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
roblarosa
By roblarosa (May 24, 2012)

PT Barnum was right.... There *is* a sucker born every minute and I guess a few more will be once this hit's the shelves.

1 upvote
nomiss777
By nomiss777 (May 24, 2012)

I guess I'm a sucker... Probably even more when the 60mm macro is announced too. Good times to be a sucker though.

1 upvote
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (May 24, 2012)

Somebody's got to save Olympus. It might as well be the lens buyers.

2 upvotes
zigi_S
By zigi_S (May 24, 2012)

It's out of my budget but i'm not complaining. A Bentley is also out of my league and you don't see me trolling how it's overpriced. If you can't afford it, then it obviously isn't geared towards you. I'm sure this lens will be ridiculously sharp and have phenomenal IQ. Something the equivalency fanatics don't take into the account. But i'm sure those who have the money and taste won't care.

1 upvote
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (May 24, 2012)

Just messin' with ya. I'll keep my Nikons, thanks.

0 upvotes
SLOtographer
By SLOtographer (May 24, 2012)

Start saving. If it rises to SHG quality, then it's going to be awesome. Awesomeness normally doesn't come cheap. I spent more on a Canon 135L and love it. If you like the focal length or want an alternative to a tele zoom, this is it.

The design suggests bokehliciousness.

4 upvotes
rssarma
By rssarma (May 24, 2012)

While I like the direction m4/3s is heading, its definitely not turning out the budget system I thought it would be. I was an Olympus user for 5 years before I switched to the D700; I still use an E-1 & E-330, but the cost to get into m43s seems pretty high to me.

3 upvotes
Tim F 101
By Tim F 101 (May 24, 2012)

This is not correct. You can buy an E-PM1 for $500 or an E-PL1 for $150 plus an excellent Sigma prime or two for $200 and you already have quite a bit of what the micro four thirds format has to offer: a compact jacket-pocketable camera with great picture quality and a full suite of manual controls. For years I took fantastic pics with an E-P1, a Panasonic 20mm and a cheap legacy 50/1.8.

The fact that you can spend much more for top-quality gear just makes the system a better investment for people who want to start small and upgrade as they gain experience.

5 upvotes
Breen
By Breen (May 24, 2012)

Well there is always 45 1.8 which is not as expensive.

4 upvotes
rssarma
By rssarma (May 24, 2012)

Hi Tim, those are great options indeed, but I've always wanted something more in the same league as the E-M5, so I used a GH-1 before this. With 4/3s, the 12-60mm was my workhorse lens and with the D700, 24-120mm F4 is, I find it a little disappointing that there is no suitable replacement in m4/3s and the 12-50mm lens is pretty disappointing to me.

Also, I like wide-angle photography a lot and do head-shots as well, for this purpose, the price I paid for the Sigma 12-24, Sigma 15mm F2.8 & Nikon 85mm F1.8, all three combined would only be slightly higher than the cost of this one lens.

Don't get me wrong, I love the direction of m4/3s, but I find this borderline price gouging, something I never felt with 4/3s. Especially when Olympus decides to even charge such high premiums for lens hoods.

1 upvote
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (May 24, 2012)

^^ I feel the same way. When I heard about mirrorless my first thought was that since there won't be much glass needed the prices must be pretty reasonable. However with lenses like the 12mm f2, Panasonic 7-14mm, Olympus 75-300mm and now this lens I can't help but feel this is one expensive system.

3 upvotes
rssarma
By rssarma (May 24, 2012)

The only two reasonably priced lenses I've owned from Panasonic are the 20mm F/1.7 and the 14-140mm lens. Both are fantastic, but everything else seems really pricey to me.

Two examples that come to mind are the Pana 25mm & 45mm lenses, both are fantastic, but just so expensive!

Anyway, I love the system for what it is, but I'd be hard pressed to buy into it at this price. I'll unfortunately have to endure the weight of my D700 until the prices of m4/3 level off a bit.

To be honest, this lens, to me, would be awesome if it was priced around $599, simply because it's smaller and an F1.8 at that.

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

I believe there's a misconception that m43==budget. I don't think that's the case, and i'm not sure it would be beneficial for the system either. Yes, if you want budget, you can have it, get one of those dirt chip rebate bodies and the 14mm, 20mm and 45mm, and you have a great little system at an affordable price.

For me, the key of this system is portability, not cheapness. Where this system is becoming stronger every day is at offering a portable alternative while not sacrificing quality, and thats HUGE. No other system does that in the same way as m43 (well, maybe the Leica system, but most mortals can't afford it, so i'm not considering it).

3 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (May 24, 2012)

Yes, there are motors in these lenses and they feature aspherical elements. Still. Modern manufacturing technology. Computerized design. Assembly in lower wage nations. I am new to this, but think all the system camera lenses are over-priced, whether DX APS-C or Micro 4/3rds. When you see Yashica 50 1.4 screw mount lenses going for $50-100, a 24mm Minolta MD lens going for $200, oh where are my Konica Hexanon lenses !!!!

2 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (May 24, 2012)

Or the recent full manual Samyang 85 f1.4 , for 1/3 of this lense price. No motor, no autofocus, manual aperture ring, a little bigger than Oly and 200g heavier (but f1.4 versus f1.8) and made for a 4 time bigger sensor. More amazing, the samyang come with front cap, rear cap, pouch and hood.

2 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (May 24, 2012)

I agree it is overpriced, but comparing prices to old lenses (that were actually expensive in their day) is a bit of a stretch.

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (May 24, 2012)

I thought this lens was made in Japan.

0 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (May 24, 2012)

And I thought lenses for small sensors were supposed to be smaller and cheaper than lenses for full-frame. The Canon 85/1.8 (an excellent lens optically with very fast ring USM focusing and good build quality) goes for $389 at B&H right now.

Shouldn't this lens, with shorter focal length and thus a smaller aperture, designed for a 1/4 sized sensor go for around $250 or so?

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (May 24, 2012)

They are, especially if you compare correct lenses (FOV) ie. with Zuiko 45mm/1.8. That runs under 300€ at the moment.

You wouldn't compare 110mm/f2.8 lens on 6x7 to an 105mm/f2.8 lens on 24x36mm format or would you? Totally different FOV.

1 upvote
viking79
By viking79 (May 24, 2012)

The 45/1.8 is equivalent to a 90mm f/3.5 on a 135 format (full frame) camera. Sony has an 85mm f/2.8 for 135 format that is less than $300 US. So even the 45mm f/1.8 is somewhat expensive.

The 75mm f/1.8 is equivalent to a 150mm f/3.5, where the equivalent Canon is probably the 135/2.8 soft focus and it is only about $600.

What this doesn't take into account are the quality of the optics, and I am sure the Olympus is good.

Eric

2 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (May 24, 2012)

"Correct Equivalent" could be a Sony 85mm f2.8 on APS-C which is under $300 and like using a 60mm f2.1 on m43. Or maybe a 85mm f1.4 on Canon APS-C for $900 (which would be like using a 70mm f1.1 on m43). And the Sigma 85mm f1.4 is a stellar lens.

You can't claim equivalent focal length in your favor and ignore equivalent aperture.

2 upvotes
ebbesen
By ebbesen (May 24, 2012)

Lenses of high optical quality have never come cheap.

Raw material costs matter little in lens production ...but you probably already knew that and just came by to stir the pot.

MFT does offer a much wider selection of lenses than any other mirrorless system on the market today, but having been around for only 3-4 years the lens line-up of course won't match Canon's (Canon SLRs have been around since '59, back when monkeys orbited the earth).

If MFT keeps up the momentum you'll get your budget-friendly 75mm one day.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (May 24, 2012)

First of all, smaller lenses doesn't necessarily mean cheaper lenses. Just look at Leica M lenses. Those lenses are tiny, but cost a fortune.

Secondly, the Canon 85/1.8 has been around since 1992. It has recouped its development costs many times over, and sells to a much larger market (economies of scale), so it's obviously going to be a lot less expensive.

2 upvotes
c_henry
By c_henry (May 24, 2012)

@viking79: No, the 75mm f1.8 is the equivalent of the 135 f2.0. Unless you're under the impression that with a m43 lens when you meter with an external lightmeter and it tells you to set the 1/60th at f2.0 you would set 1/60th at f4.0?? I mean you could, but you'd be underexposing, you know that, right?

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
1 upvote
DarkShift
By DarkShift (May 24, 2012)

@tkbslc

Get your maths right. There's no 1 EV area difference between m43 and APS-C.

Its 0.46 EV between m4/3 and Canon APS, 0.65 EV between m4/3 and Sony APS.

Again F-number is not absolute aperture, its relation between focal length and aperture.

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

You people are all morons! The m4/3 75/1.8 is exactly equivalent to a FF 85/1.8, when used three paces farther from the subject! Approximately. Anyway, m4/3 is exactly equivalent to FF, for people with social phobias.

0 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (May 24, 2012)

Totally worth it.

1 upvote
TrapperJohn
By TrapperJohn (May 24, 2012)

Ouch, that's a bit pricey. OTOH, if the IQ is in the same league as the ZD 150 F2, it's probably worth the price. Yes there are any number of cheapos that cost less, but until one has actually used the finest Olympus optics, it's hard to see why their lenses are worth the premium price.

Keep carping on about shallow portrat DOF, FF lovers. It's about all you have left to justify the very high cost and bulk of the system. Other than that, the little runts have just about caught you in terms of practical, useable performance.

Actually, I have an old Nikkor 105 1.8 that does quite well at cutting DOF on a 4/3 body. Not a matter of which one is better, but what is adequate for the task at hand.

7 upvotes
Vlastik
By Vlastik (May 24, 2012)

I hope they will decrease that price and comparing Nikon 85 ... we will see but looking to that

http://www.lenstip.com/333.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_85_mm_f_1.8G__Image_resolution.html

http://www.lenstip.com/316.4-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_45_mm_f_1.8_Image_resolution.html

I believe that Oly would be much better :-)

0 upvotes
JonB1975
By JonB1975 (May 24, 2012)

To all the equivalency people:

What do you use to calculate exposure?
- ISO setting, shutter speed, f-stop. This is the reason why the lens is described as f1.8 - so the camera behaves the way people expect.

What do you use to calculate depth of field?
- focal length and f-stop. This is the reason why the lens is listed as 75mm, again so depth of field calculations would be correct - if it was listed as 150mm naysayers would REALLY be up in arms!

4 upvotes
Dennis
By Dennis (May 24, 2012)

Yes, ISO, shutter speed & f-stop are the settings that influence the image brightness, and it's an f/1.8 lens; no doubt about it.

Depth of field comes from focal length, f-stop, focus distance and sensor size. And it's a 75/1.8.

The only time equivalence comes into play is when someone wants to know what, in terms on another sensor size, the lens is equivalent to. It is NOT equivalent to a 150/1.8.

0 upvotes
Erik Magnuson
By Erik Magnuson (May 24, 2012)

Why do you care about ISO setting? Noise. Why do you choose a focal length? Field of view & framing. The equivalency people are saying the numbers are equivalent only if they have the same impact on the same photo taken under the same conditions. When the sensor size is different, the photographic effect is different.

No-one is suggesting that the lens be labeled with anything other than 75mm or f/1.8. But those numbers are only useful when comparing the lens directly to another lens for a 4/3 sensor.

0 upvotes
mapgraphs
By mapgraphs (May 24, 2012)

A simple experiment might help illuminate the aperture/equivalency discussion relating to 4/3 and m4/3 systems.

I took a 40-150 f3.5/4.5 zoom, set it to about 135mm, set the camera to Aperture priority framed a shot and got a reading of f4.3 at 1/80 – took shot and replaced the lens with a Nikon 135mm f2.8 with adaptor, framed the same shot and took a reading wide open at f2.8 and got a shutter speed of 1/320. Dialing the aperture down to f4.5 gave a reading of 1/80. Both shots matched the first shot.

Long story short, focal length equivalency (to a traditional 35mm film format lens) for 4/3 is 2x. Or as with the above example 135mm = 270mm and f2.8 = f2.8. So, a M.Zuiko 150mm (equivalent) f1.8 High Grade lens for a grand is not a stretch by any means.

I wish I had a business reason to drop 1k on such a lens, or a 16mp camera for that matter. Let alone 3k on a “full frame” body. One can still appreciate the craftsmanship… And thank DPR for the news and reviews.

0 upvotes
Erik Magnuson
By Erik Magnuson (May 24, 2012)

mapgraphs, that's *not* what anyone else means w.r.t to equivalency because you used the same sensor size for both shots. Repeat your experiment with a 4/3 and FF camera under low light conditions that require an exposure of 1/60 and f/2 at ISO 1600 using say 25mm focal length for 4/3. If you also shoot the FF camera with a 50mm from the same position at ISO1600 1/60 and f/2 you will have less noise and less DOF. So now change the FF camera to ISO 3200 and f/2.8, now what do you get? ISO 6400 and f/4?

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mapgraphs
By mapgraphs (May 24, 2012)

Equivalency apparently means different things to different people at different times. I come from 135 and 2 1/4 film mostly. I'm not interested in what a full frame sensor does at this point. The issue for me is what a particular lens is going to do with regards to a 4/3 or m4/3 camera. The point is that f1.8 = f1.8.

And in over 45 years of shooting and printing, I've never needed or seen a need for less depth of field. I wish there was something out there that went to f128 like my Kodak 3a did.

0 upvotes
Erik Magnuson
By Erik Magnuson (May 24, 2012)

f/1.8 is a simple mathematical ratio - a dimensionless number w/o any meaning unless you put it into context of light level, shutter speed and noise. If you don't care about equivalency, then ignore it. The others are commenting on the practice of converting focal length to equivalent FOV but ignoring aperture equivalence for DOF/total light gathered.

0 upvotes
Dennis
By Dennis (May 24, 2012)

If you're looking for a 150mm equivalent, that's fine. And if f/1.8 is fast enough for you, that's fine. (I happen to think it's a perfectly nice lens). But it's not equivalent to a 150/1.8 any more than the 22X zoom on a digicam is equivalent to a 600/4. You don't get the same depth of field (I'm not saying it's not shallow enough, just saying it's not as shallow) and you don't get the same low light capabilities (due to the ability of the larger sensor to gather more light across a larger surface, seen in the ability to shoot at a higher ISO with the same noise). In other words, nobody needs to care about equivalence, but at the same time, that doesn't make incorrect statements right. It's an f/1.8 lens with that's equivalent to a 150 on FF in terms of FOV. That's good enough for many, but it's not equivalent to a 150/1.8 on FF.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (May 24, 2012)

Looks like due to losses Pana and Oly lens departments were ordered to increase their prices to INSANE.

5 upvotes
Heather Protz
By Heather Protz (May 24, 2012)

Seems quite big.

0 upvotes
sglewis
By sglewis (May 24, 2012)

I bet a 300mm f/2.8 would be even bigger. Come on, it's a 150mm f/1.8 lens. It's going to be bigger than the 14-42 kit zoom.

0 upvotes
emircruz
By emircruz (May 24, 2012)

http://www.quesabesde.com/camdig/noticias/Olympus_MZuiko_75mm_1.jpg

0 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (May 24, 2012)

No, it's the camera that is small :) Lens is 7cm long and 7cm diameter.

2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (May 24, 2012)

It's still smaller than a Canon 85/1.8.

2 upvotes
JensR
By JensR (May 24, 2012)

> Come on, it's a 150mm f/1.8 lens.

It is not a 150/1.8 lens. It is a 75/1.8 lens.
It has the same FOV, DOF and captures the same number of photons per time as a 150/3.6 lens would on "full frame".

1 upvote
Heather Protz
By Heather Protz (May 24, 2012)

Specs sound great.

1 upvote
Louis_Dobson
By Louis_Dobson (May 24, 2012)

If anyone objects to paying arm+leg for the lens hood, JJC invariably follow up with a direct copy for peanuts.

I suspect Oly are trying market segmentation with these over-priced hoods - the kit will be bought both by keen shooters, who are price sensitive, and the kind of rich fools who waste money on kit they don't know how to use in duty free shops etc. Clearly you need two different prices for those groups. So, the mean people like me will buy the lens with no hood, and the people with more money than sense will just hand over their card for lens and hood.

I'm not sure Oly are wise doing this. Before I found out JJC would do me a perfect 12mm hood for nearly nothing, I was almost ready to ditch the system. People get very cross about attempts to gouge silly money out of them.

7 upvotes
echelon2004
By echelon2004 (May 24, 2012)

That would only work if the version without hood was the most expensive one, the one for people with no sense or knowledge. And than they could have a version with hood, painted matte black on the inside, for photographers :)

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (May 24, 2012)

Nice explanation, but, incorrect. Oly is just gouging its users. End of story.

2 upvotes
ithinkthatsme
By ithinkthatsme (May 24, 2012)

For DOF maniacs, some sample photos are here: http://olympus-imaging.jp/product/dslr/mlens/75_18/sample/index.html

So, to resume it, you have a lens that gives you the Effective Focal Length of 150mm lens wich you can expose as an F1.8 lens and have shallow DOF of an 150mm/F4 lens ... i think people doesn't realise how shallow an 150mm/F4 lens will give you. Oh yeah and it weight a lot less and also much smaller.

4 upvotes
c_henry
By c_henry (May 24, 2012)

Yep, but that won't stop people complaining about it, unfortunately. But for the rest of us, its going to be a great lens at a decent price.

Thanks for the link.

1 upvote
mg_k
By mg_k (May 24, 2012)

150mm/f4 is shallow?? Clearly you haven't shot portrait @ 200mm f2.8 on ff....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kin2son/6930207816/in/photostream/lightbox/

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

Yep - I use an 85/1.4 on APS-C but rarely shoot it faster than f/2 where DOF is more than sufficiently shallow for my tastes. Sony makes an 85/2.8 that's going to offer less shallow DOF than this Oly, but samples I've seen are decent enough. I'd be more than happy with this lens, though can't say I'd want to pay $900 for it when I can get the Nikon 85/1.8 for $500. (I'm sure it's a beautifully built lens).

0 upvotes
DeanAllan
By DeanAllan (May 24, 2012)

150mm f4 dof equivalent is pretty shallow, you can even get the same effect on a 50mm at f2 on an apsc sensor (if you want) at a shorter working distance even.
I would like to add, that on an em-5 it might look big because the camera itself is pretty small. I noticed in the pic above that the filter thread is 58mm? that is pretty small, not as small as the Pentax FA 77mm(@49mm) but small enough.

0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (May 24, 2012)

@mg_k: that bokeh looks horrible!!

0 upvotes
ithinkthatsme
By ithinkthatsme (May 24, 2012)

@mg_k: i have been a little bit genereous, it's actually F3.6 and yes it is shallow, have been shooting FF, actually 35mm film cameras. and i have a zuiko 200mm F4, now just to put an image as you have done, here is an OM Zuiko 85mm/f2 shot on E-Pen 1, thats is equivalent to an 170mm not muuuch different from the announced lens:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ithinkthatsme/6042268272/

Now, do you think the DOF in the baby photo (in the samples released by Olympus) is not shallow enough? for me it is.

0 upvotes
mg_k
By mg_k (May 25, 2012)

The baby photo is shallow only because it's a closeup shot. But for normal full/half body portrait, it's not shallow at all and dof is aplenty @ f2.8.

0 upvotes
waxwaine
By waxwaine (May 24, 2012)

That´s not compact!

1 upvote
M Jesper
By M Jesper (May 24, 2012)

Wait till you see a 150mm F1.8 on a full-frame.

8 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (May 24, 2012)

Jesper this lens is not 150mm F1.8 for DOF on FF.

3 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (May 24, 2012)

you mean 150/f4?

1 upvote
Thanatham Piriyakarnjanakul
By Thanatham Piriyakarnjanakul (May 24, 2012)

Look the Sigma 150 f/2.8 Macro.

1 upvote
DeanAllan
By DeanAllan (May 24, 2012)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=40945064

seems compact enuff for me.

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

The world doesn't revolve around shallow DoF you know. In fact, it revolves around the sun, giving us F1.8 equivalent shutter speeds all the same.

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (May 24, 2012)

No L-F button? They seem inconsistent.

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

A what ? You mean the Fn button on Samsung NX lenses ?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (May 24, 2012)

He means the Lens-Function button. There's one on the OM-D kit lens.

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

Oh i see. Well if there is anything inconsistent it's the button being there on the kit lens, not the lack of it on this completely different cookie we see here :)

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (May 24, 2012)

No, they started to add it with their previous lens (which is 12-50), they added its support into E-M5's firmware, and forgot the button on their next lens after 12-50 and E-M5. Inconsistent.

0 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (May 24, 2012)

What are you babbling about now?

0 upvotes
Valentinian
By Valentinian (May 24, 2012)

Monday I ordered a OM D E-M5 with the kit 14-42, and I should receive it in 3 - 4 weeks.
Fortunately it will come with a free (after rebate) adaptor to use OM lenses. And already bought a used manual focus OM 135/3.5.
Really, cannot afford the price of new M43 lenses: Olympus 12/2, Panasonic 12-35/2.8, and now Olympus 75/1.8 are very nice lenses, but... I'll try to find good used primes....

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (May 24, 2012)

You will be well served. Try to find the OM 50mm/f1.4, and any 24mm and 28mm. You'll get wonderfully rich, saturated colours and all the sharpness you'll ever need. If you do so, chances are you'll hardly ever use that 14-42 zoom.

2 upvotes
Tim F 101
By Tim F 101 (May 24, 2012)

See if you can find an OM 135/2.8 . It is sharp wide open and not very large, especially on an EM5. My copy might be my single favorite lens, though I do not use it much since I bought a GH2. Long legacy lenses make you really miss IBIS.

0 upvotes
jackgreen
By jackgreen (May 24, 2012)

Being honest, this Ply glass looks better than Leica DG 45mm "can" with such a small small front lens.

1 upvote
ebosch
By ebosch (May 24, 2012)

Now if only they make a black version of it... and the 12/2 and 45/1.8 too

6 upvotes
zapatista
By zapatista (May 24, 2012)

Amen.

0 upvotes
getoutandshoot
By getoutandshoot (May 24, 2012)

yes! Black body option needs black lens options, Olympus!

0 upvotes
zapatista
By zapatista (May 24, 2012)

My Konica Hexanon AR 85mm f1.8 ($200) is looking better all the time. Especially with the new OM-D IBIS and the fact it's a full frame lens-adaptible for other systems if needed in the future. I'm sure the Olympus lens is very nice and the auto focus will be lightning quick in good lighting, but to me it's a low-light lens or for portraiture-both which require manual focus.

1 upvote
Jogger
By Jogger (May 24, 2012)

i bet the lens hood is sold separately for $100, like the 12/2

0 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (May 24, 2012)

$100 for a simple piece of metal, really ?

0 upvotes
WT21
By WT21 (May 24, 2012)

If anyone remembers the Oly zooms from 43, they were always over the moon. One reason I never tried the 43 system.

1 upvote
ZAnton
By ZAnton (May 24, 2012)

It is very strange that each year Oly and Pana are making accent on progressively cheaper and smaller cameras, but their lens prices are going over the clouds.
It looks like a trap for beginners, who buy a kit first, and then start building a system.

9 upvotes
Michele Kappa
By Michele Kappa (May 24, 2012)

It is very strange that each year Canon and Nikon are making accent on progressively cheaper but not smaller cameras, and their lens prices are going over the clouds anyway.
It looks like a trap for beginners, who buy a kit first, and then start building a system.

8 upvotes
Button Pusher
By Button Pusher (May 24, 2012)

A trap because people can't be bothered to look up the price of any other lens than the one that comes with their kit? Or a trap because there are many m43 lenses that are affordable?

0 upvotes
sglewis
By sglewis (May 24, 2012)

I don't see it as a trap. You can buy a body with a 14-42 kit lens for $500 (e-pm1) or $600 (e-pl3). Or you can spend more and go e-p3 or om-d. While they are these expensive primes, it's not like you can't buy affordable lenses, like the Sigma 19mm or 30mm, both f/2.8 lenses for $199. Right now B&H has the Panasonic 45-200 for $199. The Oly 40-150 is $299. For the same price you can get the 17mm pancake or Panasonic 14mm pancake and for $50 more you can get the 20mm Panasonic pancake. Those zooms are small, compact, and super wide ranging. The pancakes are pretty darn fast, compared to just about every lens I ever had for my Canon except a 50mm until I started buying expensive L glass.

1 upvote
nekrosoft13
By nekrosoft13 (May 24, 2012)

similar lens for Canon or Nikon will cost you more. so stop complaining that oly got cheaper lenses.

0 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (May 24, 2012)

@nekrosoft13
Couple of examples please.

0 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (May 24, 2012)

I think this will make me stick with the 45mm indefinitely. But primes do seem to be the way to go for sharpness and image quality with M4/3 cameras.

When this lens drops it's price down to $600ish, maybe I'll consider it.

Not happy about the lens-hood being optional for the top-end prime lenses though. Not happy at all.

1 upvote
dtmoody
By dtmoody (May 24, 2012)

Beautiful lens. Brava to Oly for pushing out yet another lens for M43.

3 upvotes
D200_4me
By D200_4me (May 24, 2012)

Optional lens hood. Come on Olympus....really? I had to pay nearly $90 for a hood for the 12mm f/2.

0 upvotes
Tim in upstate NY
By Tim in upstate NY (May 24, 2012)

No you didn't. Cheapo rubber hoods are all over Ebay for every size.

0 upvotes
Button Pusher
By Button Pusher (May 24, 2012)

True Tim, but you have to admit that the official lens hoods from the latest Oly offerings are price gouging at best.

0 upvotes
Ivanaker
By Ivanaker (May 24, 2012)

I just cant understand the pricing of m43, or any mirrorless gear, it is way to much.
75 f/1.8 - $899.99
om-d - $1,299.00

on the other hand
nikon d7000 - $1,199.00
very new 85 f1.8 - $499.00

And that lens is an investment as you can venture to FX format with it.

Im glad m43 exists, some nice cameras and lenses from them, and they are pushing tech forward, and forcing Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax.... to make even better DSLR.
But i cant see how anyone can choose om-d + 75 1.8 when for the same money you can get d7000, 85 1.8(FX), 50 1.8(FX) and 35 1.8(DX).
And im not going even to venture into benefits of one system or another, ill give you that m43 is smaller.

17 upvotes
Breen
By Breen (May 24, 2012)

What you do not understand? Who said Nikkor 85 1.8 is as good as Olympus 75 1.8? Another thing, how big is Nikon D7000? OMD is very HQ camera, but compared to DLSR it is much smaller!

If someone wants good(and possibly small) weather sealed camera with super HQ lenses will not buy D7000 because it is huge compared to OMD.

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

``Who said Nikkor 85 1.8 is as good as Olympus 75 1.8``
This is very funny. 85 1.8 is one of the sharpest nikon lenses ever made, and people are using it, and loving it, so the real question should be:
Who knows if this new Oly is as good as 85 1.8 from Nikon?

I said Oly is smaller, and that im happy that it exists, but benefits of DSLR are still very huge, you dont want to go there.

is this lens weather sealed?

10 upvotes
julieng
By julieng (May 24, 2012)

Lenses don't lose much value over time, but not to the point of following inflation : if the Nikor 1.2/85 was designed and released in 2012, its price would certainly compare to that of the m.Zuiko.

1 upvote
amangupta
By amangupta (May 24, 2012)

Slightly wrong: D7000 is body only for $1200. OM-D is $1000 for body only.

2 upvotes
CarlPH
By CarlPH (May 24, 2012)

Don't get too worked up about. Maybe its just the size difference. If you did not notice it, then maybe this camera is not for you. By the way I'm with you in hoping that the prices get cheaper too :)

0 upvotes
Jon Rty
By Jon Rty (May 24, 2012)

julieng, the Nikon 85mm F/1.8G was released this year. It's 5 months older than the Olympus 75mm, so inflation has very little to do with it.

0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (May 24, 2012)

Ianaker in reply to to your comment:

"This is very funny. 85 1.8 is one of the sharpest nikon lenses ever made,"

One thing to remember is this lens is designed to give it's best quality on a FX format camera not a DX format camera like the D7000. It was designed to be used with Nikons full frame format cameras. The Zuiko 75mm f1.8 is designed to M4/3 so it will give it's best performance on the OM-D. The same cannot be said when you use the Nikon 85mm f1.8 on a D7000.

A lot of people forget the reason why Nikon make two ranges of lenses for their two different formats of cameras. Just because an FX designed lens gets a great review does not mean it will give that quality on a DX format body and even Nikon will tell you that.

0 upvotes
Boris F
By Boris F (May 24, 2012)

F1.8 (m43) = F1.4 (APS-C)
FL 75 (m43) = FL 94 (APS-C)

1 upvote
Ivanaker
By Ivanaker (May 24, 2012)

@Stu 5
On DX body it will perform even better bcs you are using sweet spot, center of the lens. It resolves easily on D800 so its more then good for 16Mp DX body.
Zuiko 75mm f1.8 is not worth the twice as 85 f1.8 full frame Nikkor and we all know that.

4 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (May 24, 2012)

@Stu 5
On DX body it will perform even better bcs you are using sweet spot, center of the lens. It resolves easily on D800 so its more then good for 16Mp DX body.

Ivanaker yes logically you might think that but it is incorrect. Nikon will tell you this as well. There are other factors you have not taken into account. I studied lens design as part of my training and use formats all the way up to 10x8 inch cameras and you quickly learn that using a lens designed for a larger format camera does not mean it will be as good or better on a smaller format camera.

0 upvotes
Ivanaker
By Ivanaker (May 24, 2012)

Ok, in your opinion, is this lens worth twice the money of the nikkor?

0 upvotes
jim stirling
By jim stirling (May 24, 2012)

@julieng
The Nikon 85mm F1.8G came out this year is just over half the price of the Olympus delivers excellent results on both DX and FX
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/718-nikkorafs8518dx?start=1

0 upvotes
Vlastik
By Vlastik (May 24, 2012)

Nikon 85 is not so excellent as I would expect ... just compare that

http://www.lenstip.com/333.1-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_85_mm_f_1.8G_.html
http://www.lenstip.com/316.4-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_45_mm_f_1.8_Image_resolution.html

Of course $900 is really a lot so we will see may be later they will decrease price...

0 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (May 24, 2012)

@Ivanaker

I don't know but better comparison would be with Zuiko 45mm/1.8 which has FOV of 90mm lens on 36x24mm camera. That cost well under 300€ for me.

0 upvotes
Joesiv
By Joesiv (May 24, 2012)

The thing is the 85mm f/1.8 is based on an optical design from the 80's, how many ED elements, and HR elements are in it? None? What about nano coating? Nope none there either. What about a metal body? Nope.

The 85mm f/1.8 is built on a solid optical formula, though dated, but it shows it's limitations in bokeh, and also isn't at it's best wide open (while still pretty good). It is also built to be a budget lens, extensive use of plastics used, it's a "cheaper option" to the 85mm f/1.4 (which also has no exotic glass or metal body).

While it's too soon to come to conclusions, it would seem the 75mm f/1.8 is designed to be shot wide open, with a modern lens' design, and exotic elements mated with nanocoating and circular aperture. It should have a very attractive image.

So pricing, is it worth it? Well what other equivalent lens' can you throw on an mFT lens' that has communication and autofocus?

1 upvote
zigi_S
By zigi_S (May 24, 2012)

>By the way I'm with you in hoping that the prices get cheaper too :)

Prices can get lower, but never cheaper!!!!!

Sorry for my grammar fascism. My OCD left me no choice.

0 upvotes
Stebai
By Stebai (May 24, 2012)

I migrated not long ago from the Canon system. Had the 40D, the T2i and a raft of lenses, including several L's. Why switch to m43? Because I was tired of hiking with a backpack full of gear. Because the price of flying with high weight equipment is increasing. Because m43 finally has a sensor as good as APS-C to go with a variety of small and sharp lenses. For me, APS-C is dead. The real qualitative jump is to full frame. M4/3 and full frame complement each other very well.

0 upvotes
abi170845
By abi170845 (May 24, 2012)

Bravo Olympus for churning out lenses, unlike SONY Nex system with non existent ultrawides and fast telephoto. I love it that Olympus is serious about this.

If it is as good as my 135mmf2 L, I think I might dump the dslr for my Dan Ballard Grand TetonTrip.

3 upvotes
petepictures
By petepictures (May 24, 2012)

DOF will not even nearly be as the 135 ,F-2

3 upvotes
Macx
By Macx (May 24, 2012)

Well, petepictures, there might be other qualities to the lens than merely the range of depth of field, you know.

2 upvotes
Jon Rty
By Jon Rty (May 24, 2012)

Macx, sure there are. But if you're paying for a 135mm F/2, then odds are that light gathering capability is important to you. And a 135mm F/2 gathers about 3 times as much light as the 75mm F/1.8 does, thanks to the 4 times larger image circle.

1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (May 24, 2012)

PetaPictures not everyone will use a 135mm at f2 though. There is a time and a place for shallow DOF. Even on a portrait you don't always want shallow DOF. Depending on the shape of the face at f2 you will not get the eyes and eyebrows in focus at the same time. For some portrait photography this is important such as an actors headshot where a casting director needs to see skin texture. Shoot at f2 and you will lose this and the actor will not get many castings to go to. I have a lens that has f2, it even has f1.2 but I use it at f2.8 because I know that is the aperture that is going to make casting directors take more notice of the actor as they don't think your trying to hide something with ultra shallow DOF. Take it in the studio and your even more likely to close the lens down even more. The Zuiko 75mm f1.8 in principle for a lot of people will make a great portrait lens and if they want to have the background even more out of focus you simple pull your subject further away from it

1 upvote
amangupta
By amangupta (May 24, 2012)

@Jon Rty - How does the larger image circle affect anything other than minimum DOF here? For a scene with given "brightness", you will use the same aperture, shutter speed and ISO settings.

2 upvotes
Jon Rty
By Jon Rty (May 24, 2012)

Because when discussing image quality, the ISO setting is arbitrary. Noise, dynamic range, resolution and color performance is what matters, not what ISO number you use. And they depend on two things, the amount of light gathered, as well as the efficiency of the sensor. And how much light is gathered depends on two things, the intensity of the light, meaning the F-stop, as well as the total area of the light, meaning the image circle.

A F/1.8 lens has a 4 times higher intensity than a F/3.5 lens. But a 135 lens has 4 times the image circle of a m43 lens. So both *lenses* gather exactly the same amount of light, it's just distributed differently. Whatever sensor-performance differences remain are then totally a matter of the *sensor*, and not the lens.

1 upvote
chadnchady
By chadnchady (May 24, 2012)

Jon Rty - you don't know what you are talking about a 1.8 is a 1.8 regardless of camera format.

2 upvotes
mg_k
By mg_k (May 24, 2012)

lol as good as 135L? Not even close ;)

Have a look yourself - http://olympus-imaging.jp/product/dslr/mlens/75_18/sample/index.html

SOFT!

0 upvotes
StephanSchmidt
By StephanSchmidt (May 24, 2012)

@Jon: So if you crop a 36M FF image to 16M 43 then the lens you took the image changes f-stops? The image gets darker? Exposure changes?

0 upvotes
Erik Magnuson
By Erik Magnuson (May 24, 2012)

@ StephanSchmidt. The exposure doesn't change and even the per-pixel noise does not change. But now you need to enlarge the noise 2x to get the same print or screen size so it's more visible. Just like noise would be less visible if you reduced the FF image 50%.

1 upvote
Jon Rty
By Jon Rty (May 24, 2012)

@ chadnchady

Sure I do, look it up. I never said F/1.8 isn't F/1.8, I said that all F/1.8 tells you is the intensity of the light, not the total amount of light gathered. To get the total amount, you need the image circle as well. It's quite simple really. The F-stop is the intensity of rain, while the image circle is the diameter of the bucket. You can gather as much rain in a larger bucket with lower intensity than in to a smaller one with higher intensity.

@ StephanSchmidt

SNR gets weaker. You're throwing away most of the light gathered. But the thing is, your FOV will also be wildly different from that of your m43. If you on the other hand donwsample the 36mp FF image to 16mp, you average your noise, increasing SNR.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Saint Yves
By Saint Yves (May 24, 2012)

900$
oops
not for every one!

1 upvote
D1N0
By D1N0 (May 24, 2012)

For the price you can get 3 Samyang's 85mm F1.4. One for your camera, 2 to throw at people who mock you about it.

10 upvotes
echelon2004
By echelon2004 (May 24, 2012)

No matter how good the 85mm 1.4 Samyang is, if you want a 75mm 1.8 lens with autofocus, it's not very good. Not at any price.

The good thing is, for only a third (or probably about half) more of the Oly price, you can have one of each ;)

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Breen
By Breen (May 24, 2012)

Who cares. Samyang doesnt have AF.

0 upvotes
Gianluca Grossi
By Gianluca Grossi (May 24, 2012)

samyang is at least two time havier and 3 times bigger....and don't have auto focus...

1 upvote
Harold66
By Harold66 (May 24, 2012)

And of course Olympus new high end lens is not weather -sealed which makes no sense if you market a supposedly top of the line camera with weather sealed lens and only give that option to entry level kit zoom

Also, Olympus should receive big booos for not including the lens hood at this price level

Harold

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
18 upvotes
digifan
By digifan (May 24, 2012)

Why do you say Olympus should receive big booos.
It's the big two that do it since the beginning of time!

I agree the hood should be provided but I think that goes for all the Camera and lens makers!!!!! Why only mention Olympus.

Also Olympus said the 75 is for studio work that's why they didn't provide weathersealing. I think it's a pity and they missed an oppertunity but the 60 Macro WILL be weathersealed!

Oh yeah, and where are the weathersealed high end optics and camera's of ANY competition to m43.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Ivanaker
By Ivanaker (May 24, 2012)

Nikon gives hood and bag with each lens but kit 18-55. canon gives hood with all L lenses.

6 upvotes
leopold
By leopold (May 24, 2012)

Pentax gives hood and tripod collars when available with all there lenses.

5 upvotes
digifan
By digifan (May 24, 2012)

Well all 43 lenses were delivered with a hood no exeptions.

0 upvotes
MikeNeufeld30
By MikeNeufeld30 (May 24, 2012)

Damn, M43's is just banging out High End Optics for their system. Im loving this new release. Fantastic Focal Length.

6 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (May 24, 2012)

I am glad for Oly. but the price is going even higher than "High End" of Nikon and Canon.

3 upvotes
Stebai
By Stebai (May 24, 2012)

Not really. I paid about that price years ago for the Canon 135L, one of their best primes. And a good, fast Leica M will run you more. Don't cheap out on quality lenses. The camera itself is just a box to catch the light from those lenses.

0 upvotes
Breen
By Breen (May 24, 2012)

Comparing this lens to Canon 85 1.8 is stupid because these are not the same quality!

Also it is stupid to compare this lens to FF. It is not Full Frame like it is not medium format, it is m4/3!

I hope price will be lower because 900 bucks is too much. Propably the price will be about 800$

2 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (May 24, 2012)

It should be around $400-500

2 upvotes
jim stirling
By jim stirling (May 24, 2012)

The Nikon 85mm F1.8 delivers excellent results, would be even better on a 4x3 sensor {no extreme corners to worry about} and costs just over half the price of the Olympus. I think it looks to be a great lens with its size and weight being the main attractions for me .
However Olympus seem to have pulled off the clever trick of convincing the gullible that they are paying for a FF 150mm lens when in fact they are buying a 75mm lens. Nothing new though the Canon 135mm F2 lens { pro build and very good results} costs $1010 while the Olympus 150mm F2 costs $2500.

0 upvotes
Stebai
By Stebai (May 24, 2012)

The Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 runs about a thousand bucks for APS-C sensor cameras. People are using L primes on those cameras, too, which are in the $1000+ range. The new sensor in M43 gets just as good quality as APS-C. The RAW files are equal to what I used to get out of Canons. Where m43 excels is in the lenses: small and light and capable of superb images. Quality has its price. To me, APS-C is now dead. The next qualitative jump would be to full frame.

1 upvote
amangupta
By amangupta (May 24, 2012)

For portraits in sufficient light, it is best to consider it as a 75mm f/1.8 rather than the cropped sensor equivalent focal length. Portrait lenses are supposed to "flatten the perspective" and 75mm lens will show the perspective in exactly the same way no matter what the size of the sensor behind it is. And DOF will also be according to 75mm f/1.8, which is plenty shallow I believe (I have a 60mm f/2 for Nikon DX and usually have to stop down to prevent half the face from becoming blurred). Only thing the FOV equivalence with 150mm changes is the distance between subject and photographer (which incidentally, increases DOF further).

1 upvote
happy snapper uk
By happy snapper uk (May 24, 2012)

(Portrait lenses are supposed to "flatten the perspective" and 75mm lens will show the perspective in exactly the same way no matter what the size of the sensor behind it is.)That's not right as you wont be viewing from the same distance for the same image size

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (May 24, 2012)

Perspective doesn't depend on focal length. Distance and position relative to subject define the perpective.

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
10 upvotes
misolo
By misolo (May 24, 2012)

A quick note to limit the spread of misinformation: The only thing that matters for perspective is the distance from the subject to the camera. The focal length is irrelevant for perspective. What a longer focal length does is it allows you to fill the frame with the subject while having the subject sufficiently far away to avoid distortion. If you want to do a tight portrait from a distance of about 2m, you need about 150mm focal length with a full-frame sensor, about 100mm with an APS-C sensor, and about 75mm with a MFT sensor. These images will have the same framing (and the same DOF if they are, respectively, f/3.6, f/2.4, and f/1.8).

7 upvotes
zzapamiga
By zzapamiga (May 24, 2012)

Wrong and the person who liked your comment.
The perspective does change because the working distance is different. A portrait taken with a 75mm lens on a FF camera will look different to one taken using this lens on m4/3 due to the distance between the lens and subject being much further on m4/3.

3 upvotes
xtoph
By xtoph (May 24, 2012)

amangupta is absolutely wrong about this. i really don't know why this myth of 'absolute focal length' persists, but it has no basis in reality.

in general terms, the 'equivalent focal length' (real number times focal length multiplier) gives a good approximation of the characteristics of a given lens. it is true that for smaller formats, the equivalent focal length will produce more dof at the same f stop and framing--but this is rarely the most salient factor in 'equivalence'.

a 50mm lens on a dx format sensor makes an excellent head-and-shoulders portrait lens. so does oly's 45/1.8 on micro 4/3. this new oly lens will produce a dramatically compressed perspective in close-cropped portraits, which most people will find flattering and graphically powerful (although personally i prefer to use a shorter telephoto or normal lens for portraits; i like my characters rounded, not flat).

3 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (May 24, 2012)

Amangupta sorry but your understanding of "75mm lens will show the perspective in exactly the same way no matter what the size of the sensor behind it is" is completely wrong. I studied lens design as part of my photography training and have used formats up to 10x8 so I am very use to changing film formats on camera bodies. Unfortunately where ever you read the information in the first place, it is wrong.

0 upvotes
PedroMZ
By PedroMZ (May 24, 2012)

Seems an odd focal length to choose,rather long for a portrait lens and rather short for a sports telephoto.As far as price,the fact that it is smaller doesn't make the engineering any cheaper.

1 upvote
Sergey Borachev
By Sergey Borachev (May 24, 2012)

150mm equivalent FL and f/1.8. Beautiful lens, but the whole thing looks very weird and unattractive on a black E-M5.

9 upvotes
ageha
By ageha (May 24, 2012)

Indeed, I which they would offer a black version too.

4 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (May 24, 2012)

It is the pictures it takes that will take that counts though and not the looks of the camera/lens combination.

0 upvotes
Sergey Borachev
By Sergey Borachev (May 25, 2012)

I think it will look better on a silver E-M5, but that would still look funny. An all silver lens simply does not go well with a retro looking camera. Period. Full Stop. Point.

When will Olympus wake up and realise that this silver theme does not work so well and is too flashy, gawdy for those who prefer some class? At least, give us a black version too.

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
RusVolley
By RusVolley (May 24, 2012)

35mm = 150mm f/1.8❢

0 upvotes
Jon Rty
By Jon Rty (May 24, 2012)

Focal-length:75mm / 1.8:f-stop = 41.7:entrance pupil

Focal-length:150 / 41.7:entrance pupil =3.6f-stop

Ergo, 75mm F/1.8 m43 = 150mm F/3.6 35mm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number

4 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (May 25, 2012)

Jon this is true but you forget the size of sensor only requires half as much light again, therefore you are only correct it is F 3.6 for equivalent DOF, but not for exposure which it will behave (produce images) equivalent to F1.8.

In relative terms (from the image it produces on a 4/3 system) it is same as 150mm/ F1.8 brightness and FOV but DOF as F3.6 on FF. Your mathematics are correct, but photography is about the FINAL IMAGE, the relationship between 4/3, APS/ FF is ultimately irrelevant.

1 upvote
donthasslethehoff
By donthasslethehoff (May 24, 2012)

This deflates my interest in m43. Pricing isn't sensible for non-pro's here, so I'm wondering with this lens at $900 and the Panasonic 12-35mm priced at $1200, does the m43 system lose it's luster?

For me, it is, and I really like the OM-D.

Sure, I can still buy the 45mm prime for a decent price and the Pana 20mm, but comparing these lenses to their CaNikon equivalents, I'm trying to see the value proposition.

Maybe there isn't one. Glad I didn't sell some of the Canon glass I kept.

1 upvote
wjlonien
By wjlonien (May 24, 2012)

Don - maybe you should read this from Andy, who also own Canon glass: http://blog.atmtxphoto.com/2012/05/23/a-treasure-trove-of-lenses-micro-43-has-arrived/

0 upvotes
c_henry
By c_henry (May 24, 2012)

I don't think it is that expensive, nor do I believe its just pro's who buy the expensive lenses. The 12-35 seems to be a little cheaper than the other OEM f2.8 standard zooms. The 75mm seems to be priced lower than the Canon 135 f2 and lots of non-pro's seem to have that lens.

The m43 lens line-up is starting to get more interesting for a lot of people. Me included!

4 upvotes
zzapamiga
By zzapamiga (May 24, 2012)

So what your saying is they should release more cheap and crappy zooms.

3 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (May 24, 2012)

Don't worry. In a year or so it will be cheaper. Patience reaps rewards.

0 upvotes
Jon Rty
By Jon Rty (May 24, 2012)

Well, I do understand that the 12mm is expensive, as it can't be easy making a 12mm F/2.8 zoom for a 20+ flange distance.

The 75mm F/1.8 however covers 1/4 the image circle a 135 85mm F/1.8 which costs <500$ does. It also has a entrace pupil that's as large as that of a 135mm F/3.2 lens.

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (May 24, 2012)

"The 12-35 seems to be a little cheaper than the other OEM f2.8 standard zooms. "

No it is not. Even 2x as large and heavy APS-C f/2.8 cost 600-800.

0 upvotes
nickthetasmaniac
By nickthetasmaniac (May 24, 2012)

Hey DPR - how bout an in depth article on the various popular formats and 'equivalence' (FoV, DoF, exposure and so on...)?

Perhaps then there wouldn't be 200 idiotic comments every time there's a Micro Four Thirds lens release :/

26 upvotes
ageha
By ageha (May 24, 2012)

Good idea! Getting tired of those comments, too.

4 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (May 24, 2012)

And i bet that article will receive 200^2 idiotic comments

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (May 24, 2012)

It's pretty self explanatory, isn't it? Same exposure settings, but differing amounts of DOF and noise.

0 upvotes
c_henry
By c_henry (May 24, 2012)

The lens cap is optional??? I'm hoping that it comes with a plastic lens cap and the metallic lens cap is an option.

0 upvotes
ageha
By ageha (May 24, 2012)

I doubt it won't ship with a plastic lens cap. I'm not aware of a single lens that doesn't.

0 upvotes
Managarm
By Managarm (May 24, 2012)

The optional lens cap for the optional lens hood? Or just an optional metal lens cap.

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

It's almost as if 4/3 and u4/3 is a scam for the lenses.

The lenses are much slower than they advertise, but then the push with mirrorless is to make ever-slower lenses, particularly zooms, but make them look a bit expensive and now people froth all over them and pay ridiculous prices.

And no lens hood at the prices they charge? Really?

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

no, they are not slower.

I think the 4/3 lenses are fairly priced specially oly's HG line.

but you are right about one thing.. its highway robbery if you have to buy hoods and caps separately regardless the format.

4 upvotes
c_henry
By c_henry (May 24, 2012)

@mhike: This has been explained many, many times before. Just take a look at the 12-35 thread from a few days back, with regards to aperture and DoF.

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (May 24, 2012)

I'm inclined to agree about pricing, but the push is actually the opposite: after making slow zooms for the people, Olympus and Panasonic are launching fast primes at a good pace, and the first fast zooms are starting to appear If there is a tendency, it's for faster lenses - but these aren't cheap to make.

2 upvotes
m43happy
By m43happy (May 24, 2012)

What's with the multiple posts by keyboard warriors regarding the image circle as if it's the only way to judge a lens by?

1 upvote
Jon Rty
By Jon Rty (May 24, 2012)

As far as I can see, they're responses to people who think the f-stop alone is the measure of how much light a lens gathers.

You see, the f-stop only gives you the the light intensity per area, but not the light in total. For that, you require the image circle as well. So for instance a m43 F/1.8 lens as 4 times the intensity of that of a 135 F/3.6, but it also only 1/4 of the image circle. This means that the total amount of light gathered is the same between the two lenses.

This is something you look past if you only stare at the f-stop. By that logic, 8x10 lenses would all gather terribly little light, and P&S lenses would gather a heck of a lot. This of course isn't the case, as even tough the intensity of a 8x10 lens is relatively low, the image circle is huge.

2 upvotes
StephanSchmidt
By StephanSchmidt (May 24, 2012)

@Jon: So if you crop a 36M FF image to 16M 43 then the lens you took the image changes f-stops? The image gets darker? Exposure changes?

0 upvotes
Jon Rty
By Jon Rty (May 24, 2012)

@StephanSchmidt

If you keep the same view size, then the SNR gets weaker, just as when you crop your m43 or any other image.

0 upvotes
emircruz
By emircruz (May 24, 2012)

LOL why do every M4/3 annoucement these days have to be a discussion about equivalence?

7 upvotes
Sergey Borachev
By Sergey Borachev (May 24, 2012)

Because there are many DSLR users feeling either threatened or just resisting M43 or justifying staying with their systems. Yes, every time something significant comes out from M43, like the E-M5, the 12-35mm f/2.9 and now this 75mm f/1.8, they will start posts pointing out some equivalence issues, right or wrong, and whether they actually mean much to the final pictures or not. LOL.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
17 upvotes
ljmac
By ljmac (May 24, 2012)

Exactly. The amount of equivalence BS surrounding recent Micro 4/3rds releases show these people are feeling very insecure indeed.

3 upvotes
Gediminas 8
By Gediminas 8 (May 24, 2012)

If anyone's insecure it must be m43 enthusiasts who can not take any criticism, or even questioning, of 'their' system.

I own many Canon lenses, but no DSLR at the moment, and I'm trying to decide what to choose next. I am ready to buy an OMD, but I certainly want to know what I'll be losing apart from weight. I will then be able to decide if I should buy a new entry-level DSLR or an FF DSLR to put on my lenses and use alongside m43, or to get rid of them altogether and keep only m43. How is this being "insecure" or "threatened" or "resisting"?

Some of the lenses I have are quite nice, including the 85/1.8 and 24-105L. I wonder if the m43 offerings will be able to fully replace them - a question even more pressing considering the not insignificant price of these new toys.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Jon Rty
By Jon Rty (May 24, 2012)

As far as I can tell, most are only pointing out the factual errors of those who think that a F/1.8 m43 gathers as much light as a F/1.8 135 lens. Per area they of course do, but as the image circle of 135 lens is 4 times larger, the total amount of light gathered is of course different.

And the total amount is of course what matters for the picture, not how high the intensity is. We all look at the full frame, do we not? Or at least the same proportion of each frame. Sure, a 25mm^2 spot on both sensors would have the same light intensity, but the difference is that that same spot would be a 4 times larger part of the m43 sensor. So if a duck covers that 25mm^2 spot on a m43 sensor, then that same duck using the same FOV would cover a 100mm^2 part of the 135 sensor.

1 upvote
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (May 24, 2012)

Gediminas 8: what you'll be losing, apart from weight, is phase detection autofocus, which is more effective at low light. Bear in mind that you'll need to buy a Canon 60D or higher to get a significant improvement over a decent micro 4/3 camera in image quality. Even my rather outdated E-P1 has better image quality than an entry-level DSLR.

0 upvotes
Dennis
By Dennis (May 24, 2012)

Probably because every mention of a fast m43 lens is met with cheers from people who think they're magically getting a 150/1.8. No defensiveness: I shoot APS-C and have been using an 85/1.4 for a few years, and I'll be the first to tell you that it is absolutely NOT equivalent to a 127/1.4.

1 upvote
quangzizi
By quangzizi (May 28, 2012)

@Jon Rty:
Irrelevant, if you are talking about the same image, then the person with M43 lens will stand further away from the subject (the duck here it is). Then that will make the portion of the sensor being covered by the duck to be the same as well as the light receiving.

Well tell me if there is any different with regard to total light, how can f1.8 on M43 will use the same exposure as f1.8 on FF? Don't even forget that M43 sensor is smaller (Oh no I am so insecure)

0 upvotes
emircruz
By emircruz (May 24, 2012)

sweet looking lens. a bit much for most IMO.

I wonder how good(or bad) this lens with sell.

I have this perception that most 'pro' m43 users are usually video guys with their GH2s - they are likely the ones who are willing to get high-end stuff like these. However, this lens might be too long for bodies w/o IBIS.

There might not be enough oly-bodied enthusiasts willing to shell out 900 bucks for a relatively long portrait lens.

2 upvotes
wjlonien
By wjlonien (May 24, 2012)

I agree about the video guys - for them, a 85mm equiv is about a "normal" lens, so this would make a nice and relatively short tele for them...

0 upvotes
Peak25500
By Peak25500 (May 24, 2012)

The killer combo with OM-D for concert photography...

6 upvotes
Ross the Fidller
By Ross the Fidller (May 24, 2012)

Personally, I'd prefer a good zoom like the 50-200 for M4/3's, but I'm sure this is going to be lovely & with lovely round out of focus areas around the outer areas of an image..

2 upvotes
josephbeeson
By josephbeeson (May 24, 2012)

Hey Ross,

If you're referring to the pana 50-200, don't bother. I bought one and had to return it because after 120mm it was so soft that it might as well have been made of plastic.

0 upvotes
Louis_Dobson
By Louis_Dobson (May 24, 2012)

Yes, the 45-200 was dire. I gave mine away. The forthcoming 35-100 f2.8 should be good though...

I think I would like these new zooms, but I seem to have gone the prime route now, so I shall carry on down it.

0 upvotes
Suzi Morris
By Suzi Morris (May 24, 2012)

I am very interested in this lens, not out in time for my birthday though, but Christmas will come soon enough.

I do understand that a 75 mm lens on a smaller sensor equates to a 150 lens and that the shallow depth of field won't be as pronounced as a 1.8 would be on full frame but it still let's in as much light as a 'normal' 1.8 right?

3.5 on a full frame at 150, depth of field is tiny (I do also have full frame) so this is good enough for me! Well done Olympus, I am yet to be disappointed by you.

1 upvote
iamphil
By iamphil (May 24, 2012)

In terms of exposure values, it should be the same.

1 upvote
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (May 24, 2012)

You needn't worry. A fast lens will always give you a narrow depth of field. I have an OM 50mm/f1,4, which I use with an E-P1, and depth of field is as narrow as it gets. Perfect for shooting flowers! This one should be even better. Chances are you'll be stopping it down (or stepping backwards) to keep the whole subject in focus.

0 upvotes
ntsan
By ntsan (May 24, 2012)

Love how all of sudden people insist on equivalent DOF for every camera out there.. I guess the M43 finally hit some stride with 75mm F1.8 & 12-35mm lens

Next thing is people demanding mid frame equivalent lol

10 upvotes
MadsR
By MadsR (May 24, 2012)

No, we want large-frame glass sheet equivalence, in terms of resolution and DoF :)

2 upvotes
Jon Rty
By Jon Rty (May 24, 2012)

Personally, I'd prefer that they'd just drop the equivalency thing all together, as it keeps confusing people.

Image circle does not only govern DOF, it also governs the total amount of light captured. The F-stop alone only gives you the intensity. F-stop times image circle gives you the total light gathered. And total light gathered is what matters for the end picture.

0 upvotes
StephanSchmidt
By StephanSchmidt (May 24, 2012)

@Jon: So if you crop a 36M FF image to 16M 43 then the lens you took the image changes f-stops? The image gets darker? Exposure changes?

0 upvotes
Jon Rty
By Jon Rty (May 24, 2012)

@StephanSchmidt

If you keep the same view size, the SNR gets worse, as with any other image you crop. And for the record, next time you've got a question, it's enough to just ask in one place. Asking it all over the comment section makes answering your question tedious at best.

0 upvotes
MichaelEchos
By MichaelEchos (May 24, 2012)

Wow. Although I'm not interested in this lens, it's surprisingly small for a equivalent 150mm f/3.6

0 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (May 24, 2012)

Nice, you doubled the focal length, but forgot to double lens diameter to match F-number ratio.

2 upvotes
Jon Rty
By Jon Rty (May 24, 2012)

Actually, he didn't. The 75mm has a 41.7mm entrance pupil, which is the same size of that of a 150mm F/3.6. Had he adjusted the F-stop, he would've ended up with a lens with a 4 times larger entrance pupil than intended. And said 135 lens would've gathered 4 times more light in total than the m43 75mm F/1.8.

0 upvotes
bradleyg5
By bradleyg5 (May 24, 2012)

This is getting absurd dpreview you should be ashamed.

This listing the focal length "equivalence" right next to unadjusted aperture is border line disingenuous.

It is not a f1.8 150mm "equivalent" lens, it is and forever will be a 75mm lens, it doesn't magically become a 150mm lens just because you put it on a camera with a small sensor.

If you insist on listing "equivalent" figures, list the equivalent aperture right next to it so people don't get the wrong impression.

This lens at f1.8 75mm will produce an image on a micro four thirds camera that will look identical to a F3.5 150mm on a full frame camera, for you to imply it will look like f1.8 150mm is flat out wrong and shameful.

6 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (May 24, 2012)

They didn't imply that image would look identical.

You seem to inability to separate FOV equivalency from F-number equivalence. F-number is ratio of focal length and aperture diameter. F3.5 lens don't have same focal length / aperture diameter ratio as a F1.8 lens and thus image is 2 tops brighter on the latter.

2 upvotes
Knight Palm
By Knight Palm (May 24, 2012)

The equivalent field-of-view listing is a common nomenclature, used along the whole range of cameras from compact to APS-C.

Evereyone understands its use, a common and well understood practise.

8 upvotes
Jon Rty
By Jon Rty (May 24, 2012)

A 75mm F/1.8 on m43 is no brighter than a 150mm F/3.5 on FF when viewing the whole image. Both capture the same amount of light, leaving you with the same SNR, same DR, same color quality, same FOV and same DOF using the same exposure parameters but adjusting ISO accordingly.

4 upvotes
highwave
By highwave (May 24, 2012)

The only thing wrong and shameful is your post. Dpreview is following industry standard practice and you're in no position to criticize them.

Honestly if people read more than they write I would be spared reading comments like yours

7 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (May 24, 2012)

If you'd just leave out the film or sensor, and look at image produced on a paper in a darkened room. Then an image produced by a 2 stops slower lens would be 2 stops darker darker (1/4 light) when "viewing the whole image".

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
1 upvote
AndyGM
By AndyGM (May 24, 2012)

You will notice that the guys at DPR stared "150mm-equivalent field-of-view", which is exactly correct. They are not being being disingenuous at all.

You, on the other hand, are being a troll. Give it up.

7 upvotes
MadsR
By MadsR (May 24, 2012)

So you also refer to your Nikon 35mm f2.0 lens as a 50mm f2.8??

The F number equivalence as you describe is only for DoF... The f1.8 gives more light than an f3.6 (4 times as much actually) so in terms of photography it gives more options...

1 upvote
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (May 24, 2012)

So presumably all full-frame lenses are being incorrectly listed too, because and FF f4 lens gives a deeper depth-of-field compared to medium format f4 lens... this could go on forever.

Comment edited 10 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
ageha
By ageha (May 24, 2012)

Actually, Olympus themselves market the lens as a 150mm! They do that with every M.Zuiko lens. Just check out their product pages.

0 upvotes
Dafffid
By Dafffid (May 24, 2012)

Tell an f/2.8 sensor line on a phase-detect autofocus system that f1.8 = f3.5, see if it listens to you.

(Yes I know micros 4/3 is contrast detect. The point still stands, as presumably our friend makes similar ridiculous comparisons between crop and full frame)

2 upvotes
Jon Rty
By Jon Rty (May 24, 2012)

@DarkShift

If you leave the sensor size out of it, then you're ignoring one of the defining features of a lens, the image circle. This is very simple to explain using film. On a 135 camera, you use a 50mm F/1.4 with ISO 100 . On a 645 camera, you use a 80mm F/2.8 with ISO 400 film. Both will have the same DOF and FOV, but also the same grain, resolution and DR due to the fact that the 645 has a larger sensor.

@don_van_vliet

You won't see 645 equivalent focal-lengths next to FF lenses, now will you? The problem here is that some portray this lens as a 150mm F/1.8 equivalent, which it by no means is. It's a 75mm F/1.8. The FOV is that of a 135 150mm, but the aperture is only 41mm, eg. that of a 150mm F/3.5. What's more, as the image circle is only 1/4 of a 135 lens, the total light gathered is only that of a 150mm F/3.5 on 135.

0 upvotes
Jon Rty
By Jon Rty (May 24, 2012)

@Dafffid

@Dafffid

Take a look at the ISO 800 performance characteristics of a D800, and compare that to the performance of a GH2 at ISO 200. When viewed at the same size, the GH2 has no advantage in SNR, DR or color performance. This is due to the fact that the two cameras have sensors that are roughly as effective, but the D700 sensor is 2 times as large.

The point here is that a 135 F/3.5 lens lets in as much light as a F/1.8 m43 lens. Yes, the m43 lens lets in 4 times more per area, but the area of the 135 lens is 4 times larger. And thus they both collect the same amount of light, meaning that the *only* variance in light gathering capability is how effective the sensor is, and not how much light the lens gathers. The lenses are the same.

0 upvotes
Dafffid
By Dafffid (May 24, 2012)

Jon, I was referring to autofocus performance, ISO didn't enter into it.
A 2.8 line sensor will not work on a 3.5 lens. End of story.
Period. The end.

Secondly, I own a 5D II and a GF1. Your comparison of ISO 200 to 800 is nonsense. I don't mean that rudely, but it depends entirely on available light, and a handful of other factors (lens quality, sensor manufacturer, software etc.) and you can't simply bump the numbers like that and assume a two stop advantage across the board in all conditions and at all sensitivities.

1 upvote
Jon Rty
By Jon Rty (May 24, 2012)

AF sensors have nothing to do with lens characteristics, and are totally arbitrary. Canon can choose to space the PD sensor as far apart as they want, and the only thing that governs that is their lens line-up. This has nothing to do with how a lens bends light, and thus nothing to do with the image a lens produces. The whole argument is a pure straw-man.

And no, the comparison isn't nonsense. It's pure physics. A 135 F/3.5 lens gathers as much light as a m43 F/1.8, and whatever differences remain are purely a matter of the sensor, not the lens. And we're discussing lenses here, are we not? If differences in sensor performance would govern lens characteristics, then the same lens would have different characteristics on a GH1 than on a GH2, which is of course pure nonsense.

In fact, due to Sonys lead in sensor dev, the difference is over 2 stops in favor of the D800, but again that's due to a better sensor, not the lens.

0 upvotes
Wally626
By Wally626 (May 24, 2012)

Equivalence is for certain aspects of a lens, not all aspects and the review did mention that the equivalence was for field of view. As far as DoF goes the sensor size is immaterial, the DoF equations do not include the sensor size at all. The sensor size comes into play in two areas for DoF, small sensors will need smaller circles of confusion to print at the same size and this will reduce the DoF for a smaller sensor. The CoC factor is in general more than offset by the smaller sensor needing a shorter focal length to cover the same field of view. So trying to calculate an equivalent f-stop for DoF is impossible without taking into account things like final viewing size.
If you want to know the DoF for a given situation then you need to know the object distance, the CoC, the f-stop and the lens focal length. Plenty of calculators to do these calculations a simple equivalence will not.

0 upvotes
Wally626
By Wally626 (May 24, 2012)

To continue, in the area of light gathering. This is also independent of sensor size. Lenses are designed to cover a certain image circle, lenses with large enough image circles will work on a variety of sensors. A lens designed for a full frame 24 x 36mm sensor will gather the same amount of light no mater what sensor is in the camera, m4/3 or 8x10. All that is important to determine exposure is the f-stop and the focus distance, although in most cases the focus distance is a secondary effect and compensated via TTL exposure on modern cameras. It is true that a larger sensor will gather more total light for a given f-stop if the lens image circle is large enough. This however does not affect exposure just the noise level for a given output size. This also contains so many other variables that stating other than a rough equivalence is pointless.

0 upvotes
Jon Rty
By Jon Rty (May 24, 2012)

@Wally626

It does affect the exposure, because noise(&DR, color performance) is what governs the effects of ISO on the final image. If you like, you can speak of equivalent ISOs, and you then got exposure right back where you started. For instance, a 135 sensor gathers 2 stops more light for any given F-stop compared to m43. So equivalent ISO is 2 stop higher than on m43. Ergo, shooting at 75mm F/1.8 1/200 ISO 200 on m43 is equivalent to shooting at 150mm F/3.5 1/200 ISO 800 on 135.

0 upvotes
NetMage
By NetMage (May 25, 2012)

And spreads it out over four times the area, so I don't see the advantage.

0 upvotes
quangzizi
By quangzizi (May 28, 2012)

Why can you just shoot it F/1.8 1/200 ISO 200, no need to use smaller F and higher ISO if you have 150 F1.8 available for the sake of testing

0 upvotes
eadrian75
By eadrian75 (May 24, 2012)

Sometimes i miss the m43 gear i had, but then i see the prices of quality m43 lenses and i don't regret selling and moving up to APS-C.

5 upvotes
wolfie
By wolfie (May 24, 2012)

I never miss the APS DSLR I had. I think you're out of touch with the prices of equivalent Nikon or Canon glass - this aint cheapo kit lens territory, M43 is a serious format and deserves good glass. APS is a dead end with mirrorless because you get no lens size advantage even from skinny little bodies as the NEX so beautifully demonstrates.

7 upvotes
digifan
By digifan (May 24, 2012)

@wolfie, Correct NEX even goes the route of bigger bodies with the replacement of the C3 en 5N. Have a look at the NEX F3!!

0 upvotes
Total comments: 504
123