Are pancake primes extinct ?

I can't tell anything about the likelihood of Oly or Pana developing and releasing any more pancake primes. No announcements have been made as far as I know.

But while increasingly targeting the pro and semi-pro market with fast and heavy zooms, they should not forget that a lot of attractiveness of the m43 system comes from these pancake primes. I think is is true for a lot of serious amateurs.

Personally I'd be interested in a 10/11mm f2.8 (or even f3.5), an updated 20mm f1.7 (with faster AF), a 25mm f2 (or maybe even f2.8) and maybe a 14mm f2 (which may be slightly larger than the current f2.5 from Pana). I'd also happily accept them from other manufacturers as long as they keep a "pancakish footprint".

I think that manufacturer self-interest has to be conisdered here.

Olympus won't make a 10-11mm prime because they want us to buy the 12mm 2.0.

As far as pancakes go, I think it depends largely on the currently prevailing design philosophy.

Original four-thirds cameras were a great product but didn't sell particualrly well. Oly and Panny shifted to micro four-thirds because they saw an unfilled market niche for smaller interchangeable-lens cameras.

The philiosophy at the time was - smaller is better. A natural result of this was the creation of very small pancake lenses.

Since that time, the makret has evolved and m4/3 camera makers are stretched a bit thinner, trying to appeal to a wider variety of customers. They still have customers who want the smallest smaera+lens setup possible, while others complain about software lens correction and cramped ergonomics.

The manufacturers are tring to create products that will sell well. Sometimes they get this right, somtiems they mis-calculate.

If Olympus, for example, doesn't feel that they will sell more 17mm lenses buy using a pancake design then they will not use a pancake design.

The most likely pancake focal lengths are already covered. I don't think a 25mm pancake would sell particulary well given that there's already a 25mm prime and a well regarded 20mm pancake.

Oly decided that a premium 17mm was needed and not a do-over of the pancake.

People think Panny should redo the 20mm to make it focus faster, but maybe there's some reason why they can't?

Make that an f3.5 9/10 with the 37mm filter thread and the bayonet lens hood and I'm in and my 9-18mm zoom is on the market. I'll grudgingly accept a 46mm filter thread.

Cheers, geoff

--
Geoffrey Heard
http://pngtimetraveller.blogspot.com/2011/10/return-to-karai-komana_31.html

The pancake primes are not doable by any third party for one reason: software.

All of the native pancake primes are software corrected, significantly software corrected.

The investment in resources and expertise for the software correction makes little sense from the third party point of view.  Too much cost for too little benefit.

I suppose only marketing knows for sure, because they have the sales figures.

I'll say this much--primes tend to be owned by more advanced shooters and advanced shooters are more likely to want on-lens controls. "Pancake" designs can make this harder.

Out of curiosity, do folks consider the mZD 17/1.8 to be a pancake lens? I seems quite small from photos but has a comprehensive set of controls. I don't know that I require anything more miniscule than this.

Cheers,

Rick
p.s. I have the 4/3 25/2.8, which is considered a pancake in that format but is quite large in the µ4/3 world, even without an adapter. Times change.

All Oly/Pany MFT WAs (including zooms with a WA end) are rather strongly software-corrected for distortion. The pancakes are not special in that regard. It's just a matter of the FL. The 20/1.7 pancake has less distortion prior to correction than the non-pancake 17/1.8 and 12/2.

Pancakes with purely optical correction were built long before software-correction was possible. See here:

http://www.beanos.com/~tsoutij/wp/stuff/index-of-pancake-lenses

The FLs for which it is possible to make pancakes with good performance are pretty much covered already. If you go to shorter FLs, you need increasingly more of a retrofocus design which makes the lens longer. At the other end, the lens becomes longer for the simple reason that the FL becomes longer. At both ends, the problem gets worse if you want to make pancakes that are not only small (short) but also fast.

I'll ditto the above very nice summary.   To the OP:  Beyond this, the Sigma 19 2.8 has a larger image circle than is necessary for m4/3, since it it is also manufactured for the Sony sensor and mount.

Good question, I've been wondering myself. My favorite lenses for m43 are the pancakes, and I'd love to see the selection expanded.

Pancakes are always a compromise, and I'd be willing to sacrifice speed (aperture) for size. Here's what I'd like to see:

1) Re-issue of the Panny 20mm f/1.7 that focuses quickly and silently.

2) Oly or Panny 12mm f/4 pancake. Since Oly already makes a pancake and non-pancake version of the 17mm I don't see why they wouldn't do it for the 12mm too; Panny presently doesn't make a prime at that FL.

3) Oly 25mm f/3.5. I'm guessing this is about the maximum FL for a pancake. Oly could issue this and wouldn't compete with ANYTHING, since it doesn't presently make a 25mm prime. The Panny 25mm f/1.4 is superb but large, and a smaller, slower, (cheaper?) alternative might sell well.

I think not, it is a matter of time and some new pancakes appear. But Micro 4/3 already have a good pancake lens choice.

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.
Aleo Photo Site

I prefer waffles.

Tom

--
www.kachadurian.com
Call me crazy. I happen to like photos of cats.

.... depending on which way one sees it and how , and mostly the collapsed zoom, especially the recent Sony version for the NEX pretty much demonstrate. Pancake fix focals need to sacrifice a lot to remain pancake, primary among them is the speed and optical performance. The only really good ( optically ) Pancake really around is the Samsung 30mm/2.0 well it happens to be one of the fast one too. Add to that also Pancake form factor pretty much limit the focal length ( coverage ). Take a look at Nikon 1's 10mm/2.8 then take a look at the same system's 18.5mm and the 32mm fix foclas. Well even at those short focal length, and with optics catered to be soft corrected instead of optically decent. Its still need to be sized so.

So if one cannot have it fast nor performing. then why bother with a fix focal at all when that same can bed had with a zoom. Panasonic had the X pancake kit zoom and this pretty much defeat the purpose of the pancake ( unless one can build one significantly better optically or significantly faster or both , the 20mm is on the fast side but not the optical quality ).

So a pancake 10mm/2.8 .. man oh man, that's equivalent of a 20mm/2.8 on FF , by that standard one can hardly consider this slow. In fact for that wide a coverage the 2.8 is considered relatively fast ( or norm , as not being slow ) and one is talking about a significantly wider coverage vs that of the 14mm. Yes its doable provided we would accept a rather hefty sacrifice on the performance ( thus needing perhaps quite a swash of soft correction, enough that even the soft correction might not help to hide the defect ). And at the same time let's ask what kind of price people are willing to pay for it. Ok let's admit it, between the dedicated DSLR fix focal user and that of the mirrorless fix focal users, there do exist a rather ( I hate to say it but its true ) large cultural divide as in value of investment. I've read many comment on this forum as well as that of Sony NEX, Samsung NX, Nikon 1 and even Ricoh ( with some justification I shall say ) questioning why they are paying for those fix focals. where this is much less often the case with dedictaed DSLR fix focal users despite the fact that their counterpart is usually of even more dearer price, and bulkier, and weight a ton and so and so ...

In short, that goes to the same mould as asking why no more pancake. There is already an established and I would say illogical assumption to mirrorless fix focals that they should always this way or that way and this in turn limits the Mfr capability to bring upon more.

Oh yes, a 10mm/2.8 pancake is doable, but the Q for the Mfr is that its probably going to be too much compromise as a product that it serve no one, please no one, and only whose who are wearned on size / bulk only might see it as light of the day and only so if the Mfr can sell it at a no dear price ( which the Mfr of course is reluctant to do considering this lens as being so hard to do ), and while at it, shall I direct the readers to check out the recent Fujifilm 14mm/2.8 and Pentax ( been in the market for years ) K mount 14mm/2.8, and then take a look at the like of similar FF offering from Nikon, Canon & Sigma ... and then consider it

Let's face it, Pancake lens is usually a compromise with size and bulk over all others. That usually is not much a problem provided it stay within reasonable margin. That margin seems ever widening though with introduction of such by and large and this is why they are now not popular with quality seeking photographer. So for real these lens really serve the other end, the hobbyist, mobile centric or those who absolutely needing the light weight and petite size. Well then they will allow for the sacrifice in speed, quality, and yes coverage. Its just that with intro of the Panasonic x kit zoom then Sony's recent one, even that seems less of usefulness since one can have a zoom to do that.

Well, is Pancake fix focals viable, of course yes, even with all these but perhaps it need to define a new realm of usage. Camera are getting better to the point that would allow such, and I can picture something like a pancake but optically sound lens in the wide to long focal range and even , might be somewhat into the super wide coverage ( as in the op's demand for a 10mm ), but overall they might be better made with a slow speed to minimize the size and bulk and yet deliver the good in optical quality. And plainly speaking asking for speed, quality, and petite size together with coverage is simply asking for too much, especially considering the realistic retail price the market can accept and which it can generate enough revenue for the Mfr to justify.

--
- Franka -

And let me add that, if they are going to do a pancake that do not need the over expensive soft correction R&D, they can always go and do a pancake that's optically sound, but to do that and keep them pancake the lens likely will need to be slow , which of course is not a matter of concern if one comes from old day. There were many old pancake lens for mirrorless ( aka Leica Screw and M ) then which can be had, 20mm in f/5.6 or 8.0 Zeiss even had a 28mm/8.0 pre war. And they usually are not cheap either.

That of course is what this new generation of digitally weaned photographer would expect nor accept. excuse me for saying that but they are spoiled.

can we have pancake fix focals of such , well picture this, if any 3rd party ( or even brand ) do do a pancake fix focal like this. I wonder if they can sell enough to cover the cost at all. So they either don't do it or they sacrifice a lot on the product ( which Oly vividly demonstrate with the 15mm/8.0 Body Cap Lens ) just so to keep it actually marketable ( to the sector which cry for sizing small over all thing )

--
- Franka -

No we don;t.

Panasonic already discontinued that pancake vario 14-42 zoom lens.

14 and 20mm.

Olympus only has the 17mm 2.8

Thats 3 left and all of them has a focal length of less than 50mm.

The first goal of m4/3 system was compactness.

Don't tell me about how hard engineering a pancake lens is because canon has the 40mm, pentax has the 40mm, sony has the pancake zoomlens.

There should be no problem design a pancake lens with an aparture of 1.8 or less in m4/3 systems.

Let me just add as a rule of thumb that the easiest prime to make, and therefore compact, has more or less a focal equal to the distance to flange.

So the early 17mm and 20mm reflected that. Even so they had to be firmware corrected. By comparison take the Sigma 19mm which is uncorrected, and you'll see that it has twice the size of an equivalent pancake, and is 2.8. Sharpness is v. good though.

If you want good edges, you must be v. careful with FW correction, least you lose resolution. Possibly legacy pancakes had conservative apertures for good performance across the frame.

To sell lenses today the maker must show fast apertures: so that gives a compromise like the 17/1.8, an almost-pancake.

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

Well, Pentax has a range of small-ish (maybe not all pancake) lenses that are quite praised; it's one of the reasons I added a K-30 to my arsenal. They are not corrected in software for distortion (to my knowledge) and show decent to very good optical performance. Pricey indeed, but I suppose m43 producers can also hope to sell for similar prices if they offer good products.

Apparently you and others don't get that mirrorless, because of short distance to flange  is an entirely different kettle of fish. M4/3 cameras are non telecentric, and that has consequences. Pancakes must be corrected.

Canon and especially Pentax have twice the distance to flange, therefore pancakes are easier to make. However the thickness of the body + lens defeats the purpose, compared to m4/3.

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

I have nothing against corrections if they are required and useful - I have the 20mm and it's a great lens. I do wish for a longer, portrait-oriented lens a la Pentax 40mm - I dangle my camera around my neck a lot and I like the combination (E-PL3 + 20mm + etc.) to remain vertical. An equivalent of the 40mm (35mm pancake lens for m43), even F3.5, would be my next buy, but size is important and even moreso is the balance of the ensemble. In this respect a similar Pentax arrangement is larger overall but stays better in place...