Olympus officially announced their new stuff and here are all the links that matters:
Click on those Preorder links:
7-14mm f/2.8 PRO lens: Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, GetOlympus, WexUK.
8mm f/1.8 PRO lens: Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, GetOlympus, WexUK.
Titanium E-M5II: Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, GetOlympus, WexUK.
Accessories:
7-14mm Olympus LC-79 Lens Cap at BHphoto.
Olympus PPO-EP02 Dome Port for 8mm at BHphoto.
Olympus PPZR-EP05 Focus Gear for 8mm at BHphoto.
Olympus POSR-EP10 UW Anti-Reflecting Ring for 8mm at BHphoto.
Previews-Reviews-Hands-on:
Dpreview, Ara-newmedia, Mirrorlessons (7-14mm), Mirrorlessons (8mm), Amateur Photographer (7-14mm), Amateur Photographer (8mm), Creativeislandphoto (8mm).
Press releases:
7-14mm PRO at Olympus, Dpreview, 43rumors, DSLRmagazine, OpenPN, BHexplore, Adorama Blog,
8mm PRO at Olympus, Dpreview, 43rumors, DSLRmagazine, OpenPN, BHexplore, Adorama Blog,
Titanium E-M5II at Dpreview, 43rumors, OpenPN, BHexplore, Adorama Blog,
Image samples:
Dpreview, Ara-newmedia, Olympus (7-14mm), Olympus (8mm), Mirrorlessons (7-14mm), Mirrorlessons (8mm), Imaging Resource, Creativeislandphoto (8mm).
Tidbits:
New firmware 3.1 for the E-M1 coming in June with new Underwater Wide and Underwater Macro settings help automatically correct for underwater colorcasts and improves color vibrancy.
Videos:
mZuiko 8mm f/1.8 Fisheye Hands On (Jamie McDonald on Youtube).
Olympus 7-14 mm 2.8 & Olympus 8 mm Fisheye 1.8 Review (Ara on Youtube).
First impressions review: Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8 and 8mm f/1.8 Fisheye (Mirrorlessons on Youtube).
Olympus m.Zuiko Digital ED 7-14mm F2.8 PRO Vorstellung (Vimeo).
Poll:
[poll id=”276″]
142 Responses
That video review is a joke and just a waste of time. I’ll be interested to see how they compare to the panny lenses in the IQ department.
I challenge you to find any difference in IQ…
Well the 8mm is twice the weight and over 50% longer and the 7-14 is almost twice the weight and 50% longer. Sealing is nice and 2.8 vs. 4 is nice and 1.8 vs. 3.5 is nice. I don’t care about fisheye lenses and the faster 7-14 would be helpful indoors, but if the IQ isn’t better I can’t see the cost and even more so the size difference getting me to buy one of these. It is great to have options though and where I live weather sealing is always a good thing.
The 7-14 f2.8 is 22,7 mm longer than the 7-14 f4 lens. Hardly 50 per cent.
If he had shot the church interior with the Panasonic lens on his Em5 there would have been heavy purple fringing at the borders of the windows.
The lens flare test would have shown bigger and purple flaring.
No one will do the real test… put the Panna lens on a GX7 and the Oly on the EM5 MkII… They’ll simply put both lenses on the MKII and blame Panasonic and the lens for the Purple fringing, giving the “thumbs up” to the Oly lens.
Waiting for Gordon to “keep it real”, but he wont….
Well, it’s not a race for the best lens in general, since they have different apertures, construction, and the Panasonic is some year older.
It would be a real test to people planning to use it on their Olympus camera.
As it would be a real test that of using the lenses on a GX7.
We know that the camera software helps in limiting some issue, and as far as I’ve seen the MZuiko will solve the problems I have with the Panasonic sibling.
No, my reasoning behind that is I know reviews will pit it against the older lumix lens, like they did with the 25mm versions. Then they will blame the fringing on the lens, not on the body it’s on.
You take things too personal,y, as if a “bad” review of a Panasonic lens would hurt your life.
People complaining that the PanaLeica 25mm has bad purple fringing on high contrasted areas when wide opened don’t realize that every f1.4 lens has this issue. Even Leica Summiluces or Zeiss Otuses (this latter in a minor way though).
Lumix7-14mm suffers from heavy chroma aberrations (green and purple fringing) basically always at the edge.
And unless you shoot b&w or the sky is cloudy, flares can easily ruin a photo. It happened so many times to me that when it’s sunny I prefer to use the 12mm.
I was shooting at the Biennale in Venice last days, and I had to swap the two lenses bearing in mind the surrounding lighting.
This does not mean that the Lumix lens sucks. It means that it could have had a better nano coating (I doubt it has any), given its price.
But it was the only choice of going ultra wide and now I can buy a new lens that on my Olympus camera will serve be better and allow me to take more wide angle photos.
I could look for a GX7 though, once I’ll have this 7-14mm
European pricing?
http://www.olympus.de/corporate/de/press_centre/press_releases/consumer/m_zuiko_digital_ed_7_14mm_pro_8mm_pro_press.jsp
the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 8mm Fisheye 1:1.8 PRO will retail for €899 while the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 7-14mm 1:2.8 PRO will cost €1199. Both go on sale from June 2015.”
The prices was not that bad IMO…
Wow it’s getting cheaper and cheaper. Admin said 1399, dpreview said 1299, now it’s 1199!
Obviously you failed to see the difference in price between euro and dollar…
I think you failed to follow the exchange rate between euro and dollar.
It doesn’t matter…
Wow! If that comes in 1199€ it is a MUST BUY!
And Panasonic owners can be happy as its 7-14mm price will dive!
Panasonic 7-14mm owners won’t be so happy….
The pricing of Pana 7-14 is an embarrassment. $600 is more like it, for the poor-built lesser lens.
Seems like it was 1300 euro:
“M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 8 mm 1:1.8 PRO wird für 899 € bzw. 1.099 CHF erhältlich sein. Das M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 7-14 mm 1:2.8 PRO gibt es für 1.299 € bzw. 1.599 CHF”
http://www.olympus.de/corporate/de/press_centre/press_releases/consumer/m_zuiko_digital_ed_7_14mm_pro_8mm_pro_press.jsp
Wait few months after release, for some juicy used deals.
Something is suspicious here .
Maybe the lens is not that excellent as expect .
$1600 for 7-14 and $1250 for the 8mm here in Canada!
Not bad at all! At this price it’s an easy choice between these and Panasonic offerings.
7-14mm image samples are rather disappointing for the price of the lens…
unfortunately I think the same – the dpreview samples look quite poor, for example this one:
https://goo.gl/dU0JUv
looks like the right side is a bit decentered (unfortunately common problem with Oly), and the resolution is generally quite low, but of course this is just a JPEG without any details about sharpening etc.
I’m glad that they’re both relatively inexpensive, given their differences to the Four-Thirds versions, so that I can buy both.
relative to what exactly? Price looks on par if nor more than apsc or FF equivalents.
The price is on par or more than weather-sealed lenses from Nikon or Canon?
yeah, and sony, and pentax, and fuji…that is about it though.
Beautiful images by Mirrorlessons, I am impressed with the quality of bokeh of 7-14 2.8 in close-up images! So smooth, extraordinary rendering!
I prefer the Ara-newmedia youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn1arg80mds
boring (says the man with no money)
boring (says the man with a lot of money)
The price of the 7-14mm is surprisingly low. Let’s hope that’s a trend!
On the flip side, the size and weight are surprisingly high!
Let’s not hear complaints about the size and weight of the 300g Panasonic 7-14mm f4 ever again!
Good for you .
Time for upgrading your 7-14 F4 lens .
I’m on the fence. I like the P7-14mm a lot.
Now, that it’s suddenly become light and compact, even more so! ?
Why not? More light-gathering is more weight, simple as that. And besides, who says the people finding the pana 7-14 to heavy isn’t also finding this lens to heavy?
Actually I expected the higher price considering current prices for wide angles for MFT.
1300 euro for a M43 lens. A combo with Em1 will set you back 2600 euro. This is just crazy for iPhone quality pictures.
Common with the crying and deleting…..you …. of a moderator.
Facepalm + smh
…
https://i.imgur.com/Nmd9mIY.jpg
So when is the ultimate PRO kit due?
Kit containing E-M5 II
7-14mm, 12-40mm, 40+150mm + TC1.4x
Maybe for 4.200€, super saver kit!
It makes more sense with the E-M1.
No, it doesn’t.
It does…
Okey yes it does make sense for Olympus to hurry sell all those E-M1 stocks at stupid prices till the new model come and prices drop to 100$ each unit like it happened to E-M5.
You forgot 300.
Good combination but I’m afraid I can’t wait. I will buy the 7-14mm f2.8 and find a E-M5II saver deal.
I already lost interest in Panasonic’s similar camera/lens… which look inferior and not attractive at all. 🙂
Look inferior and not attractive…..?
Perhaps you should invest in a Gold Chain, instead of a camera and lens, no?
I thought photography was about enjoyment and results, not “how it looks”…
The fisheye looks sweet, but i am having a hard time thinking of why would i need to update my 4/3 ZD 8mm 3.5 fisheye which i got in mint condition for about 300$, that serve me well, is also weather sealed, Made in Japan and build like a tank. Those 2 extra stops? Not sure, as i could get sharp images @1/4 hand held with my EM-5II.
Maybe i should wait 3-6 months for gray/used market and then update.
The best reason to have the Four-Thirds lens is to use it on a dSLR body, naturally. I considered buying it several times for the E-1 and E-5, plus the GH4 and E-M1, but it wasn’t enough in lower light.
The 2 extra stops will help my skate park photography.
7-14/2.8 is good and i will buy for my new GX8 ,LOL ha ha ha
Actually that’s what I am planning on doing
In other news:
“New firmware 3.1 for the E-M1 coming in June with new Underwater Wide and Underwater Macro settings help automatically correct for underwater colorcasts and improves color vibrancy.”
Seriously Olympus? How about peaking from E-M5 II to E-M1? How about offering 50fps if it just is possible via hardware?
Maybe a 1% of the E-M1 owners are using the camera under water and that highly likely 20fps refresh improvement) but would be nice to get that thing improved even more that the box would stay better above target, maybe even offer custom tracking box size or custom selection of the focus points like Pana does!
The new peaking colors and stronger colors too + new focus tracking box + custom focus point selection and it would make great 3.1 improvement!
I couldn’t agree more with most of this, on the UI side, need multiple focus tracking points or boxes, maybe box shape/type (multiple point vs single box) and color options including peaking color options. Take care of having a functional record start/stop notification.
I would like to see more video improvements first above anything else and improvements with 5 Axis and auto focus. Ability to adjust (increase/decrease) 5Axis sensitivity and reduced sensor wobble. Need 100mbps+, slo-mo, improved resolution at 1080 and add at least 2k/24-60p, 3k/24-30p or 4k/24-30p. Better, faster and more consistent autofocus including at higher ISO.
Must be nice to be the 1 or 2 underwater guys that have Olympus’ ear. Those features sound great for those that will use it or push for that extra <.01% of new sales.
I fear that some of the “update” you wish are more a matter of hardware rather than software. Read: different sensor, different mechanical part of IBIS.
None of those would even touch the IBIS or be about sensor. It would be about CPU (that is same on both, TruePic VII) and space for firmware improvements (so they have space to add new code).
The focus point selection (now having normal, small, 9 grid or all) would be just purely processing and UI dependant.
The focus peaking color change is just adding color choices. Making the peaking stronger (remove the darkening/whitening layout, line width thicker) is question about processing capability.
The focus tracking box is only about algorithm what focus points can be used and that is about processing power = is there enough to track subject differently or just draw the used focus points differently?
The hardware about IBIS, sensor and so on are nothing to do the data the processor needs to process.
Everyone needs to take notes from Fujifilm. They’re about to turn the X-T1 into a new camera:
http://www.fujirumors.com/using-firmware-4/
The Mirrorless gap widens…
Why is it that initial sample/test shots for new lenses are almost universally bad?
Becasue salesman/ marketing guys/ photobloggers etc are not necessary a good photographers.You want to see a raw capability of a certain lens or ones artistic abilities?
One can also hope to see both.. 🙂
Well, since I use the lens as a tool to make money, I would expect to see something more than the shots offered to entice me into comparing my shots with what the lens is capable of and be better informed about and more inclined towards a purchasing decision.
You are mostly right, but Leica seems to do it.
I suspect the lens will turn out to be stellar, but those initial shots with the 7-14 on DPReview at 7mm are pretty terrible.
Because the reviewers probably have a very limited amount of time with the lens and they are all desperately racing each other to publish.
I would LOVE to get the 7-14mm for landscaping but you can’t even put a polarizer much less NDs on it.
Wasn’t the near focus limit on the 7-14 supposed to be 2cm from the front element.
Seem to be true for the 8 mm fisheye only.
Been waiting for this lens for a long time. I had the Panasonic 7-14, which is a great lens, but I never liked its lack of weather sealing. Ultra WA lenses simply beg to be used outdoors, sometimes in less than ideal conditions. Doubt I’ll be buying new, though.
Also, this incessant arguing about FF vs m4/3rds is silly; I have an A7II and an Olympus EM1, and the EM1 more than holds its own. In fact, the differences in IQ are small enough that I never feel like I’m missing anything when using the EM1 instead of the A7II. It’s usually just a consideration of smaller size and better handling (faster AF, better sharpness wide open, better IBIS, more robust weather sealing), vs. shallow DoF with full-body portraits and high ISO ability, which is to me the only clear advantage of the A7II. I see almost no difference in tonality and dynamic range, certainly nothing that would show up in print. And the EM1 is more than capable of printing to the largest sizes I would ever print to (roughly A2).
I own the 7-14mm and used it for landscapes, group portraits, estate and interior shootings: I must say that sadly I haven’t used it as much as I would have wanted, due to the huge amount of purple fringing and purple flares.
I have already found a friend interested in my Pana, this will help me buy this lens and make him happy.
Purple fringing seems to be a Panasonic design goal, unfortunately.
-THAT is fixed in Lumix Bodies, and a problem on Olympus bodies only.
Stop spewing FUD, saka.
It’s not FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). It’s a fact that purple fringing is part of nearly every Panasonic lens, including those labeled Leica–my 15mm f/1.7 has it. My Four-Thirds 25mm f/1.4 doesn’t seem to have the problem, though, but then, that was designed by Leica, not Panasonic.
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1170071
You’re lucky I’m on my phone and not my laptop. There are numerous topics on the Web, where Only Olympus body users have problems using Lumix lenses and getting purple fringing. Are you new here? Everybody knows Panasonic bodies fixes it with Panasonic lenses in Camera, but NOT with Olympus bodies.
So if You have a purple fringing problem with your Lumix glass, what camera are you having the problem with? It can’t be a Lumix body.
Only Olympus users are having the problem because it is a design flaw that Panasonic is correcting/hiding in software.
“Design flaw” hahahahhaa!
Sorry, but the eye cup falling off an EM5 is a Design Flaw, Olympus not delivering a solution for Lumix lenses via firmware is laziness and greed, because Olympus wants Olympus users to use Olympus lenses! Panasonic wants users to buy Lumix lenses. Calling it a design flaw is a Joke.
“Only Olympus users are having the problem”
PROOF that you were spreading FUD.
By the way, I don’t have that problem. I only own Lumix lenses and Lumix bodies… Have a good’n..
The greed seems to be Panasonic’s for not correctly designing the lenses to minimize purple fringing.
You still don’t know what FUD is, even though I wrote it out for you.
See my reply above…the purple fringing has nearly nothing to do with lens design, and even less to do with software correction by Panasonic.
Nah, let Saka keep going… this is entertaining, watching him back himself into a corner.
Purple crap from Panasonic 7-14 on a Panasonic sensor.
The bottom line is that Olympus lenses don’t do this
What the heck is this?
Explain… what Panasonic camera?
He wont… he’s a Olympus Fanboy… Spewing FUD.
It’s purple blobs coming from the 7-14 on a G5, people also report purple blobs on the Gh3
>..
Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) is a tactic used in sales, marketing, public relations, politics and propaganda.
FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating NEGATIVE and dubious or FALSE information. An individual firm, for example, might use FUD to invite UNFAVORABLE opinions and speculation about a competitor’s product
You’re a sad, sad man… Go bark up another tree.
Hooo boy…here we go again.
The reason that Panasonic lenses show purple flaring on Olympus sensors is because Olympus cameras have weak UV filters on their sensor stack. Olympus chooses to filter out UV with lens coatings, while Panasonic chooses to filter it out on their sensor stack. This is easily demonstrated by putting a Haze 2A filter on a Panasonic lens – like magic, the purple flare on Olympus bodies is gone.
You can’t say that one solution is better than the other, merely that they are different.
In fact, you can say that relying on your lenses to have proper UV-cut range in their coatings instead of putting it in the sensor so that all lenses get the benefit is similar to criticizing Panasonic for relying on OIS instead of IBIS. Similar results, different solutions.
Using software to fix problems got Panasonic an Academy Award, but yet, any company in a consortium should be making the compatible equipment to a better standard.
I’m just as displeased with Olympus and the miniature 12mm f/2.0 lens and distortion correction in software.
Please don’t get me started on Panasonic’s OIS.
Please tell us more about Panasonic OIS….
But you’re not understanding… This isn’t about correcting it with software. Purple blobs cannot be corrected with software, except by manually cloning them out. It is corrected by hardware, in the form of sensor stack UV filter.
“In fact, the differences in IQ are small enough that I never feel like I’m missing anything when using the EM1 instead of the A7II.”
This comment garners the Joke of the Month!
What’s next? MFT IQ is just as good as Medium Format at base ISO levels? LOL!!
Oh, the fish tales here….
YAWN…
“Differences in IQ are small enough” should be read as “IQ on the smaller sensor is good enough for my purposes”.
People think that 135 Format is as good as Medium Format, so I guess that would be a joke also.
At some point, printers may become better and show the difference.
The price of the new 7-14mm seems to be right where it should be.. considering the price of the older legacy 43 lenses.
It is a pro lens, it is much cheaper than the F/4.0 wide angle zoom from Zeiss/Sony, or the F/2.8 from Nikon and Canon. I am sure that if Fuji ever release a fast pro wide angle zoom it will be hard for them to offer something at that price point..
OH PLEASE!
Fuji has the 56mm 1.2 that’s just as good as the P/L Nocticron at hundreds less! How would it be hard?
Besides, they have something already in that range for $999.99, the 10-24mm f4.0.
And it’s only a 2.8, which is not saying much, compared to Fuji.
And the price… HAW!
Try shooting the Fuji at f2.8 though. Good luck.
In terms of DoF control and SNR there’s only a slight advantage of f/2.8 on the Olympus vs f/4 on the Fuji.
No your not.
You’re quick, I modified that almost immediately after posting when I realized I was thinking of the Fuji as a FF lens for some reason. My edit above is valid though in that there will be a small advantage (maybe 1/10th-1/5th stop) in terms of DoF control and SNR for the Olympus but they’re essentially equivalent lenses.
Heh, sorry.
Since noise is function of photons per image and not photons per square millimetre and ISO describes the number of photons per square millimetre, you have to divide ISO by the square of the crop factor to get an idea of the expected noise on differently sized sensor.
The problem what almost everyone is doing, is that they are magnifying every photo to same size and then they are claiming that the sensor is receiving less light, while all what they do is they magnify the noise on photos from smaller sensors and they don’t even get that!
If you want to compare noise quality correctly, you need to magnify the photos in correct ratio (not to same physical size, but relative to sensor sizes) so 4/3 sensor photo is 2 times smaller than FF photo. Oh and suddenly the 4/3 photo has identical noise quality! Or do it other way around, look both photos at 100% magnification but then magnify the FF photo to 200% and you suddenly see that FF has same noise as 4/3!
And while you are looking the photo at 100% magnification, you are staring about 2-4 meter photo from 30cm distance and wondering why you see noise!
I only see idiots talking about crop factors and equivalency in photography forums. It would be same thing as going to art gallery and see people talking about fur quality in artists brush when painting was painted and this by looking oil strokes from 1×2 meter size painting.
It’s now about pixel density, not sensor size, finally.
And I see people trying to argue that not considering a certain IQ as good enough is irrational.
(I am not here to diss m43, I use a m43 system myself along a RX100 and a Nikon FX system. I am just not a fan of declaring other people’s preferences and standards irrational just because they don’t match mine.)
Or wider than 10mm… 😀
Technically, that 2.8 is equivalent to the 4.0.
But I won’t bore you with that. Buy this lens then.
>But I won’t bore you with that.
That’s never stopped you in the past.
Well, who are you? You’re no one special, so again, why bother?
Keep it moving.
>Well, who are you?
You know who I am, I’m using my real name. I’ve noticed those who post questionable comments tend not to do that.
>You’re no one special, so again, why bother?
You’re right, I’m no-one special. Special is someone who says an f2.8 lens is technically an f4.0 lens. Someone who continually posts the same comments time and time again about Olympus failing, Olympus lenses ‘staying on the shelves’ etc. Yep, that’s someone special alright.
>Keep it moving.
Keep what moving?
Not really…
Did you notice how the newer 56mm f/1.2 lens is about the same price as the Nocticron?
Price can be discussed. The Zeiss FE 16-35/4 is only $50 more than this new Olympus 7-14 lens. That is not much more in my book. Especially as it is a full frame lens, smaller and lighter and takes front mounted filters.
The Sony E 10-18/4 is much cheaper (Olympus 7-14/2.8 is 70% more expensive) and the Fujinon 10-24/4, Canon and Nikon 16-35/4 are all about the same price here (Europe), meaning this new Olympus 7-14/2.8 lens is 30% more expensive.
Personally I would much have preferred a smaller, lighter and cheaper 8-18/4 lens with front filter thread and better optics than the Olympus 9-18/4-5.6 lens.
Hopefully, now when the prestige pro zooms are done, we will some day see a set of f/4 zooms that are the best compromise between speed, size and price.
I still find it a good value for a F/2.8 weather-sealed lens.
Where I live in Canada, the Sony 16-35mm is 1 599$, the Nikon is 1 579$ and the Canon is 1 299$.
And If you want the light gathering of a f/2.8, it will be a much more expensive, in the 2 500 – 2 800$ range than the Oly at 1399$ here in Canada.
Me too, I would really like to see next in a near future a line-up of weather-seal F/4 lenses at 75% of the price of their so-called “Pro” lenses. A 8-15mm F/4.0 + 12-60mm F/4.0 + 50-200mm F/4.0 would be awsome.
Here in Sweden prices in SEK (including 25% sales tax!) often is or used to be 10x the US$ price. So Olympus 7-14/2.8 at $1,299.00 here is 12.990:-. But the Canon 16-35/4 L IS USM and Fujifilm 10-24/4 both are 9.990:- and the Nikon 16-35/4 VR 9.970:-. Sony’s products in comparision just as Olympus are often overpriced here. Therefore the Sony FE 16-35/4 is 13.490:- here. Still, that is in line with the Olympus price as the US price at B&H is $1.348.00.
1 USD is currently 8.27 SEK. Not long ago it was as high as 8.80. Beginning of 2014 it was 6.50 before military operations in Ukraine started.
Light gathering is in my opinon the most misused and confusing term in equivalence comparisions. With bigger sensors than 4/3, if at all needed, I don’t see a problem raising ISO 1-2 stops. If anything it is 4/3 sensors that are more in need of faster lenses to compensate for their small size.
I still think that f/4 (or 3.5-4.5) is a sort of golden average for zooms being well balanced in speed and size for camera systems with sensor sizes from 4/3 to FF. For smaller sensors speed can be faster as cameras can’t shrink much beoynd M4/3 without being too small and unergonomical.
Are any of those lenses weather-sealed? f/4.0?
Canon, Nikon and Sony 16-35/4 lenses yes. Fujifilm 10-24 and Sony 10-18 no.
f/4.0 is a stop slower than f/2.8. But in theory APS-C sensors have around one stop and Full Frame sensors two stop better ISO advantage. f/2.8 on 4/3 is Depth Of Field equivalent to f/4.0 on APS-C and 5.6 on FF.
In my case, I’m concerned about getting the shot, not the depth of field. In over 10 years of Four-Thirds and micro Four-Thirds, I’ve never had too much depth of field.
There is something to the ISO argument for a sensor with a lesser pixel density that is made using the same technology.
I have too much depth of field, according the internet forums… But I don’t see it as I need to anyways stop down to get subject in focus in portraits and landscapes.
But I believe that everyone on 35mm wonderland are shooting everything at f/1.4 or f/2.8 (below f/5.6 anyways) as they want everything to be out of focus. Right?
I’ve seen so many photos where there isn’t enough depth of field. That’s okay for the reconstructive surgery business, but how many times should you show a face that isn’t all in focus?
In fact showing a face where only few parts in focus is not natural: when we look at a face we usually focus our eyes on details, but our eyes keep moving over the subject and we capture all details.
This does not happen whe looking at portrait picture having a razor thin dof.
I agree with you there. While there is no denying that bigger sensors in general offer better image quality. There is however a downside. The bigger the sensor the smaller the DOF at equivalent angle of view. It is simply more easy to get everything in focus with the 25mm normal on M4/3 cameras than with the 50mm normal on FF cameras.
Getting everything in focus with FF in many situations can simply be a nuisance. It’s a bit paradoxical that many who choose FF produce pictures where most of the area is not sharp because of thin DOF. I guess it is easier creating a lot of beautiful blur than actually nail a sharp composition.
C’mon…
It’s even more expensive than the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8….
I would love to see Tamron or Sigma offering a fast ultra wide-angle lens for M43. They have terrific value over the “brand name” lenses.
The Tamron lens is rather inexpensive, as with all of their lenses. They are less expensive than camera maker’s own lenses, naturally. Otherwise, they would not have a market.
If Sigma and Tamron continue to produce such great lenses with significant lower price, camera manufacturers lenses won’t have market anymore….
Only idiots are willing to pay much more just for the brand name and nothing else….
Then go and buy one instead.
The dark horse here is the Voigtländer Heliar 15mm f/4.5 III. Neither Olympus nor Fuji offer an ultra wide angle prime, and these zooms are way too big for mirrorless.
15mm on a M4/3 camera isn’t ultra-wide, it’s an equivalent 30mm field of view, so fairly unexciting.
Perhaps you’re thinking of the upcoming, native M4/3, Voigtländer Nokton 10.5mm f0.95 lens (equiv. 21mm FoV). BUT, it’s even bigger and heavier than the 7-14mm f2.8 and 2+ stops faster.
Overpriced BIG TIME!
Let’s think about it, a lens becomes expensive when it has a fast aperture, making it fast means putting more glass and better motors to drive the lens for focus.
A 2.8 14-24mm full frame lens from nikon or canon has a lot of glass to cover a 35mm sensor size, that is an expesnive lens to make.
Now this tiny thing needs to cover a 2 times smaller sensor compared to full frame, 2 times less glass, why the hell it’s so expnsive, it’s not like it does 1.8, it’s 2.8 for a tiny sensor.
This lens equals a full frame lens with a constant 5.6 aperture, so, worse than a full frame kit lens that starts from 3.5 and ends at 5.6.
Rip off m43 prices, no wonder it has the lowest market share.
Olympus failed at pricing they stuff right again. It is more expensive than Canon 16-35 f/4L IS USM, for FULL FRAME, for DSLR with long flange distance, with IS. WTF? It should be firmly below APS-C prices. Somebody at Olympus just does not want success.
Why would it be below APS-C prices? It’s actually much harder to get quality glass that’s compact AND covers a M43 size sensor. For FF and APS-C lens, you can see that many designs use a much larger glass than what is needed for F4, which means they do not need to care about the quality of the lens near the edges. They only need the center to perform, which makes it much easier and much cheaper to make.
i.e., that is why high end microscope lenses are so expensive even though they are much smaller than camera lenses.
Enough of the BS. Smaller sensor=cheaper glass, ALWAYS. Otherwise smartphone cameras would be the most expensive, and they cost up to $4 for the whole package, lens, processor and the sensor.
People continually get this wrong. The cost of the materials like glass, are a very small fraction of the overall cost of a lens. You don’t buy lenses by the gram.
It’s an f2.8 lens, it is not the equivalent of an f5.6 FF lens.
You can say it forever, but some people simply can’t understand it. 🙂
These are great lenses but.. m43 sensors are a generation or two behind.
Just “invest” in glass for your current camera, and when a good leap in m43 sensors will arrive, upgrade your camera.. 🙂
Don’t you mean forward? They were the first mirrorless and digital sensors in camera’s. They were ahead a long time, that’s why Nikon got scared and produced Nikon 1 camera’s, to confuse people like yourself..
They were ahead of others in the mirrorless department but now their sensors’ technology is behind others such as Sony, Samsung, and Fuji.