Maybe this is it !!!

Started 7 months ago | Discussions
Sergey Borachev
Senior MemberPosts: 2,410Gear list
Like?
Maybe this is it !!!
7 months ago

I started another thread about the need for a high-end 17mm lens in M43 yesterday and it reached 150 posts already.

Now, 43rumors is showing a patent for what might just be the lens I was waiting for, an Olympus 15mm f/2.0 and it seems to have a promising design. I hope it is weatherproof.

http://www.43rumors.com/olympus-15mm-f2-0-patent/comment-page-1/#comment-343240

And the problem this lens can fix for me? Here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3541011

Guy Parsons
Forum ProPosts: 17,615Gear list
Like?
Bring on a logical lens set....
In reply to Sergey Borachev, 7 months ago

Sergey Borachev wrote:

I started another thread about the need for a high-end 17mm lens in M43 yesterday and it reached 150 posts already.

Now, 43rumors is showing a patent for what might just be the lens I was waiting for, an Olympus 15mm f/2.0 and it seems to have a promising design. I hope it is weatherproof.

http://www.43rumors.com/olympus-15mm-f2-0-patent/comment-page-1/#comment-343240

Maybe it represents some Olympus original thought.

Instead of sticking to the boring film days standard set of primes of 28/35/50 (equivalents) etc, maybe they are trying to get a more logical set of lenses established, suitable for the 21st century.

Think in terms of  7.5/15/30/60 maybe for a 2x separated set, 60mm already there in the macro and 15mm in the toy lens cap lens so far - now for a real 15mm and hopefully 30mm later.

Then an even better 1.4x separated prime set would become 7.5/11/15/21/30/42/60 in rounded numbers. Nice. I might even stray from zooms if something sensible like that happens.

Regards...... Guy

 Guy Parsons's gear list:Guy Parsons's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm F4-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 Casio Exilim EX-ZR1000 +15 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
NZ Scott
Senior MemberPosts: 2,980Gear list
Like?
Nope.
In reply to Sergey Borachev, 7 months ago

Sergey Borachev wrote:

I started another thread about the need for a high-end 17mm lens in M43 yesterday and it reached 150 posts already.

Now, 43rumors is showing a patent for what might just be the lens I was waiting for, an Olympus 15mm f/2.0 and it seems to have a promising design. I hope it is weatherproof.

In what sense is the design promising?

I don't think this lens will be a premium offering. It doesn't make any sense for Oly to bring out a high-end weathersealed prime that is 1/3 stop slower than the existing 17/1.8.

If Oly does go weathersealed "PRO" at the 17mm focal-length it will be f1.4 or better.

I suspect that it might be a low-end kit lens replacement for the 17/2.8, which is currently playing second-fiddle to Panasonic's superior 20/1.7.

S

-- hide signature --
 NZ Scott's gear list:NZ Scott's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P3 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Valentinian
Regular MemberPosts: 355Gear list
Like?
Re: Bring on a logical lens set....
In reply to Guy Parsons, 7 months ago

Guy Parsons wrote:

Instead of sticking to the boring film days standard set of primes of 28/35/50 (equivalents) etc, maybe they are trying to get a more logical set of lenses established, suitable for the 21st century.

Think in terms of 7.5/15/30/60 maybe for a 2x separated set, 60mm already there in the macro and 15mm in the toy lens cap lens so far - now for a real 15mm and hopefully 30mm later.

Then an even better 1.4x separated prime set would become 7.5/11/15/21/30/42/60 in rounded numbers. Nice. I might even stray from zooms if something sensible like that happens.

so, nobody wants a 250mm/F4....

 Valentinian's gear list:Valentinian's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Leica D Summilux Asph 25mm F1.4 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm 1:1.8 Samyang 10mm 1:2.8 ED AS NCS CS +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EarthQuake
Senior MemberPosts: 1,026Gear list
Like?
Re: Nope.
In reply to NZ Scott, 7 months ago

NZ Scott wrote:

Sergey Borachev wrote:

I started another thread about the need for a high-end 17mm lens in M43 yesterday and it reached 150 posts already.

Now, 43rumors is showing a patent for what might just be the lens I was waiting for, an Olympus 15mm f/2.0 and it seems to have a promising design. I hope it is weatherproof.

In what sense is the design promising?

I don't think this lens will be a premium offering. It doesn't make any sense for Oly to bring out a high-end weathersealed prime that is 1/3 stop slower than the existing 17/1.8.

If Oly does go weathersealed "PRO" at the 17mm focal-length it will be f1.4 or better.

I suspect that it might be a low-end kit lens replacement for the 17/2.8, which is currently playing second-fiddle to Panasonic's superior 20/1.7.

S

-- hide signature --

Yeah, I don't see a 15/2 as a "pro" lens either.

Really I want to see a 17/1.2 to go with Panasonic's 42.5/1.2, but that's probably wishful thinking. I would be pretty happy with a 17/1.4.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Guy Parsons
Forum ProPosts: 17,615Gear list
Like?
Re: Bring on a logical lens set....
In reply to Valentinian, 7 months ago

Valentinian wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

Instead of sticking to the boring film days standard set of primes of 28/35/50 (equivalents) etc, maybe they are trying to get a more logical set of lenses established, suitable for the 21st century.

Think in terms of 7.5/15/30/60 maybe for a 2x separated set, 60mm already there in the macro and 15mm in the toy lens cap lens so far - now for a real 15mm and hopefully 30mm later.

Then an even better 1.4x separated prime set would become 7.5/11/15/21/30/42/60 in rounded numbers. Nice. I might even stray from zooms if something sensible like that happens.

so, nobody wants a 250mm/F4....

Not me, I would just use the Pana 45-150mm for the odd times I use tele, but of course the logical 1.4x set could be extended.... 7.5/11/15/21/30/42/60/85/120/170/240/340/480 with the 2x set in bold.

Now we can carry a bag as large and as heavy as those FF freaks to prove we are "real men"

Regards.... Guy

 Guy Parsons's gear list:Guy Parsons's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm F4-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 Casio Exilim EX-ZR1000 +15 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
c_henry
Regular MemberPosts: 177
Like?
Re: Bring on a logical lens set....
In reply to Valentinian, 7 months ago

I do!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Pikme
Senior MemberPosts: 1,467
Like?
telecentric?
In reply to NZ Scott, 7 months ago

In what sense is the design promising?

I don't think this lens will be a premium offering. It doesn't make any sense for Oly to bring out a high-end weathersealed prime that is 1/3 stop slower than the existing 17/1.8.

Hmm, some speculation that the patent reflects very high quality design....

-- hide signature --

Roberto M.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
azazel1024
Senior MemberPosts: 1,092Gear list
Like?
Re: Bring on a logical lens set....
In reply to Guy Parsons, 7 months ago

Guy Parsons wrote:

Sergey Borachev wrote:

I started another thread about the need for a high-end 17mm lens in M43 yesterday and it reached 150 posts already.

Now, 43rumors is showing a patent for what might just be the lens I was waiting for, an Olympus 15mm f/2.0 and it seems to have a promising design. I hope it is weatherproof.

http://www.43rumors.com/olympus-15mm-f2-0-patent/comment-page-1/#comment-343240

Maybe it represents some Olympus original thought.

Instead of sticking to the boring film days standard set of primes of 28/35/50 (equivalents) etc, maybe they are trying to get a more logical set of lenses established, suitable for the 21st century.

Think in terms of  7.5/15/30/60 maybe for a 2x separated set, 60mm already there in the macro and 15mm in the toy lens cap lens so far - now for a real 15mm and hopefully 30mm later.

Then an even better 1.4x separated prime set would become 7.5/11/15/21/30/42/60 in rounded numbers. Nice. I might even stray from zooms if something sensible like that happens.

Regards...... Guy

I guess.

A set of 12, 17, 25, 45, 75 is a pretty decent inverval as well. Between 1.4-1.8 for each step.

I guess if I had to have an "ideal" it would be an 8, 12, 17, 25, 42.5, 67.5, 100mm.

I already have the 12/2, 17/2.8, 25/1.4, 45/1.8 and s60/2.8. At some point I'll swap the 17/2.8 for the 17/1.8. Some future date I may add or swap the s60/2.8 for the 75/1.8. It just depends if/when any longer medium telephoto primes come out (Panasonic 150/2.8 doesn't count as it isn't a medium telephoto. To me a 210mm equivelent is pretty much as long as you can get to be considered a medium telephoto. Basically 100-210mm is medium for me).

Oh, I'd also need/want a wider lens at some point. A 9mm would be acceptable, I'd prefer an 8mm and a 6 or 7mm would be amazing.

I do still really want a 67.5mm. I used that focal length on 35m film for so many years and it worked great as my medium telephoto heavy lifter. My s60/2.8 is an awesome lens, but it is just a tiny bit too short most of the time (a 67.5/2.8, or better yet a 67.5/2 would be a lot nicer, supposing it could come vaguely close in optical quality, that s60/2.8 is amazingly sharp). I am thinking/hoping down the road the Olympus 75mm would fit a bit better with the longer reach and larger aperature and it is slightly higher optical quality too, though it is really splitting hairs at this level IMHO. I am just a little worried it'll be too long sometimes.

-- hide signature --

Many things dealing with Olympus and their OM and Pen cameras, plus my general photography and musings http://omexperience.wordpress.com/

 azazel1024's gear list:azazel1024's gear list
Sigma 30mm F2.8 EX DN +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sergey Borachev
Senior MemberPosts: 2,410Gear list
Like?
Re: Nope.
In reply to NZ Scott, 7 months ago

NZ Scott wrote:

Sergey Borachev wrote:

I started another thread about the need for a high-end 17mm lens in M43 yesterday and it reached 150 posts already.

Now, 43rumors is showing a patent for what might just be the lens I was waiting for, an Olympus 15mm f/2.0 and it seems to have a promising design. I hope it is weatherproof.

In what sense is the design promising?

It seems to have a sophisticated design, similar to the 12mm. Just guessing that it is not a cheap lens, and not compromised like a pancake.

I don't think this lens will be a premium offering. It doesn't make any sense for Oly to bring out a high-end weathersealed prime that is 1/3 stop slower than the existing 17/1.8.

If Oly does go weathersealed "PRO" at the 17mm focal-length it will be f1.4 or better.

I am hoping it will be an internal focusing one. To keep the lens small and weathersealed, it might be necessary to limit it to f/2.0. Compared to the 17mm f/1.8, I think the 1/3 stop slower speed is negligible, if there is significant improvement. This has a shorter FL, which again may cause the 1/3 slower speed.  The 17mm is not premium in sharpness, in field of curvature, in distortion as many reviewers have shown in their test results. It is performing roughly on par with some cheap lenses and slightly worse than a zoom, based on test results (Sources provided in my other thread). So, maybe Olympus is trying to do something about this mistake.

I suspect that it might be a low-end kit lens replacement for the 17/2.8, which is currently playing second-fiddle to Panasonic's superior 20/1.7.

My guess is that it will be first fiddle, the second "PRO" grade lens for Olympus, and the 17mm/1.8 will be second fiddle.  With the release of the high-end E-M1 sub-line (?) and more OM-D models coming it is necessary for Olympus to come up with weatherproof lenses (I think it only has two), and come up with high quality lenses needed by pros.  The better 4/3 lenses are nice for IQ but too big, and also noisy for video.  I can see a new range of "PRO" lenses to address this need.  I expect its IQ will be at least as good as the 12mm f/2.0.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sergey Borachev
Senior MemberPosts: 2,410Gear list
Like?
Re: Nope.
In reply to EarthQuake, 7 months ago

EarthQuake wrote:

NZ Scott wrote:

Sergey Borachev wrote:

I started another thread about the need for a high-end 17mm lens in M43 yesterday and it reached 150 posts already.

Now, 43rumors is showing a patent for what might just be the lens I was waiting for, an Olympus 15mm f/2.0 and it seems to have a promising design. I hope it is weatherproof.

In what sense is the design promising?

I don't think this lens will be a premium offering. It doesn't make any sense for Oly to bring out a high-end weathersealed prime that is 1/3 stop slower than the existing 17/1.8.

If Oly does go weathersealed "PRO" at the 17mm focal-length it will be f1.4 or better.

I suspect that it might be a low-end kit lens replacement for the 17/2.8, which is currently playing second-fiddle to Panasonic's superior 20/1.7.

S

-- hide signature --

Yeah, I don't see a 15/2 as a "pro" lens either.

Really I want to see a 17/1.2 to go with Panasonic's 42.5/1.2, but that's probably wishful thinking. I would be pretty happy with a 17/1.4.

See my previous post. I think given the other requirements, like a small size, weatherproofing, internal focusing, and most of all real high-end IQ (unlike the 17/1.8), Olympus has chosen f/2.0. Sounds like a good balanced decision given all the constraints. I hope Olympus will also release a 10mm or 8mm prime to address another need in M43, so its lens lineup is more "pro".

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 15,516Gear list
Like?
Re: Bring on a logical lens set....
In reply to Guy Parsons, 7 months ago

Guy Parsons wrote:

Sergey Borachev wrote:

I started another thread about the need for a high-end 17mm lens in M43 yesterday and it reached 150 posts already.

Now, 43rumors is showing a patent for what might just be the lens I was waiting for, an Olympus 15mm f/2.0 and it seems to have a promising design. I hope it is weatherproof.

http://www.43rumors.com/olympus-15mm-f2-0-patent/comment-page-1/#comment-343240

Maybe it represents some Olympus original thought.

Instead of sticking to the boring film days standard set of primes of 28/35/50 (equivalents) etc, maybe they are trying to get a more logical set of lenses established, suitable for the 21st century.

Boring film days standard? I don't even think of FLs in such terms (boring versus fun). FLs are more or less useful for my photography, that's all.

And what would your suitability criterion for the 21st century actually be? Do you really mean that the transition from film to electronic sensors seriously changes the way we think (or should think) about the suitability of different FLs?

Further, I am personally not thinking that my ideal series of primes should be evenly spaced by some factor, e.g., 2x or 1.4x. I am willing to accept a bigger gap in the middle, between slight WA and short tele, because I intuitively compose (right or wrong) in such a way that I rarely use that interval. Consequently, a prime series like 7.5, 12, 17, 45, 75 is perfectly fine with me although the intervals are not evenly spaced.

So is the series I am actually using at the moment, i.e., the same as above but with 20 replacing 17. Although I marginally prefer 17 over 20 if I think about the FL alone, none of the 17s currently available really appeal to me on other grounds . Hence, I stick with 20 as a substitute for 17.

On the other hand, 15 would be too far towards the wide end for me to be a good substitute for 17 or 20. The point of 17 (35 mm EFL), as I see it, is that it still works as a "normal lens" (minimal perspective distortion) unless ýou go very close with it while at the same time giving you a bit more leeway than 25 (50 mm EFL) to fit things in when you can't back up any further. At 15 (30 mm EFL), however, I'd say you are really out of "normal lens" territory.

Think in terms of 7.5/15/30/60 maybe for a 2x separated set, 60mm already there in the macro and 15mm in the toy lens cap lens so far - now for a real 15mm and hopefully 30mm later.

Then an even better 1.4x separated prime set would become 7.5/11/15/21/30/42/60 in rounded numbers. Nice. I might even stray from zooms if something sensible like that happens.

Regards...... Guy

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sergey Borachev
Senior MemberPosts: 2,410Gear list
Like?
Re: Bring on a logical lens set....
In reply to Anders W, 7 months ago

Anders W wrote:

So is the series I am actually using at the moment, i.e., the same as above but with 20 replacing 17. Although I marginally prefer 17 over 20 if I think about the FL alone, none of the 17s currently available really appeal to me on other grounds . Hence, I stick with 20 as a substitute for 17.

I agree that none of the 17mm's are appealing and that 17mm is a better FL.

On the other hand, 15 would be too far towards the wide end for me to be a good substitute for 17 or 20. The point of 17 (35 mm EFL), as I see it, is that it still works as a "normal lens" (minimal perspective distortion) unless ýou go very close with it while at the same time giving you a bit more leeway than 25 (50 mm EFL) to fit things in when you can't back up any further. At 15 (30 mm EFL), however, I'd say you are really out of "normal lens" territory.

Due to the ever increasing MPs, images from modern cameras can be cropped a lot more and still retain enough quality when compared with those from decades ago, when 35mm became "normal". My understanding is that the perspective distortion in a picture is a function of subject distance and not the FL. Standing at the same distance, a 15mm and a 17mm should be identical in the amount of such distortion produced by their pictures, although the image from the wider lens has to be magnified more to match the size from the 17mm. Is that correct? I think that's what you mean by "fit things in"

My point is that there is some reason for "modernising" the traditional FL thinking. With some sacrifice in quality (which is abundant and still more than adequate, compared to the old days), the 15mm can take the place of the 17mm as the normal wide or can be accepted as the lens to carry around. The advantage is of course a wider view when needed while retaining the 17mm or even the 20mm FOV with a little penalty.

I believe this is the reason why we are seeing more fixed lens cameras with 28mm equiv lenses since the film days, e.g. the Ricoh compacts, the Sigma, the latest Nikon etc. So, a 15mm lens (30mm equiv) is not unacceptable and may become normal in time, provided it has high resolution to do the cropping trick.

Think in terms of 7.5/15/30/60 maybe for a 2x separated set, 60mm already there in the macro and 15mm in the toy lens cap lens so far - now for a real 15mm and hopefully 30mm later.

Then an even better 1.4x separated prime set would become 7.5/11/15/21/30/42/60 in rounded numbers. Nice. I might even stray from zooms if something sensible like that happens.

Regards...... Guy

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 15,516Gear list
Like?
Re: Bring on a logical lens set....
In reply to Sergey Borachev, 7 months ago

Sergey Borachev wrote:

Anders W wrote:

So is the series I am actually using at the moment, i.e., the same as above but with 20 replacing 17. Although I marginally prefer 17 over 20 if I think about the FL alone, none of the 17s currently available really appeal to me on other grounds . Hence, I stick with 20 as a substitute for 17.

I agree that none of the 17mm's are appealing and that 17mm is a better FL.

On the other hand, 15 would be too far towards the wide end for me to be a good substitute for 17 or 20. The point of 17 (35 mm EFL), as I see it, is that it still works as a "normal lens" (minimal perspective distortion) unless ýou go very close with it while at the same time giving you a bit more leeway than 25 (50 mm EFL) to fit things in when you can't back up any further. At 15 (30 mm EFL), however, I'd say you are really out of "normal lens" territory.

Due to the ever increasing MPs, images from modern cameras can be cropped a lot more and still retain enough quality when compared with those from decades ago, when 35mm became "normal". My understanding is that the perspective distortion in a picture is a function of subject distance and not the FL. Standing at the same distance, a 15mm and a 17mm should be identical in the amount of such distortion produced by their pictures, although the image from the wider lens has to be magnified more to match the size from the 17mm. Is that correct?

Yes that's correct.

My point is that there is some reason for "modernising" the traditional FL thinking. With some sacrifice in quality (which is abundant and still more than adequate, compared to the old days), the 15mm can take the place of the 17mm as the normal wide or can be accepted as the lens to carry around. The advantage is of course a wider view when needed while retaining the 17mm or even the 20mm FOV with a little penalty.

Yes. On the other hand, the quality loss you are talking about (by not going as close with the 15 as you'd like in terms of framing and instead crop slightly in PP) quickly approaches the one we are talking about when comparing the MTF values of the 17/1.8 to those of the 20/1.7. Then you have additional loss of IQ due to noise (smaller sensor area utilized when you crop) on top of that. Your claim that IQ is "abundant and still more than adequate" strikes me as somewhat contradictory to your claim that the optical quality of the 17/1.8 is insufficient.

Another consideration for me here is what the next step toward the WA end would be. There is currently no rectilinear prime wider than 12 for MFT. And a fisheye, even if defished, is nearly twice as wide as the 12, so a big gap. 17 and 12 strikes me as a pretty good combination on the WA side (effectively "normal" plus wide). This conforms to what I used in the film days (35 and 24). 20 and 12 works fine as well. But 15 and 12 would be a bit too densely spaced for my taste given that I'd like to keep the prime collection I carry down to some reasonable number.

I believe this is the reason why we are seeing more fixed lens cameras with 28mm equiv lenses since the film days, e.g. the Ricoh compacts, the Sigma, the latest Nikon etc.

Hard to tell. I really don't know the reasoning behind the choice of 28 mm EFL for some fixed lens cameras. Note also, that other recent fixed lens cameras do stay close to 35 EFL, e.g., the Sony RX1.

Think in terms of 7.5/15/30/60 maybe for a 2x separated set, 60mm already there in the macro and 15mm in the toy lens cap lens so far - now for a real 15mm and hopefully 30mm later.

Then an even better 1.4x separated prime set would become 7.5/11/15/21/30/42/60 in rounded numbers. Nice. I might even stray from zooms if something sensible like that happens.

Regards...... Guy

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sergey Borachev
Senior MemberPosts: 2,410Gear list
Like?
Re: Bring on a logical lens set....
In reply to Anders W, 7 months ago

Anders W wrote:

Sergey Borachev wrote:

Anders W wrote:

So is the series I am actually using at the moment, i.e., the same as above but with 20 replacing 17. Although I marginally prefer 17 over 20 if I think about the FL alone, none of the 17s currently available really appeal to me on other grounds . Hence, I stick with 20 as a substitute for 17.

I agree that none of the 17mm's are appealing and that 17mm is a better FL.

On the other hand, 15 would be too far towards the wide end for me to be a good substitute for 17 or 20. The point of 17 (35 mm EFL), as I see it, is that it still works as a "normal lens" (minimal perspective distortion) unless ýou go very close with it while at the same time giving you a bit more leeway than 25 (50 mm EFL) to fit things in when you can't back up any further. At 15 (30 mm EFL), however, I'd say you are really out of "normal lens" territory.

Due to the ever increasing MPs, images from modern cameras can be cropped a lot more and still retain enough quality when compared with those from decades ago, when 35mm became "normal". My understanding is that the perspective distortion in a picture is a function of subject distance and not the FL. Standing at the same distance, a 15mm and a 17mm should be identical in the amount of such distortion produced by their pictures, although the image from the wider lens has to be magnified more to match the size from the 17mm. Is that correct?

Yes that's correct.

My point is that there is some reason for "modernising" the traditional FL thinking. With some sacrifice in quality (which is abundant and still more than adequate, compared to the old days), the 15mm can take the place of the 17mm as the normal wide or can be accepted as the lens to carry around. The advantage is of course a wider view when needed while retaining the 17mm or even the 20mm FOV with a little penalty.

Yes. On the other hand, the quality loss you are talking about (by not going as close with the 15 as you'd like in terms of framing and instead crop slightly in PP) quickly approaches the one we are talking about when comparing the MTF values of the 17/1.8 to those of the 20/1.7. Then you have additional loss of IQ due to noise (smaller sensor area utilized when you crop) on top of that. Your claim that IQ is "abundant and still more than adequate" strikes me as somewhat contradictory to your claim that the optical quality of the 17/1.8 is insufficient.

My claim was based on review test results. I want to get a better 17mm lens than currently available. Short of that, a 14mm or even better, a 15mm is fine for me if it has much higher resolution than the current 17/1.8 (to compensate for loss of IQ when I have to crop). Unfortunately, a high quality 14mm lens is also not available in M43.

That is however a slightly different issue than the point I am trying to make here, which is some adjustment to the traditional view of the FLs being "normal" or more suitable, or best to have around, etc should be considered, due to the much higher resolution and enlargements now possible, when compared to the days when such traditional views about 35mm and 50mm lenses were formed. I am suggesting that the 35mm equiv "normal" wide or the single lens to carry around can easily replaced now with a wider one. So, 15mm is fine for normal use, provided it has very high resolution.

I believe this is the reason why we are seeing more fixed lens cameras with 28mm equiv lenses since the film days, e.g. the Ricoh compacts, the Sigma, the latest Nikon etc.

Hard to tell. I really don't know the reasoning behind the choice of 28 mm EFL for some fixed lens cameras. Note also, that other recent fixed lens cameras do stay close to 35 EFL, e.g., the Sony RX1.

I am saying that is due to the higher resolution and therefore the ease of obtaining the same 35mm FOV with some cropping and still getting good size prints. The Nokia Pureview is the ultimate example of how this increased resolution can be taken advantage of. Its electronic zooming, using the high MPs, shows how different FOVs can be obtained with the same physical lens.

So, I am saying the 15mm lens is fine, if all these 28mm equiv fixed lens cameras are being made and apparently selling. I think the manufacturers have done their market research and knowledgeable about these matters.

Think in terms of 7.5/15/30/60 maybe for a 2x separated set, 60mm already there in the macro and 15mm in the toy lens cap lens so far - now for a real 15mm and hopefully 30mm later.

Then an even better 1.4x separated prime set would become 7.5/11/15/21/30/42/60 in rounded numbers. Nice. I might even stray from zooms if something sensible like that happens.

Regards...... Guy

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 15,516Gear list
Like?
Re: Bring on a logical lens set....
In reply to Sergey Borachev, 7 months ago

Sergey Borachev wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Sergey Borachev wrote:

Anders W wrote:

So is the series I am actually using at the moment, i.e., the same as above but with 20 replacing 17. Although I marginally prefer 17 over 20 if I think about the FL alone, none of the 17s currently available really appeal to me on other grounds . Hence, I stick with 20 as a substitute for 17.

I agree that none of the 17mm's are appealing and that 17mm is a better FL.

On the other hand, 15 would be too far towards the wide end for me to be a good substitute for 17 or 20. The point of 17 (35 mm EFL), as I see it, is that it still works as a "normal lens" (minimal perspective distortion) unless ýou go very close with it while at the same time giving you a bit more leeway than 25 (50 mm EFL) to fit things in when you can't back up any further. At 15 (30 mm EFL), however, I'd say you are really out of "normal lens" territory.

Due to the ever increasing MPs, images from modern cameras can be cropped a lot more and still retain enough quality when compared with those from decades ago, when 35mm became "normal". My understanding is that the perspective distortion in a picture is a function of subject distance and not the FL. Standing at the same distance, a 15mm and a 17mm should be identical in the amount of such distortion produced by their pictures, although the image from the wider lens has to be magnified more to match the size from the 17mm. Is that correct?

Yes that's correct.

My point is that there is some reason for "modernising" the traditional FL thinking. With some sacrifice in quality (which is abundant and still more than adequate, compared to the old days), the 15mm can take the place of the 17mm as the normal wide or can be accepted as the lens to carry around. The advantage is of course a wider view when needed while retaining the 17mm or even the 20mm FOV with a little penalty.

Yes. On the other hand, the quality loss you are talking about (by not going as close with the 15 as you'd like in terms of framing and instead crop slightly in PP) quickly approaches the one we are talking about when comparing the MTF values of the 17/1.8 to those of the 20/1.7. Then you have additional loss of IQ due to noise (smaller sensor area utilized when you crop) on top of that. Your claim that IQ is "abundant and still more than adequate" strikes me as somewhat contradictory to your claim that the optical quality of the 17/1.8 is insufficient.

My claim was based on review test results. I want to get a better 17mm lens than currently available. Short of that, a 14mm or even better, a 15mm is fine for me if it has much higher resolution than the current 17/1.8 (to compensate for loss of IQ when I have to crop). Unfortunately, a high quality 14mm lens is also not available in M43.

That is however a slightly different issue than the point I am trying to make here, which is some adjustment to the traditional view of the FLs being "normal" or more suitable, or best to have around, etc should be considered, due to the much higher resolution and enlargements now possible, when compared to the days when such traditional views about 35mm and 50mm lenses were formed. I am suggesting that the 35mm equiv "normal" wide or the single lens to carry around can easily replaced now with a wider one. So, 15mm is fine for normal use, provided it has very high resolution.

See the point I added to my previous post about what the next step after 15 towards the WA end would be. For me 15 and 12 would be too densely spaced. 17 or 20 (which is better than 15 when I want a "normal" lens) along with 12 (when I want something wide) is a better combination for me. Of course, if you are considering a single prime lens for doing everything apart from tele, and/or you consider 25 mm as the next step upwards, then everything is fine of course. But 25 mm is not for me and I'd like to have both a WA-normal and a WA-wide.

I believe this is the reason why we are seeing more fixed lens cameras with 28mm equiv lenses since the film days, e.g. the Ricoh compacts, the Sigma, the latest Nikon etc.

Hard to tell. I really don't know the reasoning behind the choice of 28 mm EFL for some fixed lens cameras. Note also, that other recent fixed lens cameras do stay close to 35 EFL, e.g., the Sony RX1.

I am saying that is due to the higher resolution and therefore the ease of obtaining the same 35mm FOV with some cropping and still getting good size prints. The Nokia Pureview is the ultimate example of how this increased resolution can be taken advantage of. Its electronic zooming, using the high MPs, shows how different FOVs can be obtained with the same physical lens.

So, I am saying the 15mm lens is fine, if all these 28mm equiv fixed lens cameras are being made and apparently selling. I think the manufacturers have done their market research and knowledgeable about these matters.

Apparently, all the market researchers didn't come to the same conclusion as illustrated by my example above. The RX1 offers unusually good IQ in both respects at issue (MTF and noise) so should give ample room for cropping if fitted with a wider lens. Yet they put a 35 mm lens on it.

In addition, even if the market researchers are right about what most people want, they are not necessarily right about what I want. And, I am not apt to take the preferences of most people as some kind of norm for what my own preferences should be.

Think in terms of 7.5/15/30/60 maybe for a 2x separated set, 60mm already there in the macro and 15mm in the toy lens cap lens so far - now for a real 15mm and hopefully 30mm later.

Then an even better 1.4x separated prime set would become 7.5/11/15/21/30/42/60 in rounded numbers. Nice. I might even stray from zooms if something sensible like that happens.

Regards...... Guy

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sergey Borachev
Senior MemberPosts: 2,410Gear list
Like?
Re: Bring on a logical lens set....
In reply to Anders W, 7 months ago

OK, Anders. I understand what you are saying. We all have different requirements.

Regarding a 15mm being too close to 12mm, it is also a subjective thing and your needs are different from mine. In FF terms, these are 30mm and 24mm lenses respectively. Not really so close for many people I think, if we consider the traditional lens FLs of 21mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm etc. I am hoping that this 15mm will be weatherproof, which will distinguish it further from the 12mm, and therefore more useful in that sense than all the existing wide primes.

Like many, I grew up with those traditional FLs and have a good feel of their FOV, DOF etc, but change is sometimes worthwhile. I also grew up with 9/16 inch, 1/2 inch, 3/8 inch etc and could tell by looking at most common nuts what size they were and I grab the right wrench without checking if it is indeed a 3/8 or whatever, but that's a long time ago. I am not opposed to changes, when it makes sense. The 15mm can be the new 17mm, as far as I am concerned (given the big resolution improvements we have since). I hope Olympus would release a high-end 25mm as rumoured, and then follow up with a 10mm, and make them weatherproof. They would go well together as the new PRO lenses, and solve some problems with using Panasonic lenses on Olympus cameras (less CA, rattlesnaking and purple spots, and carrying/paying for a redundant OIS).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sergey Borachev
Senior MemberPosts: 2,410Gear list
Like?
Re: Bring on a logical lens set....
In reply to Sergey Borachev, 7 months ago

Sergey Borachev wrote:

OK, Anders. I understand what you are saying. We all have different requirements.

Regarding a 15mm being too close to 12mm, it is also a subjective thing and your needs are different from mine. In FF terms, these are 30mm and 24mm lenses respectively. Not really so close for many people I think, if we consider the traditional lens FLs of 21mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm etc. I am hoping that this 15mm will be weatherproof, which will distinguish it further from the 12mm, and therefore more useful in that sense than all the existing wide primes.

Like many, I grew up with those traditional FLs and have a good feel of their FOV, DOF etc, but change is sometimes worthwhile. I also grew up with 9/16 inch, 1/2 inch, 3/8 inch etc and could tell by looking at most common nuts what size they were and I grab the right wrench without checking if it is indeed a 3/8 or whatever, but that's a long time ago. I am not opposed to changes, when it makes sense. The 15mm can be the new 17mm, as far as I am concerned (given the big resolution improvements we have since). I hope Olympus would release a high-end 25mm as rumoured, and then follow up with a 10mm, and make them weatherproof. They would go well together as the new PRO lenses, and solve some problems with using Panasonic lenses on Olympus cameras (less CA, rattlesnaking and purple spots, and carrying/paying for a redundant OIS).

I just realised that many people here are still using those ancient 3/8 inch etc. 

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jeffharris
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,020Gear list
Like?
Re: Logical lens set....
In reply to Guy Parsons, 7 months ago

Guy Parsons wrote:

Sergey Borachev wrote:

Now, 43rumors is showing a patent for what might just be the lens I was waiting for, an Olympus 15mm f/2.0 and it seems to have a promising design. I hope it is weatherproof.

http://www.43rumors.com/olympus-15mm-f2-0-patent/comment-page-1/#comment-343240

Maybe it represents some Olympus original thought.

Instead of sticking to the boring film days standard set of primes of 28/35/50 (equivalents) etc, maybe they are trying to get a more logical set of lenses established, suitable for the 21st century.

Seriously? There IS a reason why certain focal lengths are considered classics.

I'm pretty content with my set of equivalents: 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 40mm, 50mm, 70mm, 85mm, 100mm, 120mm, 150mm, 210mm, 270mm, 400mm, 600mm. Not to mention native M4/3 zooms.

Of course, I only carry a few at a time…

 jeffharris's gear list:jeffharris's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Voigtlander Nokton 25mm F0.95 Voigtlander Nokton 42.5mm F0.95 Voigtlander Nokton 17.5mm F0.95 Aspherical +24 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Guy Parsons
Forum ProPosts: 17,615Gear list
Like?
Re: Logical lens set....
In reply to jeffharris, 7 months ago

jeffharris wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

Sergey Borachev wrote:

Now, 43rumors is showing a patent for what might just be the lens I was waiting for, an Olympus 15mm f/2.0 and it seems to have a promising design. I hope it is weatherproof.

http://www.43rumors.com/olympus-15mm-f2-0-patent/comment-page-1/#comment-343240

Maybe it represents some Olympus original thought.

Instead of sticking to the boring film days standard set of primes of 28/35/50 (equivalents) etc, maybe they are trying to get a more logical set of lenses established, suitable for the 21st century.

Seriously? There IS a reason why certain focal lengths are considered classics.

I'm pretty content with my set of equivalents: 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 40mm, 50mm, 70mm, 85mm, 100mm, 120mm, 150mm, 210mm, 270mm, 400mm, 600mm. Not to mention native M4/3 zooms.

Of course, I only carry a few at a time…

Basically with digital the game has changed. We were sort of locked into certain focal lengths in film days because most times we were shooting slides and they are a pain to crop later.

Now with digital and high MP counts the old series of prime focal lengths is not so important, much more easy to frame maybe a little sloppily and then fine tune the crop at leisure later. So time for a new set of numbers for focal lengths.

But then maybe I am being too logical, a trait that does not appear too often in the photographic community. Mostly it seems about nostalgia.

Again if a "normal" lens is so important then base the series on the M4/3 diagonal of about 22mm and expand up and down from there in root 2 steps. Hey, my set hovered around 21mm so that's close enough.

Regards....... Guy

 Guy Parsons's gear list:Guy Parsons's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm F4-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 Casio Exilim EX-ZR1000 +15 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads