Previous news story    Next news story

Olympus 75mm F1.8 for Micro Four Thirds gets $900 price-tag

By dpreview staff on May 24, 2012 at 05:00 GMT

Olympus has released more details about the M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 lens it announced alongside the E-M5, back in January 2012. The relatively compact large-aperture lens offers a 150mm-equivalent field-of-view and a fast internal-focus design. The 75mm will be available from 'Summer 2012' at an expected selling price of around $899.99.


Press Release

OLYMPUS INTRODUCES A NEW BRIGHT F1.8 MICRO FOUR THIRDS® LENS PERFECT FOR PORTRAITS AND CHALLENGING LIGHTING CONDITIONS

New M.ZUIKO DIGITAL™ ED 75mm f1.8 High-Grade Portrait Lens Enhances the Power, Performance and Versatility of Olympus OM-D and PEN® Compact System Cameras

CENTER VALLEY, Pa., May 24, 2012 – Today, Olympus adds to the Micro Four Thirds family of lenses with the release of the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75mm f1.8 High-Grade Portrait Lens (150mm equivalent), a high-speed, single-focal-length telephoto lens that is optimized for studio, stage, indoor sports and portrait photography, encased in a high-quality, compact, stunning metal body.

The M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75mm f1.8’s nine-blade circular aperture unit delivers beautiful defocused backgrounds, while the high-quality optical design keeps the subject in sharp focus. This is due to an advanced optical design that incorporates 10 lens elements in nine groups that make extensive use of special glass materials, including three ED (Extra-low Dispersion) elements to optimally correct aberrations. Each lens element is polished to an ultra-high level of working precision, only possible with the progressive techniques developed by Olympus master craftsmen, and carefully assembled to ensure maximum accuracy and reliability. Olympus’s exclusive ZERO (ZUIKO Extra-low Reflection Optical Coating) lens coatings are applied to the elements to reduce reflectance to a level that is half that of conventional coatings.

With a total length of just 2.7 inches, the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75mm f1.8 is surprisingly small and maximizes the performance and portability of the Olympus PEN and OM-D compact system cameras. A textured metallic outer finish exudes quality and sophistication, while the large 50mm diameter glass front lens conveys a sense of power and performance.

Ideal for capturing brilliant still images and high-definition (HD) videos, the lens employs Olympus's proven MSC (Movie & Still Compatible) autofocusing mechanism featuring an inner focus system to drive this single-focal-length lens for fast and quiet focusing. A precision-touch metallic focus ring provides easy manual focusing.

Olympus 75mm F1.8 with optional LH-61F hood

The optional LH-61F Lens Hood and the LC-61 Lens Cap metallic lens accessories are designed exclusively for the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75mm f1.8. The LH-61F Lens Hood attaches with an outer friction knob system that allows attachment or removal even when the lens cap is attached.

U.S. Pricing and Availability
The Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75mm f1.8 High-Grade Portrait Lens will be available in summer 2012.

Estimated Street Price: $899.99.

Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75mm F1.8 specifications

Principal specifications
Lens typePrime lens
Max Format sizeFourThirds
Focal length75 mm
Image stabilisationNo
Lens mountMicro Four Thirds
Aperture
Maximum apertureF1.8
Minimum apertureF22.0
Aperture ringNo
Number of diaphragm blades9
Aperture notesCircular aperture diaphragm
Optics
Elements10
Groups9
Focus
Minimum focus0.84 m (33.07)
Maximum magnification0.1×
AutofocusYes
Motor typeMicromotor
Full time manualYes
Focus methodInternal
Physical
Weight305 g (0.67 lb)
Diameter64 mm (2.52)
Length69 mm (2.72)
SealingNo
ColourSilver, Black
Filter thread58 mm
Hood suppliedNo
Hood product codeLH-61F (Optional)

Comments

Total comments: 504
123
G Davidson
By G Davidson (May 28, 2012)

For those in doubt, check the samples online. This is a lens capable of excellent results, pin-sharp wide-open and with a beautiful bokeh, combined with it's gorgeous build quality and small size. For those who can afford, it will no doubt be a treasured possession that will bring them many wonderful images and for those who can't, there is always the 45mm which is also a fine lens.

People who desire a small, very high quality system will be pleased and even though I can't get one right now, it's good to know that Olympus is making excellent lenses, not just good ones, as the whole point of a prime is to capture as good an image as possible. Who knows, perhaps a brighter, f/0.95 version will come in the future, but it will be heavier and more expensive. It will be a different lens. The isolating powers of this are already unique in this system.

3 upvotes
Heather Protz
By Heather Protz (May 28, 2012)

That's very sharp. Kudos

0 upvotes
Boris F
By Boris F (May 28, 2012)

Is it possible to make faster than F1.8 for FL75?

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
quangzizi
By quangzizi (May 28, 2012)

I ctrl + F to search the word "element" there are 6 results, 5 of them in the post. Searching "equivalent" and there are 69 results. Oh and you know what, that's just the first page of commenting.

Wonder if this post is to discuss about the lens, its performance and its availability or just an equivalence feast for trolls, feel kind of sad... To make sure that this one don't become useless, may I ask when will Oly put this lens on Amazon?

3 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (May 28, 2012)

OK, one last time for the people that still don't get it:

This is a 75mm f1.8. It has the DOF of a 75mm f1.8. Its NOT a 150mm lens (Duh) Let me say it again. Its not a 150mm lens. This lens will produce the SAME DOF of a 75mm on a Pentax Q, u4/3, full frame, MF, LF or your kitchen wall. A 75mm will always be a 75mm. Do you get the picture? The image circle of this lens will over a u4/3 full frame.
Don't compare it to a 150mm because its not one. This is not that advanced...

5 upvotes
T3
By T3 (May 28, 2012)

I think this is getting blown way out of proportion. The people who are going to buy this lens will know full well how and why to use it, regardless of all this equivalency/DOF mumbo-jumbo. Everyone else can just eat grass. The people who are most bent out of shape over the equivalency/DOF/pricing/look/size/shape of this lens were probably never going to buy it anyways. It's all just white noise.

10 upvotes
mark25
By mark25 (May 28, 2012)

@T3, you nailed it! very well said!

the company made it for those who are clear in their minds about its purchase and its use.

leica users pay thousands of dollars for their leica brand lenses knowing that those are manual focus only; because they know this is the best leica has to offer for the M series thats why they do not complain, neither in real life, nor in forums.

for a proper photographer, equivalency and format conversions matter less and 'image-making' matters more. the art is what matters more to them, not the 75 or 150, .6 or .55 mumbo-jumbo...

let this lens arrive, kids will see with their own eyes what this lens is designed for and what its output is like. they will figure it all out in black and white.

i have to go now, gotta do some photography now :) something i love.

4 upvotes
DeanAllan
By DeanAllan (May 30, 2012)

Hear Hear!

0 upvotes
Cax
By Cax (May 30, 2012)

Focal length is not an angle of view and an ƒ-number is not a depth of field. The same lens has different depths of field on different formats, because depth of field relates to the scale, which is a result of the angle of view, which is clearly different on different format.

75/1.8 on 4/3 has the same angle of view and depth of field (and therefore image noise) as 150/3.6 on a 36x24mm sensor. It is really simple. Same angle of view, same aperture (not ƒ-number), and same shutter speed always gives the same image. You just don't understand it, stop confusing other people.

1 upvote
TrapperJohn
By TrapperJohn (Jun 3, 2012)

It also has the same AOV and exposure characteristics of a 150 1.8 on FF. Noise might have been a factor several years ago, but with today's sensors, twice nil is still nil, until you get into the very high ISO's, above 6400.

Unlike APS, 4/3 is not a crop of a larger image, The lenses have an image circle optimized to the sensor, so light is not being thrown away by an excessively large image circle.

1 upvote
Gionni Dorelli
By Gionni Dorelli (May 26, 2012)

despite being a good looker, it should not be more than 600 bucks!
end of the story.

5 upvotes
T3
By T3 (May 26, 2012)

I love how people like to just set their own prices for products in the market! LOL. Ridiculous. These people certainly have self-absorbed delusions of grandeur. I don't think these people have ever run their own business or ever worked in manufacturing or have ever sat in on product development meetings, etc. They just live in their own fantasy world where they-- and they alone-- know what prices "should" be for sufficient profitability. LOL. Cuckoo!

11 upvotes
Seagull TLR
By Seagull TLR (May 26, 2012)

@T3 Some folks believe there is such thing as 5c cigar or even free lunch ;-p

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
technotic
By technotic (May 27, 2012)

How much do you think it should be if it /wasn't/ a good looker? 300 bucks seems about right yeah? Olympus should be ashamed of themselves! 300 bucks just for good looks. Sheesh.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (May 27, 2012)

The lens is cheaper than fe. the Pentax FA 77mm/1.8 which is according to reviews mediocre at wide apertures and doesn't have internal focusing.

And how about some manual focus Leica pricing: 75mm/f2 ASPH for 3800$ and 135mm/f3.5 APO for 3500$.

But of course at this price Zuiko should come with the hood.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (May 27, 2012)

@technotic - yes, in the real world, high quality, well-constructed products made with good materials do tend to cost more. No shame in that! I can think of a *lot* of products in the real world that sell for higher prices because they are "a good looker" as opposed to being cheap, ugly cr@p. Maybe you're a "cheap, ugly cr@p" kinda guy, but there are a lot of people who take a bit more pride in owning nicer stuff and are willing to pay a bit more to do so.

0 upvotes
Helena777
By Helena777 (May 25, 2012)

900 $ ???

http://troll.me/images/jackie-chan-whut/you-cannot-be-serious-bro-thumb.jpg

3 upvotes
Thoughts
By Thoughts (May 25, 2012)

It is hard to believe a lens annoucement gets such attention. Why bother this equivalent thing? It says the lens can take shoots in low light in concerts etc and portraits. That is it.

I have to say as others. Olympus lenses are the prettiest. But surely they should make some black version ones for that black OMD EM5.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (May 25, 2012)

The reason is that many people are judging the price compared to full frame f/1.8 rather than f/3.6.
I know f/3.6 is big enough for many people and it is for me too but that doesnt mean they should be overcharging for it.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (May 26, 2012)

Malcolm, how old are you? 11?

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (May 26, 2012)

@malcolm82, grow up. A lot of these full frame f/1.8 lenses you speak of have been in the market for years and so have recouped their development costs many times over, sell to a much larger market, and benefit from greater economies of mass production. We have to remember that m4/3 is still a relatively *small* market, and *small* markets typically mean *small* production volumes, which increases the cost of products. Also, I'm sure that Oly realizes that this particular focal length isn't going to be a huge seller because a 150mm equiv. prime isn't exactly a *must have* focal length for many people, which makes its production volume even less. All these things factor into the price of a product. But to children like malcolm82, it's all about "overcharging." LOL.

2 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (May 30, 2012)

This is a 75mm lens. Its not a 150mm. Also...on a full frame system a 150 f3.6 has the same DOF as a 75mm f1.8, even if both lenses are full frame. Get it yet?

0 upvotes
mg_k
By mg_k (May 30, 2012)

@Mssimo - you are so wrong...

According to dofmaster, 150 f3.6 on ff gives -

Depth of field
Near limit 9.86 ft
Far limit 10.1 ft
Total 0.28 ft

And 75 f1.8 on ff -

Depth of field
Near limit 9.73 ft
Far limit 10.3 ft
Total 0.57 ft

So how is it the same again????

Comment edited 58 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Boris F
By Boris F (May 25, 2012)

The real beauty! Most desirable lens ever.

2 upvotes
villagranvicent
By villagranvicent (May 25, 2012)

Seems like I get into a math MIT forum...

Everybody seems so concern about depth-of-field control, then why bother with FF?? Go get a nice digital medium format back, or even better, a 4x5 or an 8x10 camera and you will see what real DoF control is. And guess what, you can get pretty shallow depth of field with any 1.4 lens in this format if you know how to work around it.

9 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (May 25, 2012)

if you have ever used a medium format camera you should know that cannot have the same freedom to control image quality or depth of field as 35mm format.

the standard fast prime lens for medium format is about 80/2.8, this translates into 50/1.7 equivalent on 35mm and becomes a cheap handy lens for 100 or 200 US (not bad though).

actually the format size has less to do with IQ and DoF, it's the aperture size (in diameter for a certain angle of view) that controls everything from the amount of light, DoF, DLA, ... anything you name that is affected by the aperture, regardless of the format size, except we cannot help too small format cameras limited by a physical wall of f/0.5 (in practical we will have problems before that).

1 upvote
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (May 25, 2012)

I too got frustrated with 135FF DOF so I walked over to the local walgreens and picked up a MF back for a few bucks and I'm still not happy.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (May 26, 2012)

@yabokkie, believe it or not, different people choose different formats for different reasons. For best DOF control, I use FF. For best compactness, I use m4/3. I don't expect my FF gear to be as compact as my m4/3 gear, and I don't expect my m4/3 gear to give as much DOF control as my FF gear. Each has its pros and cons.

3 upvotes
mark25
By mark25 (May 27, 2012)

@yabokkie, large format lenses have apertures of f/5.6 f/6.3 ans sometimes f/8.0, yet they give bokeh and dof that practically sets standards for DOF, even at f/8, the bokeh (the look) of a large format beats any other lenses (or format's) look.

when was the last time people complained about the insanely high price of the 200 f/2's from canon and nikon? and by the way, what is full frame? 35mm? if so, then what is medium format? larget format? double frame and quadruple frame?

for the micro four thirds cameras, the 75mm f/1.8 is what olympus has offered as a fast telephoto portrait lens, just like nikon and canon have for their formats, the 135 f/2.0's :)

1 upvote
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (May 25, 2012)

I never realized a new release of a micro 4/3 product could produce the reactions I'm reading here. It's not just the stupid equivalence theories, it's also the number of trollers that come around whenever Olympus issues a new body or lens.
Olympus has a long tradition on innovative products: the original Pen line introduced half-frame to the world; the OM series set the standards for all future SLRs; they created the first entirely digital camara when all others were analogue bodies with a sensor thrown in; and they - and Panasonic - created the micro 4/3 format. They started something; in a stagnant world, where cameras were confined to marginal evolutions, they dared to be once again innovative. And they were successful: they put mirrorless cameras under the spotlight, and this new format is evolving and catching up with the DSLR competition - hence the hate comments from all these fanboys.
Olympus has a rich history of great lenses, and they're back in the game. Way to go Olympus!

21 upvotes
villagranvicent
By villagranvicent (May 25, 2012)

Agree... people spend too much time in this place discussing equivalences that it looks more like a math forum than a photography forum. 1.4 is 1.4, period. The only difference is in terms of depth of field and that´s all. TOO much science, and very little art!

8 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (May 25, 2012)

And 75mm is 75mm period.

2 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (May 25, 2012)

It's when you mix ISO into the equation that it really starts getting interesting.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (May 25, 2012)

> 1.4 is 1.4, period

two lenses at the same f-number will result same brightness on the sensor. this brightness is measured at a unit area.

but if you look at a unit area on sensors of different formats, you will never see the same image if the angle of view is the same. if you see an eye in a unit area of a 35mm sensor, you will see half face in same area of a 4/3 camera.

so by saying 1.4 is 1.4, you state that an eye on 35mm have the same image quality as a half face on 4/3. this is not unreasonably wrong but why not simply tell that eye-to-eye, 35mm have two stops advantage at the same f-number, or the IQ will be the same if you stop 35mm down to double the f-number, and if you do this, DoF will also be the same.

everything that controlled by aperture will be the same.

0 upvotes
mapgraphs
By mapgraphs (May 25, 2012)

Apparently the Equivalent magic wand works like this:

A 75mm f1.8 lens magically has different specs when placed on different camera bodies. You would think that this lens would remain a 75mm f1.8 lens when placed on an 8x10 view, 4x5, 645 or a 135 camera body. But it doesn’t. The Equivalents tell us that on a 135 camera body this lens is magically physically transformed into a 75mm f3.5 lens.

Does that mean a FF mount 75mm f1.8 lens become a 75mm f0.9 Equivalent when placed on a m4/3 body? I like the idea of magic Equivalent lenses.

Guys, a 2x crop factor doesn’t change the physical size of a lens or magically create an Equivalent aperture or Equivalent depth of field. The f1.8 maximum aperture is relative to the focal length of the lens, not the area of the film/sensor plane. The physical size of the glass or the aperture does not change. No matter where the lens goes, except perhaps in the Equivalent Space Time Continuum, this lens is and always will be a 75mm f1.8 lens.

1 upvote
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (May 25, 2012)

How does a different sensor size magically make the lens a different focal length? Think about it.

"Does that mean a FF mount 75mm f1.8 lens become a 75mm f0.9 Equivalent when placed on a m4/3 body?"

No its equivalent to 150mm f/3.6, exactly the same as when you use a 2x teleconverter on full frame with that lens.

1 upvote
Joseph S Wisniewski
By Joseph S Wisniewski (May 25, 2012)

Exactly. Equivalence is "all or nothing". If you apply it to the focal length, you have to apply it to the aperture and the ISO.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (May 25, 2012)

the unit pixel size of 16MPix Panasonic sensor is 3.75um and it's near 3.9um for the 24MPix Sony sensor, a difference of 4%.

if we think the pixels are the same, the a Panasonic 4/3" sensor is no more than a Sony APS-C sensor with the borders masked.

I hear some people say cropping a sensor enhances it's telephoto capability. it's very interesting that we get better quality with less amount of light.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (May 25, 2012)

Except, of course, when you're just trying to make angles of view comprehensible across different formats. Explaining compact cameras in equivalence terms is meaningless, since the buyers of those cameras are unlikely to know or care what you're talking about. Equally, knowing a compact camera's specification in comparison to a full frame camera isn't useful, since no one is going to decide to spend $2000+ dollars, rather than the $150 they originally intended.

However, being able to say that the lens offers a 28-200mm equiv field of view means you know it has a reasonable wide-angle to moderate tele zoom, which is useful. It's an industry standard because it's relatively easy to understand. The fact that it relates everything back to 135 is a bit of a red-herring - it's not about comparing other cameras to full frame digital, it's just a way of simply describing angle-of-view that makes reference back to film.

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (May 25, 2012)

"it's not about comparing other cameras to full frame digital, it's just a way of simply describing angle-of-view that makes reference back to film."
And equivalent aperture is a way of describing the actual aperture size for the given field of view which is quite an important factor in photography too and so is equivalent iso.

Focal length, f-number and iso are all irrelevant variables as far as controlling your photography is concerned. What we care about are field of view, aperture size and full sensor total exposure. If the camera's controls used numbers that described these veriables directly with the same numbers for different formats then we would not need to use equivalents. But since we already use full frame equivalent focal length numbers to describe the field of view of the lens we might as well do the same for aperture and total sensor exposure. If the camera's interfaces simply used these equivalent numbers to control the variables then there would be no confusion.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (May 25, 2012)

"Except, of course, when you're just trying to make angles of view comprehensible across different formats. Explaining compact cameras in equivalence terms is meaningless, since the buyers of those cameras are unlikely to know or care what you're talking about. "
I think very few compact camera buyers will have any idea what focal length numbers mean and may be equally confused as to why they relate to a much bigger sensor size than the one used. Yes some who have a basic understanding can compare the specs to full frame lenses but then they could do this for equivalent aperture numbers as well, i dont see why it would be harder?
"However, being able to say that the lens offers a 28-200mm equiv field of view means you know it has a reasonable wide-angle to moderate tele zoom, which is useful."
And seeing that the lens offers f14-f40 equivalent aperture means you know you are restricted to much smaller apertures resulting in bad low light quality and deep depth of field.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (May 25, 2012)

The biggest problem with this is that it results in a huge marketing advantage for small sensors, using a bigger sensor with the equivalent lens will result in worse f-numbers to put on the lens and in the advertised specs and will lead people with a basic understanding to judge them as inferior. Compact camera's could easily be made with much bigger sensors with superior lenses with higher f-numbers and this is probably the biggest obstacle to that happening. Is the sensor size even advertised on the packaging? It seems to me that the only thing larger sensors give the manufacturers is inferior meaningless numbers to advertise.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mapgraphs
By mapgraphs (May 25, 2012)

@R Butler – it’s hard to do tongue-in-cheek equivalent without tags. Field of view equivalent is understood by most I think, but then there are those who want to multiply or divide, usually divide, everything. :-)

1 upvote
Chris_in_Osaka
By Chris_in_Osaka (May 25, 2012)

"The optional LH-61F Lens Hood and the LC-61 Lens Cap metallic lens accessories are designed exclusively for the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75mm f1.8. "

For the 12mm f2's lens hood, Olympus is asking about $100. Any idea about how much they'll push the price of the 75mm lens hood to?

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (May 25, 2012)

$100? That is funny. So much for the theory that the $900 is because of very advanced precision manufacturing.

0 upvotes
iamphil
By iamphil (May 25, 2012)

As posted previously...

LH-61F Lens Hood: 10,000¥/£69.90 which is ~$125 USD
LC-61 Lens Cap: 5,000¥/£39.90 which is ~$62.50 USD

0 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (Jun 3, 2012)

@malcolm82 - it's a very advanced and precisely manufactured lens hood.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (May 25, 2012)

I am having a hard time working out what the FF equivalent of this lens would be. I am sure that info is in here somewhere, but I've scoured the comment thread and haven't been able to figure it out yet. Can anyone help me?

0 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (May 25, 2012)

In terms of FF final image

equiv FL = 150
equiv DOF = F 3.6
equiv exposure = F 1.8

By equivalent - i mean this lens on a m43 body compared to a FF lense on an FF body. But ultimately you can not truly compare them due to the differences in format. What FF lens on FF produces DOF like a 3.6 but gathers light like a 1.8?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
12 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (May 25, 2012)

of course above - is just my opinion

0 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (May 25, 2012)

Your opinion is one of the most straight forward to the point, practical-truth answers I've seen. Thanks!

5 upvotes
AlpCns2
By AlpCns2 (May 25, 2012)

pdelux: excellent information. One of the very few actually meaningful and useful posts.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (May 25, 2012)

equiv DOF = F 3.6 <- correct
equiv exposure = F 1.8 <- wrong,

the reason is very simple. the image quality of ISO100 on a 4/3 should be about ISO400 on a 35mm camera. so

equiv DOF = f/3.6
equiv exposure = f/3.6, or the IQ won't be near.

actually at 2x the f-number, all of the characters related to aperture are the same. the reason for this is also very simple and straight forward: the apertues size (diameter or area) are the same at this setting.

simply put, 75/1.8 = 150/3.6 = near 42mm.
physically there is no way a 75/1.8 lens can do better than 150/3.6 (nor it will do worse, the T-numbers may be slightly different and that's at the same order as error).

0 upvotes
erwink
By erwink (May 25, 2012)

have u ever used a lightmeter?

5 upvotes
elotorero
By elotorero (May 25, 2012)

I went through the trouble of posting just say Yabokkie. get your information straight -.-

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (May 25, 2012)

I was worried my sarcasm was too subtle.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (May 25, 2012)

> have u ever used a lightmeter?

does your lightmeter say you will get the same image quality on different formats if you use the same film?

unit area doesn't work here because we have different images in that area for different formats and after all it's the result image that we are interested, not some numbers in the middle of the process.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (May 25, 2012)

Exactly.

0 upvotes
iamphil
By iamphil (May 25, 2012)

So looking at the PR on another site, the optional LC-61 lens cap is the matching cap for the hood, both of which are sold separately from each other.

Pricing for the LH-61F is 10,000¥/£69.90 and the LC-61 lens cap is 5,000¥/£39.90, taxes included, so that would roughly translate to $100 and $50.

Methinks those HK-based eBay traders will be doing a lot of business turning over clones...

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Sergey Borachev
By Sergey Borachev (May 25, 2012)

Many have complained about the high price of Olympus E-M5 and this 75mm f/1.8. I found these prices painful too, but I will say this. I would rather that Olympus produce top quality products like these (and they are top quality I believe), than lowering their standards and make products that are soon forgotten.

Many have also complained that this E-M5 is not a real OM camera or that it does not deserve to be recognised as the digital version of the OM series. They do not understand that it is more than just the retro look. The E-M5 carries on from the the Olympus OM1 and other great OM cameras in this regard, i.e. exceeding expectations. This lens iis pretty unique as a 150mm equivalent lens. Let's hope its performance is, like the E-M5, also at the top of its class.

I believe that there is a price to pay for that extra level of performance in lenses, and that the extra bit in design, workmanship and material are worth it. Otherwise, just buy NeX lenses. :)

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (May 25, 2012)

the lens isn't that unique. for 35mm format 135/2 and 135/1.8 are quite popular lenses made in many versions by many makers.

what makes the lenses unique is that it's about *two stops darker*.

1 upvote
pdelux
By pdelux (May 25, 2012)

yabokkie - show us where the other native m43 135 equiv FL lenses are?

Otherwise comparing it to legacy lenses or other formats is pointless (even),

0 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (May 25, 2012)

*two stops darker* = you don't know what you're talking about.

I mean seriously- don't you have better things to do than troll dpr product posts? I mean- do you feel threatened by other equipment that isn't canon? Do you come here to be an anonymous arm-chair internet know-it-all?

5 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (May 25, 2012)

Why dont you guys just use a compact camera if you think tiny lenses with equal f-numbers are as good as the bigger lenses?

This has nothing to do with feeling threatened or whatever else you come up with, its just about correcting misconceptions that allow these manufacturers to charge absurd amounts.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (May 25, 2012)

"This has nothing to do with feeling threatened or whatever else you come up with, its just about correcting misconceptions that allow these manufacturers to charge absurd amounts."

Yes it is about being threatened (who knows why), "forcing" you to be the photography-armchair-police.

1 upvote
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (May 25, 2012)

I think i would know when im feeling threatened.

0 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (Jun 19, 2012)

Ad infinitum and ad nauseum, maths trolls regurgitate info irrelevant to actually taking pictures.

As far as shutter speed and flash are concerned the lens _IS F1.8_. Sharp isolated candid portraits in just about anyone's hands. With skill, superb candid portraits, hard to match with larger, heavier (or inferior, smaller) systems for fear of scaring subjects.

The 75/f1.8 weighs little, is easily pocketed (like your 9-18 etc.) and is lightning quick to focus. If you prefer to be a conspicuous weightlifter with wafer thin DOF (for those "disappearing ears" face shots at 1.2) that's your business

With the EM-5's eye recognition you get a versatile, compact, quality possibility that is unmatched elsewhere.
In the studio it will hold its own unless you need a billboard print, in which case get a d800e.

The lens hood IS too much $$, alternatives?

We see
FOUR THIRDS is maturing as a blend of portability, unobtrusiveness and quality with an unmatched system!
BRAVO, scary for others?

1 upvote
Sergio DS
By Sergio DS (May 25, 2012)

There's much talk about the aperture, dop, etc stuff... First of all equivalent aperture does not mean equivalent light transmission, I'm sorry but even in the same camera two 50mm lenses with the same aperture might have different light transmission characteristics, albeit similar, however, the dop values should remain the same. In the case of the FF vs APS vs m4/3, I ain't even go there... But from a dop point of view we can say that this 75mm is, from a dop perspective, equivalent to a 100mm 2.4 APS-C lens, and simiilar to a 150mm F5 lens on fullframe, only regarding to the DOP! If you don't believe it just check for yourselves http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (May 25, 2012)

very simple and straightforward calculation.

it's an equivalent of 150/3.6 for 35mm format and
112/2.7 equivalent for APS-C (assuming 1.5x factor).

just multiply both the focal length and aperture by the factor,
and you will get equivalent, indistinguishable photos.

then will you want a 150/3.6 lens for D800 or 5D3 for 900 US? you can get a 135/2L at about the same focal length and nearly two stops faster, or you can mount a 85/1.8 on D3200 and get about the same (I think better) result.

0 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (May 25, 2012)

"just multiply both the focal length and aperture by the factor,
and you will get equivalent, indistinguishable photos."

Not exactly correct. Yes image will look the same using the mathematics above, comaprable to FF 150 3.6, but to get the image m.43 will require less exposure time because it will behave as an F1.8, so it's low light capabilities are better. Therefore your comparison is only partly true. Ultimately its probably futile to compare different lenses on different formats.

2 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (May 25, 2012)

@yabokkie

You APS-C numbers are wrong! Diagonal ratio from MFT to APS-C (Sony) is 1.31X. That makes eq. lens just 98mm/f2.25 on APS-C. On Canon it is 92mm/f2.11

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (May 25, 2012)

@DarkShift, Sorry for my careless error.

let me do my homework again:
the 1.5x factor I gave is APS-C to 35mm.
4/3 to APS-C should be around 1.33 then.

a real example may be
the diagonal of A77/NEX-7 is 28.2mm, while
the diagonal of 4/3 is 21.6, so
the factor = 1.3.

75/1.8 => 98/2.35 for NEX-7, or
75/1.8 => 93/2.23 for 7D (the nearest lens I can think is 100/2 at 400 US, within the range I gave before with some waste of light).

0 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (May 25, 2012)

If you're referring to the FF EF 100mm F2, is reported to be a good lens, but then its short 50mm of equivalent FL and and not to mention size and made of plastic.

I agree the price is high, I couldn't afford one but when its the only one in its class (format) it can demand a premium.

the market will decide, and if its in low demand, the price will drop, but the specs indicate its quality design and materials

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (May 25, 2012)

"Not exactly correct. Yes image will look the same using the mathematics above, comaprable to FF 150 3.6, but to get the image m.43 will require less exposure time because it will behave as an F1.8, so it's low light capabilities are better. "

To get the same image m43 requires a 4x lower iso setting so the exposure time is the same. iso 200 on m43 is the same as iso 800 on full frame. As i said before iso on its own is meaningless, what matters is full sensor exposure combined not the light intensity.

0 upvotes
villagranvicent
By villagranvicent (May 25, 2012)

yabokkie, is NOT 2 stops darker... behaves like an F3.5 in terms of DEPTH of FIELD not in terms of gathering light.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (May 25, 2012)

@villagranvicent, please kindly search "unit area" in this page and you will see my answer.

you will see the things different if you look into the image. if you say it's not the image that you are interested, then we are talking about different things.

0 upvotes
NetMage
By NetMage (May 25, 2012)

I think the problem with your equivalence theory is it applies to high ISO, very low light situations, but not to low ISO situations.

Using the comparison tool, the EM-5 versus the 5D Mark III, the EM-5 is better at ISO 400 than the 5D Mark III at ISO 1600.

Comparing the EM-5 at ISO 200 to the 5D Mark III at ISO 200, and both are fine. So, if you can shoot the EM-5 at ISO 200, you are getting the advantages of the 1.8 aperture for exposure. You don't need to be shooting the EM-5 at ISO 50 - it won't create a better picture.

At ISO 3200, it's a different story. Thus, equivalent aperture only applies half the time, and is wrong half the time, just like using the base aperture.

It is a matter of which is more important to you - very high ISO, or low ISO. The less high ISO matters, the less equivalent aperture is relevant.

1 upvote
mg_k
By mg_k (May 29, 2012)

@ NetMage I like your explanation and that was my original thinking.

At low ISO, NO WAY ff is 4x better than m43 say an EM-5. So it is only half right.

No deny on the dof thou. 1.8 on m43 = 3.6 on ff dof -wise.

0 upvotes
waxwaine
By waxwaine (May 25, 2012)

If I remember the idea of m43 was "Go compact", and this is not a very good example. No point on this.

1 upvote
pdelux
By pdelux (May 25, 2012)

really have you seen an OMD? its not that the lens is big, the BODY is very small.. same size as an EP3.

2 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (May 25, 2012)

The lens is 2.75" long. That's pretty compact.

2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (May 26, 2012)

I don't think people realize that this is still a very compact lens! A Canon 85/1.8 measures 75mm (diam) x 71.5mm (length), and weighs 425g. This Oly measures 63.5mm (diam) x 69.5mm (length), and weighs 304g.

You also have to remember that when you put this already compact lens on an m4/3 body, you're getting a *much* more compact package than what you could get from any DSLR+lens combo!

So you are pathetically mis-informed about the "point" of this lens. It's a great lens and a great addition to the m4/3's compact interchangeable lens system.

0 upvotes
Prime_Lens
By Prime_Lens (May 24, 2012)

It's just a simple marketing strategy guys..

There is no way Olympus can produce enough of this lens at launch, so naturally they will price it $100 or so more than what most of the willing customers will pay. Why? Because they are aiming for only top 5% customers that will pay extra $100 to get it early. If they can mass produce it, then it would make more sense to price it at $799, which will yield more profit for them as there will be far more willing number of customers in that price range. Since they can't.. $899 is the magic number for a maximum profit. Just look at 12mm f/2 or 45mm f/1.8 for an example.

When it is time, they will lower it to $799.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Amin Sabet
By Amin Sabet (May 24, 2012)

Pre-order placed. Can't wait!

4 upvotes
johnsaxon
By johnsaxon (May 24, 2012)

Let me just run right out and buy this lens for $900. Oh wait, I forgot that I'm not one of the group of Serious Amateur Photographers With Unlimited Money.

2 upvotes
ebbesen
By ebbesen (May 24, 2012)

Interesting. Do let us know if there's anything else you're not going to purchase.

10 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (May 25, 2012)

this is a 150/3.6 equivalent on 35mm formats.
since it's nearly two stops slower than 135/2L,
a reasonable price should be about 1/4 or 1/3 of 135/2L,
or around 300 US (plus some premium for a new lens).

another way of thinking may see the price as high as
Sigma 150/2.8. the lens is 2/3 stops slower but
it has a Olympus brand. but since it cannot do macro
it won't be worth as much (macro lenses are more expensive
at the same apture). so I'd say this lens shouldn't go
beyond 500 US. I give the range of 300-500.

half price or less sounds reasonalbe.

0 upvotes
mark25
By mark25 (May 25, 2012)

slow in terms of what? indeed, it is like a 150mm f/3.6 lens, but the light gathering capability is that of a f/1.8 lens. the slowness won't affect exposure, but depth of field, and that too, only slightly.

1 upvote
DarkShift
By DarkShift (May 25, 2012)

@yabokkie

Next time there will be APS-C lens release, you remember to troll likewise the corresponding thread and shout that fe. f2.8 is really an f4.8 lens on FF.

Like the EF-S 17-55/f2.8. Really it is very slow and should cost only 1/3 of the price because it has so small imaging circle :DD

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (May 25, 2012)

@DarkShift,

since EF-S17-55/2.8 is about 27-89/4.5 (7D to 35mm),
it cannot be called a fast zoom but it's not too dark either.

for SoNikon APS-Cs, dark-shift 1.24 stops,
for Canon APS-Cs, dark-shift 1.39 stops,
for 4/3 or m4/3, dark-shift 1.94 stops,
for Nikon 1, dark-shift 2.89 stops,
for 1/1.7" P&S, dark-shift 4.42 stops, partial average,
for 1/2.3" P&S, dark-shift 4.91 stops, partial average,
for iPhone4, dark-shift 7.46 stops,
and you will get equivalent f-number on 35mm format.

bright-shift 0.64 stops for Leica S2 or 0.76 stops for Pentax 645D.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (May 25, 2012)

I would use 2 stops for m43 since the diagonal is half, full frame lenses could also be used with a 4:3 sensor that is exactly 4x the area of m43.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (May 25, 2012)

@malcolm82,
think it's handy to think:
APS-Cs: 1.3,
4/3": 2,
Nikon 1: 3,
compacts: 5, and
mobiles: 7 stops darker & deeper.
btw, my calc was simply 1.94 = log2((36*24)/(17.3*13.0))

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (May 25, 2012)

Are you using 3x2mm sensors for mobiles? Im used to thinking they use sensor sizes close to compact camera's now, i have only looked at the more expensive models though. :)
I think its easyer to simply put things in crop factor, either diameter or area. An exponent of 2 isnt that intuitive for comparing, i need to derive the actual crop factor from that number to make a meaningful comparison for myself.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Poweruser
By Poweruser (May 24, 2012)

Estimated STREET Price: $899.99.

Wow, MFT is doing everything to remain in its niche.

4 upvotes
T3
By T3 (May 25, 2012)

m4/3 already has a lot of less inexpensive lenses for less serious shooters. This is a lens for serious, higher-end users who don't mind spending more money, they just want these lenses to be available! So this lens definitely expands m4/3's reach and expands its market to serious shooters who were waiting to see serious lenses (like the 75/1.8) and serious cameras (like the E-M5) before taking m4/3 seriously.

0 upvotes
PicOne
By PicOne (May 27, 2012)

Interesting take, ie. "Serious" = "Spend money". "Less expensive" = "less serious".

0 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (Jun 19, 2012)

Niche?

Suggest you heck the sales figures. THis system addresses needs beyond my pixels are bigger than your pixels or weightlifting accessories.

m4/3 id "only" about producing quality pictures without arguing about pointless rubbish.

Here: is a http://blog.giuliosciorio.com/?p=550 light read for those easily scared by marketing ...

If a hundred bucks is a deal breaker, that's the value you place on your portraits and is entirely your business.

0 upvotes
mischivo
By mischivo (May 24, 2012)

I must say, that is one beautiful lens!

1 upvote
nomiss777
By nomiss777 (May 24, 2012)

At the end of the day, seems like m43 is getting more talk than any other format right now. I haven't seen this big of a buzz for a long time in photography.

7 upvotes
W.C. Green
By W.C. Green (May 24, 2012)

Wow... I was set to get the OM-D and this lens this summer as my new portrait setup. This might be a deal breaker. They estimated $700-800 for this lens and I was willing to suffer, not without some griping, for 800... but that was the max. This will break it for me. I can go back to my D7000 and the 85mm 1.8 instead. Oh well... I really wanted to return to OLY. The 45mm won't cut it as I need 120 to 150 for my portraits.

3 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (May 24, 2012)

You are right, there is absolutely no reason to pay for any overpriced products.

3 upvotes
Stebai
By Stebai (May 24, 2012)

APS-C is dead. Go small. And also big.
Full frame is the qualitative jump.

4 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (May 24, 2012)

APS-C could be dead, but not with prices like these. It will stick around as the affordable alternative to m4/3.... :)

2 upvotes
Louis_Dobson
By Louis_Dobson (May 25, 2012)

That's the way I see it. The OM-D and these primes are the quality products, if you can't afford them get a poverty spec APS-C dSLR and some cheaper, slower primes to get similar results from a camera that is bulkier and less pleasant to use, but costs less.

2 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (May 27, 2012)

W.C. ....... Frankly, I don't see the OM-D as a big step up from a Nikon D7000 in any category except portability.

In terms of image quality I'd take the D7000, although it is pretty close. If you want smaller size and weight you are pretty much stuck, since you can't afford M4/3.

You are very smart to stick with your Nikon.
After all, we don't all have unlimited bank accounts...

0 upvotes
Cax
By Cax (May 28, 2012)

There's always Nikon 1

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (May 24, 2012)

I'm tired of this "equivalent" BS. People should do a little thinking - if they did, they'd realize this notion of "equivalent aperture" is utterly nonsensical. If such equivalence existed, f22 on this lens would translate to a mammoth f44 in 35mm terms! Besides, it would be akin to say a person's visual acuity depended on the volume of the brain. Think about it.
It is curious that no one mentions "aperture equivalence" when it comes to APS-C (in that case f1.8 would be f2.7). Strange, isn't it?
I would also like to see where they learned all that stuff about "equivalent aperture". Because until now I've found nothing to sustain that bizarre theory by which the size of the sensor determines the position of the iris blades... because it's the latter we're talking about when we refer to aperture.
Oh, and let's not forget those who write long reports on "equivalent aperture" and, when we browse their galleries, all there is is photos of their cats!!!
Sorry, no patience for trolls.

6 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (May 24, 2012)

Difference to APS-C is smaller than people seem to think: f1.8 would become f2.1 - f2.25.

APS-C is not at middle point between MFT and 35mm, it is much closer to MFT. Not too much area difference to brag about.

1 upvote
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (May 24, 2012)

"F1.8 would become f2.1 - f2.25". Where did you get that notion? How did you reach those figures? And, assuming there was an equivalence factor for aperture (there isn't), why should it be different from crop factor - 2 X for micro 4/3, 1,5 X for Canon APS-C and 1,58 X for Sony, Nikon and Pentax?
I accept anything people may claim, as long as it's well-founded. This "equivalent aperture" thing is no more than fantasy. It has no factual or scientific support. Unlike focal length, of course. Some go as far as to say there's an ISO equivalence too!

0 upvotes
mischivo
By mischivo (May 24, 2012)

I believe that when people write about aperture equivalents, they are in actuality talking about what would achieve an equivalent depth of field with similarly framed subjects. They are not discussing about total light input.

1 upvote
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (May 24, 2012)

When people write about aperture equivalents- most certainly aren't thinking about DOF equivalents. Most are trolling, beyond me as to why- other than people feeling threatened by other camera gear for some reason, and a smugness of equipment. As I always tell people "there's no FF, APS-C, 4/3 switch on a light meter. f1.8=f1.8" and "there's more to lens than shallow DOF + speed."

I suppose APS-C doesn't get that sort of treatment (when really- there isn't that much of a usable difference between APS-C and 4/3), PROBABLY because the math is easier to do with the x2 crop ;)

2 upvotes
mischivo
By mischivo (May 24, 2012)

I haven't caught anyone trolling, but the depth of field topic deserves some thought and is perfectly legitimate. There definitely a depth of field equivalence between aperture x on APS-C and aperture y on full frame, especially if you frame the subjects equally.

1 upvote
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (May 24, 2012)

Mr Roboto, let's put it this way: the other day I was reading some comments and replies from someone who believed in this "equivalence" thesis. By the end he was saying sensor area was irrelevant for depth of field, which is even sillier than "equivalent aperture". The guy was so assertive I felt prompted to browse his photo gallery here at DPR. What did I find? Six pictures of a cat, so banal they could have been taken with a mobile phone! That's how gearheads are. They don't care about photography as an artistic expression. They care about figures and measurements. And trolling, of course...

1 upvote
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (May 24, 2012)

I'm sure the hardware used to make those pictures of cats were "great" though ;)

1 upvote
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (May 24, 2012)

"Because until now I've found nothing to sustain that bizarre theory by which the size of the sensor determines the position of the iris blades..."
Its the position of the iris blades that determines the actual size of the aperture, equivalent aperture simply refers to the lens having the same actual aperture size for a given field of view, the size of the sensor has nothing to do with it.
A 50mm f/2 lens has a 25mm maximum aperture size, any lens on any sensor size with a 50mm equivalent field of view and a maximum aperture size of 25mm is equivalent to a full frame 50mm f/2 lens, do you see sensor size does not come into this at all?
"By the end he was saying sensor area was irrelevant for depth of field"
Again the field of view and aperture size mentioned before determines depth of field, sensor size is indeed irrelevant, on a different sensor size this fov and aperture size combination leads to a different focal length number and a different aperture ratio number.

0 upvotes
rocklobster
By rocklobster (May 24, 2012)

DOF can be explained this way and if I could post a simple diagram here a light bulb would go off in your heads and there would be no arguments.

DOF is related to the aperture opening (width of the lens iris) to the distance of your subject. To simplify the maths, a lens for a FF camera has twice the aperture width for a given F-stop compared to a M4/3 camera lens - agree with me so far? Why - because the FF sensor is twice the width (measured on the diagonal). So the M4/3 at f1.8 is equivalent to FF at f3.6 and if APS-C is crop factor 1.5 (there are variations between brands) then the equivalent f-stop will be 1.8*2.0/1.5 = f2.4. Hands up who got it right!

For those who still dont understand, I will post a diagram in the M4/3 forum if there is enough interest.

Cheers

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (May 24, 2012)

About the last two replies, I'll just repeat the last sentence on my comment: "Sorry, no patience for trolls".

1 upvote
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (May 24, 2012)

"Some go as far as to say there's an ISO equivalence too!"
Amazing!
Lenses with the same equivalent aperture will capture the same amount of light, sensors will record that same amount of light at the equivalent iso setting.
You can understand that increasing iso by 4x reduces the amount of light captured, im sure you also understand that increasing the sensor size by 4x increases the amount of light captured by the same amount, is it so hard to see that combining these will result in capturing the same amount of light? Both sensor size and iso are meaningless on their own in determining image quality, its the amount of light captured across the whole sensor that does.
Indeed the basic meaning of iso does not relate to the total amount of light captured but neither does the basic meaning of focal length refer to field of view, it is only in combination with sensor size that it does and most people accept and understand the meaning of equivalent focal length. Why is this so different?

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (May 25, 2012)

Again:

There is something about µ4/3 that brings out the trolls. I don't know if it's some sort of threatening feeling to their gear (do they also drive really expensive sports cars to feel adequate?) - but I've come to learn that DPR is a great place to learn about equipment- FROM THE STAFF. The comments are the a terrible waste of time.

1 upvote
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (May 25, 2012)

The replies i wrote should be understandable by anyone, if you still cant figure it out after this you must be retarded.

0 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (May 25, 2012)

"The replies i wrote should be understandable by anyone, if you still cant figure it out after this you must be retarded."

And that is a prime example of why you're called a troll.

0 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (Jun 19, 2012)

Agree,

There IS no "depth of field issue" except for trolls and people intent on arguing equipment instead of making quality pictures.

Measurebators someone called them.

Compactness is a BIG (pun intended) advantage.
My EM-5 sits in the coat pocket easily with that new 14-42. The 40-150 in the other pocket. The little flash attached to my bum-bag strap.

If I need more, I carry other lenses and even third party ones are stabilised!

It means I can be '[prepared' without looking like a pack mule and STILL come away with good pics.

NOT so the "brick with a lens" owners. Their cameras are left behind quite often.

I am often the ONLY person in groups I'm part of, with something better than a P&S or a phone "camera". Say ... on a walk, on a hike, on a cycling trip. The EM-5 is fantastic at the theatre, or at dinner. The pattern repeats every week.

This lens will make the EM-5 formidable in the theatre + hardly noticed. I usually leave the Metz 60s behind too :)

0 upvotes
carlosdelbianco
By carlosdelbianco (May 24, 2012)

It's funny to follow discussions going on here and on the previous story (Fujifilm launches M-mount adapter for X-Pro1's X-mount). Seems to me that M-mount owners have more to discuss than pricing and size of their equipment than these MFT people. Just saying...

2 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (May 24, 2012)

It isn't the MFT people who discuss price and size. It's the people who somehow feel uncomfortable about this (relatively) new format. Only God knows why they feel that way, but I believe MFT people -as you put it - would rather be discussing this lens' merits. Unfortunately they reply to trolls, hence the huge amounts of silliness in display...
And you didn't read the comments on the recent Leica announcements, did you? You'd have been impressed :)

5 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (May 24, 2012)

Agreed. It isn't usually the µ4/3 users (every gear has fanboys though), it's other people from competing gear groups, or people seemingly just feeling smug with the "how quint, you have a tiny toy camera, I have FF."

There is just something about µ4/3 that brings out the worst in DPR commenters. The µ4/3 forum is a trollish nightmare of a mess too.

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Stebai
By Stebai (May 24, 2012)

Wouldn't put M glass on less than full frame sensor.
If you're starting fresh, then m43 and the Fuji are not far apart, particularly if you shoot for RAW files. Don't rely on the techno-babble at sites like DXOMark. Use your eyes on the files.

1 upvote
carlosdelbianco
By carlosdelbianco (May 25, 2012)

Yeah, it makes sense, ManuelVilardeMacedo and mister_roboto. Unfortunately I did read, Manuel. Leica's new releases (and a Summicron for 7K) don't make sense to me at all, but I guess I'm not the target. Anyway, we still have Carl Zeiss! ;)

0 upvotes
rsf3127
By rsf3127 (May 24, 2012)

NEX-5N + LA-EA1 + SONY 85mm 2.8f = 1000 USD.

M.ZUIKO DIGITAL™ ED 75mm f1.8 High-Grade Portrait Lens?

No, I won't buy this lens.

4 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (May 24, 2012)

That's nice. I could see why you wouldn't buy it- as you don't have a camera to put it on, being as how you have a NEX-5N. You totally dodged the bullet there- you almost bought a $900 lens for camera where it wouldn't mount to. GOOD JOB.

7 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (May 24, 2012)

The nex 5N + adapter + SLR size lens.

That is enourmous, why bother buying a mirorrless camera at all?

Everyone has different needs but when you compare value it must be at least be "comparable".

2 upvotes
rocklobster
By rocklobster (May 25, 2012)

Prices are always higher on a new product especially if there is no immediate competitor. It will come down once Panasonic and Sigma release their equivalents.

Cheers

0 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (May 24, 2012)

I guess the 45mm f1.8 is the "cheap" portrait lens on m4/3.

3 upvotes
Ben Raven
By Ben Raven (May 24, 2012)

The RAW MATERIALS cost of glass, materials, mechanics and electronics is merely the STARTING point.

The MAJOR cost of any high quality optics, photo or otherwise, really starts piling up with:
1. The creation, design, testing and optical engineering of a new lens formula that can achieve top levels in all the areas of optical image performance.

2. The expense of producing each element to the high tolerances and exotic shapes necessary, and precise application of multi layers of advanced anti-reflective coatings

3. Final assembly to, again, extremely high tolerances, alignment, centering and maintaining necessary super quality control.

As we go up and up in quality and performance so, PROPORTIONALLY, do the time and COST of all the above !

NOTE: The format is not a directly proportional factor in these

To think otherwise is like saying a Bugatti Veyron costs $3million just because the delivered metal, carbon fiber,and tires cost so much.

The Moral: You get what you pay for.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
8 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (May 24, 2012)

So in a nutshell, expect to pay more for MFT lenses?

1 upvote
mark25
By mark25 (May 24, 2012)

no, i would not call it paying more. if u 'need' this lens for its focal length, its aperture and IQ, then you have to. just like those willing to shoot with perspective control, tilt-shift lenses have to pay those hefty prices. the intended use it what justifies the cost.

2 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (May 24, 2012)

And what if the intended use doesn't justify the cost? Less people buy?

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (May 24, 2012)

@shaocaholica, you can't crucify MFT for being more expensive based on just one or two lens. MFT has plenty of really nice, fast primes that are great values.

At any rate, when I wanted a fast "normal" prime for my Canon APS-C bodies that would give me the approximate equivalent of a 50mm prime on a FF body, I went and got a Canon 35/1.4L. I paid around $1300 for it. If you want something, you can either sit around whining, or you just go out and get it.

5 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (May 24, 2012)

"If you want something, you can either sit around whining, or you just go out and get it."

You missed one other option and that is to find another thing thats cheaper.

If you must have 50mm FOV then a 50/1.4 on FF might be cheaper than a 35/1.4 on APS. Or even 25/1.4 on FT.

The point I'm making is that you're not always locked into a format so if the things you want/need for your format are too expensive then maybe you're using the wrong format.

1 upvote
Richard Biffl
By Richard Biffl (May 24, 2012)

No, Ben, the additional labor costs do not account for the price difference. Costs do not increase proportionally with quality and performance, the relationship is more logarithmic. But fewer customers can afford a top-of-the-line product, so extra profit needs to be included in each unit's price.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (May 24, 2012)

@shaocaholica- "The point I'm making is that you're not always locked into a format so if the things you want/need for your format are too expensive then maybe you're using the wrong format."

You're preaching to the choir with me. I don't just use one format. I use Canon APS-C, Canon FF, *and* m4/3. In other words, I *didn't* lock myself into any one format.

The point is, rather than whining on internet forums, I went out and bought whatever suited my needs at the time. *And* I tried different formats, too! LOL. So as you can see, you're just preaching to the choir.

I prefer to be a photo taker, not a photo talker or a photo whiner. Sometimes you pay more, sometimes you pay less. In the long run, life is too short to sit around whining. Just pay for what you think is the best solution for you, and enjoy it!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (May 24, 2012)

But today we have precise, modern manufacturing techniques, including robotics, prototyping, measuring, quality assurance, etc., computer-aided design and so on.

2 upvotes
Stebai
By Stebai (May 24, 2012)

The value of the lens will not be in the brand name or price. It will be in quality of the images produced. We won't know that for a while until after the lens comes on the market, after real world photos exist. Some people are willing to make due with ok quality; others are not, insist on the best. The market price (instead of MSRP price) will be decided by the calculations of those consumers.

1 upvote
photohounds
By photohounds (Jun 19, 2012)

The cheap cameras and lenses referred to (harped on about) are often not as good.

If you are not that keen on quality WITH compactness, go for cheaper and or bigger.

It's your money and both alternatives can produce good results. In the case of a 3kG outfit costing $10,000 superb results, but only the lens cap and strap fit in your pocket.

Even with modern tools, quality lenses are still not cheaply designed in people's back yards.

How many different lens coatings and inter-element glues do you think there are?

I want an m4/3 extension tube :)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Artistico
By Artistico (May 24, 2012)

Shame the minimum focus range isn't in the neighbourhood of 50cm. Still a very interesting lens, though.

1 upvote
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (May 24, 2012)

For that you have the 45mm/f1.8.

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (May 24, 2012)

Wait a minute... you said "minimum focus range"? Hello-o, this is a prime lens.

0 upvotes
mark25
By mark25 (May 24, 2012)

dont fry me, but i just checked the prices of 'similiar' lenses on bhphotovideo.com;

Nikon 135 f/2 DC : $ 1289.00

Canon 135 f/2 : $ 1014.00

Sony 135 f/1.8 : $ 1798.00

Voigtlander Heliar 75 f/1.8 : $ 715.00

full frame shooters would obviously go for their 135mm lenses, whereas APS users can benefit from 85mm f/1,8 lenses or the higher-priced 85 f/1,4's :)

for someone who likes to stick to micro four thirds camera system for whatever reasons, it is very promising to see such a lens (with full automation of focus, aperture etc) at a price lower than $ 1000.

i think its about the same size as another 85 f/1.8 lens, so a lens that offers double the focal length in a small size does add a weight benefit at least.

i had a Nikkor 85 f/1,8 for my d7000 which i use on my ep-2 sometimes and it always gives good, interesting results (focal length equiv: 170mm)...

be it lenses or cameras, they are tools for photographers, and should be sought, bought and lusted for accordingly...

2 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (May 24, 2012)

All of those FF lenses you listed have way more depth of field control than the 75/1.8 so its not really a fair comparison.

If a FF camera has 2 stops better noise than MFT then it would be fairer to compare to a FF 135/4 or APS 85/2.8.

Sony 85/2.8 is $270

There are no FF 135/4 lenses but there are plenty of 70-200/4 zooms variable zooms that can do close to 150/4.

3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (May 24, 2012)

@shaocaholica, yes, obviously FF is always going to offer more DOF control. Get over it. That's not why you get into MFT. I shoot Canon FF (Canon 5D), and I've been shooting Canon FF since the film days. But I still bought an E-PM1, knowing full well that I would not be getting the same DOF control as FF. But like I said, you don't get into MFT for maximum DOF control.

I got into MFT because MFT gear is a fraction of the size and weight of any of my DSLR gear! It's now my take-everywhere camera. When I'm working, I still shoot with my Canon DSLR gear. But for everything else, I now use my MFT gear.

If you want maximum DOF control, use FF. If you want a great, compact camera system with a healthy selection of lenses that is an alternative to DSLR gear, use MFT (or some other MILC system). That's why I use both FF and MFT. FF gives max DOF control, but it's big and bulky. MFT gives awesome compactness, but you get less DOF control. Simple!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (May 24, 2012)

@shaocaholica

What if one wants more DOF without stepping aperture down to minimum?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 42 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Cax
By Cax (May 24, 2012)

shaocaholica: Yes, it compares to a ƒ/3.5 lens on a full format camera, but in return it makes your tiny $350 camera perform like a 1kg $3000 full format camera with a 150/3.5 lens. How much is that worth?

The moral is you have to look at a certain combination of lens and camera, not just a lens on its own.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
UPImage
By UPImage (May 24, 2012)

I'm not that shocked by the price; but you think they could have included the lens hood! (I have that voightlander lens--it's a fabulous lens, and the lens hood came with it, no extra charge).

1 upvote
deep7
By deep7 (May 24, 2012)

Yet again someone misses the advantage of a smaller format - you can shoot at larger apertures without losing depth of field. The current internet rage about having less depth of field as a sort of bragging right is translating into zillions of junk photos being posted which would have been dramatically improved by stopping down the lens a bit.

There will be absolutely no problem achieving massively shallow depth of field with this lens.

0 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (May 24, 2012)

"What if one wants more DOF without stepping aperture down to minimum?" ----------- Then you buy pentax Q and not m43.

0 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (May 24, 2012)

My reply had nothing to do with 'wanting' shallow DOF. I only wanted to point out that the original poster was comparing this lens to 135/2 FF lenses. I see the fallacies in trying to compare to FF but don't look at me, I didn't start it.

@DarkShift
Yes if you want deep DOF without stopping down then this lens is for you if you can affort/justify it.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Cax
By Cax (May 25, 2012)

People, deep7 specifically: There is no advantage of a smaller system when it comes to depth of field. ƒ/2 on 4/3 IS THE SAME AS ƒ/4 on a 36x24mm camera, in terms of depth of field and therefore luminoux flux at the sensor. The advantage is that if that aperture is large enough for you, then you don't have to pay for and carry around a large sensor camera. The same depth of field, if available, will give the same image quality/noise on any camera system, only the ƒ-numbers and ISO sensitivities will be different.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mark25
By mark25 (May 25, 2012)

Depth of Field: Full Frame, Micro Four Thrids.

i think it is safe to say that medium format (when used with film for coverage of the whole frame) has more depth of field than 35mm. take into account my Mamiya lenses for a second. my 90mm Sekor f/3.8 gives DOF equal to 1.9. my 180mm Sekor f/4.5 gives the DOF of f/2.2, but when i look at the 6x7 photos, they 'look' as though their DOF is richer. obviously, a full frame shooter standing next to me would laugh at how my 180mm f/4.5 (90mm f/2.2) lens is slower than his 85mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens, but the only thing i can think of is that for a "90mm like look', the only lens mamiya made for me is the 180mm f/4.5.

i also had a Nikkor 105mm f/2 DC lens, and i now own a Mamiya Sekor 210mm f/4.5 APO lens. i really liked the results of the 105 f/2 Nikkor, but have the same (even better) to say about the Sekor 210mm f/4.5 despite the slowness.

the look of a particular lens of a particular focal length has to do with the format its used with.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
LarryK
By LarryK (May 24, 2012)

So, how much is the hood? And can you actually get one?

1 upvote
Rooru S
By Rooru S (May 24, 2012)

seems to be a great lens...! Way to go for Olympus, releasing very interesting lenses always...

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Ashley Pomeroy
By Ashley Pomeroy (May 24, 2012)

It's worth pointing out that the old Olympus 7-14mm f/4 was also extremely expensive, and the company sells a 300mm f/2.8 which will set you back the price of a decent used car. And both lenses are apparently excellent, so I guess you pay for quality in Olympus-land. I imagine this will outsell the aforementioned by a wide margin.

You know, what with all the financial shenanigans back then I was worried that Olympus might fold, but they seem to be bouncing back.

3 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (May 24, 2012)

This lens was in the makings before any of them shenanigans tho, and there has been no change what-so-ever in the camera and optics development department they've said. And indeed new products have kept coming.

0 upvotes
toscha_seidel
By toscha_seidel (May 24, 2012)

7-14mm IIRC is like the cheapest SHG lens.

0 upvotes
Entropius
By Entropius (May 24, 2012)

Everyone else's 300/2.8's are pricey too, to be fair, and the Olympus one holds up very well to even a 2x teleconverter.

What I wish Olympus made was a 300 f/4 for those of us who want the focal length but can't afford all the aperture.

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (May 24, 2012)

Now Panasonic needs to make a cheaper built 50mm f2 for $250 to round out the "regular joe" kit of 14mm f2.5 and 20mm f1.7

I am sure this lens is very, very good. But most people only need one very and would rather keep half their money.

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (May 26, 2012)

Well, $337 is not that far from $250, and you get f/1.8:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/a-NEW-OLYMPUS-M-ZUIKO-DIGITAL-ED-45mm-F1-8-MicroSingle-PEN-Lens-UV-Filter-Gift-/190679667972

0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (May 27, 2012)

Aside from kit lenses, I don't think Olympus and Panasonic really want to compete head to head with lenses. Each seems to be taking a different path, and that's probably a good business decision for them.

And it also means that we get more unique choices.

For example... Olympus created a pretty good weather sealed kit lens (12-50mmm) and Panasonic countered with an outstanding upgrade normal zoom lens (12-35mm) which is also weather sealed. Both lenses fill a need within the M4/3 lens catalog.

A 50mm f/2.0 lens is totally unnecessary.
It's way too close to a 45mm f/1.8 lens.

The prime lenses that M4/3 now needs are a 100mm f/2.8 macro, or perhaps an affordable 300mm f/4.0.

1 upvote
photohounds
By photohounds (Jun 19, 2012)

+1 for the 100mm f/2.8 macro, and affordable 300mm f/4.0, Marty!

0 upvotes
Pierre Couture
By Pierre Couture (May 24, 2012)

As best I remember, Olympus lenses have never been on the cheap side when it came to primes... wonder how this one will fare compared to the 50 f2.0...

1 upvote
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (May 27, 2012)

Pierre... it's pretty simple to see how they compare.

The 75mm is 50% longer and slightly faster. It costs twice as much. And it will autofocus much faster since it was designed for CDAF and it isn't a macro lens like the 50mm is. Plus, you will not need an adapter.

I have a hunch that the 75mm will will also get outstanding reviews, just like the 50mm lens got.

Bottom line... these are two different lenses for two different systems. And both are worth owning.

2 upvotes
Cyril Reif
By Cyril Reif (May 24, 2012)

Interesting....all the emotion over price points and price comparisons, don't get me wrong, cost can always be a factor.....but I moved to M4/3 for the reduced weight and form factor....I was tired of hauling around SLR's and DSLR's for many years.

3 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (Jun 19, 2012)

And you sacrifice nothing when it comes to quality - in real terms - unless you need a billboard or looking like a retro shoe is important.

My EM-5 comes with me a L:OT more places than the E1/3/5 used to ...

There are plenty of lower cost lenses that are good too. The fast glass is always at the top of the price list in ANY brand or format.

0 upvotes
hammerheadfistpunch
By hammerheadfistpunch (May 24, 2012)

IQ looks good from the limited samples I've seen. $900 is expensive, but Dayum! That's a sharp lens!

1 upvote
Digitall
By Digitall (May 24, 2012)

Expensive. M4/3 at DSLR prices or more..., nice motivation for who think that going to m4/3 would be "cheaper". The new AF-S Nikkor 85mm 1.8G is about $400 less. Just an idea.

3 upvotes
Boris
By Boris (May 24, 2012)

Motivation for M4/3 is lighter and smaller.

16 upvotes
lowpine
By lowpine (May 24, 2012)

the 75mm in m4/3 is equivilent to 150mm, so your off a bit.

Nikon 135mm f2 is $1200. There's a nikon 180mm f2.8 around $800, but not comparable as it's a stop slower.

Now the 75mm 1.8 is looking pretty reasonable, if not a bargin.

1 upvote
carlosdelbianco
By carlosdelbianco (May 24, 2012)

No, @Digitall is not off. A Nikon 85mm would give a 170mm focal lenght when mounted on a MFT body. The lens is the same, the sensor is not.

The 135mm f/2.0 is a completely different lens and makes no sense comparing to the new Olympus or the 85mm, since it behaves like a 270mm f/4 in terms of depth of field and final image on sensor/card.

Nikon is cheaper, and there are no arguments against that.

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (May 24, 2012)

lowpine, 75/1.8 is 75/1.8, not 150/1.8. Cost does not substantially depends on the mount and what sensor it will be mounted on.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (May 25, 2012)

"Now the 75mm 1.8 is looking pretty reasonable, if not a bargin."
I guess you would consider $500 f/1.4 primes for a 6x4mm sensor camera to be a real bargain too.
How about some nice fast f/1 primes for a 3x2mm sensor camera for $500, even better?

1 upvote
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (May 25, 2012)

It now appears that Nikons thinking with the 1 series was actually quite brilliant, this kind of ignorance is a gold mine for camera manufacturers.

1 upvote
justmeMN
By justmeMN (May 24, 2012)

So they made a silver non-weather-sealed lens to go on their black weather-sealed camera?

4 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (May 24, 2012)

Yes, it makes no sense.

0 upvotes
toscha_seidel
By toscha_seidel (May 24, 2012)

No, they intend the lens to be used as studio work or indoor sportsgraphy, that's why weathersealed is not needed.

3 upvotes
searun
By searun (May 24, 2012)

If color coordination is important to you get a silver body. Yes, they make one.

3 upvotes
nico-foto
By nico-foto (May 24, 2012)

@toscha_seidel I'm always amazed at those comments that seem to assume lenses will be used this or that way. I take pictures of equestrian sports, and a lens like this would be awesome. On the other hand, its not that uncommon to find myself under bad weather doing that, so, this lens being weathersealed would make lots of sense. And remember this is a supposedly top of the line lens (it better be, it costs quite a few quid), most users that are willing to pay this amount of money expect it being a "no compromise" solution for their needs - whatever those might be. Just my 2cents.

And yes, it should come in black...

3 upvotes
toscha_seidel
By toscha_seidel (May 24, 2012)

I actually think they will come up with something else for outdoor, just to milk more $ out of us probably. LOL

0 upvotes
carlosdelbianco
By carlosdelbianco (May 24, 2012)

It's a fast telephoto lens. Why is it intented for studio and indoor use only?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
5lav
By 5lav (May 24, 2012)

m4/3 for studio? Dont be silly, FF lenses at f2.8 offer much better DOF control then this lens for camera, which is perfect for a walk or travel but studio.

1 upvote
photohounds
By photohounds (Jun 19, 2012)

Olympus are still developing their weatherproof gear. One body and one lens so far. That's a start and all good systems start somewhere.

The other compact mirror-less cameras have how many weatherproof system camera options?

Oh yes ... zero.

0 upvotes
doctorbza
By doctorbza (May 24, 2012)

my goodness. it looks like camera makers figured if DSLR's sales are going to decline, they might as well keep the prices the same. so much for the whole "smaller lenses cost less to produce" benefit of m43...

1 upvote
ebbesen
By ebbesen (May 24, 2012)

>>smaller lenses cost less to produce<<

Whoever told you that? Nikon in a FX brochure?
Lenses of high optical quality have never come cheap.
Raw material costs matter little in lens production.

10 upvotes
krugorg
By krugorg (May 24, 2012)

"smaller lenses cost less to produce" has never been a stated benefit of m4/3 (I wish it was reality!)

m4/3 is about smaller, lighter lens that can still be of very high optical quality.

8 upvotes
toscha_seidel
By toscha_seidel (May 24, 2012)

Smaller lenses may cost less to produce but not if you want it of very high quality. Things come at a price.

4 upvotes
nico-foto
By nico-foto (May 24, 2012)

Unfortunately that seems to be an urban legend. If anything, smaller *high quality* optics should be more expensive to manufacture because of stricter tolerances.

1 upvote
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (May 24, 2012)

So by that logic, smaller+lighter=more expensive, we can expect FT lenses and bodies to cost more than their APS/FF equivalents?

2 upvotes
Jay Gloab
By Jay Gloab (May 24, 2012)

@ebbesen, raw material costs make quite a bit of difference in production costs when one of the raw materials is optical glass.

Which isn't to say that Olympus is obliged to sell the lenses for less just because they cost less to produce than a larger, equivalent lens.

2 upvotes
danijel973
By danijel973 (May 24, 2012)

Leica always made small lenses and, if anything, they are twice as expensive as anything comparable for a dSLR.

0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (May 27, 2012)

@shaocaholica

Funny you mention that.

The smaller sensored Olympus E-5 cost a lot more than the larger sensored Nikon D7000, Pentax K-5, and Canon 7D.

And my Olympus E-30 cost a lot more than similar larger sensor cameras like the Canon 60D, Nikon D7100 or Sony A580.

1 upvote
J. Qian
By J. Qian (May 24, 2012)

When something becomes No. 1 in a particular category, it deserves a premium price tag.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (May 24, 2012)

I would actually rank it at the bottom of it's category. (It's pretty easy to rank given that it is the only lens in it's category. )

1 upvote
pdelux
By pdelux (May 24, 2012)

same thing, when theres no Competition, they can charge a premium. If panasonic or other brands (sigma) would release an equivalent lens for cheaper, Im sure prices will start falling.

1 upvote
Thomas Kachadurian
By Thomas Kachadurian (May 24, 2012)

I've been saving up so I've got the money ready for when they ship. I'm sure I won't be the only one buying.

Some times things are out of your value price range. It doesn't mean they are overpriced, just priced beyond your level of comfort for the value. I'd never pay for XM radio, Cable TV, or the premium for "organic" food. It's doesn't mean they're overpriced, just that I don't see the value for the money. But plenty of people do.

4 upvotes
steve16823
By steve16823 (May 24, 2012)

There's no point in complaining about the price. Think it's too much? Don't buy it! It's as simple as that.

In the end, the market always determines the price. If they don't sell at $899 the price will come down. However, my guess is that Olympus marketing has done their homework and they will sell very well.

1 upvote
Joesiv
By Joesiv (May 24, 2012)

it's not as simple as that...

because the people complaining (most) want it, lol. To me all this complaining is an indication that this is a very desirable lens', unfortunately the sticker shock was inevitable, since many bought into the system rocking the huge discounts on older bodies and kit lens'.

It's a camera system, and all camera systems make the most money from the accessories (lens' being one of them), it's the razerblade business model.

It would seem that people want olympus to give the lens' away at cost, but given Olympus' current financial situation, making some profit would be good for everyone. Wouldn't you want Olympus to be around still to build you your 150mm f/2.8, or 300mm f4? What about 400mm f/5.6? Or maybe even convert the f2 zooms to mFT?

Without them making money (profit), it's unlikely that it'll happen.

Olympus is finally kicking out some great product (EM5, 12mm, 45mm 75mm), and things are finally looking bright for them. Buy their stuff!

8 upvotes
erwink
By erwink (May 24, 2012)

Sometimes I look at it this way: The lenses are the mainstay of a camera system, the camera housing is "accessories" that I change from time to time... But I never expect photography to becoma a cheap hobby :-)

2 upvotes
Boris
By Boris (May 24, 2012)

Nice of Oly to make a nice fast 75f1.8! Price is a bit high but a optical good, well made metal lens ain`t cheap. The Pentax metal 77f1.8 costs near $900us...good lens. Don`t care what it is on FF since I will shoot this lens on M4/3.

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (May 24, 2012)

The Pentax 77mm just jumped in price. Used to be $600-ish, which is where I think this lens should be.

2 upvotes
chiane
By chiane (May 24, 2012)

It's about what I thought

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Kirk Tuck
By Kirk Tuck (May 24, 2012)

Cheap compared to a used Leica M series 75mm, that's for sure.

2 upvotes
chiumeister
By chiumeister (May 24, 2012)

more like 'dirt' cheap.
what? the summicron or summilux is like $6495?

2 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (May 24, 2012)

So don't compare it to full frame, but compare it to prices of the best full frame lenses? :)

2 upvotes
carlosdelbianco
By carlosdelbianco (May 24, 2012)

Leica is just like Olympus... Yeah!

2 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (May 24, 2012)

You people! Stop comparing m43 with full frame!
Go compare Pentax Q with full frame!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

7 upvotes
Stebai
By Stebai (May 24, 2012)

Absolutely. Compare it to APS-C sensors. The new 16 mp m43 sensor is just as good as the one I used for years on the Canon 40D, even in low light. The RAW files are excellent. The only thing I'd say to qualify that is that one has to pay close attention to the exposure, just as in the old days we had to take a bit more care with transparency film over the wider latitude of print. The real advantage to m43 is in the lenses, which are small and excellent. I have the P-L 25 1.4 and the Oly 45 1.8 and would put them up there with the best of any company.

3 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (May 24, 2012)

Indeed!

Also it should be noted- the difference between APS-C and 4/3 is not that much, certainly much less than what people would like to believe.

To notice a big difference- you have to go FF, and really- that's not what µ4/3 is about.

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (May 24, 2012)

Odd observation:

People justifying the price are saying "look how big and expensive a fast 150mm for FF would be". So that's the equivalent focal length, right. But then if someone mentions equivalent apertures, they are accused of trolling or ignorance.

11 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (May 24, 2012)

That's because "equivalent aperture" doesn't exist.
Curiously, the ones who write about f1.8 being equivalent to f3.6 never mention equivalence on APS-C sensors (with which f1.8 would equal f2.7). Any idea why? Is it that the concept of "equivalent aperture" only works for micro 4/3?

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (May 24, 2012)

I don't where you have been, but we've had hundreds or thousands of discussions comparing APS-C and Full frame in the forums dealing with traditional DSLR. People discuss it all the time. The difference is that someone shooting Canon, Sony or Nikon is not hostile to the idea because their favorite brand offers multiple sizes. Canon even offers 3 large sensor sizes.

The major beef in the m4/3 discussions is that people always say things like "look how tiny that is for a 150mm f1.8!!!" When it's NOT 150mm. If you want to call it 150mm, then call it 150mm f3.6 because that's how big the aperture is and that's the look it will give.

If they launched a new APS-C 100mm f1.8, nobody would be on here comparing it to a theoretical 150mm f1.8 FF lens.

2 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (May 24, 2012)

So you don't know where I've been... I must have been working. Or photographing. Or taking something good out of life instead of wasting my time discussing silly, unfounded theories on forums. Photographing and training my eyes is far more important to me than discussing f1.8 this and f3.6 that. Those things are not relevant per se, but only if they help me make better photos. I only comment when the levels of misinformation are too high for me to put up with.
On the other hand, maybe I missed those marvellous topics on forums because I fell asleep. Which, given the boredom of those "equivalent aperture" arguments, is most likely to happen...

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (May 25, 2012)

Strawman arguments make me sleepy.

0 upvotes
odl
By odl (May 24, 2012)

For all the equivalent lens buyers, not all glass is made the same. A Tokina 70-200 f2.8 is not the same price as a Nikon 70-200 F2.8. A Samyang 85mm f1.4 costs less than a Canon 85mm f1.4 etc etc etc.

While a smaller image circle means smaller lenses, it also requires glass of a higher spec to resolve contrast and detail on a competitive level. A perfect example of this is any 50mm f1.4 stopped to f1.8 will not have the same optical qualities as the 45mm at f1.8.

Equivalence belongs in a science classroom, not in photography. m43rds and 43rds is more than just smaller and lighter (which it is). It is consistent IQ across the frame (unlike many of the cheap lenses compared for FF here) along with excellent lens design for focusing as well.

If you want a cheaper lens, buy a cheaper lens, to all you equivalent people out there... Do you walk into a jeweler and compare a cheap diamond to a flawless one? Quality isnt always determined by measures such as Karat but go beyond.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (May 24, 2012)

That's a good point, honestly, and this lens will likely perform extremely well.

I think most people understand that, we are just comparing to alternative systems as a reference point.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (May 24, 2012)

"While a smaller image circle means smaller lenses, it also requires glass of a higher spec to resolve contrast and detail on a competitive level. "

By that logic P&S built-in lenses would cost millions.

1 upvote
Total comments: 504
123