Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Olympus - 3 new lenses
#11
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.
#12
Quote: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.  Tongue

#13
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
12-100 looks hopeful. Only one that I have an interest in. Dont' really see the excitement for the other two.

#15
Quote: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

Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#16
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
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 Âµ4/3 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/en/asset/fullTextSe...%B2/page/1 But I was just sayin'. Smile

 

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
Quote: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
Quote: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
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#20
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.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
4 Guest(s)