Previous news story    Next news story

Just posted: Olympus Body Cap Lens 15mm F8 review

By dpreview staff on Jul 11, 2013 at 10:33 GMT
Buy on GearShop$49.00

Just posted: Our review of the Olympus Body Cap Lens 15mm F8. In essence this is a tiny three element optic hidden inside a body cap, and probably the cheapest lens of any description made by any camera manufacturer. But is it any good? In the latest of our lens reviews in collaboration with DxOMark, we take a look both at how well it performs in studio testing, and in real-world use. Does it have any place in the Micro Four Thirds user's camera bag? Click below to find out.

102
I own it
13
I want it
6
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Olympus Body Cap Lens 15mm F8.0

Comments

Total comments: 127
12
Lilianna
By Lilianna (9 months ago)

Bravo! Thank you for reviewing this little lens.
I have been using mine on my E-PL2 since the lens first came out.
Adore the speed of use the two-position scale focus gives and the IQ, when viewed at reasonable sizes is quite good for the cost.
Indeed, the 'draw' of this lens is unique and, imho, pleasing.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/colette_noir/8309300588/

"F8 and be there"
My motto for this little jewel.

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
AnandaSim
By AnandaSim (9 months ago)

I've had a lot of fun with the BCL and was gonna show my images but Edward Conde's 5 year old with the BCL and trusty old E-PL1 has turned out really satisfying shots.

https://plus.google.com/u/0/103269308697845842814/posts/KeiuaHe7UcH

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Bryan Costin
By Bryan Costin (9 months ago)

Last time I was in DC I walked around for a bit with this lens mounted on my EPL1. It's a compact combination that I could easily tuck in my jacket when it started raining, yet easily swap with a different lens (in the other jacket pocket) for indoor shooting.

As an optic, it is what it's meant to be: A cheap, fun lens for from-the-hip shooting, like street photography. I turned off the LCD and shot in the general direction of anything that caught my eye. It was fun, and I got some photos I enjoyed. Do you absolutely NEED this lens to get those shots? Of course not. You wouldn't absolutely need a digital camera at all, for that matter. But it's a convenient combination that I enjoy using.

0 upvotes
IEBA1
By IEBA1 (9 months ago)

Is it possible that the lens can be profiled and a correction file be made so that when converting from RAW, a lot of the corrections (CA, barrel distortion, etc) can be corrected in post?

0 upvotes
CaseyComo
By CaseyComo (9 months ago)

Not really. This is like a pinhole camera. Trying to 'correct' it in software misses the point. Better off buying a used kit lens for $50 if you want passable image quality at a low price point.

0 upvotes
deleted_081301
By deleted_081301 (9 months ago)

If you want a cheap fun lens i recommend the Holga 25mm micro four thirds its only £9.99 compared to the price of this 15mm thing in the UK £60 ........ robbery only a retard would buy one at UK prices
thats about $90 US

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (9 months ago)

The Holga's fun to muck about with (I have one) but it is a lot thicker than the body cap lens.

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (9 months ago)

Yes the Holga is cheap, fun lens, but at 25mm F8 it's quite different to the 15mm. If you do get one, personally I'd recommend wrenching the horrible vignette plate from the back, that effectively makes it about T16. This makes the lens far more usable, and you can always add the vignetting back in using the Pinhole Art Filter.

1 upvote
deleted_081301
By deleted_081301 (9 months ago)

I have one allready also I have the 60 mm version with an adapter that one has the "baffle thingy" removed

The 15mm would be Ok but for the UK price which is criminal

0 upvotes
Red Swan
By Red Swan (9 months ago)

If I own this I'll just use it and have fun. I love making pictures.

4 upvotes
dbateman
By dbateman (9 months ago)

fun review. I think most comments are negative here as it a cheap fun lens that will not inspire G.A.S.
Thanks for this review and the links to the G.A.S. blog!

Remember people you didn't pay to read it, so if you don't want to then don't!

2 upvotes
dpalugyay
By dpalugyay (9 months ago)

The issue I see is that they should have spent their time reviewing a lens people will likely purchase and use. This is not that lens.

2 upvotes
ProfHankD
By ProfHankD (9 months ago)

There have been so many "lens in a body cap" things out there on eBay, it is good to see a review of one by a camera manufacturer. As such things go, the price and build are actually decent on this... pitty the IQ isn't.

0 upvotes
harrisoncac
By harrisoncac (9 months ago)

A good review on a bad lens.

Obviously, Olympus is trying to say this is a body cap, not the other way around.

An expensive body cap.

3 upvotes
joelfoto
By joelfoto (9 months ago)

Nonsense. It's a tool for the photographer who knows how to use it. And after reviewing the image gallery I'd say it's a darn good choice for many situations.

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

no question the image quality is bad. but this is a 15mm lens, shorter than 20mm flange-back of the wrongly designed m4/3" mount.

the resolution should be very good if it were a 20/8. actually it will be hard to make one that performs poorly at 20mm (an example is 20/1.7).

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (9 months ago)

What's wrongly designed about the m4/3 mount?

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

> What's wrongly designed about the m4/3 mount?

answer in the same sentance I said it's wrong.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (9 months ago)

So when you said "wrongly designed m4/3 mount" you actually meant wrongly designed lens for the mount?

Also the rear element looks slightly recessed into the mount, but of course such a cheaply made lens is never going to resolve that well regardless of matching the lens mount ideal focal length.

0 upvotes
Teru Kage
By Teru Kage (9 months ago)

I bought my E-PL5 during a promo period that included this body cap lens for free. I haven't had the time to do any serious experimenting with it yet, but I can imagine using this "lens" with one of the Art Filters (especially Pinhole) to create some interesting street photos.

Olympus obviously never intended for this product to appeal to a wide audience (fans of Lomography will probably have a ball playing with), but I hope Olympus continues to think outside the box like this and come up with more quirky products. It's nice to know that they're willing to to create items without focusing on mass marketing value.

And at the risk of swimming against the tide, I'm glad that Dpreview did this review. I'm sure there are plenty of folks who have seen this item and wondered how it performs, and this review definitely answers that question.

6 upvotes
KimTeo
By KimTeo (9 months ago)

So when is Olympus coming out with a lens cap with a camera built in it?

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

not interested unless it's D800.

0 upvotes
VadymA
By VadymA (9 months ago)

Does it come with a lens cover? ;)

0 upvotes
berni29
By berni29 (9 months ago)

Hi

I am pleased you reviewed this lens, and I like the fact that the site looks at things athat are a little of the beaten track. It's more interesting like that IMHO.

All the best!

9 upvotes
rocklobster
By rocklobster (9 months ago)

Probably a better option than the Industar 69 (28mm FL) that I got on to the bandwagon for as a really small cheap lens - about $50 inlc shipping. The Industar lens was a novelty and not too good below F8 anyway and the BCL is probably a more usable focal length.

Cheers

1 upvote
Edgar Matias
By Edgar Matias (9 months ago)

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I'd much rather see a review of something like the Pentax 06 Telephoto 15-45mm. It's a far more interesting lens, and perhaps makes the Q system more worth considering.

Thanks for your efforts.

8 upvotes
dpalugyay
By dpalugyay (9 months ago)

As an avid user of m43 cameras and lenses, I couldn't agree more. This lens body cap is not worth the time here for a serious review, and there is much better glass (everything else but this) that should be getting tested.

4 upvotes
db68
By db68 (9 months ago)

I use this on my Panasonic GF3. It's a lot smaller than the P14mm lens and the camera feels half as light with the body cap lens compared with the P14mm lens mounted. It only sticks out by 5mm compared by 24mm of the P14mm with the lens cap on. It's fun, quick and easy to use. It's what it is and I don't have great expectations of it. Sometimes you will get images that are soft, but other times you get nice sharp images and it's a pleasent surprise.

3 upvotes
IZO100
By IZO100 (9 months ago)

Why would anyone need something else on a MFT camera ?

0 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (9 months ago)

If you are fine with the IQ of this lens then you are better off getting an advanced P&S camera which will provide similar IQ in a smaller package and with a much faster lens.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (9 months ago)

Doubtful this is a serious question, but some kind of not so subtle jab against MFT.

On the off chance that you really want to know, because the lens is softer than virtually all other m43 lenses, and the slow f8 fixed aperture makes is far less versatile in low-light, with poor DOF control.

1 upvote
///M
By ///M (9 months ago)

This is a body cap, which is very handy on my second body GFX I keep in my bag. It takes zero space, and I know I can grab that camera and drop it in my pocket, knowing it will be ready to shoot someting without putting a prime or zoom on. Olympus does not classify it as a lens, so trolls move along, these aren't the droids you are looking for. Mine cost $0 as part of a rebate when I bought some equipment from Amazon. It's a fun to use, don't buy the ticket if you don't want to go on the ride.

5 upvotes
JmaverickPro
By JmaverickPro (9 months ago)

I know there is an over abundance of complaining on dpreview...

But really? Of all the things dpreview hasn't reviewed, you choose a body cap lens?

10 upvotes
mapgraphs
By mapgraphs (9 months ago)

And with a link to a DxO review from six months ago?

SLRgear reviewed this in December 2012:
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1566/cat/14

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (9 months ago)

There's no such thing as an over abundance. Just said that to complain. (Insert smiley face if you know the keys which I don't).

0 upvotes
Tim F 101
By Tim F 101 (9 months ago)

Spending time on stuff like this leaves them zero excuse to delay reviewing the Hasselblad Lunar, for which I have been waiting these many months. It had better be at least times as awesome as the NEX6. Otherwise some starting photographers could get a little grumpy about some advice that I gave them.

1 upvote
techmine
By techmine (9 months ago)

save your money for Nokia Lumia 1020 :-) It is ultra-portable.

2 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (9 months ago)

I thought it is for free with every Pen purchase....

1 upvote
JTHAIN
By JTHAIN (9 months ago)

I kinda regret buying mine. I get sharper pictures with the same focal length from my phone, which eliminates the only advantage to this lens - portability, since my phone is very portable indeed. But for $50, it was a delightfully fun lesson to learn.

10 upvotes
joe6pack
By joe6pack (9 months ago)

Which begs the question

Can the distortions be fixed by processing the RAW file?

0 upvotes
Oilymouse
By Oilymouse (9 months ago)

Enjoy http://begthequestion.info/

2 upvotes
Fingel
By Fingel (9 months ago)

I don't know what people are complaining about. If you don't like it, don't buy it. I just got one and it is fun and easy to use (and cheap). Plus I can slide my GX1 and this "lens" into my pants or jacket pocket on my walk to work. As an added bonus, the bulge in my pocket gets me left alone by all the hookers, drug dealers, and bums I pass on my way. ;)

8 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (9 months ago)

People are complaining about the time and effort put into a review. The point being, a review gives you a good idea of what to expect. But anybody buying this lens cap already knows what to expect. At least I hope so.

0 upvotes
Houseqatz
By Houseqatz (9 months ago)

from the complaints, offered up as comments, i'd wager that a significant number of readers either missed the point of this lens, or they expected something different

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (9 months ago)

What - no morons claiming it is an f/16 lens yet? Ooooh...

13 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (9 months ago)

Guess you missed it, but of course someone did.

"F8 on mFT is equivalent to F16 on FF which is basically useless."

4 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (9 months ago)

Of course. How could I have missed it? There's one in every corner.

4 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (9 months ago)

should have picked other system instead of name calling people now.

1 upvote
rocklobster
By rocklobster (9 months ago)

Idiotic comparisons to FF are irrelevant. You cant put a FF camera in your pocket.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (9 months ago)

You just need a bigger pocket :)

3 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (9 months ago)

http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/

it doesn't

2 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (9 months ago)

Performance is similar to the 12-50mm $450 kit lens.

0 upvotes
BHPhotog
By BHPhotog (9 months ago)

Nonsense. If you are in the group who hates the 12-50 beyond all reason and without justification so be it, but try to keep your comments within reason.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (9 months ago)

Given the backlog of reviews, I'd just point out that photozone.de did a detailed review of this lens some time ago. Somewhat favorable, too. Surprising, since they don't sugar coat things.

2 upvotes
happypoppeye
By happypoppeye (9 months ago)

Good work DPR ...and man, these posters on here have no notion of personal opinion or one mans trash is another man's treasure.

Those that use m43 complain about it, those that don't want one for their system...

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
johnparas11zenfoliodotcom
By johnparas11zenfoliodotcom (9 months ago)

i was just about to post that I wish Nikon F mount will make one like this.. but with electronic contacts.. infinite focus/large depth of field :-)

..although I also have this lens/cap for my E-P3.. fun to use :-)

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (9 months ago)

"The lens doesn't communicate with the camera in any way, so Olympus owners will need to remember to set the focal length manually for the camera's in-body IS system."

That is a major headache and make it essentially useless as a lens (yes you need stabilization at f/8, and of course for video.

"The Body Cap Lens is decidedly inexpensive as lenses go (approx £60 / $60 / €70 at the time of writing)"

$39 in the US makes it more palatable.
But how much better would be to use a cheap used 14/2.5 or 17/2.8 as a body cap!

0 upvotes
Tim F 101
By Tim F 101 (9 months ago)

Thanks for the good work, but reviewing this as a lens seems kind of gratuitous and encourages the worst kind of forum trolling. I hope this will go into one of your category comparison articles between, say, this lens, the Holga 25, the pinhole 'lens' and the toy lens for Pentax Q.

In addition, you now have no excuse not to review the Hasselblad Lunar. Must include comprisons between the influence of wood vs leather grips on critical sharpness and bokeh quality.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Dave Luttmann
By Dave Luttmann (9 months ago)

Of course, because the Lunar is a cheap optic....what a dumb comparison. It would appear any trolling comments come from people like yourself.

3 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (9 months ago)

omg....well looks like someone flamed you already so i will just watch...but

do you have GAS? lol

0 upvotes
Tim F 101
By Tim F 101 (9 months ago)

Dude, seriously. I suggested that dpreview compare the optical qualities of a wood vs leather grip. I might just not be serious.

And no, I do not think the Lunar is cheap (SNORT). Nor do I want one.

4 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (9 months ago)

Tim,you should be used to some people's lack of sense of humour by now...

1 upvote
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (9 months ago)

That could have been the quickest lens review to write. But nope you went and actually shot with it. :D

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (9 months ago)

And taking the time to test it paid off with lots of unexpected results(?)

0 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (9 months ago)

@AbrasiveReducer, honestly, I do not understand all the whining here. I wager the body cap was tested along with some other real m43 lens. But the review, unlike for a real lens, for the body cap lens takes literally minutes. Alternatively, somebody went on vacations and oops! accidentally between drinks and beach wrote the review.

And the review pays off, because now DPR has joined the exclusive rank of review sites which have bothered to post an official review of the body cap lens ;-)

2 upvotes
Pangloss
By Pangloss (9 months ago)

I think the key shortcoming here is the very simple fact that one can take exactly the same pictures with the kit zoom at exactly the same focal length and aperture, adding vignetting and distortion effects in postprocessing if one wishes. So the question is, why spend any money on a body cap lens if one already has a kit zoom that can take exactly the same (or better) picture? As I see it, it is both a waste of money *and* more importantly a waste of shooting opportunities.

2 upvotes
King Penguin
By King Penguin (9 months ago)

Perhaps one doesn't want to carry the bulk around of a zoom lens.........

2 upvotes
Pangloss
By Pangloss (9 months ago)

Have you seen the "bulk" of the Olympus kit zoom? We are talking about a 5cm long lens that weighs 112g. So unfortunately the body cap lens does not make any sense at all, not even from a carrying-weight-saving point of view.

0 upvotes
LJ - Eljot
By LJ - Eljot (9 months ago)

Quick position for hyperfocal distance maybe. And it is cheap.

1 upvote
Tim F 101
By Tim F 101 (9 months ago)

Because I lost my body cap. And for $40, why the hell not?

2 upvotes
PlainOrFancy
By PlainOrFancy (9 months ago)

…and now PEN FLAT. PEN go in pocket. PEN still take picture. Man happy.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (9 months ago)

For hipsters or LOMO hipsters only. Normal people just use their smartphone and get better picture without the douche filter effect.

5 upvotes
schummiwong
By schummiwong (9 months ago)

Is it just me or does this thing ring a bell of the legendary Hologon 15/8? ;) For that, the price is reaaaaally cheap XD

1 upvote
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (9 months ago)

I'd buy one of these, except Olympus probably makes you pay extra for the hood and pouch.....

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

Canon do the same. I got a 40/2.8 but am not sure if the body cap needs a genuine hood.

1 upvote
Zoran K
By Zoran K (9 months ago)

The most expensive body cap.

4 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (9 months ago)

I guess you missed the lens part. It looks like DPR posters are just as clueless as youtube posters.

5 upvotes
alfredo_tomato
By alfredo_tomato (9 months ago)

Leica body caps cost more and don't have lenses in it. You can get one of those for $45 to $50.

0 upvotes
Zoran K
By Zoran K (9 months ago)

Lens part? The most expensive body cap.

1 upvote
kimchiflower
By kimchiflower (9 months ago)

Why would anyone want this over the Panny 14mm 2.5?

You can get the Panasonic for $150. If the argument is that the Olympus bodycap lens is cheaper, then you shouldn't have bought an ILC.

Don't tell me it's lighter. The Panny is 50g. Are you going to notice the difference.

Smaller? Give me a break

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
6 upvotes
TheProv
By TheProv (9 months ago)

I can accept you spend time reviewing this TOY, instead of many other real and interesting lens, but i cannot accept you say it is INEXPENSIVE, when it costs 70 €. It would be inexpensive if it costed 20 €.

4 upvotes
Mario G
By Mario G (9 months ago)

Exactly. That's £60.67 on amazon.co.uk. Compare that with the £76 that buys you a Canon 50mm F1.8 (that's a different system, fair enough, but just compare the glass and the mechanics that these lenses have...).

2 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (9 months ago)

$39.99 @ Walmart? If so....maybe

0 upvotes
Marla
By Marla (9 months ago)

$39 at B&H

0 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (9 months ago)

$29 on ebay....fell off a truck

0 upvotes
sdribetahi
By sdribetahi (9 months ago)

I'll take the Pentax 40mm xs pancake at this size and f2.8.

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (9 months ago)

For $39? ;)

4 upvotes
seventhdr
By seventhdr (9 months ago)

I agree. If we are talking "small" lenses, the smc Pentax-DA 40mm f2.8 XS lens is the same size, has auto focus and goes from f2.8 to f22.

A much more veratile lens and just as small.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (9 months ago)

It's good to have choices for special effects lenses like the Holga lens for DSLRs or the many pinhole lenscap lenses on the market.

The whole "ready to shoot" selling point is a bit of a stretch as the Panasonic 14 f/2.5 is only slightly larger, and you'll be just as ready to shoot with far better results.

But for the price of a good polarizer, why not? Toy lenses or fixed aperture triplets like this lens are nice to help spark creativity.

8 upvotes
Dave Luttmann
By Dave Luttmann (9 months ago)

I agree. Nice to have lenses for different effects.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (9 months ago)

Wow, an F8.0 fixed lens, huh? Wow!

Wow, it is getting mighty embarrassing being a Micro 4/3rd shooter these days. Thanks for that, Oly. :-))

4 upvotes
alatchin
By alatchin (9 months ago)

Why would this embarrass you? Quite the sensitive soul?

7 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (9 months ago)

Read before you post, this is a body cap lens. Get a F0.95 m4/3rd lens if that is what YOU want.
http://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=350

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
rikyxxx
By rikyxxx (9 months ago)

Being Francis Carver is far more embarrassing.

5 upvotes
paulo79
By paulo79 (9 months ago)

I wasn't aware that my choice in camera system was something that was been judged by others, thanks for pointing that out Francis.

Any tips on what camera system I should be using to compensate for my inadequacies and make myself feel like a big man?

1 upvote
inorogNL
By inorogNL (9 months ago)

what we have here is a first dpreview body cap review :)
Ok body cap that can make pictures actualy

3 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (9 months ago)

The cap doesn't have a cap.

Oh well, iPhone lenses don't have one either...

.

2 upvotes
Dazed and Confused
By Dazed and Confused (9 months ago)

It does have a cap - there's a switchable one built in.

How do I know this? Well, handily there's a direct link to a review of the lens on this very page.....

11 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (9 months ago)

I was referring to an actual "cap" but yes, there is a shutter like window that closes on the lens. At least on an iPhone, the dirt is just wiped away...

2 upvotes
Dazed and Confused
By Dazed and Confused (9 months ago)

Am I alone in not using a body cap?

I always have a lens on my camera when it's in the bag. I reach in, take out the camera, and remove and pocket the lens cap as I lift the camera to my eye.

What would I gain from this lens?

Or do other people do things very dfferently?

8 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (9 months ago)

So true...

Marketing should start to convince the buyers as to why they should buy this body caplens.

.

2 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (9 months ago)

Be very pocketable if that was of interest to you.

2 upvotes
Mario G
By Mario G (9 months ago)

Olympus marketing seems to insist a lot more on this being a body cap that can take pictures (rather than the pocketability) - body cap which implies that you would carry a big bag of lenses along with it, but then why not just keep the camera with one of these real lenses directly?

0 upvotes
StyleZ7
By StyleZ7 (9 months ago)

Ok, would love to see something similar from Canon, for example.
For 60$ it would be a good body-cap alternative.

1 upvote
SimenO1
By SimenO1 (9 months ago)

.

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
qianp2k
By qianp2k (9 months ago)

$60? No kidding. The optical quality of this lens is very crappy. You can get $99 50/1.8 or $150 40/2.8 STM that both are far better in optical quality. F8 on mFT is equivalent to F16 on FF which is basically useless.

9 upvotes
Marla
By Marla (9 months ago)

It's $39 until July 13 at B&H.....regular price is $49....

4 upvotes
Dave Luttmann
By Dave Luttmann (9 months ago)

As usual Peter, you completely missed the point of this optic.

5 upvotes
qianp2k
By qianp2k (9 months ago)

Fuzzy (DL) I guess only you get its useless overpriced point. Why anyone should buy this cap lens as usually a lens such as a pancake lens is attached on a mFT body that generates way better photos than this piece of crab. Why anyone should spend that money to replace the pancake (such as Panny 20/1.7) with this one? Only dumb will get it :-D

2 upvotes
Dave Luttmann
By Dave Luttmann (9 months ago)

Overpriced? Feel free to point out a new lens at a better price from Canon. Are you comparing the intent of the Panasonic lens to this one? It appears it's just you who doesn't get that some people want lenses with a particular signature or character. That is often lost on people who spend their time worrying about per pixel sharpeness at 100% all the time.

5 upvotes
Bali_Mirage
By Bali_Mirage (9 months ago)

I wish Olympus would release a similar lens for Four Thirds.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (9 months ago)

this is a four thirds, dude

3 upvotes
SimenO1
By SimenO1 (9 months ago)

Four thirds is dead. Get a MICRO four thirds camera, and this will fit.

3 upvotes
Bali_Mirage
By Bali_Mirage (9 months ago)

It's micro four thirds not four thirds and I don't want micro four thirds, dudes

2 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (9 months ago)

Who cares! :-)

2 upvotes
SimenO1
By SimenO1 (9 months ago)

I do, and i hope we get a comparison between this and Pentax 07 Mount shield lens (11,5mm f/9)

3 upvotes
deluk
By deluk (9 months ago)

LomOlympus..............

2 upvotes
Rupert Bottomsworth
By Rupert Bottomsworth (9 months ago)

It's great to see DPR spending their time reviewing the really important stuff.

Comment edited 9 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (9 months ago)

Why should we only review stuff that you consider to be 'really important'? What's wrong with looking at the interesting oddities too?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
36 upvotes
Rupert Bottomsworth
By Rupert Bottomsworth (9 months ago)

Andy, I'm sure you'd agree that the vast majority of m43 users would prefer you guys to review something like the Oly 45mm f/1:8 rather than some gimmicky oddity like this.

4 upvotes
LKJ
By LKJ (9 months ago)

While we're being sarcastic and making up statistics, I'm sure you'd agree that the vast majority of non-μ4/3 users (a larger group, I'm sure you'd agree...) would be more interested in this lens as a curiosity. I know I am, and that's evidently all that matters.

17 upvotes
Marla
By Marla (9 months ago)

Using this lens with some of the art filters might be similar to playing with a $200-$400 lensbaby for some.

I found the review interesting and fun. Thanks!

Actually some of the photos look better than I would have expected.

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
PlainOrFancy
By PlainOrFancy (9 months ago)

I'm a HUGE fan of making the most out of what you have at hand. Gets your creative juices flowing :) I've wanted this lens since it came out, and thanks to this review, I have more to act on. So thanks!

4 upvotes
Dave Luttmann
By Dave Luttmann (9 months ago)

Interesting optic. Funny how some are so obsessed with sharpness and 100% screen views that they miss the reason for this optic

4 upvotes
Total comments: 127
12