Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Preview

By dpreview staff on May 24, 2012 at 22:48 GMT

Just Posted: Our hands-on preview of the Olympus 75mm F1.8 for Micro Four Thirds. The 75mm is Olympus' premium grade portrait lens for the joint Olympus/Panasonic mirrorless system. We've had a pre-production example in the office for a couple of days and have prepared a hands-on preview, to which we'll add a samples gallery when the promised production example arrives.

Comments

Total comments: 185
Hen3ry
By Hen3ry (Jun 1, 2012)

Lens porn! Not for me and my style of stuff (I'm happy with the f1.8 45 for general portraiture and the 40-150 zoom for longer stuff) but this certainly is lovely glass and if I was still doing the theatre stuff I used to do in the past, I would be starving the dog to save the dollars for this lens. LOL

And what about indoor sports?

I expect to we some very, very nice work in the near future.

Cheers, geoff

1 upvote
Jake21
By Jake21 (May 30, 2012)

Is this lens APO ?

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (May 30, 2012)

Must see!! What a 150mm f1.8 full frame lens looks like. At least I think its a full frame lens.

http://us.c-mount.passion.pro/image/Astro+Berlin+Pan+Tachar+150mm+f1.8--3.jpg

This is a magic behind u4/3 and yes, i understand this is a 75mm lens and not a 150mm.

2 upvotes
Cax
By Cax (May 31, 2012)

Yes, a large portion of the "full frame" proponents believe that they are buying themselves a general "two stop advantage" on any lens. They think it's the sensor that's collecting the light, not the lens.

3 upvotes
Cax
By Cax (May 29, 2012)

Which is cheaper, a $900 lens with a $400 camera body, or a $400 lens with a $3000 camera body? And what retains its value better?

A 75/1.8 is equivalent to a 150/3.5 in photographic terms, but it severely outperforms it in one aspect: Rendering the image on 1/4 of the area and 4 times brighter means you can use a smaller and cheaper camera. The lens itself will also be smaller. This has always been the strength of the 4/3 system. It was true for an E-520 with the 50/2 macro, and it is true for µ4/3 today.

You can buy a 150/2 for Canon EF, but you can not buy a 75/1 for µ4/3. That is the strength of the Canon EF system.

Choose the strength that fits your needs better. It is as easy as that.

3 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (May 30, 2012)

well said. Comparison of lenses across different formats is pointless without knowing the context in which they will be used.

0 upvotes
Cax
By Cax (May 30, 2012)

Comparison is still easy though, and will help you decide which camera system is right for your use. Just do the math, and you know what's what. I'm just sick of the "focal length is focal length, ƒ-numbers are ƒ-numbers, ISO is ISO and full frame has a two stop advantage" braindeadness propagated by people who really don't understand anything and enjoy repeating tautologies.

0 upvotes
Jonne Ollakka
By Jonne Ollakka (May 31, 2012)

Still waiting for a 24/1.4 equiv. lens for my GF-1.

0 upvotes
Cax
By Cax (May 31, 2012)

Well, you are going to have to wait for a long time. A 12/0.7 is probably not practical. This is where a larger sensor makes sense. By the way, what percentage of photographs taken with a 24/1.4 do you believe to be taken at ƒ/1.4?

0 upvotes
Valentinian
By Valentinian (May 31, 2012)

I really don't understand why you write that a (m4/3) 75/1.8 is equivalent to a (FF) 150/3.5.
it is not.
Depth of field only of a m4/3 75/1.8 is the same as depth of field of a FF 150/3.5 - so what????
But the m4/3 75/1.8 gathers the same light of a FF 150/1.8 (that is IF YOU CAN FIND AND ARE WILLING TO PAY for a FF 150/1.8).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
ThatOne
By ThatOne (Jun 1, 2012)

Why did I waste my time reading that? Error upon error...

0 upvotes
Cax
By Cax (Jun 2, 2012)

No, it does not. It gathers the same light as a 150/3.6 on 36x24mm. That's why we say it's equivalent.

Also, ISO 400 on 4/3 is equivalent to ISO 1600 on 36x24mm. You really need to understand that part as well.

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Jun 3, 2012)

A 75/1.8 on 4/3 will collect as much light as a 150/3.6 on a FF 35mm. I.e., you lose two stop of light collecting power. Its the diameter, in mm, that determines how much light is collected.

The same goes for DOF and diffraction limit. This 75 mm lens equals a 150/3.6 for FF 35 mm.

You lose light collecting power and resolution by having small cameras. Thats why very good astronomical telescopes are VERY LARGE.

@Cax - I dont see the advantage. It is much, much easier to make a good F3.6 lens than making a F1.8 lens. So - in practice a F3.6 lens for FF 35 mm is probably superior IQ wise to this lens. The "light intensity on the small area" you think is so good is actually a problem. To get good shadow noise behaviour, you are going to overload the bright areas with this light intensity, i.e. you get clipping if you try to expose for good shadow noise.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Heather Protz
By Heather Protz (May 29, 2012)

Looks to be a beautiful piece of tool. Pics should be fine as well.

1 upvote
Shooter325
By Shooter325 (May 29, 2012)

LOL. Those who like it, buy it! Those do not can lump it! I shoot Four Thirds and wished they made a lens like that for me, but right now i will just make do with my used OM Zuiko, 50/f1.8.

0 upvotes
ptox
By ptox (May 28, 2012)

This incessant prating by FF adherents about light-gathering and equivalence and outrageous lens costs and sensor gain is all so much beating around the bush.

I wish just one of you would have the courage to say what you really think: that we who've taken up MFT are fooling ourselves, wasting our time, pointlessly going about our art or jobs or hobbies with an essentially shallow view of what it means to be a Real Photographer.

Alternatively: that every image recorded on a piece of silicon having an area even fractionally smaller than the Holy Measurement of 36x24mm is, basically, crap.

Well?

14 upvotes
monkpilots
By monkpilots (May 28, 2012)

homogenization is for milk.

but yoghurt doesn't care.

and cheese is laughing at both of them.

7 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (May 30, 2012)

If only they knew what they're talking about...

0 upvotes
Klarno
By Klarno (May 28, 2012)

Being equivalent to 150mm f/3.6 equivalent is respectable. Some of the most well-regarded 135mm lenses were f/3.5, and Leica's only 135mm lens right now is f/3.4.

Nobody is asking this to be equivalent to 85mm f/1.2.

2 upvotes
bcalkins
By bcalkins (May 28, 2012)

I can't understand why full frame shooters are so worked up by this lens? When you buy a Canon 85mm f1.2 lens do you see what is available in other sensor formats, or do you evaluate what the lens can do for your photography and decide if it is of value to you? Do you see it as heavy, expensive and slow focusing, or as a tool that helps you get images that are like nothing else?

Who cares if this has the 'same' DOF as an f/3.6 FF lens? The question for me is if the DOF this lens offers compared to current MFT lenses is of value, and worth $900 and some extra weight. If you don't shoot MFT, why are you spending any energy thinking about this lens? It is the same question in any sensor format. Is it worth the extra money for the f/2.8 zoom over the f/4, or the f/3.5-f/6.3 consumer zoom, or getting a 35mm f/2 versus 35mm f/1.4 L. 85mm f/1.2 versus f/1.8? IS lens versus non IS (assuming you have a choice).

Am I going to buy this lens? Who knows, but I'm glad it is a choice. If we are smart we will make our decisions on what the equipment will do for our photography, not how it scores on dxomark.

14 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (May 28, 2012)

Well put.

1 upvote
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (May 28, 2012)

I guess it comes down to those of us who thought we'd like to try to mirroless as fun portable camera expected to get what aps c offers smaller and cheaper. why would you buy into 4/3rds if its chunky and the same price with less control on dof. the promise of 4/3rds is intimatley attachted to price. I actually like most of what out there camera and lens wise. but this lens cost more compared to a lens of similar build for a professional system. seems to me it should cost the same and offer more telephoto as a bonus of being a small format.

otherwise what is the point

0 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (May 29, 2012)

"I guess it comes down to those of us who thought we'd like to try to mirroless as fun portable camera expected to get what aps c offers smaller and cheaper."

Yes on smaller, yes on cheaper, but also yes on quality and expensive too. M43 can satisfy on different levels, just as APS C has cheap and expensive levels.

If you want m43 "enthusiast" or pro level then expect to pay pro level prices.

why would you buy into 4/3rds if its chunky and the same price with less control on dof.

The same could be said about MF -> FF -> APSC -> m43 -> to any smaller format.. M43 is certainly not chunky. Size was always the promise, cheap was not. Smaller size does not always come cheaper, especially in electronic world.

0 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (May 29, 2012)

no there is no practical reason why a quality m43 lens should cost more than a quality ff lens of the same focal length. even though the equivalence is higher. Medium format is way more expensive than ff as ff is to aps-c. Even if you want top notch gear this remains the case. why should m43 be more expensive for the same focal length. infact it should be cheaper because it throws a way smaller circle. It also traditionally has been. this lenses price seems to come out of left field

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (May 29, 2012)

Kodachrome200 is trolling again. The poor guy needs to get a life.

3 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (May 30, 2012)

The numbers ultimately irrelevant..
let the images speak for themselves, when they are available.

0 upvotes
quekkm
By quekkm (May 31, 2012)

make sense

0 upvotes
sagebrushfire
By sagebrushfire (Jun 12, 2012)

Seriously? Believe it or not, the build quality and cost of production are actually major factors in the pricing here. I'm sure there are a few exceptions but lenses generally aren't arbitrarily priced; you buy L-series for Canon and you get L-series quality, etc.

The few exceptions are in lenses like the Canon 18-55mm Kit lens, actually a very good lens but extremely cheap because it's bundled with millions of cameras.

I don't think I've ever heard of a lens that was pure crap but cost a fortune ... if they're out there they're not selling well.

0 upvotes
sorinx
By sorinx (May 28, 2012)

So, we have a lens that is equivalent to about 100mm F2.4 for APSC sensors and 150mm F3.5 for a full frame sensor. And this is a premium lens with premium price?
And I don't need to hear that it is F1.8. Because even if for exposure time it is F1.8, it only covers 1/4 of FF image. So, it only gathers 1/4 of light that a FF lens is gathering.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (May 28, 2012)

@sorinx, there are different formats for different preferences and different needs, whether it be medium format, 35mm, or m4/3. No need to get all bent out of shape over it. I shoot FF, APS-C, and m4/3. Each has its pros and cons. If I want maximum DOF control, I use my FF gear. If I want maximum compactness, I use my m4/3 gear. I will never expect my FF gear to be as compact and light weight as my m4/3 gear; likewise, I will never expect my m4/3 to give as much DOF control as my FF gear.

So what? As mature adults, we pick and choose the equipment that suits our needs at any given time. Time to grow up, become a mature adult, and realize that you don't need to go onto internet forums to boast that you have no interest in this lens or the m4/3 system. If it doesn't interest you-- for whatever reason, whether it be "light gathering" capacity, or price, or size, or color, or shape, or smell-- just move along. Leave it to people who can actually appreciate it.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (May 28, 2012)

Also, your quibble that "it only gathers 1/4 of light that a FF lens is gathering" is completely inane because, as you yourself point out, the lens only needs to cover 1/4 the area of FF therefore making the "exposure time" the same, even if it does "gather 1/4 of light that a FF lens is gathering." So what exactly is your point? LOL. In practical reality, gathering light is really about how much light you put on each photo site on the sensor. Boasting that FF gathers more light because it gathers light across a wider sensor area is neither here nor there because each photosite is getting the same amount of light as the identical photosite on an m4/3 sensor receiving the same amount of light.

Your point might make more sense if the sensor inside a camera was actually a solar panel that powered the camera. If that were the case, then, yeah, it's great that a FF sensor gathers more light across its larger surface area because that means more power for your camera!

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (May 28, 2012)

Its not equal to 100mm/f2.4 on APS-C. Canon APS-C equivalent would be more like a 92.5mm/f2.1 lens. This can be confirmed by APS crop factor 1.6X which gives just under 150mm.

There is about 1/2 EV difference from MFT to APS-C, 1 1/2 EV difference from APS-C to FF if calculated by total sensor area. Sony and Nikon is slightly bigger.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Joesiv
By Joesiv (May 28, 2012)

@DarkShift, actually this is an intesting thing, the fact that "APS-C" isn't a single size, actually nikon/sony are 1.5x, canon is 1.6x and Sigma used to be 1.7x.

I don't think canon, or even nikon users would correct canon users on their aperture of their lens' on APS-C, even though they didn't offer as much DoF as on their nikon APS-C...

Actually, I don't think any FF users look at their APS-C brethren and tell them that their lens' are a worse value on APS-C than they are on FF due to Depth of Field reasons.

"I shoot FX, you APS-C users have to pay too much for your 85mm f1.4 lens, it only offers equivalent to f/2.1..."

1 upvote
Cax
By Cax (May 29, 2012)

Shockingly, a Leica 50/2 costs MORE than a Canon 50/1.8! Moron.

0 upvotes
Valentinian
By Valentinian (May 31, 2012)

.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
dark goob
By dark goob (May 28, 2012)

BTW the aluminum thing is all Apple's fault.

2 upvotes
dark goob
By dark goob (May 28, 2012)

It's not freaking silver. It's ALUMINUM.

Fools!

0 upvotes
Valentinian
By Valentinian (May 28, 2012)

silver is a color. (a "silver car" is not made of silver !).

3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (May 28, 2012)

Did you really think people were implying that the entire lens was made of silver when they described it as a "silver lens"? LOL. I think people were referring to the *color* of the lens, not the material it was made of. And in that respect, it is indeed a "silver" lens. I think Olympus even calles it "champagne silver". When they say "champagne silver", do you take that to mean that it is made of champaign sparkling wine and silver metal? LOL. Hopefully not. Hopefully, you understand that to mean that it is "champagne silver" in color.

0 upvotes
sparklite
By sparklite (May 27, 2012)

I have to disagree with all the chatter about silver lenses ruining candid street photography shots. I've been out with the black-silver PEN E-P2 and now black O-MD body and the 12, 17, and 45mm lenses. No one notices these and, compared to when i walk around with my black ZD 14-54 and MMF3 on the E-M5 or large E3.

Size gets noticed. I've yet to have any trouble with colour in this regard with my 2 silver lenses on black bodies. This is all crazy talk.

For me the only draw back is lack of weather seal.

1 upvote
Mike Oo
By Mike Oo (May 28, 2012)

"all the chatter about silver lenses ruining candid street photography shots"

Anyone who thinks a silver lens "ruins" street photography has other things to worry about...

1 upvote
smileblog
By smileblog (May 26, 2012)

omg.. the lens looks so delicious :-)

1 upvote
tkpenalty
By tkpenalty (May 26, 2012)

does this mean we will have lens reviews as well soon? Yes please.

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (May 26, 2012)

don't count on it and you won't be disappointed. Meanwhile look at photozone.de slrgear.com dxomark.com

0 upvotes
SheikYerbouti
By SheikYerbouti (May 26, 2012)

dpreview have been doing lens reviews since 2008; have a look here ...

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/?category=lenses&order=date

0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (May 26, 2012)

The sad part of this is that Andy Westlake is probably the best lens reviewer in the industry. What a waste of talent!

1 upvote
haisee
By haisee (May 26, 2012)

i like it!

2 upvotes
JesseAU
By JesseAU (May 26, 2012)

You can test out this lens at the Digital Show in Melbourne this weekend. They have demo om-d's set up with different lenses and a pretty blond model to aim at. It handles great on camera although af is noticably slower than the other primes

Also, the Oly guys said the next 3 OM-D shipments will be black only!

0 upvotes
Tim in upstate NY
By Tim in upstate NY (May 26, 2012)

DPR: "Autofocus is fast and, though doesn't quite have the near-instant feel of its 45mm sibling, any difference is only really noticeable when making large changes in focus distance (for example close-focus out to infinity). Making smaller adjustments is extremely fast."

0 upvotes
JesseAU
By JesseAU (May 27, 2012)

Don't get me wrong, I'm still getting it!

0 upvotes
ebosch
By ebosch (May 25, 2012)

seeing that olympus have managed to build such a magnificent glass (apparently) in a relatively small size, I wonder what the future 100mm/2 to 2.8 would be like?

3 upvotes
Mike Brunette
By Mike Brunette (May 25, 2012)

I care very little what the bench tests will tell me about the quality of this lens. I take pictures with light, not benches & this is a light sucker. I also carry equipment & my back says thank you.

This is a killer lens, metal over plastic, suoer bonus.

6 upvotes
Entropius
By Entropius (May 27, 2012)

Well, if you understand the bench tests they'll tell you how your realworld pictures will look. This is useful to people deciding what lens to buy, for instance.

0 upvotes
MikeNeufeld30
By MikeNeufeld30 (May 25, 2012)

Wow, some spectacular samples with beautiful bokeh.. well done Olympus.

2 upvotes
Mike Brunette
By Mike Brunette (May 25, 2012)

It doesn't matter what people say they want, what matters is what people buy & this will sell, because it's awesome, actually has more glass than a marble

3 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (May 25, 2012)

You just can't please everyone.

If Olympus had made this a cheap lens... made from plastic, with a maximum aperture of f/2.8, then everyone would be complaining saying "I would gladly pay more for a much better lens."

But instead they decided to build a high quality lens, so now they will complain that "it costs too much."

You simply cannot buy high quality optics at bargain basement prices.
No one has them. Not Canon, not Nikon, nor Pentax or Sony.

Incidentally, Leica will be happy to sell you a 75mm f/2.0 lens for $3800, and it still won't autofocus.

24 upvotes
T3
By T3 (May 25, 2012)

"Incidentally, Leica will be happy to sell you a 75mm f/2.0 lens for $3800, and it still won't autofocus."

And it would be considered a bargain, especially considering that the 50mm f/2.0 Summicron they just introduced is priced at $7,195:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/05/10/Leica-APO-Summicron-M-50mm-f2-ASPH

5 upvotes
idbar
By idbar (May 25, 2012)

I agree. All I read recently here, is whining.

And to me some of these comments can be summarized as ridiculously as:

"Oh.. this it's okey. I was waiting for an ultra-light super zoom 10-1500mm equiv. stabilized f/0.7 for $200 with matching $150 full frame body that shoots 80MPixels and provides 1MByte RAW files"

If a product like this comes out, people will be complaining because they want (or not) video or because the screen swivels (or not).

7 upvotes
villagranvicent
By villagranvicent (May 25, 2012)

Marty,

And Leica fanboys will gladly pay for it.

4 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (May 25, 2012)

yeah but there is a point when you can buy a brand new brilliant 85mm f1.8 for canon or nikon for 500 bux new

seems like alot of money for m. zuiko lens since the performace of the olympuses primes has been marginal and not as good as the panasonics

4 upvotes
T3
By T3 (May 25, 2012)

"seems like alot of money for m. zuiko lens since the performace of the olympuses primes has been marginal and not as good as the panasonics"

So *all* Oly m. zuiko lenses are "marginal", huh? LOL. Have you tried the Oly 45/1.8? That lens is tack sharp. Have you done your own testing of this new 75/1.8?

I'm a Canon DSLR shooter, but I also have an Oly E-PM1. As for the 85/1.8, funny you should mention it because I've been using my Canon 85/1.8 on my Oly E-PM1 (wtih an EF-to-m4/3 adapter). Works great, except no aperture control or auto focusing. But at least I have in-body stabilization and viewfinder magnfication (great for manual focus). If I don't switch over to Canon's MILC system (when it is introduced), I'll probably end up getting this Oly 75/1.8. Not everything is about saving a buck. Many of us are gladly buying MILC's (even though we already use DSLR gear) because the compactness has a lot of advantages over bulkier, larger, thicker DSLR cameras and their lenses.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
5 upvotes
Ilkka Nissilä
By Ilkka Nissilä (May 25, 2012)

12/2 gets better reviews than the 14/2.5.

2 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (May 25, 2012)

@T3 I am just going off of tests and MTF charts. all showing the olympus primes wanting. anyway the point of micro four thirds has to be that it is cheaper. so why inflate the price of lens. the point of this it seems to me is that you can buy a 150ish(didnt check just guessed) for what you can buy an 85mm. basically this format should cost less than aps-c

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (May 25, 2012)

@Kodachrome200
An 85 1.8 Nikkor is meaningless if you are an m43s users.

And Pany has a few excellent lenses, but the Olympus 12/2 and the 45 1.8 are superb. If you think they're marginal you clearly haven't used them.

3 upvotes
zapatista
By zapatista (May 25, 2012)

In all fairness the 12mm f2 should get much better reviews then the Panasonic 14mm f2.5. You can get a eBay "kit" 14mm for $160 and the 12mm goes for $700-$800. I've used all the m4/3 prime lenses and the only really mediocre one is the 17mm Oly. However, I doubt I'll get the 75mm f1.8 simply because I love my 85mm f1.8 KH AR mount a little too much.

0 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (May 26, 2012)

@marike6 no, it does mean something. it means something pretty specific. it means a 75 mm lens that only need to project and be sharp in a tiny area shouldnt cost that much. thats what it means

2 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (May 26, 2012)

@Kodachrome200

You forgot that the sensor resolution is much higher on MFT, so the lenses should resolve better on smaller area.

0 upvotes
manny_d
By manny_d (May 26, 2012)

@Kodachrome200
what are you doing here dude?

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (May 26, 2012)

Kodachrome200 is just trolling. He thinks all Oly lenses suck, thinks their stuff is overpriced, probably doesn't even see the point in Oly's existence, etc, LOL.

0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (May 27, 2012)

Then he probably needs to check the Dpreview lens reviews. Or the ones at SLRgear.com.

Even the Olympus kit lenses get extremely high ratings.
And that isn't just my opinion.... you can easily check it out for yourself.

0 upvotes
Pete_CSCS
By Pete_CSCS (May 28, 2012)

Well put Marty.

0 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (May 28, 2012)

i dont know where it came out that i hate olympus or that i even hate m 4/3rds . I am desperate to get an xz-1 i think that is about as nifty a compaq camera as anyone has ever made. and the lens is fabulous. If they'd make m4/3rds body that was pocketable like the gf/5 or the epl-3 (with a pancake lens) that handled as well as the xz-1(from a m mode perspective) id be even more excited about that. and i bet its coming.

I fully expect this lens to be sharp but so are the ff 85mm lenses and by all rights this should be cheaper. that is my beef. its fair. maybe it is so fantastic that it costs that much more to make even without a built in autofocus motor and a much smaller circle. but i cant see why m4/3rds needed that more than a fabulous lens that was on a price par with a good 85mm f1.8 witch should have been possible

1 upvote
Mike Brunette
By Mike Brunette (May 25, 2012)

This is a true game changer, if you're serious about photography & more importantly video this is a killer piece of glass.

Suffice it to say that the super heavyweight 200mm/2.0 lenses that most pros want, yet can't afford is way more expensive (list price $9,500), and harder to transport, not to mention the big canon is almost 1/2 stop slower.

Dimensions = φ60.7 x 51.7mm / φ2.39 X 2.04 in.
Weight = 165g / 5.82 oz.

vs

Canon EF 200mm f/2.0

Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 2.4 x 2.4 inches ; 5.6 pounds

The Olympus is about the size and weight of the Canpn's lens hood.

3 upvotes
Mike Brunette
By Mike Brunette (May 25, 2012)

Looked up specs, the crop factor is only 1.6, making my comparison totally ridiculous.

It's only comparable to a 120mm f/1.8 in 35mm world.

Yet throwing an as yet non-existent 1.6 teleconverter on this bad boy it would be roughly 192mm f/2.4

0 upvotes
MichaelEchos
By MichaelEchos (May 25, 2012)

It's just 1/3 stop lower, but effectively, it is 1 and 2/3rd stop higher. Ya, and this lens is remarkably small.

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (May 25, 2012)

crop factor is 2.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (May 25, 2012)

@Mike Brunette- I don't know what the heck you "looked up", but the m4/3 system has a 2X crop factor. That means its comparable to 150/1.8 in the 35mm world. Even more embarrassing for you, the dpreview even clearly states it: "With its 150mm-equivalent field of view..." So you might want to recheck what specs you're "looking up."

4 upvotes
Mike Brunette
By Mike Brunette (May 25, 2012)

Not embarrassed at all, just corrected, so 150mm 1.8. My correction is the error, my bad. The important thing is that this is an exceptional lens value. I'm not her to criticize, I'm here for actual discussion.

I'm glad you knuckleheads took the time to correct me other than commenting on the observation.

Cheers

This is one wicked lens, that's all that matters.

2 upvotes
Guidenet
By Guidenet (May 26, 2012)

Mike, no offense intended in the least, but you have no unearthly idea on whether or not this is a killer lens, I've see no tests nor heard of any. For all you and I know it's a dog. I doubt it, but it could be. All this nonsense this early on a product is just that.

0 upvotes
Micromegas777
By Micromegas777 (May 26, 2012)

I really like the 45mm Olympus. Still the old FT 25mm Panasonic is the lens I use most of the time. Quality unmatched, IMHO
https://picasaweb.google.com/110955796927925538104/DompierreMonastereOrthodoxeDeLaTresSainteEtDivineTrinite7August2011?authuser=0&feat=directlink

0 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (May 28, 2012)

Att: M.B.
Getting something as basic as the crop factor wrong - in fact not even reading what's right there for any under-informed "knucklehead" to read - doesn't exactly make your contribution to the discussion valuable. Indeed a harsh person might be inclined to regard you as an, er, um, knucklehead...

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
redeye47
By redeye47 (May 25, 2012)

I would like to see pictures of it with the (optional) lens hood.

0 upvotes
HDF2
By HDF2 (May 25, 2012)

The picture is in the story introducing the lens.

http://3.s.img-dpreview.com/files/news/1384112983/OM-D_75mm_hood.jpg?v=1505

1 upvote
JackM
By JackM (May 25, 2012)

Seriously what is the point?? If you are willing to spend that kind of money and carry a NOT compact camera/lens combo, why handicap your image quality with a quarter-frame sensor? Go APS-C or FF!

9 upvotes
zapatista
By zapatista (May 25, 2012)

The lens isn't that big. Let's compare the size of a 5d Mark III with a 150mm lens and the OM-D with this one.

7 upvotes
Vlad S
By Vlad S (May 25, 2012)

A significant part of the µ4/3 community has been begging for bright primes since day one. It provides an option to use small lenses when one needs portability, but still to mount higher grade lenses when necessary.

5 upvotes
julieng
By julieng (May 25, 2012)

Enough has been said about comparative size. Its a *significantly* smaller and cheaper combo than the FF equivalent.

11 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (May 25, 2012)

The working difference between APS-C and 4/3 isn't that much, people like to be over dramatic about shallow DOF.

To get a notable gain- you have to do FF. And really- "if you are willing to spend this much" on µ4/3 lenses- that doesn't mean you're going to start paying double that for FF stuff.

5 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (May 25, 2012)

If you want full frame, then buy full frame. There are plenty of nice full frame cameras and lenses available. Just accept the fact that you cameras and lenses will be a lot bigger, a lot more expensive and a lot heavier.

Want proof?

Lets compare two high quality cameras their equivalent lenses:

Nikon D700...........................995g....$2200
Nikon 24-70mm lens..............900g....$1900
Nikon 70-200mm lens...........1540g....$2400
Nikon 85mm prime lens..........350g......$400
Nikon 150mm prime lens.......1180g....$1100
Total....................................4965g....$8000

Olympus OM-D......................430g.....$1000
Panasonic 12-35mm lens.........305g.....$1200
Panasonic 35-100mm lens.......500g.....$1200
Olympus 45mm prime lens......116g......$400
Olympus 75mm prime lens......305g......$900
Total....................................1656g....$4700

It really just depends on how badly you need full frame, and how much you are willing to pay for it.

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

I have been shooting FF digital for 3 years. I bought a mint 135/2L for $900, and it was relatively small and light. (compared to say, a 70-200/2.8). Canon doesn't make a 150mm lens, so the 135/2 would be the comparable unit. I agree a 5D2 + 135L is going to be larger and heavier and slightly more conspicuous, but not much. But it's not just about the IQ, it is also about the handling, performance, and shooting experience. With the 5D you get a real VF and real AF, and a meaty grip.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (May 25, 2012)

The point is that this lens mounted on an m4/3 body is *still* noticeably more compact than any equivalent APS-C or FF DSLR combo. Secondly, you really aren't getting much handicap in terms of image quality, especially with the latest m4/3 sensors. Thirdly, many of us m4/3 users are already APS-C and FF DSLR users (I am), and we still use m4/3 because of the size advantage.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (May 25, 2012)

@JackM, I'm a Canon 5D user, and I can definitely tell you that a FF rig is absolutely much larger, heavier, and more conspicuous than an m4/3 rig. To put things into perspective for you, a 5D MKII body alone, with no battery, weighs more than an Olympus E-M5 (including battery) with an Oly 75/1.8 mounted on it! The 5D MKII (no battery) weighs 810g, while the Oly E-M5 (425g, including battery) and Oly 75/1.8 (304g) weighs only 729 grams total! *And* you get Image Stabilization with the m4/3 rig!

If I'm going on a trip, or just heading out to the park with my kids, or running around town, I would *much* rather take my m4/3 gear than lug my gargantuan FF gear with me! With DSLR gear, even APS-C DSLR gear, you tend to stick out like a sore thumb. Plus, there's a lot more bulk and weight hanging off your shoulder. I still use my Canon DSLR gear for work, but I can definitely tell you that it's a lot more *work* having to carry such heavy, larger gear.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
LarryK
By LarryK (May 25, 2012)

Alright, where did you find a 150mm Prime Nikkor?

1 upvote
JackM
By JackM (May 25, 2012)

T3 your point is valid, and the Oly is less conspicuous, but it still has to go in a bag. If I'm going to carry a bag, I may as well have my 5D3, imo. However you say the benefit of the Oly is for family outings and such... are you telling me you also bring two or three primes and juggle them on these jaunts?

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (May 25, 2012)

@JackM, yes, it may go in a bag, but it takes up a fraction of the space in that bag! The gear is also so light that you barely even notice that it's in the bag. Furthermore, my Panasonic 14/2.5 is so compact it *literally* slips into my shirt pocket!

As for carrying two or three primes, yes, the beauty of the m4/3 system is that these primes are so compact and light that you can carry two or three (or more) primes, and it's not cumbersome or obtrusive at all. With FF lenses, yes, it can often feel like you are "juggling them" because of their size, but with these diminutive m4/3 primes, it's more like, "Yep, I have that lens with me if I need it!" No point in spending hundreds of dollars on lenses, then leaving them at home! Ideally, you want to bring your lenses with you, but one obvious reason why people don't bring their lenses with them is because of size/weight/space issues. That's not really an issue with m4/3 gear! It's great, especially coming from bulky FF.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (May 25, 2012)

@JackM - And no, you don't really need a bag. I have my m4/3 body on a sling strap slung across my chest. The camera hangs off my back. I can have a lens mounted on it, another lens in my right pocket, and another lens in my left pocket. I've walked into movie theatres, restaurants, stores, etc. like this and no one even notices I have a camera and three lenses on me! And more importantly, it all feels very comfortable. I don't *feel* like I have a camera and three lenses on me! That's something I *definitely* could not say with FF DSLR gear in tow. The end result is that I end up taking my camera (my m4/3 camera) with me to places and situations where I otherwise would have left my DSLR gear at home. That means more shooting, more photographic enjoyment, more "I'm ready to take a great picture with great camera gear any time, any where." And, no, having a compact P&S just can't compare to a fast, responsive m4/3 MILC with its larger sensor and fast, tack-sharp primes.

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (May 25, 2012)

Well... that is pretty cool. Sadly with a 5D3 (formerly 5D2 and 7D) and 4 L lenses, I just can't afford or justify another system. Or rather, another digital system. I can get basically the same m4/3 stealth factor from my Pentax MX and 3 primes, or my Leica IIIf. If I want to shoot film that is. Sigh. Even if I could afford another digital system, I'd feel like I was cheating on my 5D3!

1 upvote
eyedo
By eyedo (May 25, 2012)

I've been a professional photog for 30 years and I am loving my Oly OLM and the prime lenses.The quality I am getting is better than my Nikon D7000 gear with the best lenses!
Can't wait for this lens to come out!

1 upvote
FTW
By FTW (May 25, 2012)

I remember a time where we stepped over to medium format because of the eternal dof on shots. My ancient Mamiya C330 and my Hassie mad shots that where sharp from one side to the other. My last mid format camera was the Bronica G 6x7.

Now e have the choice between apsc and full frame or the "for us too expensive" medium format in digital. One can not compare the different formats anyway and even if some do slightly better than others, on the end an APSC or a 4/3 has the advantage to have a shallower DOF and better all around sharpness.

0 upvotes
FTW
By FTW (May 25, 2012)

Look at any test and compare a NEX-7 or an OM-D to full frame cameras, even the D800 and a 5Dmk3. You will see that the smaller make a same good shot as the bigger and the sharpness all over the picture is much better. Now, all is what you look for and what are your goals. The mind that a D800 makes a better shot than a Nex-7 is just mind, it makes a larger picture with more dof all around the spotted focusing point. There is not one day where I would like to see the Nex-7 body appearing on the Market with a 12 mpix sensor, the picture in 24 mpix is too large. So, on the end, is it not just an idea and many of us buy cameras they really do not need for the work they do with it, or is it just a question of "what do the people say". Our world is like that, since we buy things we don't need, with money we don't have , and that all to show up at people we don't like.

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (May 25, 2012)

what?

2 upvotes
Guidenet
By Guidenet (May 26, 2012)

Hey Marty. Sign me up. I'll take the FX any day and the headroom and quality that goes with it. One thing though. You quote a Nikon FX 150 lens and I'm unaware of that one and consider myself pretty knowledgeable on Nikon glass.

Now I have a Sigma 150 f/2.8 APR HSM Macro for my D700 that that thing is a crazy good chunk of glass, so I'll assume you meant it. I think it on a D700 could help produce some awesome images where the OMD might struggle though. Depends on the photographer, of course. :)

0 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (May 26, 2012)

M43 will never match FF for IQ. Its just physics. You get what you pay. What Marty is saying is: i f you want that, then you have to go and GET FF (and pay for it almost double prices). Why complain about this lens which was made for m43?

0 upvotes
QuarterToDoom
By QuarterToDoom (May 26, 2012)

>, why handicap your image quality with a quarter-frame sensor? Go APS-C or FF!

You know I'd take you seriously if you can back up your "better" bench talk with some photos http://www.dpreview.com/members/45981463/galleries

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (May 26, 2012)

the feeling is mutual.

http://www.dpreview.com/members/5067126618/galleries

2 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (May 26, 2012)

@Marty4650
Umm... Nikon don't make a 150mm prime lens for DSLRs (there is one for large format cameras). The only current F-mount 150mm that I know of is the Sigma macro.

Nikon do make a 135 f/2 DC 818g which costs about $1300. That is probably the nearest equivalent focal length Nikon lens to compare - it is a very highly regarded portrait lens with defocus (bokeh) control.

Nikon lenses come with lens hoods and pouches - so, to be fair, you should probably add in whatever Olympus (or Panasonic) charge for those.

0 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (May 26, 2012)

@Marty4650

A flaw of your comparison is that an m4/3 sensor is only 1/4 the size of a full frame sensor so is capturing only 1/4 the light a full frame sensor does at the same aperture.

So to compare the 12-35 2.8 Panasonic zoom to the 24-70 2.8 isn't correct - the Panasonic zoom would have to be f1.4 to compare. If they could make one, it would be much bigger and much more expensive.

It would probably be more fair to compare Nikon's 24-120mm f/4 to the Panasonic 12-35mm. The 24-120 is $600 cheaper and 200g lighter than the 24-70 and covers a larger range - and, in terms of light gathering, it still has a 1 stop advantage over the m4/3 lens.

Do the same for the rest of the lenses you are comparing - and the price weight difference comes down

If I were traveling to far off places and going trekking the size and weight advantages of the OM-D system would probably win over the IQ advantages of a full frame system. Closer to home or traveling by car
the FF system would win.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
QuarterToDoom
By QuarterToDoom (May 27, 2012)

>the feeling is mutual.
>http://www.dpreview.com/members/5067126618/galleries

Still waiting for yours.

0 upvotes
Ropo16
By Ropo16 (May 25, 2012)

sdyue. I see you have crawled out of the cavity within the ludicrous monstrosity that is the G1 X. You have no shame.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
000
By 000 (May 25, 2012)

amateur system with a lens for $ 900 .. it's just a bad joke as a monochrome Leica for $ 8000. Traders seem to think we're idiots!

5 upvotes
T3
By T3 (May 25, 2012)

Amateur system? E-M5 is a magnesium body, with weather sealing, and optional add-on grips. There are plenty of tack-sharp, fast primes for m4/3. And it's really what you *do* with your camera gear that counts, regardless of the childish labels that childish internet trolls put on any system.

9 upvotes
FTW
By FTW (May 25, 2012)

there is no such thing as amateur and pros, the first make pictures that can blow away the second in many situations and fields.
If you will not be able to make amazing photos in war battle fields, it is certainly because you are not a Pro and paid for this. Look all over sites like this one, pbase, flickr and similar and see what amateurs do. On the end, are there not just only...."photographers.

0 upvotes
000
By 000 (May 25, 2012)

attention to the nonsense ... amater photos ... does not earn a return on investment ... doing it for fun. I saw (http://digineff.cz/art/olympus/olympus-om-d-v-africe.html) images of Om-D5 firm ware doing a devastating work with bokeh ... sorry I will not give money to this one. I would not sell the photos...

1 upvote
pdelux
By pdelux (May 26, 2012)

@000 - The link you posted only shows mostly landscapes where "bokeh" is not desired. If the only thing that qualifies to you as good photography is "bokeh" then you should "give money" for macro photos.

1 upvote
QuarterToDoom
By QuarterToDoom (May 26, 2012)

By 000 Awesome photo gallery http://www.dpreview.com/members/8301596096/galleries

Love the amateur alll black background.

0 upvotes
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (May 26, 2012)

Cameras aren't pros or amateurs, photographers are. A pro photographer can compose and shoot with a phone camera or a simple P&S if that is what he has around when opportunity knocks.

That said, why do you think the OM-D is an "amateur system"?

0 upvotes
000
By 000 (May 26, 2012)

pdelux: You're probably a little off. Outside the plane of focus bokeh always be! Displayed clusters and fragments are really bad.

0 upvotes
000
By 000 (May 26, 2012)

QuarterToDoom http://www.facebook.com/PerpetumArt?bookmark_t=page or www.exact-tech.cz

0 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (May 25, 2012)

m43: 75mm F/1.8 = 75/1.8 = 41.67mm aperture diameter (DOF equivalency)
FF FOV+DOF equivalency: 150mm F/3.6

F-value 'light value' being all the same for... just 'light value' alone (applies to any system; a given)
(duh, of course)

nice... slowly, but surely, lenses are coming along, better late, than never.
i'm sure every new combination of faster Xmm f/x.x is welcome, prime or zoom.

meanwhile, still waiting for a m43 12mm f/0.7... flat prime

f/2.0 is 'okay', so, why not f/0.7? (and compact too?)

or a m43 12-35mm f/1.4... compact zoom

f/2.8 is 'okay', so, why not f/1.4? (and compact too?)

still... waiting... (before i celebrate m43 'arriving'...)

unless someone offers a integrated digicam prime or zoom with the same FOV + aperture diameter specs first... (or just as unlikely?)

and at such high prices... as limited spec so far, an indulgence for those with money to burn...

must be nice to have an income (a well paid job)
:D

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

sdyue

I really want to be as kind as possible to you and I am looking for your best interest. Please hear my words. People don't appreciate you making posts like these on this news thread and multiple other news threads. You're becoming very infamous for such posts that spam and annoy.

I see that you're a lady and I do mind my manors, but you're strongly tempting even people like me to set aside their principles and have a whack at it with a flame torch.

So please, from my heart with all sincerity, could you please please stop posting like this?

20 upvotes
spontaneousservices
By spontaneousservices (May 25, 2012)

"or a m43 12-35mm f/1.4... compact zoom"

HAHAHA!!! What have you been smoking?

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
chris_j_l
By chris_j_l (May 25, 2012)

> f/2.0 is 'okay', so, why not f/0.7? (and compact too?)

Only ten f/0.7 lenses have ever been made and they required a 4mm registration distance. Seven are owned by NASA and the rest were owned by Stanley Kubrick.
Adding 'compact too' just shows your useful ideas about lens design could be written on the short edge of a postage stamp, with space to spare.

Please - do yourself a favour and step away from the keyboard for a very long time.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
19 upvotes
T3
By T3 (May 25, 2012)

If you want really shallow DOF, use FF. If you want compactness, use m4/3.

I don't ever expect FF to be as compact as m4/3, and I don't ever expect m4/3 to give as shallow DOF as FF. That's why I shoot with both.

2 upvotes
buzytom
By buzytom (May 25, 2012)

She is dude hiding behind a pretty picture. :-) J/K.

1 upvote
pdelux
By pdelux (May 26, 2012)

wow who really needs 12mm Wide angle with such shallow DOF as a 0.7 (1.4 equiv DOF)

Well im sures theres someone but probably not enough to warrant the design costs.

0 upvotes
QuarterToDoom
By QuarterToDoom (May 26, 2012)

> http://www.dpreview.com/members/8134818847/galleries This should give everyone an idea....

2 upvotes
zos xavius
By zos xavius (May 28, 2012)

Omg. That was worse than expected. Come back when you can learn how to take some actual pictures. I hope you learn photoshop too as you indicated you had shown interest in. Even in the film days the pros knew how to process negatives. These numbers you write are all meaningless if you aren't using them in the real world. Go back to your armchair and take a breather. We figured out how to calculate for crop factor a long time ago. f1.2 is exotic, and you want f0.75?? For what? More dof test shots? Please. Next.......

1 upvote
Louis_Dobson
By Louis_Dobson (May 25, 2012)

What a lot of interest there is in Oly these days! Flaming nuisance, I can see I will have to pre-order...

6 upvotes
HornOUBet
By HornOUBet (May 25, 2012)

Dang...now I have to start saving AGAIN !!!

1 upvote
Jon Ragnarsson
By Jon Ragnarsson (May 25, 2012)

Yes, it is expensive. I would have preferred to see it cost, say, $600-700.

And included hood and distance scale and weather sealing. At least for that $900 price! It's like buying an expensive meal and not getting a chocolate with the after-dinner espresso!

BUT...

I think Olympus is playing a subtle marketing game here. It is an 'artisans' lens. If you look at the material from Olympus, they show us the unbelievable straight MTF graph, photos showing beautiful bokeh and such things. It is a lens for the perfectionist, and is marketed as such. It is not a lens for dads shooting their kids football game. Maybe we will see 80mm f2 or 100mm f2.8 in the near future for those purposes...

3 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (May 25, 2012)

"It is not a lens for dads shooting their kids football game. Maybe we will see 80mm f2 or 100mm f2.8 in the near future for those purposes..."

We will see Pana 35-100 for that purposes, but it will cost even more. :(

0 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (May 26, 2012)

Marketing wise, they are probably trying to do something like Pentax has done with their "limited" primes. But at least those are weather sealed and have a distance scale.

Though some others do the same, not including the lens hood looks cheap - not a good thing to do with a premium product. At this sort of price they should probably include a nice lens pouch as well as the hood and put it all in a fancy box.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Equinox_br
By Equinox_br (May 25, 2012)

Always nice to see Olympus glass!! :D

5 upvotes
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (May 25, 2012)

I don't get it...
What's the point previewing this lens without sample shots. I can't find them in this preview. Are they hidden somewhere?

3 upvotes
Guidenet
By Guidenet (May 25, 2012)

They usually come out with sample shots at some point after the initial preview or wait for a review. I'm not sure it matters though. Internet displayed photographs can be very misleading. You really have to be able to download a RAW file and process it yourself, then maybe print it fairly large to get a basic understanding as to the characteristics of a lens. Even then, it sometimes really takes a few months or years working with a lens to really get to know it.

All glass can look good or bad online depending on the photographer's skill and the processor.

1 upvote
zoomring
By zoomring (May 25, 2012)

Don't hold your breath for a review, they haven't reviewed a lens in almost 2 years....there is no REVIEW in DPreview

8 upvotes
Higuel
By Higuel (May 25, 2012)

And it is a pitty! :(

2 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (May 25, 2012)

I agree with zoomring - sadly: this portal drifted towards "gear news" only with added DSLR review from time to time instead of being thing site with reviews. Last lens review I can see was Sony Zeiss outstanding glass in.... Oct 20, 2010!
sad.

4 upvotes
Mr Smith05
By Mr Smith05 (May 25, 2012)

Zoomring, Higuel and Plastek...stop whinging. Be thankful that all this information is FREE. If you're unhappy with the content or lack thereof go to another website or buy a magazine. I think the folks at dpreview do a great job and I appreciate their efforts.

1 upvote
ZorSy
By ZorSy (May 25, 2012)

To reel you in to pre-order, without knowing how good it really is - manufacturers using reviewers, but not allowing them to publish any tests as "pre-production" units. Simple, just see how people are drooling over it - without doubts it will be the best 75 f1.8 lens for 4/3rd's....

0 upvotes
JacquesBalthazar
By JacquesBalthazar (May 25, 2012)

Looks good. I am surprised and happy with the "return of the prime", across all brands. For quite a few years,if not a couple decades, zooms had taken over and seemed to be squeezing primes out of the game. The current trend shows that new generations of users have driven the market full circle, and brands are developing great new propositions on the primes front. Both "high end" like this one, or the CZ for NEX or the new f1.4 range for Nikon. And "affordable" like the new f1.8 range from Nikon or the 50mm for NEX. Pentax is not alone anymore. The Oly primes are cute and tempting. Not so sure about the whole chrome/pseudo vintage trip though. I' d buy this one if I was a m4/3 user. Good focal length for outdoor portraits and low light events photography (jazz or rock concerts, individuals in crowd portraits at weddings and large parties, etc).

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
12 upvotes
Guidenet
By Guidenet (May 25, 2012)

I think there is no excuse for leaving out modern sonic ring focusing motors in a new lens today, especially at this price point. Giving old technology a new name doesn't help except for the fan faithful. These days, we demand that a modern Sigma lens have HSM (their name for sonic ring type). We demand that Tamron's newest be USD (same thing). Nikon owners require all new lenses be AFS. Canon owners have long required USM (ultra sonic motors).

Pentax and Sony have been slow to adopt probably because it is expensive. Only Pentax's top "Star" lenses seem to have SDM (Sonic Drive Motor). There maybe one or two others, but they are just now moving that way. Their two new medium format models of course use the newer technology.

So what's the excuse for not using modern sonic ring motors in a new $900 lens from Olympus? The lens isn't that small. A good AF design would be worth it even if it required a little more width to handle it. Most excuses are going to not make much sense really.

3 upvotes
Joesiv
By Joesiv (May 25, 2012)

Apparently micromotors were chosen by Olympus because they can operate the way Olympus needed them to for very fast contrast detect autofocus. I think it had something to do with torque and rapid change or directions needed for good CDAF.

As long as it's silent, I'm fine with it. Olympus also has sonic ring focusing on some of their lens' (12-60mm for example), so they know how to do it, they've obviously chosen the technology that they think fits best.

Price aside, what is it about sonic motors that makes it a requirement? For me it is the silent operation and manual focus override, both of which can be done on Olympus' micromotor focus lens'.

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
14 upvotes
ageha
By ageha (May 25, 2012)

Guidenet, you don't know what you're taking about. Have you worked with that lens? Of course not...

2 upvotes
Iskender
By Iskender (May 25, 2012)

Guidenet:
Phase detect autofocus and contrast detect autofocus have different motor needs.

PDAF can measure the point of best focus before it reaches it, so it will pull the focus there in one swift movement. This is an excellent fit for the round brushless motors you like.

CDAF gets little indication of best focus, so it often has to rack the focus back and forth. This is a good fit for small motors driving small focusing groups. Not racking the entire optical assembly back and forth will also make the focus more silent, which is important for movie shooters.

There is actually a ring-shaped brushless-type normal zoom that autofocuses on M43: the Four Thirds 12-60. Users report the sound is so disconcerting and the focus performance so bad that it's a good move to use it as a manual focus optic. Basically, ring-type focus motors are a poor choice on mirrorless, especially since MSC lenses are very swift in any case.

7 upvotes
zzapamiga
By zzapamiga (May 25, 2012)

I would love a technician to explain the different autofocus motors and their advantages and disadvantages in PDAF and CDAF cameras.
I used to use Canon SLR and then DSLR cameras and always remember USM being used in most of their lenses and micro motors only being in their cheapest lenses and being noisy and slow. Now most contrast detect autofocus lenses are using micro motors and appear to be more applicable for their application than ring type motors but their motors are fast and silent.
Olympus does has their own ring type technology that was used in their 4/3 lenses but now use micro motors in their m4/3 lenses including their premium lenses. I can only assume that they are using the best and most appropriate technology.
It is interesting that Samsung use ring type motors in their 85mm and 60mm lenses thus allowing full time mechanically linked manual focus.
If anyone could give a technical explanation on lens motors and their advantages and disadvantages it would be appreciated.

1 upvote
Guidenet
By Guidenet (May 25, 2012)

I appreciate the reasonable answers. I'm not sure I agree, but most are reasonable. I think a micro motor or screw drive are chosen for cost reasons. They certainly are slower than a sonic ring model. I know Oly has the newer technology and never said they didn't. Pentax does too, but it's only used on the more expensive glass.

I think the way a motor racks in and out for a particular type of AF is semiconductor controlled and can work regardless. Sonic ring is silent, accurate and fast compared to other systems. Moreover, it has an instant clutchless manual override which is welcome.

I might be wrong. This indeed might be a rare case where the old technology micro motor is a better solution technologically. Maybe it wasn't chosen because it was cheaper and easier to implement. I hope those who think this is a good idea are not just going on blind faith of the brand faithful.

0 upvotes
Billx08
By Billx08 (May 25, 2012)

> I think the way a motor racks in and out for a particular type of AF is semiconductor controlled and can work regardless. Sonic ring is silent, accurate and fast compared to other systems. Moreover, it has an instant clutchless manual override which is welcome.

It _can_ be faster, but just as with geared motors, AF-S lenses are sometimes designed to operate more slowly, in order to allow more precise and accurate focusing. This is true for Nikon's latest AF-S 50mm and 85mm lenses.

> I might be wrong. This indeed might be a rare case where the old technology micro motor is a better solution technologically.

>> There is actually a ring-shaped brushless-type normal zoom that autofocuses on M43: the Four Thirds 12-60. Users report the sound is so disconcerting and the focus performance so bad that it's a good move to use it as a manual focus optic. Basically, ring-type focus motors are a poor choice on mirrorless.

(continued)

0 upvotes
Billx08
By Billx08 (May 25, 2012)

(continued)

That's news to all of the mirrorless J1/V1 owners, since they only AF with native CX lenses which are all AF-S designs, as well as Nikon's AF-S DSLR lenses, and when they focus, whether using PDAF or CDAF, they do it silently. If that 12-60mm lens is loud and annoying, it's a poor design and not at all typical of AF-S (sonic ring) lenses. At least none of Nikon's are noisy and I've used more than a dozen of them.

> Maybe it wasn't chosen because it was cheaper and easier to implement. I hope those who think this is a good idea are not just going on blind faith of the brand faithful.

Heaven forbid. I'm surprised that 75mm being pretty long for a portrait lens wasn't mentioned. While 50mm through 200mm lenses can be used on full frame bodies, portrait lenses are usually 85mm and 105mm, and the Olympus 75mm is equivalent to 150mm, not exactly the first choice of portrait photographers. I think that your hope is misGuided [excuse the pun :)]

0 upvotes
Iskender
By Iskender (May 25, 2012)

Billx08: The 12-60 is ultra-fast and silent on its native SLRs, where it can do single fast movement autofocusing a lot of the time. It's clearly the CDAF that "breaks" it. Nikon are to be commended for their work on mirrorless focusing though.

>I think the way a motor racks in and out for a particular type of AF is semiconductor controlled and can work regardless. Sonic ring is silent, accurate and fast compared to other systems.

The problem is that the laws of physics are hit pretty fast. Everything points to the ring motors being fast due to high power. On CDAF you have to "turn" focus direction a lot, and that takes time and power.

In practice on M43 the thing deciding focus speed has been the size of the focus group: lenses like the 17/2.8 that move a lot of glass are slow. Those with an ultra-light focus group are very fast under your average conditions.

1 upvote
Billx08
By Billx08 (May 25, 2012)

I've only noticed AF getting noisy when geared motors are used and they're underpowered for the size of the lens. So lenses that made a lot of noise when used on Nikon's smaller bodies like the D50, D70 and D80 became less loud when mounted on a D300, and they became even quieter on a D700 or D3. But with Nikon's AF-S lenses, whether they're the tiny CX lenses designed for the J1/V1 or the much larger lenses like the 70-200mm f/2.8, they all focus silently on the little J1/V1 as far as I can tell, whether the camera is using PDAF or CDAF, and the focus speed is determined not by the Silent Wave (ring) Motor size but by the camera's CPU. This has been observed when teleconverters are used, and the camera NEEDS to be aware that there's a TC between the lens and the camera, and it uses that information to slow down the AF speed, otherwise AF performance would suffer.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
zyran
By zyran (May 25, 2012)

Let the Battle of the Equivalence begin.

7 upvotes
Iskender
By Iskender (May 25, 2012)

Resolving that many megapixels across a Four Thirds sensor means it has about four times the performance of an equivalent 35mm optic. :)

There, I said a stupid thing which will help no one take good photos. But did you expect me to say something about aperture? :D

10 upvotes
Amin Sabet
By Amin Sabet (May 25, 2012)

Doesn't Olympus know that you divide the focal length by the f-number, multiply by the weight of the glass in grams, and divide by 20 to get the equivalent price? Someone needs to learn them about Total Light Collection. TLC, baby. This lens is way overpriced.

3 upvotes
Iskender
By Iskender (May 25, 2012)

Also the light is frightened when it emerges from the back element. It expect a nice 40mm distance to the sensor, but suddenly the sensor is 20mm away and it has to hit it unprepared.

This emotional state of the light affect the hypersonic telecentricity and not even reversing the DOF polarity will help, nor will increasing the ISO in the discarge deflector. Clearly Olympus need to provide a larger imaging pipeline warp core if they want to sell at these prices.

8 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (May 25, 2012)

DPReview has given the newest 16 Megapixel micro 4/3rds sensors high praise. I still think APS-C provides better image quality. If the lenses, costs, size keep growing, I think one might as well choose a compact APS-C DSLR. Nikon and Canon don't even try in that area. Don't abandon your APS-C DLSRs, Canon and Nikon. Just make a compact one.

NO big deal, but I never considered 150mm a portrait lens. 135mm was a standard, but I'd rather work with 85-105mm, even less for a real portrait in context. Even 85mm is tight.

1 upvote
Matthew Miller
By Matthew Miller (May 25, 2012)

I think what you're looking for is called "Pentax". :)

5 upvotes
QuarterToDoom
By QuarterToDoom (May 25, 2012)

Hmm strange I always though the person behind the camera gave the better image quality.

9 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (May 25, 2012)

@gesture - Look at Sony Nex, beautifully small body.

Except for the lenses (or lack of them). This is why APS-C may not be suitable for "compact" bodies, ands not because they cant make them.

3 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (May 25, 2012)

> If the lenses, costs, size keep growing

You interpret the news strangely. There are cheaper lenses and there are cheaper bodies.

It's just that Olympus and Panasonic, along with cheaper gear started producing also expensive gear.

The release hasn't shrunk our options - it has increased them.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
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 compared to any APS-C camera.

3 upvotes
persiyan
By persiyan (May 25, 2012)

So, go compact if you want, don't buy the lens, problem solved.

17 upvotes
jj74e
By jj74e (May 25, 2012)

Obviously not every lens or even every body is compact with mirrorless cameras, even with m4/3.

To me, I chose mirrorless not because I expected every lens and body combination to be compact, but because I wanted the /option/ to choose a compact system when I wanted to, yet still have the versatility of a bigger system when needed.

Sure, the 75mm f1.8 isn't going to be compact, but it's still much smaller than comparable APS-C lenses at that focal length and aperture, and it can do more than what a pancake lens could do; need compactness? put a pancake on it. need something else? switch it out to a more capable system. it's about compromise and choice.

12 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (May 25, 2012)

This lens would be about 450-500g on APS-C and 900g on full frame.
This thing looks way more solid than my old 85mm F1.2L.

6 upvotes
T3
By T3 (May 25, 2012)

It is still "compact." Remember that this lens is equivalent to a 150/1.8 on FF. Such a lens on FF would be very large and heavy. This lens is still quite small. And it's still smaller than a Canon 100/2.0 (160/2.0 equivalent) on a Canon APS-C DSLR. (I'm using Canon as an example since I am a Canon DSLR user.) The Canon 100/2 is 460g, and measures 75mm (diam.) x 73.5 (length). The Oly 75/1.8 is 304g, and measures 63.5mm (diam.) x 69.5mm (length). So, yes, this lens is more compact than what you would use on APS-C.

You also have to keep in mind that this lens, *combined* with an m4/3 body, will be *significantly* smaller and more compact than a 100/2.0 on a Canon APS-C DSLR body! You really have to look at the complete package: lens + body. The lens is already smaller than a Canon 100/2.0, and an m4/3 body is *much* more than a Canon APS-C DSLR. So the complete package will be much smaller/more compact than putting a Canon 100/2.0 on *any* Canon APS-C DSLR.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
12 upvotes
Matthew Miller
By Matthew Miller (May 25, 2012)

T3, to be more pedantic, in many practical ways (assuming, for example, same size prints, and assuming that full-frame cameras have a one-stop noise advantage over micro-four-thirds), it's equivalent to a 150mm f/3.6 (or f/3.5).

1 upvote
Gao Gao
By Gao Gao (May 25, 2012)

Not bad. At least a bit smaller and lighter than the EF 135/2.8

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (May 25, 2012)

@Matthew Miller- no, you can't simply assume that FF has a one stop noise advantage over m4/3. For example, I have a Canon 5D. I would say that, compared to the Olympus E-M5, the 5D is beat in both resolution *and* noise! So let's just take any presumptuous assumptions on sensor performance out of the equation because if I take an E-M5 out shooting along with my 5D, I'd actually feel a bit more comfortable cranking up the ISO on the E-M5.

Besides, the reality is that pretty much all sensors these days offer pretty darn phenomenal image performance. I'm not a pixel peeper, and you really need to be an anal pixel peeper to notice much difference between today's latest sensors.

A more practical consideration is how much gear weight and bulk I have to lug around or put in my carry-on baggage without surpassing the airline's restrictive limits! You can obsess over your anal pixel peeping of pixel-level differences in image performance. I have more practical considerations.

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (May 25, 2012)

Massimo, congrats. You've just invented the "equivalent weight" concept :)

1 upvote
Matthew Miller
By Matthew Miller (May 26, 2012)

T3: I agree that all current sensors are amazing, but I don't think that really changes the equation. Full frame has almost 4× the light-gathering surface area, and nothing short of magic is going to change that advantage. It's perfectly reasonably to argue that it doesn't matter so much, but it's not reasonable to argue that reality goes away. I stand by the assertion that f/3.6 is a better "equivalence" in terms of actual results.

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
micksh6
By micksh6 (May 25, 2012)

Front element seems to be rather large. 75mm F1.8 lens requires only 42mm front element diameter. This looks close to 50mm probably?

For comparison, Pentax 77mm F1.8 limited lens has 49mm filter thread and its front element is smaller, probably around 43mm.

I wonder why is that. Maybe this lens is a bit faster than F1.8?

0 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (May 25, 2012)

It'll probably give better optical performance.
Your maths is correct, but life is not about achieving the bare mininum.

4 upvotes
bradleyg5
By bradleyg5 (May 25, 2012)

I would wager the design is very close to a typical 85mm F1.8 full format lens. It's probably over designed in that respect because you end up with less vignetting and greater sharpness when you are just using the centre of a larger image circle.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Iskender
By Iskender (May 25, 2012)

Vignetting sounds like a very good guess. The Sigma 30/1.4 and 50/1.4 have oversized front elements and the manufacturer has specifically said that they're about reduced vignetting.

1 upvote
JorgeLima
By JorgeLima (May 25, 2012)

Your calculation is right for the pupil size. The front element isn't necessarily coincident with the pupil. Of course, the optical designer may try to place the pupil close to the front element to reduce the amount of glass used and thus the cost. To be exact things a far more complicated, but take as an example a 28mm F2.8 lens, your calculation would give 10mm front element, which is actually close to the apparent size of the aperture, not the front element.

0 upvotes
bg2b
By bg2b (May 25, 2012)

From an Olympus spokesman on another forum:

"As you realised, this lens describes very beautiful bokeh, because it has been designed with as less vignetting as possible. If you take night scene with spotlights in background, you can get almost perfect circle of the blurred spotlights as attached file shows. Because of priority of small and light weight recently, manufactures design a lens with acceptable level of vignetting We can compensate the lack of brightness in corners by digital processing, but the perfect circle of blurred spotlight can't be got in this case. As you know, not only this lens but also 45mm F1.8 gives beautiful bokeh. As a camera manufacturer, we are developing these specific lenses with strong policy"

1 upvote
dtmoody
By dtmoody (May 24, 2012)

this was fast

0 upvotes
zzapamiga
By zzapamiga (May 24, 2012)

Just wondering what the advantages and disadvantages are of the new MSC screw drive autofocus and how does it compare to a micro motor or ultrasonic lens?

http://www.olympus.com.au/Learn---Explore/Core-Technologies/MSC-lens-technology.aspx

1 upvote
Gregm61
By Gregm61 (May 24, 2012)

The MSC system (its' not new...they've been using it now for a while) is not a screw-drive mechanism, and the prime lenses I use fitted with the same mechanism (12mm f2, 45mm f1.8) are faster focusing (and silent) than the very fast SWD motors in Olympus four-thirds DSLR lenses, which are very similar to ring USM lenses.

1 upvote
zzapamiga
By zzapamiga (May 24, 2012)

The Olympus article I linked on MSC states:

High precision screw drive system. It is silent because it is an internal focusing mechanism that moves just one lens unit.

http://www.olympus.com.au/Learn---Explore/Core-Technologies/MSC-lens-technology.aspx

Just trying to understand the advantages of this type of focusing motor in a contrast detect autofocus system compared to Samsung implementing a ring type ultrasonic motor "Super-Sonic Actuator" in their 60mm and 85mm lenses.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Vlad S
By Vlad S (May 25, 2012)

The screw probably gives more precision for very small adjustments, because a large input (turn) results in a small output (linear movement).

1 upvote
Guidenet
By Guidenet (May 25, 2012)

I think they might use it because it requires less weight and doesn't increase the size of the lens. I think it's nonsense about scanning because it's the AF logic in the camera that does that, not the mechanics of the lens. It doesn't matter if it's phase or contrast. Either one tells the lens where to focus.

I don't think there is any advantage in design for the old fashioned screw drive nor the old noisy unreliable micro motors. There is no doubt in my mind that USM/ASF/HSM/USD type sonic motors are superior to any other way of doing it. If they could have figured out how to go that way without growing the lens much more or without raising the price much more, then they probably would have done it. I think anything else is just the manufactures excuse for using an older design.

It looks like a well build looking lens, but it's expensive and uses an outdated AF system. We'll have to wait for tests to see how sharp. Anyone here want to translate f/1.8 to equivalent aperture FX.

1 upvote
ageha
By ageha (May 25, 2012)

Actually those new Samsung NX lenses focus rather slowly! You should see them in action, they aren't amazing.

1 upvote
Joesiv
By Joesiv (May 25, 2012)

@ Guidenet, Vlad I think has your answer, micromotors can spin greater amounts with less actual motion due to the gearing, think small motor works harder, but is good for rapid back and forth. Wheras sonic motors are directly tied to the focusing action (no gearing), so very small movements are difficult if not impossible, and racking back and forth in very minor distances is not the best use of the technology, if it could do it at all.

Someone else also mentioned that sonic motors need to be calibrated to a focus rack to get both accuracy and speed, there is a tradeoff (very noticeable in nikon lens'), either you have accurate focus but at the expense of speed, or less accuracy with great speed, this is again due to the sonic motors being linked directly to focus racking action.

It's not hard to understand why a sonic motor isn't ideal for very fast accurate CDAF, which Olympus seems to be doing very well with their "older design" as you say.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
AnandaSim
By AnandaSim (May 27, 2012)

There you go again old friend Craig (Guidenet). Trying to compare how big your thing is against the puny other things.

That's not what photography is all about. It's about having fun and enjoying what you have and using it.

Seriously would you compare your FX Nikon to this?

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/--5DkQnYgP18/T8DIVAoSA-I/AAAAAAAAp8w/aeoMVSA4D_I/s800/PEN10040.JPG

I mean, seriously, there is no point in comparing.

And the results

http://youtu.be/ChZWVmYiCgw

Seize The Day!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Total comments: 185