[shoplink 56524 ebay]
[/shoplink]
Image on top shows the [shoplink 56524 ebay]OM 50mm f/1.2 lens (here on eBay)[/shoplink]
I got more feedback from different sources that Olympus will indeed announce a new roadmap of f/1.2 prime lenses in early Spring. I have been told they will announce the specs of multiple(!) f/1.2 prime lenses. The lenses shipment will then be spread during the upcoming 12 months.
Bit of history: Olympus OM system had two f/1.2 lenses: The [shoplink 56524 ebay]50mm f/1.2 (here on eBay)[/shoplink] and the [shoplink 56525 ebay]55mm f/1.2 (here on eBay)[/shoplink].
—
For sources: Sources can send me anonymous info at 43rumors@gmail.com (create a fake gmail account) or via contact form you see on the right sidebar. Thanks!
To get notified on all upcoming news and rumors be sure to subscribe on 43rumors here:
RSS feed: http://www.43rumors.com/feed/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/43rumors
Twitter: https://twitter.com/43rumors
GooglePlus: https://plus.google.com/+43rumors/posts
Rumors classification explained (FT= FourThirds):
FT1=1-20% chance the rumor is correct
FT2=21-40% chance the rumor is correct
FT3=41-60% chance the rumor is correct
FT4=61-80% chance the rumor is correct
284 Responses
With their pricing history, they as well might not bother. Only total crazies would buy m43 lenses over $1K when FF f/1.8, effectively faster, are around $500.
500? Even less than that
The excellent Nikon 85/1.8 is $477 on B&H. I was being generous.
Canon 85/1.8 is $350, but not very good wide open. But stopped to f/2.4, probably not too far from Pana 42.5/1.2 @1.2. And for some situations not very good f/1.8 might be better than good f/2.4 – at least it has the ability to open up.
$1600 for 85/2.4, even very good, but only on 16-mpix and one 20-mpix camera? Gimme a break.
I am using m4/3 since 2013 but i’m totally with you on that…like the system but prices aren’t really “smaller”
I am using it since 2012, but overpricing of almost everything but kit lenses is repulsive. If I wanted to pay thousands of USD, I would buy FF to begin with, and after just a couple lenses would be better off financially. These are all $99-$299 lenses, WTF they want $600-1600 for them? Who do they want to swindle?
Everybody has access to all that information and can make their own judgments. Do you just like to hear yourself babble?
Yet some people have the misconception that f/1.2 on m43 is the same as f/1.2 on FF.
what about the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 and it’s Panasonic equiv for $400, often on sale for $300? You keep comparing to a Leica lens, not an Olympus or Panasonic. This is why you fail. And why can’t a high quality Olympus prime not cost the same as a FF version? You deliberately and obnoxiously ignore the fact that some people choose form factor over maximum image quality at 100% in the shadows @ 27″. Not everyone shoots in the dark. Not everyone has just 1 camera. I use 7-14, 12-40, and 40-150. Each lens was much more affordable than it’s Canikon FF counterparts.
85/3.6 for $300? OK. Should be $150 though.
FOH with that 3.6 biz.
It is truth in every respect possible, even amount of glass and glass surfaces necessary (i.e. cost).
It really isn’t. Rubbish.
Don’t believe me? How about DPR?
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care
“This means that, a Four Thirds camera with a 50mm f/2 lens at ISO100 should produce a JPEG of the same brightness as a Full frame camera with a 100mm f/2 lens at ISO100 and, set to the same F-number and shutter speed, even though its smaller sensor means it is receiving 1/4 as much total light.”
That article confirms that at same aperture, ISO, shudder speed setting, you should have the same level of brightness. Noise will be more present on a smaller sensor, but doesn’t scale by 2x.
See also: http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter
It scales exactly like it scales on FF with 4 times higher ISO.
It is not linear and it is sensor dependent. This is untrue.
FF f1.8 is definitely not “faster” than m43 f1.2 – only has shallower DOF…
If faster means less shot noise for the same exposure time, then FF f/1.8 is faster than m43 f/1.2.
Faster does not mean more or less noise.
Faster is simply the wrong word to discribe a brighter lens. Pity that it is a word so widely used.
P.S. The term came from the ability to use faster shutter speeds.
And you can use faster shutter speed – just raise ISO by the factor of 4 to keep the same shot noise.
Yeah, that doesn’t play Peevee. So you are saying that m43’s ISO200 is equivalent to FF 6400? That is simply not true.
No, ISO200 on m43 is APPROXIMATELY equivalent to ISO800 on FF in terms of noise. 4*200=800, where did you get 6400? Of course sensor technology etc being equal, which they are not, for example, Canon FF sensors use worse technology than Sony m43 sensors, but the latest Sony FF sensor in A7rII and RX1rII uses BETTER sensor technology than Sony and Panasonic m43 sensors. But these are small effects at low light/high ISO when simple sensor area matters much more.
One stop from 200 is 400. One stop from 400 is 800. One stop from 800 is 1600. One stop from 1600 is 3200. That is a factor of 4 (each stop is a factor).
So 3200 is what I meant to write.
I added one too many factors. Clearly, FF 3200 is also not equal to m43’s ISO200 either.
You don’t know math or photography. Each stop is a factor of 2 in terms of light and ISO, and 1.41 (square root of 2) in terms of f-number in which aperture is usually measured. Not just “factor”, the word factor is meaningless without a number.
That’s all fine and good, but coloquially, we don’t refer to ISO like this. We refer to it based in stops in reference to other ISO values and their subsequent noise for those values. Formulas for determining what the ISO value number means is a fun academic excercise, but it has no practical value in taking a shot. No one thinks about raising the ISO times 4 to get to ISO800, they think about raising it 4 stops to get to ISO3200.
The term comes from the film days where changing the ISO mid way through the shoot was simply not an option.
Higher ISO film was also called “faster” for the very same reason.
I know.
You can’t make up your own definition of “faster”.
That’s not what faster means. Those terms (lens speed, fast lens, etc.) have a very well defined meaning since at least 19th century.
But most internet photography experts don’t even know what exposure means, so…
Well, actually that is what faster means: same noise at a faster shutter speed (which is the flip side of less noise at the same shutter speed).
So you’re saying that lens speed is a function of sensor performance? How absurd is that?
It makes sense to include the image circle into the lens speed if you compare lenses with different image circles. With cars, you wouldn’t look only at the power rating of the engine, weight and aerodynamic drag define overall performance as well.
A FF sensor receives more light through f/1.8 than what a FT sensor receives through f/1.2 – making f/1.8 on FF not “faster”, but indeed “effectively faster”, which exactly is what the threadstarter said.
Personally, though, I’d rather buy an expensive f/1.2 MFT lens for my existing MFT camera, which I have for good reasons, than a cheap f/1.8 FF lens *plus* a second, expensive body I’d have to carry alongside the MFT body, too.
Sure, if you leave out the fact that the FF sensor is larger so it NEEDS the additional light. 4x the light for 4x the area = same light per area.
I leave nothing out. As I’m saying above, brightness is light per area, which defines the relative aperture (how nominally “fast” the lens is). What we’re talking about, though, is total amount of light, which correlates with the absolute aperture, or how “effectively fast” a lens is. The total amount of light determines the theoretical limit for the achievable image quality. If lenses for larger formats were not “effectively faster”, nobody would use sensors larger than 1/2.33″. Actually, people could use infinitely small sensors then without any disadvantages…
That still does not make it faster or “effectively faster”.
Also:
People use FF because it can produce higher quality images than smaller formats and is lighter, smaller and cheaper than medium format.
People use m4/3 because it can produce higher quality images than smaller formats and is lighter, smaller and cheaper than FF.
And if you want images out of a MFT camera to be as similar as possible to images out of a FF camera with a 50mm f/1.8 lens, you do need a 25mm f/0.9 lens. It’s as simple as that, and that’s what’s meant when saying the 50mm f/1.8 on FF is “effectively faster” than a 25mm f/1.2 on MFT. You may continue trying to deny that as you wish by inventing your private definitions for what “effectively” and “fast” mean, but none of that will change reality.
Oh, dear. I’m the one inventing definitions now. Trolls will troll.
And when inventing definitions doesn’t hold anymore, the last resort is to replace factual reasoning with unsubstantiated personal attacks. Thanks for the demonstration!
On FF, you can raise your ISO by the factor of 4 to get exactly the same shot noise, and you can keep you shutter speed 4 times faster at the same f-number, or about 1.5 times faster at f/1.8 vs 1.2.
Come on Peevee… a factor of 4? You think a 6D, original A7 and a Nikon D600 (the FF cameras you are referring to since they are inexpensive) have 4 stops on today’s m43’s for noise performance? Pretty sure its about 2 stops… with the best of the best FF cameras reaching about 3 stops.
Factor of 4 IS 2 stops. Each stop is a factor of 2 in terms of ISO, 2(the 1st stop)*2(the 2nd stop)=4. Or 2(factor of each stop)^2(number of stops)=4. 4 stops would be 2^4=16.
Yeah, that doesn’t make any practical sense. Using a factor of 4 sounds like 4 times better ISO stops, not 2 times.
No, just 4 times higher ISO. 200*4=800. It is really simple, sheesh.
Except that isn’t 4 times higher ISO. That is 4 times a higher ISO number (which means little practically), not actually 4 times higher ISOs. We measure something being better by the number of actual stops difference between them because that is where the practical difference is.
It is 4 times higher ISO. Sheesh.
Not 4 stops higher, 4 TIMES higher.
BTW that shallow DoF you are talking about? It comes from extra photons coming through outer areas of the front element and aperture. About 4 times more photons for the same f-number for FF. Those which come from a point on the plane of focus, land on a single point on the sensor. Those which come from a point outside of a plane of focus, land on a circle (or whatever aperture shape and lens aberrations make it to land on), bigger the effective aperture – bigger the circle, more blur.
People already have, so tissue?
Why make generalizations about what other people buy? I’ve done lot’s of paid work with a GH4 and Nocticron. For some jobs it’s a better tool than a FF camera with a f/1.8 lens.
“effectively faster” – I don’t think you understand how f-stops work.
Sure, I know how f-stops work. Ignoring transmission losses they define (for a given scene and illumination) the light/photons per area (on the sensor) and second.
I don’t think, you don’t understand how noise ‘works’. Shot noise increases as the photon count goes down. Photon count is photons/area/seconds times seconds times area.
Thus for the same scene illumination and exposure time, photon count is given by: (f-stop)^2 times area.
So El Aura = peeve?
Anyway, noise has nothing to do with how “fast” a lens is (or “effectively fast” for that matter).
So what does ‘fast’ stand for if not for a fast shutter speed? A faster lens lets more light in and thus allows us to use a faster shutter speed for the same amount of noise.
A faster lens lets more light and thus allows us to use a faster shutter speed for the same EXPOSURE. It has NOTHING at all to do with noise.
An f/1.2 m4/3 lens is faster than an f/1.8 FF lens because it lets you use a faster shutter speed to achieve the same exposure.
And we want to use the same exposure (when using a faster lens to achieve a faster shutter speed) because otherwise we would have to raise the ISO. And we don’t want to do that at a higher ISO setting we get a nosier image? Because it is the changing the ISO that creates/increase the noise?
Well, if you believe that, you might as well still believe in the stork delivering our babies.
But if you are ready to move beyond this fable: Raising the ISO setting doesn’t create noise (it rather often reduces the recorded read noise in absolute terms), it is rather the reduction in total photon count reaching the sensor when adjusting the exposure after changing the ISO setting, that raises the shot noise. And since it is the total photon count per image (or per given fraction of the image, eg, the sensor area whose pixels provide the information for one screen pixel, we still usually have lower resolution screens than sensors), which is given by exposure times sensor area (with photons/second/area times seconds giving the exposure), a smaller exposure (as in photons/area) on a larger sensor can yield a larger sum of photons than a larger exposure on a smaller sensor.
multiple aliases it would seem
F-stops don’t “work”, they’re simply there – and let light of a defined brightness (minus minor losses through the optical system) pass through a lens. Which is why larger sensors get more light through the same F-stop than smaller sensors… and why the same F-stop on a larger sensor is indeed “effectively faster” than on a smaller sensor.
4/4 = 1/1
It’s the same amount of light per area.
Brightness is light per area, which defines the relative aperture (how nominally “fast” the lens is). What we’re talking about, though, is total amount of light, which correlates with the absolute aperture, or how “effectively fast” a lens is.
I don’t think you do. On FF you can keep ISO 4 times higher for the same noise, so your shutter speed at f/1.8 will be faster than on m43 with f/1.2.
What is this obsession with noise?
For a given scene, you need the same ISO, Shutter Speed and Aperture combo for FF and for 4/3rds. You can’t change the ISO independently of the other two parameters and still get a proper exposure.
Noise has nothing to do with it.
I think a lot of us were obsessed with noise at some point or another. I know I was but things have changed a lot since 2004.
What my obsession with noise? Hell, if not for noise, everybody would just use smartphones. What other reason is to have another device, let alone one for >$1000? Most of those who don’t need to shoot sports in low light already do.
I’m guessing most people don’t come to a 43Rumors site to learn the theory of made up concepts like “effectively faster” or to get instructions on getting the most from a FF + f/1.8 combo.
Well, you also need a FF body to mount those affordable lenses on, so the cost will not be that far off. It all depends on your priorities, i.e. switch system entirely (can be very expensive), use two systems (can be cumbersome and not necessarily cheap), or stick with what you have and pay for more expensive lenses when you need them.
A7 is like $900 already. You can buy 6D and D600 about the same. With the lenses like $500 for a very good 85/1.8 vs $1600 for 42.5/1.2 (which is only like 85/2.4 on FF), you can pay for a very good FF body very quickly. A single kit Nikon 24-120/4 zoom covers like $4000 in Olympus and Panasonic zooms and primes.
m43 has its market. But it is not >>$1000 market. It is $99 market, and brisk sales for Pana 25/1.7 when it was properly priced for a while have proven (too bad Pana US is so incompetent they are unable even to satisfy the demand, I wonder how many sales they will lose to cancellations). Smaller image circle to cover should have allowed them to undercut APS-C prices, smarter product management would allow them to avoid duplication. In fact, they WERE able to undercut prices for slow tele, $99 for 40-150/4-5.6 is a very good deal. People do buy when they see the deals. But $629 for 50/2.8 equivalent like Pana wants for 25/1.4 now? Come on. Many people are stupid, but not THAT stupid.
To be fair, the PL25 is a great lens regardless of DoF, and it can be found with little trouble for about $400 or less now. I agree though with your overall argument when look at the system costs from 30,000 feet.
It can be found for $400, from grey importers, without US warranty. They don’t even sell equivalent 50/2.8 for FF (let alone for $629) because 50/1.8 are small and light and all between $100 and $200. And stopped to f/2.8 quite good.
Nikon 85 f/1.8, $500 > Oly 45 f/1.8, $400
Nikon 14-24 f/2.8, $1900 > Oly 7-14 f/2.8, $1300.
Nikon 24-70 f/2.8, $2400 > Oly 12-40 f/2.8, $1000.
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8, $2000 > Oly 40-150 f/2.8, $1500.
Nikon 24 f/1.8, $750 == Oly 12 f/2, $800.
Nikon 100 micro f/2.8, $900 > Oly 60 macro f/2.8, $500.
Oly 45 f/1.8 is $300 in practice, but equivalent to f/3.6. ETC ETC. Nikon 24-120/4 is equivalent to non-existing m43 12-60/2, and only $600 in the kit (or off kit).
you got a problem with that?
Yes, I want m43 to thrive, not to die like 4/3 did due to overpricing over equivalent FF and APS-C lenses.
Sounds selfish to me, let alone based on assumptions that aren’t obvious.
What assumptions which are not obvious? Oly want $400 for the fking plastic 25/1.8! Who would pay $400 for a plastic fantastic 50/3.6 on FF when 50/1.8 are $100 (even $50 from Yangnuo)? It is not assumption than when Pana got that sale on 25/1.7 for $100, it was sold out to March, everywhere, only those who keep $180-250 still have it for sale. No assumption that at the right price everything sells, and at the wrong price any sales they get is simply aberrations, because rational buyers do not buy. Simple economics.
You really have to stop throwing out the doubling of f-stop thing like it’s a fact. DOF only. Not related to light gathering. The ISO thing is different, but 1.2 on Full Frame or 1.2 on m43 are both going to enable you to shoot indoors at low ISOs so that you shouldn’t be doing anything to introduce the high ISO noise. This is why the Nocticron compares favorably with the competitive slightly more expensive 85mm/1.2 lenses for Full Frame systems. To say that getting an 85mm/2.4 for another system would be the same as getting the Nocticron is misleading at best.
My reading stop at 50/3.6 FF. Equivalency bollocks.
But it is not a 50/3.6. It is a 25/1.8.
How much is a 25/1.8 for FF?
Also for way less than that I got the P/L 25/1.4.
If that 25/1.8 would cover FF, that would be a different story, and it could cost what it costs and more. Nikon 24/1.8 for their DSLRs with long flange distance (i.e. has to be retrfocal), which gets 4 times as much light covering 4 times as much area is $750. 1/4th of that is below $200, as m43 should be. But 50mm for FF DSLR is closer, in terms of angle of view, angles of light inside of the camera etc. Only f/3.6 in terms of total light.
Do you know what economies of scale are? If so, you are trolling.
look at his profile pic lol
I know. Wish he would just píss off.
They will not get any economies of scale unless they would price their wares competitively. Actually, the economies of scale subside after some volume. They matter a whole lot if you compare a 100 or 1,000,100 of something. They almost don’t matter between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000. But to get into hundreds of thousands of sales (let alone millions), your value should be competitive in the mass market to begin with.
Well I have to agree.
I own all major mirrorless systems. Fuji X-E1, Olympus E-P5 and Sony A7.
Still thinking about getting rid of at least 1 system. The best sweet spot seems to be APS-C crop. Why ? With very fast lenses you can get to a FF DOF + old legacy lenses do not produce significantly softer images then on FF. None of these is true for m43. For me m43 is excellent for macro work + tele work (sharp and light standard Oly 40-150, 45mm 1.8, …). M43 is a good choice for any street photography as well. Any other type of photography is better accomplished with FF or APS-C (IQ is better + it will be cheaper). Anyway you can shoot any system for anything you want …
As for these fast primes. They will be very expensive so for me not worth the money.
Cheers
Doesn’t make much sense for most people. Why spend more money when you can spend less? Unless you’re planning to go all-in into FF, it’s economically challenged to do what you suggest (unless you don’t need to worry about money, in which case none of this matters anyway).
Not to mention that you have no way of knowing how much those will cost. Oly 8/1.8 is only $1k, and that’s a super unique, super complicated and very specialized lens.
Actually, if you are planning to buy 42.5/1.2 even ALONE, it is cheaper for you to buy D600 with Nikon 85/1.8G than the Pana lens ALONE, even if you don’t count the price of a Pana body. If you are planning to buy more f/1.2 lenses like discussed here in the future, it is pure profit to go FF.
If Pana and Oly would come to their senses and price their f/1.7-1.8 primes at $100 (like Pana just did with 25/1.7), f/1.4 at $200 and f/1.2 primes and f/2.8 zooms at $300-400, it would make sense and good sale numbers would follow (like just happened with the Pana 25/1.7). With current pricing, for anybody willing to buy a premium system (meaning beyond just kit lenses), it is cheaper and better for image quality to upgrade sensor size in a single body and downgrade f-number in all the lenses.
Bright spots in m43 are Oly 40-150/4-5.6 for $99, that Pana deal at $99 (at $149 in some retailers it is also not too bad), and kit 14-42s, sometimes at $50, sometimes at $100 (even 14-42EZ at $150). The rest is clearly overpriced, sometimes a little (14-150 II for $450 is not TOO bad for a weather-sealed lens, 75-300II for $450 also does not cause immediate WTF as original 75-300 caused at $900, 60/2.8 macro for $399 is nearing it), sometimes by a whole WTF lot (most of them, especially Panas with Leica label and Olys with PRO label, they might have as well used EGREGIOUSLY OVERPRICED labels instead).
Pana 20mm and oly 45mm also have a quite good value for money.
Nobody would switch systems just because there is one cheaper FL available… does not make sense either.
Unfortunately, it is not 1. If you need that kind of performance, it is all of them.
Oh no….just when I started to save some money….:-)
Weather sealed ???
Hmm… I look forward to it, but I’m not so sure if our system really needs these lenses. Especially because I’m expecting them to be too expensive.
Sure, brighter is always useful, shallower DOF is welcome… but will it be that much of a difference from 1.8 to 1.2? I have my doubts… especially considering higher price AND more weight.
But we will see.
The one that I would most likely buy would be an bright ultrawide for night skies / astrophotography.
Well, we already have plenty of slower choices from 12mm up to 75mm in f/1.8 and f/2. It might be a problem if the f/1.2 primes were the first lenses to come out for the system, but since all other bases are pretty much covered, it can only be a good thing.
The pros won’t see it your way.
Ah, and what way will the pros see it? 😉
As just part of the cost of doing business.
Of course but I doubt the benefit of a 1.2 vs. a 1.8 in many situations.
Well, we will see. Probably will still take a year until they actually ship and the reviews come in.
yeah but DOF aside you can stop the 1.2 down to 1.8 and going on the principal that most lenses sharpen up when stopped down it’s going to produce a ‘better’ image than a 1.8 shot wide open.
edited to fix typo, 1.4 changed to 1.2
> The one that I would most likely buy would be an bright ultrawide for night skies / astrophotography.
And you hope that it will be tack sharp from corner to corner without any coma wide open?
Well, indeed, recent bench of Fisheye f/1.8 on lenstip are not so bad, so one can imagine a 12/1.2 (or 10? 8???).
I’m also doing wide field astrophotography but buying +1k€ lens just for it is not an option for me.
> And you hope that it will be tack sharp from corner to corner without any coma wide open?
Yes, I do 😉
One can dream, right? 🙂
Olympus is quite good at making lenses sharp from corner to corner wide open.
Like you said, the 8mm 1.8 fisheye is quite good at 1.8, so a 8mm non-fisheye might be as well…
Yes. I already find the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 significant in some circumstances (I used to have the Four-Thirds-mount Panasonic/Leica 25mm f/1.4, now I have the M.Zuiko 25mm f/1.8, which I find significantly more often lacking in terms of shallow DOF…).
f1.2 is already just over one stop difference from f1.8. Gaining an extra stop of light is actually quite a big deal, and its something you rarely see in two generations of sensors. So yes, there is a difference. Whether you need that extra light or not is simply up to the user.
multiple equals many?
Multiple is for sources, and many is for lenses, hope it is clear now:)
Thanks, but that’s not what I meant. The title says: MANY(!) lenses. The post itself just mentions multiple (!) lenses. So I’m wondering if the writer interpreted multiple as many, or if the sources actually said many.
I guess we better first start expecting the multiple option.
You should always be skeptical because admin isn’t a native speaker. Yeah multiple could be about 3 lenses, many at least 5.
nocticron 1.2 is praised among m43 users … let those Oly f/1.2 are the same quality
Among the reviewers who got it free to review. How many users actually bought it for $1600, when this kind of money gets you $500 85/1.8 of very good quality (like Nikon) AND an FF camera, producing better images as a result.
ok its expensive….mostlikely the new oly f/1.2 will be same expensive and am not their target audience…as I spread my $ also to non-photography hobies
…but I think in west countries / asia/ north america is enough people who can buy them and dont want to lug around with Canikon
Actually, I live in the US and almost nobody buys expensive Olympus and Panasonic m43 here, stores do not even stock it because there is not enough people who are stupid enough to pay $1600 for 42.5/1.2 on m43 when $500 85/1.8 on FF gives better results for so much cheaper. They are not averse to the brands, BestBuy (the biggest electronics chain here) has Olympus TG cameras on shelves – because they make sense. $1600 42.5/1.2, $1500 40-150/2.8, $800 12/2, $900 75/1.8 etc etc simply do not. People who are willing to pay that kind of prices simply buy FF and get their lenses cheaper and pictures technically better (lower noise, more resolution etc).
Can you post or link to some of your “technically better” FF pictures so the MFT users can see what they’re missing?
He is right that in a technical sense, your photos can have the potential to look better with say, a Canon 6D, Nikon D750, Sony A7 plus an f1.8 good prime lens. This is a fact. Of course, we all know photography is a whole lot more than technical capabilities, but I think peevee is more than justified in comparing on that level when we are talking about a $1,600 prime lens.
Huh? You don’t know that light-limited pictures come out technically better on FF? Well, you can try DPR tests at high ISOs, same scene, same light, same shutter speed, same aperture.
Not going to argue that Leica is not overpriced (duh) but Best Buy sells all of the current Olympus zooms and primes online, and also many Leica lenses and bodies. The last time I went into a local Best Buy (which I admit is a rare occurrence) they had multiple OM and PEN models on display along with lenses not just the TG.
I don’t agree that people “simply buy FF and get their lenses cheaper.” Basic price comparison of current models (using full price of Oly even though they are usually and currently available for at least $100 less than prices given below):
Nikon 85 f/1.8, $500 > Oly 45 f/1.8, $400
Nikon 14-24 f/2.8, $1900 > Oly 7-14 f/2.8, $1300.
Nikon 24-70 f/2.8, $2400 > Oly 12-40 f/2.8, $1000.
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8, $2000 > Oly 40-150 f/2.8, $1500.
Nikon 24 f/1.8, $750 == Oly 12 f/2, $800.
Nikon 100 micro f/2.8, $900 > Oly 60 macro f/2.8, $500.
No Nikon 150 to compare with Oly 75 price.
Online everybody sells everything, it does not take any shelf space. Actual belief in the ability to sell is shown by dedication of some shelf space, and even in their Photo center locations (not all BestBuy stores are the same, photo centers have pretty large displays with all kinds of cameras) BestBuy does not have a single m43 camera now. Even A7rII is there, let alone all the Rebels etc which are everywhere. It is not about price, it is about value. Olympus US and Panasonic US are refusing to provide value to sell in mass market. Maybe some Asian distributors do, judging by some grey market prices, but not Oly US and Pana US.
m43 should cost LESS than APS-C, less than the Rebels and a6000 if they don’t have weather-sealing ($400 for a recent body), less than 70D and D7200 if they do. Period. Many customers would be content with lower quality of the smaller format if the prices would also be lower. If the prices are higher, why would anybody buy Olympus (really weak brand in the US, associated with $50 shrink-wrapped point-and-shoots dangling in RadioShack) over Canon or Nikon or even Sony? Very few would, and few don’t make a market, don’t pay high fixed costs.
Perhaps your local Best Buy doesn’t carry M43, but every BB Camera Experience Shop I’ve been to (Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta, South Florida, markets) displays the E-M10, E-M5II, GH4 and (now) the G7. Always on an end cap with a Fuji or two.
Many Best Buys used to carry the E-PM2, but it had little shelf appeal compared to the Canikon/Sony displays.
They used to carry E-PL2 in its time, now – nothing.
Well that’s kind of the case for all Leica products, don’t ya think?
Except it is not a Leica product, it is a Pana product with Leica label.
Great news!
Let the focal length guessing game begin!
17mm f/1.2 would be good.
17mm. 25mm. 45mm. and 75mm.
10mm!
I’d buy that.
8mm
20mm
50mm
12 – 17 – 25 – 45
If money was no issue, I’d want all four, as long as the image quality was excellent.
50 100 200mm f1.2 LOL
I cant image the extreme size of a 200mm f1.2 with autofocus. Diameter would dwarf the camera.
The oly reasonable would be 50mm f1.2, though samyang already has a nice 50mm f1.2 for mft
Largest f1.2 AF lens that I know is 85mm
On the bright end, I don’t see it happening at wider than 17mm. It seems like no exotic design will allow a small front element on a fast UWA.
I won’t split hairs to the exact FoV, I say three within these ranges : 17-20, 25-35 and 45-85
What about voigtlander 10.5 f0.95? It’s not a huge lens.
Here’s one I forgot.
But it’s not on par with the other voigts…
Discussion was about a possibility of a super fast wide lens with a small front element, not how good the lens is. Since voigt 10.5 0.95 exists, and it doesn’t have a massive front element, it’s possible to make another ensure like that in future, hopefully with better performance.
I thought they already had a patent schematic for a 14mm f1.2. Here’s to hoping that pans out.
It will be interesting to see. I just hope it won’t be 45ish first.
meh, I’d rather see 45mm than yet another 25mm first.
I was thinking of the Nocticron already covering that FoV.
If I’d have to choose, despite all my love for my PL15, I’d say : 17mm
The Noct does, but its $1,600. A $1,000 Oly alternative would definitely make it a compelling choice.
I wouldn’t mind a significantly cheaper alternative. I would even hope for it. In that sense, I do agree with you.
I don’t go as far pretending to know how they should be priced, let alone take for granted that getting the rumorware m.zuiko would save a whole lot.
The patent was for a couple f/1.0 wide angle lenses.
I would like to see 8,9 or 10 plus 12, 17 & 25 available. At least Pro grade or better yet metal premium in silver and black. No plastic bodies on these I sure hope.
Happy if we still can buy the f1.8 versions, hope for not too large and heavy f1.2 primes. Rumors were we’d also get f2.0 tele primes. And then comes the E-M2 and my savings are set freee…
yeah good point, i hope so too.
This is great news. The M43-System grows further. We will have the choice among a wide range of lenses from wide angle to long, from light weight to fast and we can add primes with very shallow DOF in the ranges we need.
The best thing is, that there is no fixed connection between heavy, fast, shallow DOF and high quality. You can configure the system in your own way.
a 25mm f1.2!, because we dont have enough 25mm lenses.
Wanna bet?
With Oly product management, it is almost a certainty. Also, >>$1000, and about 0 sales.
I bet 17mm 1.2 is first. Loser has to buy winner the first prime they release!
so i win if its a 17.5mm? 😉
not gonna bet an entire lens, but for 3€ ill be happy to accept!
Too little too late.
Olympus should have launched the E-M5 with such primes. Now they are just playing defense, hoping people won’t switch to Sony, but they already have.
No, not really.
Lenses are the last thing people think about when switching to Sony. Mft lens lineup is actually pretty strong for a young system.
True, but like you say: People are not thinking about it!
So, Joe-average will much more likley buy a A7 instead of a MFT cam because Joe-average does not care about lenses. He usually does not even buy more than 1 – 2 lenses anyway. All he wants is the cam with the most megapixels.
Joe-average is buying a Rebel and doesn’t even know MFT and FE exist.
mmmh… not sure if that is true these days.
At least the Joe-average that visits a shop might be quite easy to convince to go A7 by a good salesman. Do sell an MFT is much harder cause most consumers don’t give a sh… about lenses and their size.
Joe average not gonna buy a 1799-3499$ camera. My parents are a perfect example of that, they went to the store and got themselves a Rebel with a kit lens. They get a good camera with very nice IQ, and cheap ass lenses for the system. MFT and FF are for the hobbyist/pros, or for the kids that love gadgets and shiny toys. Black friday sale was all about Canikon with massive discounts. I saw a d810 for 1800$, and was really tempted by it 🙂
No, not yet. A7 and their lens system is still underdevelopment for fast primes and zoom. I don’t see it too late nor too early, about right.
I have the A7 but I don’t see it as competition to M43, actually its a complementary system. The FE system is simply not developed yet, and most lenses are out of my price range. I still own a Panasonic GM1 with a bunch of lenses. Having an A7 with a few fast primes, makes sense with a GM1 to complement it.
I don’t like it, but you might be right. The A7 is quite young bit I already see it on the street much more often than a Panny or Oly MFT :/
Ya, never underestimate the capacity of us ‘mericans to buy more camera than we need. Everyone’s now FF crazy. However, they do look good up there on the shelf while your browsing the internet.
Well to be fair Sony is a giant with the marketing and R&D budget to match. Oly and Panny can only dream of being that big. Personally I’m not sure if I want them to be …
With 1/4000s shutter and base ISO 200 of E-M5, f/1.2 is only useful in the dark. Even overcast day would be too bright.
Yep. I run into this limitation on my E-M10 all the time.
The beauty of starting so wide is when you stop down everything sharpens up nicely /before/ you’re at F4/5.6/8.
well, arguably the biggest issues with MFT show up in low-light photography. as the sensor size is what it is and can’t easily be increased, then having f/1.2 lenses available does indeed help.
I had to learn that pixel size became less relevant with new SNR tech. Large pixels are not better than small pixels anymore. The size of the sensor will represent the max resolution only since all sensor with new tech will have around the same pixel size an vary in resolution only.
I agree. If they are priced inline with competition in other formats. At $300 they would make perfect sense. At >$1000, you are SO much better off with FF and f/1.8 it is not even funny, BOTH in performance and price. Price/performance at $1600 (like the Pana) is simply out of whack, $477 Nikon 85/1.8G or $348 Canon 85/1.8 USM beat it by the factor of 5 at least. Nikon is even lighter than Pana (350g vs 425g), Canon is the same, not even weight savings, sheesh. For video maybe, Nikon does not have video comparable to Panasonic, but for stills?
Mm, I feel your pain with the lack of support for EM5, but the 3 last camera’s from Oly have 16k silent shutter, so I guess they are aiming for this market more. I’m happy as a clam that my EM1 keeps getting updates, not regretting paying a bit more for it in the first place.
I was answering to the person claiming that f/1.2 lenses should have come together with E-M5. I am not sure they make sense even now, they will be big and unfortunately very expensive. At $400 they would make sense, at >$1000 everybody would be just better off switching to a bigger format. Even the excellent f/1.4 Sigmas on FF are just $800, f/1.8 are very cheap. Even the overpriced 55/1.8 for Sony FE is $700 already, let alone Canon and Nikon and Sigma and Tamron for DLSRs… The new Tamrons SP f/1.8 primes have weather-sealing and stabilization and good optically at f/1.8 already, let alone stopped down to f/2.4 equivalent on m43 f/1.2. $600, not $1600 like the Panasonic 42.5/1.2 and Oly f/1.2 lenses will probably be. In a couple months they will be $400. New Canon 50/1.8 STM is $110 already, junk wide open, but not bad stopped down. Canon 85/1.8 is $350. What $1600, are they in their right mind? You realize that about $1500 of that is pure margin?
You generalize everything to the t, apparently the lens prices must be tied to the FF aperture for some reason, so the 25 1.2 has to be under 400$, since it’s equal to a 2.4 FF lens! It’s not like the physical aperture is actually 1.2 (it’s a formula), and the exposure will be at 1.2 for your shot. For our system – MFT, it’s a 25mm 1.2 lens. If you really have to tie everything to FF equality, maybe better switch to FF and be happy. Why stay with mft and be miserable, envying the new shiny Sony lenses, grinding the forums, complaining and moaning non stop. That’s not even taking in account that designing for a smaller form factor is different than designing for a larger one. No one will give you a 300$ AF 0.95 lens just because it’s a 1.9 equivalent.
Lens price has to be tied to performance, and maximum aperture at a given level of sharpness is the main metric of lens performance.
Then no problem! Because these lenses are actually 1.2 and mft lenses are generally sharp wide open.
They ARE actually 1.2, but 45mm is not 90mm, and 21mm circle is not 44mm circle. In terms of light, cost, weight, performance – they are the same at FF lenses with twice the FL and twice the F-number.
Except since the image circle is smaller, you’ll get the same image as a lens with twice the FL, minus the DoF. Same exposure, a lot less weight, on par performance. For DoF larger sensors will always be better. Basically – if you could go and design a 0.95 lens with AF and sell it for the same price as you can buy a 1.8 nifty fifty from canon, I’ll be the first one to buy it and agree that you sir are the king of the world and I will bow to your greatness.
Minus the 3/4th of the light, the photos reducing shot noise.
I think you mean increased noise, which is also due to iso being multiplied by two compared to FF. But it’s because of the sensor, not lenses. Smaller light gathering area, more noise, less dof. But exposure relative to the system is gonna be the same as a 1.2 lens on FF. I had shot alongside with a d800, both of us using 50mm (Nikon 1.8 and my panaleica 1.4), and I used smaller iso value at 1.4 than the other guy was using at 1.8, to get the same exposure. Also I had a lot more sharp shots due to ibis.
photons – just skipped n. More photos reduce relative shot noise (although increases shot noise by itself), because shot noise grows slower than proportionally to the number of photos (as square root).
I recently ditched Sony. Was with them since the Minolta transition and the A100. IMO a lot of the Sony E mount lenses aren’t that great compared to Panasonic/Olympus/Fuji which is why I passed on the A6000. The Sony FF mirrorless bodies are pricey (naturally) plus another new mount to buy into. Adapters, while a viable solution, aren’t my thing.
The Zeiss badge doesn’t impress, marketing to charge more on Sony’s already overpriced lenses. Olympus/Fuji was an obvious choice for my tastes/needs/budget.
17mm 1.2 pretty please)
This should be a given since 17mm is pretty weak atm even though it’s a very popular fl.
Would be amazing to get a fast 17mm lens that is sharp) I’m drooling over the 15mm panaleica now, price seems fair. I sold my oly 17, wasn’t very happy with it overall
One lens between 15-17mm and one lens between 20-25 would be perfect for me.
You are not alone, but it seem as if we two are not the mainstrem 🙂
I´d call that good news but I would have been happy with a classical 1.4 prime lens setup. Like the Pana/Leica 25mm 1.4 (price is good too) and in the same fashion 8 (let me dream), 12,17,42,75 mm 1.4 lenses. But Oly is going to make these 1.2 lenses for a premium I suppose – if the cheapest is under 1000, that would be a surprise. If these lenses are going to be as expensive as the Pana/Leica 42.5mm 1.2 than i´d consider buying a FF body and with cheaper primes.
+1 Support my concerns about size and weight, but still quite excited about this news. Maybe Oly has a secret sauce for small f1.2 primes… one never knows.
Doubt it… From their perspective, it wouldn´t make much sense to make small and light weight 1.2 lenses (and I doubt that this is even possible). They want to charge a premium for pro grade primes, so they need weather sealing, fast af, massive build quality and not too many compromises on the optical design. If they really make such lenses, we´d be talking way north of 1000 bucks and it won´t be small and light weight.
Yes, I know I should be worried about this, but I still hope this classic 50 f1.2 is larger and heavier than the new m43 f1.2’s.
I’m sure price points will differ.
And I suspect most people will only need one or at most two super fast lenses. I for one only want a super fast UWA. Give me a high quality 10mm f/1.2 and I’m gonna stop lusting for FF. At the longer end, I’m perfectly happy with f/1.8.
Others will have different needs, but I would guess someone who needs 45/1.2 will probably not be in a market for an equally fast UWA. And so on.
True 🙂
Pana will also keep releasing lenses. And fl duplication has already happened so 1.4 lenses are not out of question.
Ok, f1.2 on common focal lengths……but a 13/14mm f1.7 compact could be cool. The current 15mm and 17mm f1.7 are just not wide enough. Hope they plug this gap soon.
p.s the pana 14mm f2.5 doesn’t count 😀
1+
There’s actually an upvote button specifically for that.
Like
There’s some quite old but amazing legacy glass! Not just from the historical Olympus. My favorites to date are the Tomioka’s such as the Auto Revuenon 55mm F1.4 and F1.2! 🙂
Am I excited? Sort-a. Pricing though- that dang pricing. You got Fuji spitting out the 35mm F2 for 400 bucks and it has a metal shell. Yes, this is faster. No, most people do not care. I really hope it isn’t a total money grab. 9 bladed bokeh Olympus. Non of that 7 bladed average bokeh and sharpness wide open should be spectacular. You’d be smart to give it the same shell as the 75mm and have at least 4 FL’s available. AT LEAST.
I honesty don’t see a market for these. Maybe a year or two ago but now- to many compact options at those oh so nice premium prices (cough cough). Go ahead and price this at 1k and see the folks head for the hills.
What? Why did you change your comment after I upvoted it? You said something about metal. That Fuji 35 2.0 is not all metal? Still a cool lens. Good it’s not a 30mm or I would have needed to start thinking about going Fuji.
From what I’ve read the new Fuji 35mm F2 is a metal shell no? Hmm, I’ll have to look into it. To be fair though- it has some wild distortion prior to in camera correction.
I added to my comment because I thought the timing for these lenses is to late. I think Olympus missed the boat on these and they should have started coming out at least a year ago:)
I hope it works out for Olympus. If they do it right I might be in the market but that pricing. I recommend Olympus over any other brand to folks I know- it’s always number one and I have no regrets on what I’ve purchased.
If you think about missing the boat, that would mean certain kind of cameras won’t be produced anymore after some time. Then it could be possible for a later lens to see the boat disappearing at the horizon. But as long as people still buy m43 cameras, I think those lenses can always get on board or even take the next boat.
Isn’t 35mm F2 on Fuji (APSC) comparable to 25mm on u4/3 and therefore comparable to the $399 25mm f1.8 offering by Olympus? Or even that new Panny 25mm f1.7 selling for the ridiculous price of $99? Both offer very good value and faster apertures.
I’ll allow that your Fuji has a metal construction, but really?
I admit I’m splitting some hairs here. However, the Fuji offers better bokeh and the build quality of the 25 and 45 is just not there. I own both and it is my only real complaint. 9 bladed bokeh is a personal preference for me.
Yeah boils down to preference. I grabbed the 45mm for $299 and absolutely love that lens. Build quality has never been a concern for me either.
The 17mm has that great metal body with manual focus ring. It’s too bad olympus hasn’t put the same care on all their 1.8s
plus the fuji lenses are huge and heavy compared to the m43 counterparts (23mm and 35mm). they are faster and sure deliver a better IQ in the end…
but m43 cuts it for me (shooting a x100T btw)
the Fuji 35mm f/2 is comparable to the PL25mm f/1.4 not the f/1.8s
just go buy your f2 lens then and quit moaning. I’ll be in the queue for some!
OK
Most m43 primes perform very well at full aperture ( ok not the Voightlander lenses, but hey they are f/0.95 ), where most Full frame lenses need to be stopped down at least 1 to 2 stops to achieve a good image from center to corner.
I am hoping that these new Olympus lenses are great wide open, which will help to justify the higher cost. ( I am sure that these lenses will not be cheap )
For the price though, the Sony/Zeiss partnership is pumping out lenses sharp wide open right at 1.8. At 1k or just a little over, they are expensive but they are FF. Olympus would be crazy to try and implement the same pricing scheme. These 1.2’s just cannot go near that 1k mark. I think it would be marketing suicide.
Sorry to disappoint you, but these lenses will most assuredly be at the $1,000 mark simply because the design/complexity of a f1.2 m43’s lens will be greater than the majority of f1.8 lenses you are referring to. Sony really only has 3 primes that I would consider as stellar, and they all are north of $1,000 (the FE55mm f1.8, and the two Batis lenses).
You’re probably right. I’d consider the loxia lenses up their as well IMO.
The Loxia series are MF only unfortunately.
Loxia are MF only and I’m not very keen on their Bokeh quality compared to say, the Batis.
The 85 Batis has average to mediocre bokeh and multiple reviews attest to that. The 35mm F2 Loxia has excellent bokeh and it’s probably it’s main draw with its biogon design.
Batis lenses are not Sony.
But yes, Olympus f/1.2 primes will cost the same as Panasonic’s or more.
I thought Sony owns Zeiss.
u make funny
I guess I was wrong. You make true
When I say Sony, I mean native lenses for the system. The Zeiss Batis lenses are native for Sony’s FF system.
which f/1.8 Sony lenses that have had the little Zeiss badge attached at the Sony factory are a grand? $1400 is hardly just a little over $1000, that’s 40%. The 16-80 is basically a kit lens at f/3.5-4.5 and it’s a grand. I do agree though that the primes in specific shouldn’t creep any closer to FF prices. It seems backwards, the zoom lenses such as the Oly 12-40 for 800-1000 are a steal compared to 2400 Nikon/1900 Canon equivs. T
Yes!! Omg please let there be a super UWA in there!!! Curious as to what the optical quality will be regarding aberrations:o
I probably won’t buy them (I prefer small and light lenses) but I think this is good news for the system.
They don’t have to be big and heavy, you know. Mitakon 25/0.95 is about the same size/weight as PanaLeica 25/1.4. And Voiglander Noktons are not as much big, as long (hence their close focusing capability).
As for weight, most of those manual f/0.95 lenses are heavy because their makers use last century materials that many still equate with build quality. I’m sure Olympus is capable of using modern materials and designing quality optics without making the lenses unnecessarily bulky.
Well, I hope you’re right.
Probably not, just look at the current F1.2 lens, the 42.5mm Nocticron.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/55f00a5e55dd66841da4693c93a6b3066dd55bd929d14873c348f64c19c1362e.jpg
Wouldn’t world’s first fast AF-able f/0.95 lens make some noise?
The focusing motor certainly would, and likely the lens would need to be stopped down at least one stop to perform well. ( see the Voightlander f/0.95 lenses )
i think it’s the numbers stratsta is after…
F2.0 tele primes will be next…
I rather see a 12-60 f/2.8-4
at first I was like noo, no more super zooms. But then I thought would I be able to tell the difference in an 8×10 print from a good printer on my friends wall? Highly doubtful. So I guess it would be cool lol.
Even constant 4.0 would be good enough and keeps the size down.
I have been wishing for the μ4/3 version of the 14-54mm f2.8–3.5 zoom for a long time, so I would agree; but I am thinking, if possible, beg me an f3.5 to make it a little more tempting. In regular 4/3 outfit the lens was a tremendous value at $600.
I wonder if the prime f1.2 lenses will arrive at the same (12, 17, 25, and 45) focal lengths, or perhaps betweeners like 20mm and 34mm. I doubt we will see anything beyond 50mm because Olympus is allergic to large. Let’s see what the conjurers squeeze onto the roadmap first.
I have one I’ll sell you right now
Any 40mm equivalent?
Admin, can you make us a poll about which focal length is desired ? 12-14-17-20-…. ?
It should be 8.5-10-12-17-25-45-60 focal length stepping.
And do you need to guess how many would buy a 8.5mm f/1.2 from Olympus? It would take filters (8.5mm is the minimum to support the screw-in filters), be a fast prime for landscape (golden hour, astrophotography).
Forget F1.2 lenses under 12mm. Not gonna happen. Being Oly I would change FLs a little bit.
we have an f1.8/8 right? somebody using it?
Tomorrow I will be ^^
I think the high end prime line up just a right direction for Olympus. I have waiting for a weather seal pro lens prime for so long. Some may think not worth to paid those amount on M4/3 system.
But I think the most strong point for M4/3 system was we have a lot of choices on lens selection.
Longer portrait lens please!
Longer than the already almost too long 75mm??
Don’t think there will be a longer lens comeing out 75mm = 150mm on FF… 1.8 at these focal lengths already provides quite a lot of bokeh… 17mm 1.8 gives you little to nothing… would make much more sense to come out with an 17mm 1.2…
50mm f1.2 is likely
17/17.5 and 25mm for me please.
So this is now just waiting for all the usual moans about “too big”, “too heavy”, “too expensive”, “not what M43 is supposed to be about”, although why those people don’t buy the small/cheap f4.5-f5.6 and stop moaning I’ll never know.
I, for one, am looking forward to even more M43 choices.
Probably because there are a some m4/3 users that make fun of the dummies using fool Frame cameras. They use words like big, antiquated, dinosaur, lugging, brick, heavy, expensive,etc.etc. This stuff is very upsetting to them.
Well, there’s still some space for more affordable sigma DN lenses…
Bring them on. The more choice the better.
A 24/2.8 was rumored few moths ago: http://www.43rumors.com/ft3-sigma-could-soon-announce-the-new-24mm-f2-8-art-micro-four-thirds-lens/
Would prefer a longer FL (ie: 90/2.8 = 135 APSc ), but as you said the more choice the better.
totally agree
I have some of those slow lenses and they aren’t very good. We have a bunch of crappy slow zooms, a few super zooms, a couple of fast zooms but nothing in the middle save for the 12-60 which is even slower, bulky and heavy for what it offers and not very good.
Why don’t you change format if you want big and heavy lenses?
Faster, high quality lenses tend to be bigger, heavier and more expensive than kit zooms, regardless of sensor size or mount. It’s that pesky thing called physics, I think.
Yes, and?
I was just adding to what you were saying.
People complain about slow and cheap lenses, then complain about having to pay more for much bigger, heavier, higher quality fast lenses.
So what do they want?
I, for one, won’t change format because I explicitly want my big and heavy lenses on a Four Thirds sensor, regardless of what other people think, because it doubles their effective focal length compared to full frame, and telephotography is one of my primary use cases. (I would have bought an E-7 for that purpose, but Olympus decided not to manufacture more DSLRs.)
I agree that small and slow shouldn’t imply “not very good”. Micro Four Thirds does need more small and, if need be, slow, but good lenses.
But Micro Four Thirds needs big and fast lenses, too.
These are going to be ridiculously over-priced…
Very excited about this roadmap. We have one f1.2 right now and I look forward to more fast primes like these with great quality even if they are priced high like all f1.2 have always been.
And one 19mm 1.2 for me.
This is why I didn’t get the 25mm that was just on sale for $99. A few 1.2’s would change my entire view of m4/3.
But for $99 use it sell it next year. Just keep the box and all its contents should be able to walk away with change in your pocket.
Are the comments about how you would have to be stupid to buy a fast MFT lens just trolling to get the discussion going? If I wanted a FF camera with a 1.8 lens I already know they exist and how much they cost. I don’t need some troll to explain my options.
All depends on pricing. If the rumored price for 300mm is of any indication, Oly is more interested in extracting highest rent possible from the existing user base than expanding the mkt share. That’s how it went about w the 4/3 system.
Old habit dies hard, and history just keeps repeating itself.
Now this is a valid point that seems to have no other explanation. The 300 f/4 is way way overpriced and makes zero sense at all if the rumor turns out to be accurate. I know they want us looking at it as a 600 but for some reason I have issues doing that with this lens, which makes me a hypocrite, but still …
Recently I brought up the issues I had with multiple NIB E-M5 bodies to the Olympus ‘west coast sales guy’ at a camera show. He blamed it on B&H even though it was clearly manufacturing defects, well documented ones I may add. Seemed odd to diss what must be one of their largest buyers. I don’t see how B&H would know that a specific unit has the black frame issue or a loose lug, warped port cover, etc.
throw its large vendor under bus, not a smart move by this Oly rep.
Yeah it’s almost like they have given up in trying to get more market share and now they are simply trying to get the most money out of the existing user base.
moaners ! you don’t HAVE to buy them …. I’m extremely interested in some fast primes for my real estate work. If I have room, my Nocticron is killer! I’d love a 20 f1.2 regardless of price. If these are too expensive just don’t concern yourself …. get something else.
This is not a system of one. If the lenses don’t play to the sensor’s strengths while taking the competition for our wallets into account, Olympus will have done us all a disservice over the medium term.
I think going ‘high-end-ish’ is a good plan. They’re trying to woo semi-pros and enthusiasts rather than new photographers and at the same time keeping a good reputation as a solid camera and lens manufacturer. The biggest potential issue I see, again comes down to pricing. M43 is totally dependent on the ‘miniaturisation’ selling point, but being that smaller lenses are more expensive to manufacture at a given quality, high end M43 lenses will always struggle, price-wise. There’s no way we’ll see these lenses at similar prices to FF equivalents. If the 75mm f1.8 is $850……yeah, yikes. We might be looking down the barrel of $1200 for these lenses.
But why f1.2 instead of f1.0?
Probably because the difference in size/cost is non-linear, and jumps up significantly between those F-stops, while the difference in light gathering is relevant (little over half a stop), the cost/size difference go up prohibitively.
This. And the performance doesn’t.
I would really like to see an f/1.2 17mm.
I agree, and I hope it has better sharpness than 2 currently available. I’d also like a 14.
I’ll try one in my bag. The one I want most is a 67.5 1.2.
But we will get a 50 or a 55 I guess.
If weather sealed, and reasonably sized (about the same or maybe a touch larger than the PanaLeica 25/1.4) and reasonably sharp wide open (again, like the PanaLeica 25/1.4), I would pay up to $1000 for a 25/1.2.
As someone who also has an A7II, unless a manufacturer (be it Sony or another lens maker) can start getting their autofocus lenses down to a reasonable size, I will continue running both m4/3rds and A7 series in tandem (I only use manual focus lenses on my A7II, and sometimes you just have to have autofocus).
You know there’s an actual limit of physics. How can a manufacturer build a lens smaller that denies the reality of…well, reality?
If you want full frame, there’s a consequence of that decision.
12mm f/1.2
17mm f/1.2
25mm f/1.2
45mm f/1.2
67.5mm f/1.2
$899.99 each
Except the Olympus 12mm f/2 is already $799, and the Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.2 is $1599.
Dream lineup? Yes. Realistic prices? No.
High hopes for 14mm f/1.2 + 22mm f/1.2 (free from CA – not like PL 25mm f/1.4) to go with E-M1 mkII. And make it with:
– 14bit AD conversion! 14bit! 14bit! FOURTEEN bit!!
– BIS to give great IQ from ISO 800 and beyond.
Focus on quality rather than megapixels race (don’t need those 20mp).