The current “official” Olympus road,ap doesn’t include a wide prime lens info…yet.
A very good source shared an info about an upcoming new Olympus 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lens. It will be announed in early 2015 and ship in summer. No info on price yet.
—
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
108 Responses
summer next year I presume? I don’t think I want to know how much it will cost.
Spring is September, October & November here! 😉
In northern Australia (& many other nations near the equator), it’s either hot & dry or hot & wet. There’s no such thing as the 4 seasons there!
Another fisheye? That will be the third native (as in designed for the format) already!! But I suppose the F1.8 aperture would be a real bonus!
Very curious about the quality and price. I have to say, I would have preferred a very fast rectilinear UWA prime instead…
What about the 7-14mm f2.8 release? (I’m not interested in fisheye lenses at all)
So am I .
The 7-14mm F2.8 is more welcome than this fisheye lens .
Btw , my priority still on the ultra fast prime . Please release it before this 7-14mm F2.8 .
Fisheye ?
Why not a 10mm lens ?
Douglas would not be happy about this .
Fisheye will be a total waste if true, no interest in this whatsoever.
MFT is really a very nice format for underwater photographers – and below water fisheye lenses are actually quite useful. And for sceneries a aperture of 1.8 might be very useful indeed…
who needs another fisheye? and do we really need f1.8 on that? no use at all for me.
I do. Yes. You’re not everybody, fortunately.
Edit: I doubt this rumor is true, thought.
I never said I am everybody, only that I do not need it.
And again I ask, who needs ANOTHER fisheye, because we already have several that (possibly) aren’t that different.
There might be people and reasons for that, that’s why I asked, but personally I doubt that there are many/enough of them. Why do you need exactly this fisheye, because of the f1.8 instead of the f3.5 of the others I guess (night-sky, underwater..), but the difference is not that huge to the f3.5. And are you really willing to carry the extra weight and bulk and pay the extra money and buy it, or is the need only ‘in theory’.. in other words, will there be enough paying customers for this, we shall see.
That’s more than 2 stops of light. The difference IS that huge sorry.
Actually, it’s just under 2 stops of light. Exactly 2 stops would be F/3.6. Anyway, at F/3.5 it is almost four times as much in light gathering power.
I would agree with you if that were a f/2.8 or f/3.5 lens. But the difference between f/1.8 vs f/3.5 is huge. And that alone would be a big differentiator. Enough to justify its existence.
However, I do not believe this rumor is true. And if true, I imagine the price will be so high, that the whole proposition will be mostly pointless. And the lens itself would probably be huge for MFT. But I’d be happy if proven wrong, I would gladly exchange my Samyang 7.5mm f/3.5 for 8mm f/1.8, as my fish-eye usage is 90% night photography.
We already have a fantastic and highly affordable Samyang option, and I think those who already fave a FE probably won’t pay for an “upgrade”(if there really is)…I’d prefer a rectilinear UWA prime, and I have been crossing my finger for something to happen at the upcoming CP+. But now I’m disappointed they choose to put R&D on FE instead. and now I don’t see another UWA lens coming from Olympus anytime soon. 7-14 pro is about to be announced(or is it?) and Olympus will inevitably stay away from the UWA focal range a while to sell the pro lens. Yes the 7-14 pro will be great, but judging from the rumor we got so far, it’s expensive, it’s probably not light (based on one of Oly’s presentation slides it’s roughly 600g), and it probably does not take filters. I’ll be glad if all the rumors are wrong, but so far I don’t think this is a lens for me. That leaves me only 3 other native UWA alternatives whose weakness and strength have been brought up over and over again, but I just don’t find any of them the most ideal option for me. Hopefully Pana will surprise us with something new or else I’ll probably have to try other systems for UWA instead……
Bye, Bye!
I would not be that ironic.
Olympus is becoming insane more and more. I don’t get that move.
Well yes maybe they do not want to kill thei 7-14 future purchases. For me 7-14 is useless – too heavy, large, expensive.
I do not understand why on Earth they have not brought us any 8mm 2.8 rectilenear length yet.
Hopefully Panasonic will be a bit smarter …
i don’t think this rumor is true.
What the system badly needs is a fast but compact UWA lens, say 9 mm f2.8 or even f2, and around the size of the 12-17-25-45 line-up.
For fisheye, there’s already the excellent Samyang 7.5 mm f3.5 fisheye, that’s among the sharpest lenses already wide open, and on top of that, it’s quite cheap. Then there’s the Panasonic 8 mm fisheye, as well, but noone buys that with the Samyang available.
Being f1.8 sounds more interesting for astrophotography, but 1.) it implies that it will be MASSIVE, and 2.) I’m already defishing the Samyang, and I’m only owning that because there’s no alternative for fast sharp UWA.
Hi, what do you use to defisheye ? Thanks
Several options available: Hugin, Fisheye-Hemi, Photoshop, etc.
fisheye ??!! WTF ?
Indeed!!!
…..and you can bet at f/1.8 it will be EXPENSIVE!
I am a huge Oly fan..but I own the Panny fisheye (overpriced really)…and really like that lens…and for the amount of use it grpets I doubt that I would be switching over to a most likely more expensive, larger fisheye…
Plus with the Rokinon (etc.) variations available sooo cheap, and the fact that AF is not “very” necessary for this lens …I just don’t see a huge market for the Oly Fisheye.
I just might get this Olympus lens, but I would definitely buy a 9mm f2.0 or 2.8. Just an rectangular UWA that takes filters for the times I need something wider than 12mm.
Agreed… a 16mm or 18mm equivalent rectilinear is all that’s needed. I’d even go for an F4 aperture if it’s under $400.
The official lens road map doesn’t even has the 25/f1.8 on it. Maybe we will get an updated map at CP+.
because it’s an old roadmap. The wide angle zoom and the superteleohoto lens are not vague.
the admin screwed up.
Speaking of which, I wonder when panasonic will release their 2015 roadmap.
That would be perfect, an official lens roadmap. I really like Fuji’s approach – you know what is coming.
I’d buy this if not super expensive, be loads of fun for party/nightclub photography etc.
I use the body cap for this currently, but at F8 I have to blind people with the flash 🙂
Rokinon/Bower/Samyang 7.5mm fish. You can get it for $250 – it’s compact, beautiful IQ, great feel and mechanics. No AF, but most of the time you set it to infinity and go anyway.
I see the Bower for $199 at B&H occasionally.
At that price, I keep looking for a reason to buy one, but even my well-honed self-deception skills aren’t powerful enough to make me pull the trigger. 😉
I find it fun for large indoor architecturals. Got some great shots with it in the DC Metro recently. Fisheyes get a bad rap because people use them to shoot things from traditional angles better shot with a rectilinear wide angle, and there’s an upper limit to the number of hilarious distorted dog and cat photos that one can stomach in a lifetime. If the goal is abstraction and you treat it like you would a <14mm FF (make sure there's enough stuff to fill the frame and make tiny adjustments to your angles before hitting the shutter release), and also play with dutching, you can get some really interesting shots with a fish. That said, between the Oly Lenscap, Panny AF and Rok, there's no reason to be creating more fisheyes when there are other obvious gaps in the system. *edit* forgot the Lensbaby circular fisheye too.
It’s really a very good lens. The resolution is exceptional, and if you’re taking shots of organic situations, the distortion isn’t immediately obvious. It’s a great way to show the scope of nature in a forest, for instance. And because the Bower has resolution and sharpness to spare (really!), you can defish it and still get good rectilinear results from the center, if that’s your preference, albeit at a reduced MP count. The main challenge there is to make sure that your framing is wide enough when you’re doing your initial capture that you aren’t cropping out the detail you want.
Sure, a rectilinear 7mm lens would be great (albeit likely large and expensive, with a smaller FOV than the fisheye), but at the price the Bower sells for, it’s hard to beat.
They’re a love-it-or-hate-it kind of thing, I guess.
I’d go as far as saying I rather have the 7.5mm FE than a 7mm Rect. The HAOV is way way wider, and if you know how to compose (center the radials) and defish (Panini is a must) then you’ll get better results than with any rect.
But… you never know until you try. I bought mine for ~350€ so I think 199$ U.S. is a complete steal and you are nuts if you don’t take the chance.
Arrrrgh!!! Please! Not a fisheye. This system needs an ultra wide prime so much more.
I wish I could upvote this 30 or 40 more times
No kidding!
+1,000,000,000
The M4/3 system needs another fisheye like it needs another 14-42mm.
A fisheye is a limited use, novelty lens. The cheap 7.5mm Bower/Rokinon/Samyang is plenty good for that.
Hopefully, this rumor is just incorrect. If not, Olympus would appear to be very out of touch with what their customers want.
A limited use, novelty lens? Only for those who don’t know how to use one effectively. I shoot everything from fisheye to long telephoto and my fisheyes are one of my most used lenses. Granted 180 FOV may not be your thing, but FEs are hardly novelty lenses in the hands of someone who knows how to use one.
I see we agree on something. +1
Do not worry, it will be a rectilinear 8mm prime f/1.8 for Premium class among 45mm and 25mm f/1.8. Its 8mm because Olympus wants filter threads to it without fancy filter rings or rear filter.
Arghhhh.. Where is the 7-14?? Been waiting for this lens far too long now. No proper wide lenses for Oly cams and that is what I need. Pana sucks on Oly body, same with native 43 zuiko..
Hmm, the “native” Zuiko 7-14 is an excellent lens. Why do you think it “sucks” on Olympus body?
purple glare and to big
And yes its an excellent lens on my E1 and E3 but on E5 (sold),EM5 or any of my Pens. Hope the new 7-14 will be more resilient to that annoying purple flare when shooting landscape into sun but it can be related to sensor architecture.
although i agree that another fishyeye is a bit pointless, looking at the coments i realize that most do forget about underwater users. to us no autofocus is a no go. The pana 8mm is our only option for fisheye underwater and maybe a faster prime fisheye gives as more options.
As for being a novelty lens, maybe is for some maybe it isnt for others. It all comes down to you. Underwater fisheye are kings and a must have.
Ordinarily I can imagine no AF being frustrating, but with a fisheye you just need to put it at f5.6 and a few mm away from infinity on the focus ring, and everything farther away from you than about 50cm will be in focus.
Did you see the minimal focus distance on the Panasonic fisheye? Even it it’s a short distance, you want it usable.
Blown focus on ultra wide is subtle, yet a terrible thing to watch. What’s worse is that critical focus is harder to achieve on wider angle.
Yes, my 7.5/f3.5 focusses just in front of the bulbous front element. I have accidentally bumped it against my subject at closest focus distances sometimes. So I know, and your point is fair.
But if I’m going to have a manual focus lens in my bag, a fisheye is definitely the most forgiving by far. (And I usually have at least 2 manual lenses – the 50/1.4 and 90/2.8 are not so forgiving!)
You do have a point that for most use, you’ll get away with it. Rui Calado talks about underwater photography, in which fisheye is a very popular lens and in which AF is no luxury.
Yes indead it is the most forgiving, however I have up until recently exclusevly on MF Glass old Nikon lenses from 24 to 300 mm and having bought the 7,5 Samyang which I own and love, I much prefer an out of focus image from any of the Nikon glass above than from an autofocus image from the samy. With the former you imesdtly discard the images as with the later you tend to hold on to it and actually your photography worsens.
True. But given the minimum focus distance a fisheye can achieve its safe to say that minimal blur is possible. And as any other kind of photography tack sharp focus is a must if you are serious about your photography.
My opinion is that it’s great to see Olympus producing good fast primes and even esquisite ones as 1.8 fisheye, and not necessarily expensive (45mm 1.8; 25mm 1.8)
Most likely we won’t see such a lens and I’m sure te 7-14 pro zoom will come for sure.
45mm f/1.8 costs 180€ today, 25mm f/1.8 costs around 350€. I wouldn’t call those as expensive. Otherwise everything above 150€ is ultimately expensive and below 100€ is pricey but only below 75€ would be cheap.
Above 150€ on lenses expensive? Other than kit lenses there’s nothing at such price that is good enough (in stills at least).
Lenses are expensive, good lenses even more. You pay what you get, but you only pay if you want
The Panasonic is not your only option – there’s the Zuiko 8mm, which you could use with an MMF-3. I don’t know if that would fit in an underwater housing though.
It could probably fit but I’m thinking the price would similar or higher than the pany. Plus it would require a bigger dome if there is any that could fit four thirds lens + MMF3
When are we getting the F/2.8 7-14mm? That’s the one I want.
If you consider that Oly ZD is attempting to capture the most useful PRO focal lengths in three zooms—the 7-14/2.8, the 12-40/2.8, and 40-150/2.8—it is to their advantage to ensure everything is well developed before release. One can start with these three zooms as the base set for their lens repertoire and selectively add faster primes and specialty lenses—at least that’s what I’m planning to do. 😉
The 7-14/2.8 appears to be priced above even the super sharp 40-150/2.8. I really hope Oly ZD is including a filter turret with 3-4 filters: a polarizer (which technically is not a filter), a strong UV filter (to remove excessive blue-ishness in extreme cases that software programs cannot handle), and 1-2 strengths of ND filter(s). I also hope the minimum focusing distance is reasonably short since I am a close-up/macro lover. I just want them to get this lens right.
Technically polarizer is a filter, it filters specific light frequency while pass the others.
Technically a ND isn’t a filter, as it does pass all the frequencies.
I have no problem accepting your ‘polarizer as filter’ statement. I was referring to ‘old photographic wisdom’ advice from decades ago that stated in more than one book I’ve read that polarizers are not technically filters.
However, ND filters are very much so since they reduce or modify the intensities of all wavelengths/colors equally, thereby preserving the hue of color rendition.
Next time when you do portraitures in studio, use CPL filter and you know why it is a filter (as well as by laws of physics)
I was not disagreeing with you. I responded automatically using a very old definition of polarizers not being filters without truly thinking it true.
The filters I want in the 7-14/2.8 filter turret, assuming they include one, are all difficult or so far impossible to duplicate in software. I would also want the same filter set in specialty lenses such as a 12/2.8 (or 12/2.0!) tilt & swing lens or super bright super telephoto lenses (e.g., a 150/1.4 optic—yes!, I am exceedingly greedy!!! 😉 ).
A polariser does not filter light frequencies at all. It filters out certain aligned angles of polarised light. Ye cannae break the laws of physics.
I use a Samyang f/3.5 fisheye for video on a regular basis. Nice but slow for many indoor situations. A faster replacement would be really nice if not too expensive. Surprised to see so many fisheye haters.
Agreed! A full frame fisheye is an incredibly versatile lens. It’s not a lens I would personally buy early, but it is a very useful addition for city/townscapes, architecture/interiors, even stage/theater and sports.
Spot on. Be as in video as in stills the fisheye is uber versatile as it can do everything (even portraits) adding its character to the artistic vein of the photographer. I have the little samy and although I’ve used it in maybe 1% of the time I’ve spent shooting I never go out without it.
Another fisheye would be disappointing and unnecessary, even with that aperture. Not to mention incredibly expensive, using the existing Panasonic as a reference. You can often hand-hold the 7.5mm/3.5 at shutter speeds that you let you capture as much light as an f1.8 lens with a standard (17-25mm) FL.
I don’t think the current m43 fisheye lenses (Pany 8mm and Samyang 7.5mm) are all that great. Sure they have pretty good sharpness, but they suffer from flare and ghosting and sensor reflections. Plus f/3.5 is not all that fast for some folks (like me) and I’d love an improved faster fisheye. I also would like to have a better mechanical build than the current Pany 8/3.5 . . .
With that being said, there are other lenses, like a 10mm/2.8 that I’d prefer to have before a new fisheye.
7.5mm Fisheye hater => (7.5mm Fisheye Envier V ~ 7.5mm Fisheye Owner)
You decide where you fit.
I understand many people need and want a UWA prime, I would love on too but there is no need to bash on what you don’t want.
I do see a lot of hate, but I’d go as far as to say that more 90% of those who own the 7.5mm FE know for a fact that it’s the best value lens in their arsenal and probably in the entire system.
This piece of glass is light, solid, ultra sharp, and competes in IQ and optical characteristics with any AF lens for m4/3. It also happens to be the only lens I own that never stays at home.
It’s only Con, is that is not the fastest glass around, and that’s also the only reason to make Olympus have a go at this FL, otherwise they wouldn’t even bother because it’s nearly impossible to make significantly better.
Two things that comes to mind.
First, for whatever my gut feeling is, contributors to this forum may overestimate their representativity of the real m43 market. If Olympus consider making a fisheye, it probably took them more than an informal meeting at the lunch break…
Second, people that want this or that specific lens from that specific manufacturer (claiming out loud that this is what m43 needs) …and implying that by working on the wrong project, they are taking important ressources away from their dreamware.. you know who you are. Get a grip : it doesn’t work like that. Your average project manager leads several projects and if no fast UWA made it yet past patents and into the roadmap, it is safe to assume that there are reasons to it. You know, obstacles…
Nice try, but you cannot educate all the masses. Especially when they don’t want to be educated! 😉
Thank you anyway. That would be the second part of my post, if I wasn’t time constrained.
Best value lenses are now Olympus 45mm f/1.8. Olympus 25mm f/1.8 and Olympus 40-150mm R f/4-5.6.
First two are sharp as razors and the third one is just sharp but so damn cheap (99€). After those Samyang (&co) 7.5mm fisheye comes. While being cheap (239€) its not top because fisheye distortion.
The £199 Panny 45-150/F4.0-5.6 is tack sharp, very small and light too
Why not a 7mm wide angle with barely any distortion. This is like a serious need. The 9-18 (ok lens) has way to much distortion on the wide side even after in camera correction. Come on man, Is an equivalent 14mm wide angle asking for too much?
I looked at the distortion grids on DXO, and the 7-14mm and 9-18mm don’t seem much worse than the Canon, Nikon, and Sony FF 16-35s…?
Really? Hmm. Well, I can’t say actually. From what I’ve read the 16-35 F4 FE is fairly distortion free. I’m using an old Tokina 17mm 3.5 RMC on my A7 right now and I find it’s more distortion free than the 9-18. Ofcourse, it’s a dog at 3.5. You seriously need to stop it down to get it to pump out anything decent. I’m going to buy the 10.5 coming out, but I want wider.
Come back when Olympus does same as the Voigtländer, a 12mm rectilinear lens for Leica. It should be a 6mm for m43 to beat that one!
Here’s a more recent roadmap:
http://i.imgur.com/11DsIUC.jpg
Nawwwwww, no way would they make a fisheye with that aperture. Rumors abound, but that should be a prime rectilinear lens 🙂
I think you may be right..if it is..it will be a damn expensive one!!!
More expansive than $900… I can see the 8mm for size and to get around competing with the 7-14mm, but I think it will be $899 or something… Just a guess of course.
The f/1.8 gets the 8mm rectilinear prime to Premium class, being priced heavily to 399-499€ range like 17mm, 25mm, 45mm. All those are in 129-369€ range now but started at up. Only 60mm macro, 75mm f/1.8 and 12mm f/2 are pricey.
if it’s prime rectilinear I’m buying one.
Sounds good as long as it has much improved flare and ghosting resistance over the current Pany 8/3.5 FE, which is good, but not so great for pointing into the sun.
Don’t point a lens into the sun, they flare.
Something seems fishy about this rumor.
It is the fisheye part, Olympus doesn’t do Fisheye lenses.
Really? They’ve had one available since around 2005.
They’ve made at least three…
The keyword what no one seems to the understand is “the use to make”.
“It is the fisheye part, Olympus doesn’t do Fisheye lenses.”
The Four-Thirds lens is still available.
Except for the body-cap one?
You didn’t notice the quotation marks? I was reminding Mk.82 of what he wrote.
Oh right, that means they’ve made 4…
Olympus has done fisheyes for decades. At one point they were producing two fisheyes for their OM series at the same time.
That’s odd – I have a Zuiko 8mm f/3.5 right here on my desk. Weather-sealed. 4/3 mount.
would love a 10-40 zoom with good close focusing!!!!!!!!!!!!
Another fisheye… Why? Sure the larger max aperture would be different, but at best this is a niche within a niche, and the cost for such a lens would surely be enormous. Why? Look at the price of other “fast” fisheyes…. That’s right there are none. There’s a reason for that.
Those hoping for a non flaring fisheye, dream on. I have the Rokinon and while it flares with the sun IN FRAME, it does a pretty great job at handling it, and better than other fisheyes I’ve used for other systems. Those wishing for a non flaring, f/1.8 fisheye, seriously, do you know how fisheye optics work, are corrected for and how a larger entrance pupil will compound the possibility of flare? If anything, an f/1.8 fisheye (which to me makes little to no sense especially taking into consideration that engineering something like that will result in an insane cost to the end user) will have a much harder time controlling flare than either of the other two, already good fisheye options available now.
Now, an 8mm f/1.8 rectilinear… Now we’re talking! This would be a HUGE addition to the current lineup as neither Pana nor Oly have a low profile ultra wide prime. If it were to have good distortion control and come in under $500, I’d preorder one yesterday. Unfortunately, I think Oly will have overestimated people’s desire for cost to usability in a fast ultra wide and will price this out waaaaaay beyond where most of us would be even willing to go to cost wise resulting in a huge boost to sales of the Pana 7-14/4 and maybe the +/-$1900 Oly 7-14/2.8, but hey, more options are always good.
Hmmm . . . the Nikon 16/2.8 fisheyes have excellent (way way better than the current m43 fisheyes) flare and ghosting characteristics. So does my 16/3.5 AIS. These were designed 30 years ago and the f/1.8 is just ~1 stop faster. So I imagine that a m43 f/1.8 fisheye could in fact be made to be very flare and ghost resistant if designed so and modern coatings and internal light baffles uses.
It would not be small (well it would likely be the size of a FX fisheye) nor cheap, but for my type of photography I’d love to have one.
Even if it were a typo and it’s in fact a f/2.8 optic that would be a big plus and if designed right for super resistance to flare/ghosting that would be a huge improvement over the currently available m43 fisheyes.
My Samyang 7.5mm f/3.5 doesn’t have any flare problems and I shoot landscapes with it where I want sun in frame or just edge of the frame,
I’d be pleased to have such a lens, as I photograph at skate parks, but I don’t believe the maximum aperture is accurate, unless there is some huge compromise. If it’s f/2.8 or even f/2.5, that would be an improvement over their current Four-Thirds lens with a maximum aperture of f/3.5.
If it’s weather-sealed, that would also be an advantage but not likely these days.
Olympus has patents for ultra-wide lenses with f/1.0 design. A 8mm f/1.8 means the aperture is only a 4.44mm wide, easy to do then.
They’re all easier to do on paper and/or computer than with metal, plastics, and glass.
I’d rather have the 300mm lens Olympus was gloating about almost a year ago. Oh well maybe when the next E-M1-2 is released.
how about a 300mm fisheye?
I want a rectilinear 8, 9 or 10 mm lens. Oly can shove the fisheye.