economic expectations in exchange for an entitlement check and free smartphone. The future is bright, America!
I’d add Science to that as well.
I think you’re mistaken. There were a lot of bad and dumb people back then, but they were off the radar. Gradually more people got access to basic education (read and write), and later on more people got access to publication media like the internet. So now they’re everywhere…
What free speech? This is a privately-owned web site.
Past some threshold, simply disable comments by guests. Like me and you.
Well, so far 90% of the comments I’ve read have been about trolls and no on topic. In fact, the ratio between post complaining about trolls and actual trollish posts has at least been 10 to 1.
Admin, is there any information to indicate whether this lens may be able to accept filters? Some owners of the Panasonic 7-14mm have been able to perform “after market” work to allow filters to be interposed between the back of the lens and the sensor. Is there any indication that the forthcoming Olympus may allow a more engineered approach to using filters?
Boy, it does not look like it will be able to accept a filter.
The wider the angle the more filters vignette because the light has to travel trough more glass. So filters are not that great on ultra wide angle lenses.
True, it does not look it will be an option.
thankfuly there’s the wonderpana filter adapter for wide angles
I hope the price is an overestimate.. $1800 is really pretty damn expensive.. but, if it’s a superbly built lens with excellent sharpness and excellent correction for distortion and other potential lens issues, I suppose a high quality fast zoom for MFT is going to cost a lot.
I don’t want to open a can of worms here, but want to chime in on something off of youtube, that video (or two) about crop factor and how it applies to lenses and the quality of images you can get out of them that Tony Northrup did.. specifically, I think he may be right about cropped cameras like MFT format.. they should be able to achieve IQ and keep noise down as well as larger sensor cameras, BUT you need quality glass as well as fast glass to level the playing field.
4 times more light is needed to get to a MFT sensor that is 4 times smaller in surface area, right?… to get a clean image at ISO 400 on FF, you should ideally have ISO 100 on MFT to match the amount of light needed to make it “less noisy”.. since ISO 100 is either not possible or you lose a bit of DR if you can get to ISO 100 (generally LOW setting on a lot of cropped mirrorless cameras), your best option is ISO 200 on MFT and thus it should, in theory, equal what you would get on FF at ISO 800… that’s exactly the best lowest FF equivalent ISO setting for clean images off of a MFT camera.. light is very important and will make a world of difference if you can get more to feed the hungry/starving smaller MFT sensor that can’t get enough.
Fast MFT lenses are the key to getting the best out of the MFT format. Voigtlander’s Nokton series is probably the fastest at f/0.95, and Oly and Panasonic have a number of fast primes ranging from f1.2-1.8. I think ideally, if manufacturers of MFT lenses could keep the max apertures as low as possible, that will really help clean up MFT sensor performance and give it a better chance of coming closer to matching FF performance. To engineer a fast lens, and one that’s constant aperture, and of course high quality, it won’t be cheap, and science dictates it’ll have to be within a certain size and dimension.. larger than most people would want for a “compact” system such as MFT.
That being said, modern cameras these days have powerful image processors these days to make the best of cropped sensors and whatever available lenses are available.. add to that, post processing in Lightroom, ACR and other post processing apps have relatively simple ways to address noise with a simple slider.. except for the most extreme cases, I find that noise is easily cancelled to recover a clean and sharp image from my E-M1… I don’t think you really have to be that anal and get the fastest most expensive lens to get great quality images out of MFT cameras, but it certainly can help make them that much better. Sure, out of camera with cleanest images to start with is always better, but not entirely necessary. Jpegs out of camera are excellent these days and clean up and correct a lot of imaging problems right off the bat. And if you’re a RAW shooter, going into post and tweaking images is going to happen regardless and you’ll end up with a really nice quality image in the end.
FF offers ultimate IQ and have a number of advantages, but cropped sensor cameras are far from inferior or incapable of doing a professional level of work.
Although you have FF power in a compact package such as the Sony A7’s, the glass is not the fastest to keep closer to the compact form factor which they are trying to sell.. look at their zeiss zooms with f/4.. i have no doubt they are still nice lenses despite the conservative f#, but if you wanted the same focal range at f/2.8 (or even faster), you’re back to what you get from FF DSLR’s… highly unbalanced, definitely far from compact, but you give and take where you feel you need to.
There’s no way around it… high quality glass & fast glass = larger size & higher price, no matter what format you are using.
Where was I going with this?… sure, this new wide fast zoom from Oly seems expensive.. I had a sticker shock when I first read it (hopefully it will be significantly less than reported here), but it’s metal build, weather sealed, probably the best that Oly will have to offer for such a lens type, and fills in that pro level focal range with fast aperture that they should cover.. looking forward to the pro 40-150mm f/2.8 when it comes out.. should be really nice, hopefully not as expensive as what this 7-14mm f/2.8 has initially been listed at.
Would I pay $1800 for this 7-14?… not at this time… I think I would spend less on the Pany-Leica Nocticron since I do more portrait work anyways.. or, I may switch to another system depending on what is available later this year… X-Pro2? That and I’m sure a lot more camera news should be announced in about 3 months when Photokina happens.
Please Admin, can you implement a report system or sth? The trolls are totally out of control now. I am a long-time member since 2010 and I can’t recognize the old site anymore.
But we’re on Disqus now, right? You can flag messages as inappropriate then.
Yes but I believe we are dealing with trolls with multiple accounts. You can’t report all of them. Stricter measures should be applied.
Finally someone with some sense in this place. I’ve sent Admin countless tutorials on how to ban trolls on disqus and he’s done nothing, I’m guessing he prefers the trafic that trolls produce rather than saving this site from ruin. I’ve been a member since 2009 and I agree wholeheartedly, this site is a disgraceful shadow of itself because of all the trolling nowadays
Yes, Admin, please take control of your site. It is becoming not worth visiting.
lol , wahhh
Flag the posts from the right-hand side of the header for each post.
I think Admin should institute a system whereby if a troll gets their post reported 4 times, then Admin should reply to the post and reveal the trolls IP address.
That would’ve been a good idea 15 years ago. Nowadays, ISP’s don’t care very much, and it’s too easy to set a proxy server in your browser.
Because people like you write so much rubbish, and we have a laugh.
It looks quite nice by the aperture, but the cost is hard to justify.
Maybe the aperture is in fact what justifies the price?
Wow I’m surprised at all the fud on the comments from so called FF owners.
It’s the person behind the gear, not the gear that is essential. To each his own.
For me, m4/3 is the perfect parallel system to a FF. Half the sensor-twice the fun.
Half the sensor requires a lens with half the iris opening. We all know what happens to light when you make the hole that it has to pass through smaller.
Yes. More noise and more DOF. But my Olympus E-PL5 is less noisy than my Canon EOS 40D. MFT performs good enough for most people with the later 16MP sensors.
My EM-10 performs as well as my D7000 I shoot at work. I could honestly care less for more IQ than that. I’d rather they continue to push the bar on tracking AF and other features that make the camera more responsive and more reliable in getting the shot.
Then you need to learn to use that D7000.
A lot of trolling these days is by bots. Wouldn’t take it too serious.
Kinda makes the comments hard to read, though.
Nah, bots aren’t this annoying, it’s actual people on the pay roll of some company. I don’t want to be harsh but Admin should do something about it and yet we haven’t seen him in a long time.
Yes, some are real. And you can kinda guess where they’re from from these strange ” , ” punctuation mistakes combined with otherwise reasonable English.
But what would admin do about it? Difficult, I’d say.
Good professionals would not do such a thing. It’s bad professionals that do such a thing. Tons of people claim to be pros. Doesn’t mean their work is worthy. Can you imagine if Sebastian Salgado or similar came on here and made fun of someone for stupid shit like this.lol.
Pay more for half as much , the m43 fanboy motto
Half the weight, half the size for just 0.7 less exposure capability, why not ? why would you pay the same or more for twice the camera size and weight of a DSLR ? If I’m an ACTUAL Pro, who, like any other respectable professional, doesn’t just shoot brick walls and cats, but also needs to travel outside his town or city for jobs, why would I spend the same or more to be limited by weight restrictions at an airport ? Why would I intentionally limit myself on the amount of gear I carry ? why would I burden myself with more weight for less gear ? Why would I sacrifice a perfectly rounded camera+lens set up for .7 more DOF of APS-C when I can simply slap a speedbooster and be done ?
Prices are going up and I don’t like it but the value proposition of m43 is still sound and advantageous compared to DSLRs and other systems.
Not a bit, this lens is an example of crappy value. However, Canon and Nikon haven’t come out with a 14-28 F5.6 yet, they should. We’ll see the “value” then…
If ignorance is bliss, you must be on cloud nine.
This is not a new thing… The prototypes for this lens (and another) were on show at CP+ … I saw them with my own eyes (about 53 seconds into my CP+ video here);
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLiY9MCKeCs#t=54
And I even spoke with Olympus’ Toshiyuki Terada, Deputy General Manager; Product Marketing & design at Olympus Imaging at the same event about this lens///
(about 3:23 in);
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M7voKGHKDs#t=203
shut up you effing t*rd lol
If it’s too expensive for you right now then just wait 3-4 years and buy it used for $1,000 or so. You should be happy that they are producing some quality glass for the format. Its better than if they just said, nope that is going to cost too much so lets just make low quality products instead.
You mean like the kit zooms from the big two manufacturers?
My Panasonic 14-45 kit zoom is as good as my Canon L zooms. Get a clue, troll.
Given that the 12-40 is 1000, 1700 doesn’t sound unreasonable. That doesnt mean it’s not worth it. And my guess is the 300/4 will be 2.3k at least. Prepare for 300+ troll comments! And that’s not counting the equivalence discussion.
The price of the 7-14 zoom also shows that we still need a UW prime in m43.
When using utra wide lenses, many uses apertures around f/4-5.6. UW lenses are not for everybody. I’am not sure that $1700 will make the lens attractive. Even at the same price as the 12-40, the 7-14 lens will have hard time attracting customers.
12-40 is also way overpriced. F2.8 7-14 should be 1199.- tops and 12-40 799.-
12-40 IS $799 with any camera, or about $850 without. Still too expensive, Sony DT 16-50/2.8 is about $600-$650, that is more like it (even less). Canon 24-105/4L is $600!
Canon 24-105 is F/4 and old. Canon 24-70/2.8 is $2300.
f/4 is almost like f/2 on m43 (f/2 in term of DoF but about f/2.2-2.4 in terms of noise due to lower efficiency of current FF sensors).
Besides, it is easier to make wide end for short flange and no mirror to avoid.
Would be nice, wouldn’t it?
But not realistic. What would make a m43 f/2.8 UW cheaper than a Nikon F mount one? Less material in each element and a bit less extreme retrofocus. Resolution requirements are similar, f-stop is the same, so the design will be equally complex. And the production run will be smaller.
Yep, why is a 8, 9 or 10mm UW prime so conspicious by their absence?
Good question. Canikon also have not introduced a new UW prime in a long time. It might be that, apart from weight, UW zooms now can be designed to be as good as primed. Witness the Nikon 14-24.
This is going to compete with Pana 7-14, f/4. The price increase is a bit too steep.
For a lens you can use in the rain, it doesn’t seem that expensive, especially when it’s the same price as the Four-Thirds version, but with a larger maximum aperture.
I’m sure some excellent cat photos will be coming from you guys thanks to this lens!! They will be even sharper than your previous cat photos!!
Why would you use an ultra wide angle zoom for intimate pet photography ? Have you EVER used a camera in your life ? even a smartphone for that matter? Stop coming here you lifeless trolls, at least stop cross-dressing and use your original account. ADMIN, JUST WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO PUT A STOP TO THIS CIRCUS ? your site has turned into a troll’s nest, if you don’t care abour your site just go and close it or at the very lest close the comment section, nothing good is coming from it.
lol
Why don’t you decide on a f´ing account already ? Is lol all your argument ? you’re a pos and a waste of oxygen on this planet, i hope your family despises you as much as everyone here.
I agree 100%. I’ve about had it with this site. I’ll check the front page now and then but wont bother going into the detail pages…
I have a great picture of my cat with an ultrawide. She had a lion cut and was tangled up in yarn. The perspective distortion of the ultrawide made the shot – big head small body with a funky haircut.
It’s called freedom of speech, your rants are neither fun nor useful, either. American huh?
Ha Ha Ha .
If I were to buy this lens I’d make damn sure I knew how to use it.
People honestly shock me when they post up their shite with equipment that can do so much more. And they all talk big like the dollars entitle them.
I’m surprised how upset people are about this post… I thought it was funny 🙂
I’ll stick with the Panasonic. At half the cost, it’s sharp in the corners wide open (much better than my Canon 17-40 f4L on FF), and at these focal lengths shallow DoF is irrelevant and IBIS lets me shoot in low light at f4. F2.8 doesn’t really do anything for me on an ultra-wide. Nice to see more pro-oriented lenses being developed, though. Now, could we please see a 50-200 or 100-300 f4?
F/2.8 gives change to use higher shutter speed to stop motion in lower light in golden hour period, like water on beach or water hitting rocks at incoming storm or shooting those nightskies etc.
But with that price, I don’t touch it until below 1199 dollars.
Definitely too expensive. At that price it’s too close to the full frame offering from Nikon… and they’re definitely using less materials for this smaller lense
Do you ever feel like Companies release these rumors out just so that they can gauge the reaction of the fan base? Like how the Sony A7s was rumored to be super expensive and we found out that it was only standard expensive?
I dont know, I feel like I would be more comfortable at 1200 to 1400 range if I save up
I hope they do read this page so they can see the reaction this ridiculous price is creating among users
Wow. This sets a new high price for M43 glass, right? Definitely edging closer to Canikon prices (though still a relative bargain.
But Fuji’s excellent glass is starting to look much more competitive as the line fills out, the optical and build quality both seem high, and prices are often less than their M43 counterparts. M43 still has an edge in size, which does matter to me, as does M43’s superior focusing speed on the high end. But I hope that the forthcoming Olympus 40-150 does not continue to push the price ceiling up. And BTW, when is that lens supposed to finally ship?
If the f4.0 version is around $1,000 then it’s common sense that an f2.8 zoom would be a fair bit more.
In any case the current lens options are the same as they ever were so no needs to throw a tantrum just because a new option is available.
And who would bother to have a strong opinion about the value of a product that does’t exist yet? Maybe you could wait until it exists to share your incredible insight about the value of it?
The Canon 16-35mm f2.8L is $1,700 and the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 is $2,000 and based on how much better the MFT Panasonic Nocticron 42.5mm f1.2 is compared to the Canon L Primes it’s reasonable to assume the Olympus may be similar in quality.
It’s great to have more top notch lens choices for the best camera system in the world.
f4 version is Panasonic. They are crazy, they priced 12-35/2.8 at $1300, while Olympus has better 12-40/2.8 at $1000. Pana priced 45/2.8 macro at $950 while Oly priced better 60/2.8 at $600 ($400 on sales).
OVERPRICED AND NOBODY WILL BUY – BIG FAIL OLYMPUS!
Not at that price! I rather buy the full-frame version.
This price is all marketing. This lens will sell for 1000$ before tax in US and will sell like hot cakes. It’s not going to cost 1800$ or anywhere near that much because it’s a made in China lens, made with inner plastic, and plastic mount, and the quality level is calibrated to cost just 100$ to manufacture.
I suspect it will be more than 1000. But I agreed it will be a huge success. I am glad to see m43 lenses of this caliber. I just bought the Noctricron 42.5, f/1.2. It’s amazing.
Olympus does not make plastic mount lenses.
If there are users here who wouldn’t buy the Canon or Nikon comparable lenses anyways, then why are you complaining? It’s like the people who buy $10-20k cars, but then would never buy the latest Ferrari and complains about how it fails. Just makes no sense.
I can’t remember the last time I complained about a lens being expensive. If I think it’s too much money I just move on.
This is ridiculous. The whole point of going M43 is that the smaller sensor allows for smaller lenses. Smaller = cheaper. This is the same price as the Canon 16-35 f2.8L and almost the same as Nikon 14-24 f2.8. I understand that its top notch glass but M43 glass should NEVER be the same cost as FF. They are losing their entire value proposition at this point. This should be $1000 glass. I use m43 for underwater photography and as a second system to my Canon 6D. For this price I’ll stick with my FF 6D and get the 16-35L.
The 16-35L F/2.8 lenses (both versions) have a bad reputation when it comes to sharpness. I’d suggest you get the 17-40 F/4 then, it’s much better.
…But the 14-24mm F2.8 is a stellar performer and is also cheaper… .
In the corners, my 17-40 f4L on 1Ds Mark III didn’t hold a candle to my Panasonic 7-14 f4 on GX1.
A 7-14mm f2.8 lens is 7-14mm f2.8 lens regardless of system. There are other variables than size that dictate the price of a lens. That’s why there are different price points and feature sets for different uses.
For example the Panasonic 42.5mm f1.2 lens is a much better lens than either the Canon 50mm f1.2 or the 85mm f1.2 and it’s image stabilized. So why in the world should it be cheaper?
This is not entirely true. It’s possible that they can jam pack more lens technology to make the lenses far superior. For example, if a m4/3rds 70-200mm f/2.8 was as large as a FF lens then it might be 98% perfect. Not that they would ever do that but the possibility is there.
Well, if that price is right, it is expensive. Think I will wait to see what it can actually produce before I judge it. At that price it needs to be very sharp center to corner, low distortion and very low CA.
I am not at all surprised at the complaints about price. However this lens is a direct result of public clamor for exotic, fast lenses. As for size, it is a lot smaller than it would be on FF. The notion that m43 should be inexpensive on all fronts is ludicrous. There ARE cheap lenses for those with a budget but the idea that a 7-14 mm lens like the current Panasonic or the rumored Olympus should be cheap is foolish.
Neither Olympus nor Panasonic can survive by seeking the cheap customer. The price conscious customer is fickle and demands margin-killing products that few manufacturers can afford in these days of shrinking volumes.
Too expensive 🙁
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1031586-REG/olympus_7_14mm_f2_8_pro_m.html
I’m happy with my Panasonic 7-14mm f4 lens, that I paid $700 for mint used.
I love my Panasonic 7-14… it’s hard for me to imagine the Olympus being able to justify 2x the price unless it just does not flare or it’s half the size and still better quality.
Not neccessarily. It’s easier for certain focal lengths, but for the 12-40mm you still need a retrofocus design. And F/4 is easier than F/2.8. And besides, as I said, the 24-105 is old. Canon got their R&D costs out of that lens a long time ago. If you want a more realistic comparison, use the new Canon 24-70 F/4L IS.
It is still easier with short FL.
What a joke…
It’s probably going to have “pro” written on LOL.
This thread is the most insane one this forum has ever produced.
OUCH! Thats a steep price if true. I was willing to part with the price they asked for the E-M1 and 12-40 2.8, but $1800 for an ultrawide zoom on M43? I think I’d have to pick the Panasonic over it, even though it is one stop slower, and doesn’t look nearly as good, and has some flare issues sometimes. But alas, as a hobbyist, I am not someone who makes money off of photography, so I am probably not the target market.
If I found myself in need of an ultrawide, I’d probably shell out $1200 for it, at most, but I need to stock up on primes first.
The price is an excess. I was waiting for this lens but for a price around 1000 dollars, like 12-40 pro. I own the 12-40 and it performs OK, but not much better than the 14-54 4/3 in image quality. Of course it’s far quicker.
I’ll buy the 300 pro lens too, but will not pay more than 2000 dollars.
I’m a great fan for OLY, but i think If OLY wants to get a market segment just under professionals, they will have to be in the exact price too, not only the quality.
I wanted it until I heard that price. Geez.