• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Olympus - 3 new lenses


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,412 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 07 September 2016 - 05:08 AM

http://photorumors.c...-with-pictures/

 

25mm f/1.2

12-100mm f/4 PRO

30mm f/3.5 macro

 

The PRO seems to be rather big which is good new (regarding the potental performance).

The macros seemst to be able to go down to 1.25:1 when looking at label on the lens.

I am not so much excited about the 25mm (for the known reasons).


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#2 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,793 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 07 September 2016 - 07:16 AM

Almost as if Olympus copied the Canon EF-M 28mm f3.5 macro but forgot to include the LEDs for illumination at 1.25:1.



#3 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 07 September 2016 - 09:21 AM

Just that Olympus' "copy" looks more like a lens than a plastic torch  :lol:

 

But seriously, I would not be surprised, if Olympus offers also a LED light for the filter thread. Just to squeeze a little bit more money out of it. I like the Canon solution better.



#4 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,793 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 07 September 2016 - 10:08 AM

The Canon's finish is metal, the Oly's finish is plastic ;)



#5 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 07 September 2016 - 10:20 AM

So, you already had both lenses in your hand and of course, tested it with the very big surprise how much better the Canon is  :lol:

 

Of course, useless to ask. But even IF the Oly is plastic, i bet, it's wethersealed. Canon says "no" to this question... But who will do macros in the rain anyway? Olympus already has LED lights (to be mounted in the hot-shoe, with flexible arms)



#6 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,793 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 07 September 2016 - 10:25 AM

So, you already had both lenses in your hand and of course, tested it with the very big surprise how much better the Canon is  :lol:

 

Of course, useless to ask. But even IF the Oly is plastic, i bet, it's wethersealed. Canon says "no" to this question... But who will do macros in the rain anyway? Olympus already has LED lights (to be mounted in the hot-shoe, with flexible arms)

Better the Canon is? Just made a joke about the outer finish because you said the Canon looks more like a plastic torch.

 

Led lights will be cumbersome/useless "on fliecible arms" at 1.25:1 due to the very short focus distance (see the focus distance at 1.2:1 for the 28mm Canon).



#7 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 07 September 2016 - 10:52 AM

Right, Olympus gives something like 9.5 cm (with lens and camera, so front lens distance even much smaller). Lighting is a problem here. I just made better experiences on most objects without direct frontlight, but there are subjects when this s the only way to go.



#8 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 588 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 07 September 2016 - 01:56 PM

I am not so much excited about the 25mm (for the known reasons).

 

What "known reasons"?

 

This 25 looks way too big for what it is (especially when you compare it to the Fuji 35 f1.4 which is quite compact).


--Florent

Flickr Page


#9 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,793 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 07 September 2016 - 02:06 PM

What "known reasons"?

 

This 25 looks way too big for what it is (especially when you compare it to the Fuji 35 f1.4 which is quite compact).

Maybe that it is "merely" equivalent to 50mm ff2.4 on FF 135 format, and will cost quite bit? Just a guess.



#10 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 588 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 07 September 2016 - 03:15 PM

Maybe that it is "merely" equivalent to 50mm ff2.4 on FF 135 format, and will cost quite bit? Just a guess.

 

If you think of the 25mm f1.8 which is "merely" a 50 f3.6 it sounds even worse in terms of DOF control. However, I don't think this lens falls in the "known reasons" stated above, hence my original question.


--Florent

Flickr Page


#11 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,412 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 07 September 2016 - 08:08 PM

A 50mm f/2.4 for 1000USD+ (I guess)? Really?
But I think the 12-100mm could be awesome ... although I reckon it'll be in that price league as well.
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#12 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,531 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 07 September 2016 - 09:08 PM

But even IF the Oly is plastic, i bet, it's wethersealed. Canon says "no" to this question... But who will do macros in the rain anyway? Olympus already has LED lights (to be mounted in the hot-shoe, with flexible arms)

Unless you're doing macros OF the rain, of course.  :P



#13 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 07 September 2016 - 09:59 PM

You think, that Canon + LED (but -flash?) is fast enough? Hmmm, actually, I never did a picture of rain falling on or into a lens. Could this be interesting (besides of the point of view of a repair shop)?



#14 you2

you2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,000 posts

Posted 08 September 2016 - 12:47 PM

12-100 looks hopeful. Only one that I have an interest in. Dont' really see the excitement for the other two.



#15 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,161 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 08 September 2016 - 11:02 PM

A 50mm f/2.4 for 1000USD+ (I guess)? Really?
But I think the 12-100mm could be awesome ... although I reckon it'll be in that price league as well.

 

No, a 25 F/1.2.

 

If you mean equivalent, please say so. Even then, it still is an F/1.2 lens, and despite it being equivalent to a 50 mm F/2.4  FF lens, it is a difficult lens to make, by definition. In addition, it won't be made in the same numbers as some other manufacturers do, which is another reason why it will be expensive.

 

I think it will be in the $1400 to $1600 range, and will be very well made.

 

I also reckon that MFT is getting used more and more by pros who like to shoot with smaller cameras while carrying less weight. even at F/2.4 equivalent these new fast MFT lenses offer great subject separation. If that is what you are after, you either have the option of any of the faster MFT lenses, or a Metabones speed adapter with a fast Canon or Nikon lens or so. However, that will mean carrying a lot of extra weight compared to the smaller MFT lenses (e.g., 50 F/1.2 with Metabones adapter, vs 25 F/1.2 MFT or 0.95 25 MFT).

 

Kind regards, Wim


  • Rover and JoJu like this

#16 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,793 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 09 September 2016 - 06:33 AM

The only reason a 25mm with small image circle is harder to make is because the elements get in eachother's way because of the short focal length, so one might need some more elements for the same simple task?

And that is a very good reason to be unimpressed by it.. a simple normal prime with small aperture, for a high price, only because of the sensor size. 

Equivalent on APS-C would be a 30mm f1.6 lens.That lens, although retro focus by need because of flange distance, is not that expensive at all.

 

And weight.. How much does that Sigma weight? How much would a 50mm f2.4 weight? The 50mm f1.8 STM weight almost nothing.

 

How about just carrying a FF camera with 50mm f1.8 for comparison, or a APS-C camera with that Sigma? That makes for a way less contrived case.

 

By the way, where are all those pro's using MFT?



#17 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,531 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 09 September 2016 - 02:45 PM

I'm not going to get into the debate but the 50/1.8 STM is a simple old construction (albeit with a dash of modern spice on top); most of the new 50s (or equivalents) have unorthodox element layout; say, the Zeiss 55/1.8 is only a 7 / 5 construction but it is not at all reminiscent of the "classic" Double Gauss... (hence the much better results at wider apertures). Ditto the Panasonic/Leica 25/1.4 (which is a pretty old lens by now).

 

P. S. I know a pro who was (until last month) a long time staff photog for the TASS agency - one of the two main newswires of the country - shooting mostly with an Olympus body (not sure which as I'm not at all versed in the µ4/3 camera fare, but has to be a E-M1) and three lenses: 9-18, 12-40 and 40-150. Only for the most demanding assignments like sports shooting he was whipping out the (agency-owned) Canon 1D X, with the lens set to match. His agency-credited works can be seen here: http://tassphoto.com... Шамуков/page/1 But I was just sayin'. :)

 

There might be more like him but I'm not really into nagging people about their gear. I know my fellow shooter at the company uses a Fuji X-E1 with the 27mm pancake a lot of time (but mostly it's Canon 5D Mark II with cheaper L lenses for him).



#18 chlky0001

chlky0001

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 11 September 2016 - 04:58 PM

The only reason a 25mm with small image circle is harder to make is because the elements get in eachother's way because of the short focal length, so one might need some more elements for the same simple task?
And that is a very good reason to be unimpressed by it.. a simple normal prime with small aperture, for a high price, only because of the sensor size. 
Equivalent on APS-C would be a 30mm f1.6 lens.That lens, although retro focus by need because of flange distance, is not that expensive at all.
 
And weight.. How much does that Sigma weight? How much would a 50mm f2.4 weight? The 50mm f1.8 STM weight almost nothing.
 
How about just carrying a FF camera with 50mm f1.8 for comparison, or a APS-C camera with that Sigma? That makes for a way less contrived case.
 
By the way, where are all those pro's using MFT?


One place to look is Olympus's own website, they have intros to pros using their products.

I knew Thom Hogan uses M43, travel photographers (Amos Chapple came to mind) and some journalists may tend to use the system more due to smaller footprint. I seldom see wedding and portrait photographers rely on the system due to limited dof control. In a way I guess people choose the tool for the job

#19 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,161 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 12 September 2016 - 06:51 PM

The only reason a 25mm with small image circle is harder to make is because the elements get in eachother's way because of the short focal length, so one might need some more elements for the same simple task?

 

And that is a very good reason to be unimpressed by it.. a simple normal prime with small aperture, for a high price, only because of the sensor size. 

Equivalent on APS-C would be a 30mm f1.6 lens.That lens, although retro focus by need because of flange distance, is not that expensive at all.

 

And weight.. How much does that Sigma weight? How much would a 50mm f2.4 weight? The 50mm f1.8 STM weight almost nothing.

 

How about just carrying a FF camera with 50mm f1.8 for comparison, or a APS-C camera with that Sigma? That makes for a way less contrived case.

 

By the way, where are all those pro's using MFT?

 

The reason that a fast 25 mm for MFT is hard to make is because of tolernaces, which have to be much higher than for equivaalent lenses on FF. In addition there is the small size, and having to fit everything together within the space constraints of the smaller size, indeed.

 

There is no 30 mm F/1.6 lens for APS-C, F/1.4, yes, and that is a 3rd party lens, not OEM. Still not F/1.2. F/1.2 lenses are by definition harder to make, and that is regardless of sensor size to start with. It may be equivalent to a less fast lens, but for design and manufacturing purposes it still is an F/1.2 lens.

 

Neither is this a contrived case. An F/1.2 lens will allow you to shoot in less illuminated circumstances than an F/1.8 or F/2 lens, regardless of the system, whether the equivalence is the same or not.

 

I am getting tired of this equivalence rhetoric whenever anybody mentions anything related to MFT. That is only useful when trying to compare apples and pears, and you yourself rarely if ever do this when comparing APS-C with FF - I subject that that is because you own both APS-C and FF cameras. In the end it is what works for you, no need to diss everyhting else. Everything else may work for others for different reasons.

 

Personally, I am not a fan of APS-C, because I think there is not enough difference between FF and APS-C from a weight perspective, (lens) size perspective, etc, but you don;t see me dissing this format - I'll recommend it even, without bias, to those whom I think might benefit from an APS-C system.

 

There is a much bigger difference between MFT and FF, size wise and weight wise, than between APS-C and FF, especially with my own lens preferences, and that is what makes it interesting. That DoF is a little more at the same f-stops, that images cannot be enlarged as much, and that there is a little bit more noise is neither here nor there if it is in balance with the goals to be achieved. In short, MFT works fro some people, even if it does not for you. However, that does not give you the license to diss everything non-APS-C and non-FF, especially since I doubt you have any experience with the system as a whole. Personally, I have shot a fair amount with a GF-2, OM-D 10, OM-D 5 MkII and a bunch of lenses for the MFT system, and I can assure you that the results are very satisfying. To me more so than with APS-C. And for everything else I use my FF system.

 

Essentially one chooses cameras and lenses for different and for specific purposes and/or qualities. The same holds true for lenses. Also, one often has to stop down a FF lens to get optimal results, or get acceptable DoF, instead of, f.e., having a single eye lash in focus. For a cropped portrait at 85 mm F/4 on FF one barely gets everything in focua from nose tip to cheeks; that can be done with MFT with a 42.5 mm at F/2, allowing for a faster shutter speed in the process at the same iso setting. Yes, a bit more noise, but generally not disturbingly so.

 

As to pro shooters who use MFT for professional purposes, I have met a few, and there are a few National Geographic photographers who shoot MFT as well, including wildlife photographers. Generally they use MFT systems for its compactness, relatively small weight, unobtrusiveness, and more than enough picture quality, not to mention video quality.

 

In short, I can only commend Olympus (and Panasonic) for bringing out more professionally oriented lenses. It bodes well for the future of MFT.

 

Kind regards, Wim


  • Arthur Macmillan likes this

#20 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,412 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 12 September 2016 - 10:58 PM

I am, of course, also very tired of the equivalence discussion.

However, the MFT manufacturers have started playing that game - not us. 

 

Assuming that the 25mm f/1.2 will cost in excess of 1200EUR - which is likely - you could get Sony A7 plus Sony 50mm f/1.8 for the same price (and size/weight). And that's a comparison where one can get viable headaches really.


Chief Editor
photozone.de




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de