Where are the low light m4/3 lenses?

IS is not the most important thing in the world.

It was invented because of these extreme slow zoom lenses, having F 5.6 or more on the long end.
A lens with F 1.8 does not need that, if you want to keep it small.

With the Nikon 105mm 2.8 and it's VR System (brings 4 stops!) you can shot sharp pictures in a room with dimmed light (at ISO 1600). But do you really need that?

And I have a feeling that on most lenses, the IS seems to destroy the bokeh.

Not cheaper lenses. Much of the cost of quality glass is the precise grinding methods and high number of rejects from the rigorous quality control. That's a fixed cost, regardless of the size of the lens.

The 45 2.8 has the Leica name on it. You know what that does to the price of a lens. Something to do with the unique red paint they use for the dot, costs a million dollars a gallon.

While the 14-140 isn't cheap, I serously doubt the 18-200 would turn in the same results when used for video. The 14-140 is optimized for video, with a constant variable aperture and silent zoom. It's big brother, the PL 14-150, is probably the only dslr superzoom that actually lives up to the promise.

There are bags of fast lenses for M4/3. Just the other day, I was using my old Nikkor 105 1.8 on my EP1, a faithful trooper from film days.

One that works particularly well on my EP1 is the ZD 50 Macro. Fast at 2.0, and relatively inexpensive at around $400. Still the dpr champion for sharpness, and it's small enough that it doesn't unbalance the little EP1.

My 4/3 PL 25 1.4 works very well on M4/3, in fact it's pretty much taken up permanent residence on the EP1, and its superb IQ just about justifies the stiff Leica derived price. Cost no object, there's the Leica Nocton 50 1.0. About four grand on the used market, but it's such a pretty lens.

If you're strictly the off-the-shelf type and don't want to deal with legacy glass or adapters, the Panny 20 1.7 is a bargain for what it is. If you can find one.

Geez, this system has been in existance for about a year. It's not like they can crank out a huge line of quality lenses overnight. While M4/3 isn't long on brand new fast glass, Nikon doesn't have any glass that can work on bodies this small. Or a replaceable lens body this small.

I think your sentiments are more wishful than logical. Everyone wants it all without compromises (and I'm no exception, but I'm pretty realistic when it comes to converting my visions of perfection into whining).

Bodomalo said:

Hello

I have read on many webpages that one of the advantages of this 4/3 system is - you can produce very small and fast (in therms of light) lenses for a cheap price.

Click to expand...

Point me to the official statement by Olympus or Panasonic that says they have a goal of producing smaller faster and cheaper lenses than APS-C (or even of 35mm sized sensors).

I realize that you could point me to hundreds of wishful threads with dreams about 100mm f1.4 lenses for $300 that are as good as the Oly 50mm f2 (100mm f2 in 35mm equiv.) which costs about $450. The 25mm f1.4 verities of which there are several of course don't count because they are large and beautiful and expensive. Of course the 20mm f1.7 also doesn't count right?

Bodomalo said:

Simply because you need less glass.

That would mean to me: The incredible good Nikon 105mm 2.8 Macro lens could be produced for a much lower price.

Click to expand...

If you like that lens very much, there is nothing wrong with buying a Nikon camera just for the lenses you want to use. That's why I use Olympus bodies. However, the Tamron 90mm f2.5 I have used on 4/3rds is so good for $125 that I am almost not even tempted by the amazing Oly 50mm.

Bodomalo said:

What do we get: A Panasonic Leica 45mm 2.8 Macro lens for the same price.

Is it as good? Not by far! To get the same DOF results you would at least need F 1.4 or 1.2

Click to expand...

Would you serious buy a macro lens primarily for portraits and then complain that the depth of field is not shallow enough? Are you serious clamoring after a Leica 45mm f1.2 macro lens? The price of any Leica f1.2 would require cashing in my retirement. The Leica macro price is ridiculous and imo all about the name.

Bodomalo said:

And then the ultra zoom lenses: A 14-140mm lens starting again at F4.0
Price: Much more than every equal lens, let's say the Nikon 18-200 VR

Click to expand...

It's optimized for video and compact size, not speed. Again, if the 18-200mm is what you want, it's actually smart to buy cameras based on the lenses you want rather than the other way around. Not saying that there will not be ultrazooms that are less expensive for micro 4/3rds--seeing as the system has existed for about a year, though I'm not panicked.

Bodomalo said:

So - where is this advantage: Cheaper, faster and smaller lenses gone?
We pay more - for slower lenses.

Click to expand...

I stay because of the lenses. What is the equiv. of the 11-22mm or the 50-200mm? Who makes as good of a kit lens (size, price, and IQ) as the 14-42mm and 40-150mm? I hope that you leave in order to purchase the lenses you want.

Bodomalo said:

Why are these non-profi lenses so expensive?

Click to expand...

Because you can't afford them?

Cheers,
Seth

--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?

--
wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com

Bodomalo said:

It's about 25% more expensive - and I would say
the Nikon 18-200 VR II (which has also everything you mention)
must have at least the same quality.

I have not read any "this is the best telephoto zoom lens on the market" reviews. Its just another good extreme slow zoom lens.

Click to expand...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgh1/page17.asp

Quote - " It's more or less on a par with the cream of the current crop of APS-C image-stabilised superzooms such as the Tamron 18-270mm F3.5-5.6 VC, and therefore marginally more consistent than the 18-200mm zooms from Canon and Nikon. "

Anyway, who cares. For some, it ticks all the boxes and is a very good and usable, versatile lens.

For others, it appears too slow and too much money.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30225435@N00/

I asked you about low price claims and you respond with 4/3 (not micro 4/3) claims about f2.0 zooms?
I think you are a confused and cranky troller.

Wikipedia is designed to be edited. Why don't you do some editing and then relax.

Bodomalo said:

Bodomalo wrote:

IS is not the most important thing in the world.

It was invented because of these extreme slow zoom lenses, having F 5.6 or more on the long end.
A lens with F 1.8 does not need that, if you want to keep it small.

With the Nikon 105mm 2.8 and it's VR System (brings 4 stops!) you can shot sharp pictures in a room with dimmed light (at ISO 1600). But do you really need that?

And I have a feeling that on most lenses, the IS seems to destroy the bokeh.

Click to expand...

But......just because a lens is fast (e.g. f1, f1.4, f1.8) it doesn't mean that you have to or will take every shot at max aperture. When you stop down, having I.S. will be helpful.

The real constant benefit of having a fast AF lens is that the wide aperture helps with focusing in low light. Even if you set the camera/lens to f8, in many cases the lens doesn't stop down until the moment of exposure, thus the sensor/AF module is receiving lots and lots of light and thereby making AF more reliable.

So for me, I.S. should be available on all of Panny's lenses. If Oly made a microFT cam as good as the Panny GH1 I would switch from Panny to Oly because of the in-body I.S.

Regards,

Lance W said:

Lance W wrote:

I asked you about low price claims and you respond with 4/3 (not micro 4/3) claims about f2.0 zooms?
I think you are a confused and cranky troller.

Wikipedia is designed to be edited. Why don't you do some editing and then relax.

Click to expand...

And why on earth can we not have folks express alternative views without the fanboy pettiness of being labelled a troll?!! It's almost fascistic.

Naysayers, in my view, are of benefit to us all as it makes us (and the manufacturers) think deeply about the products purchased/produced and can lead to improvements.

So for me, I.S. should be available on all of Panny's lenses. If Oly made a microFT cam as good as the Panny GH1 I would switch from Panny to Oly because of the in-body I.S.
======================

I mostly agree. Thinking long-term, Panasonic has only two choices if its m43 products are to succeed as still cameras:

1. release fast, sharp, compact lenses, preferably primes, in a range of focal lengths, (although I think only those longer than 25mm or so need to be stabilized), or

2. add IBS for the 3rd party lenses that we are otherwise forced to use.

Option 2 seems unlikely, so it's likely option 1 or a future Olympus for me. New Panasonic lenses are being rolled out at a - shall we say - stately pace; so my betting is on Olympus for the long term, although I prefer the Panasonic in their current versions.

--
Slane

plevyadophy said:

plevyadophy said:

Bodomalo wrote:

Click to expand...

So for me, I.S. should be available on all of Panny's lenses. If Oly made a microFT cam as good as the Panny GH1 I would switch from Panny to Oly because of the in-body I.S.

Click to expand...

I mostly agree. Thinking long-term, Panasonic has only two choices if its m43 products are to succeed as still cameras:

1. release fast, sharp, compact lenses, preferably primes, in a range of focal lengths, (although I think only those longer than 25mm or so need to be stabilized), or

2. add IBS for the 3rd party lenses that we are otherwise forced to use.

Option 2 seems unlikely, so it's likely option 1 or a future Olympus for me. New Panasonic lenses are being rolled out at a - shall we say - stately pace; so my betting is on Olympus for the long term, although I prefer the Panasonic in their current versions.
--
Slane

Slane Masda said:

Slane Masda wrote:

So for me, I.S. should be available on all of Panny's lenses. If Oly made a microFT cam as good as the Panny GH1 I would switch from Panny to Oly because of the in-body I.S.
======================

I mostly agree. Thinking long-term, Panasonic has only two choices if its m43 products are to succeed as still cameras:

1. release fast, sharp, compact lenses, preferably primes, in a range of focal lengths, (although I think only those longer than 25mm or so need to be stabilized), or

2. add IBS for the 3rd party lenses that we are otherwise forced to use.

Option 2 seems unlikely, so it's likely option 1 or a future Olympus for me. New Panasonic lenses are being rolled out at a - shall we say - stately pace; so my betting is on Olympus for the long term, although I prefer the Panasonic in their current versions.

--
Slane

Click to expand...

And Oly lenses are being rolled out at even slower pace ;-)

Rumour has it that there will be a Pana Leica 35mm f1.4 some time in the middle of next year. Unfortunately, my guess is that it won't have I.S.

I have a super fast lens at present, the Voigtlander 50mm f1.1, but I get thoroughtly p!ssed off when I am shooting in low light, which is one of the reasons for having a super fast manual focus lens, and find that shutter speeds get to a point where hand holding is unwise unless one bumps up the ISO (f1.1 and 1/25 would be so cool but I would rather not risk hand holding two stops below recommended).

Regards

Slane Masda said:

Slane Masda said:

Slane Masda said:

Bodomalo wrote:

Click to expand...

So for me, I.S. should be available on all of Panny's lenses. If Oly made a microFT cam as good as the Panny GH1 I would switch from Panny to Oly because of the in-body I.S.

Click to expand...

I mostly agree. Thinking long-term, Panasonic has only two choices if its m43 products are to succeed as still cameras:

1. release fast, sharp, compact lenses, preferably primes, in a range of focal lengths, (although I think only those longer than 25mm or so need to be stabilized), or

2. add IBS for the 3rd party lenses that we are otherwise forced to use.

Option 2 seems unlikely, so it's likely option 1 or a future Olympus for me. New Panasonic lenses are being rolled out at a - shall we say - stately pace; so my betting is on Olympus for the long term, although I prefer the Panasonic in their current versions.
--
Slane

Click to expand...

And Oly lenses are being rolled out at even slower pace ;-)

Rumour has it that there will be a Pana Leica 35mm f1.4 some time in the middle of next year. Unfortunately, my guess is that it won't have I.S.

I have a super fast lens at present, the Voigtlander 50mm f1.1, but I get thoroughtly p!ssed off when I am shooting in low light, which is one of the reasons for having a super fast manual focus lens, and find that shutter speeds get to a point where hand holding is unwise unless one bumps up the ISO (f1.1 and 1/25 would be so cool but I would rather not risk hand holding two stops below recommended).

Regards

I have the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 and as amazing as it is, its annoying to carry around for travel because its so big and heavy (nearly 3lbs)

I bought the 7-14mm, and frankly the G1 system, solely to have a very small and lightweight system

Sure I paid 75% of the price for a lens thats not as sharp, though still very good, and a stop slower, but I'd do it again in a heartbeat because I can literally carry it in my pocket. Thats worth the money to me and my needs

Not everyone is going to agree but no camera system can be all things to all people

I'd frankly love a M9 as well but while it offers lots of what I want, the price is too high.

On the other hand there are some really great DSLR's on the market for very affordable prices, and that really give amazing results but their size is still too big even if they bang for the buck is great

Nothing is perfect.

If you want fast long primes then use them with your DSLR. I love my 200mm f2 and 85mm f1.4 when I need that type of look for a portrait session.

I love my m4/3 for lightweight travel needs

Horses for courses

Oh please. He posted a quite-unoriginal comment (been discussed since the E-1 was released) that has been a favorite of trolls for years. But the micro 4/3 system is very new, and can not expect to have a full lens lineup already. It was petty and not meant to start a reasonable discussion. And as pointed out, it was baseless (in regard to low price being the intention of the system). Fanboy-ism has nothing to do with it. Not on my end anyway.

Yes, most of the marketing hype did not materialize. You do pay more for a convenience. It would be insane to claim that you are getting better performance for the money. Just, to some degree, comparable performance in a smaller package.

The "great" lenses are still to materialize (with possible exception of 7-14). So far every lens that as been released was worse performance for more money.
--
--
Eugene
http://picture.stanford.edu/Photo

A seriours and independent reviewer, has found the lenses available for micro four-thirds to be optically quite average or even poor.

Sure their problems (record vignetting for the 20mm prime, lots of distorsion, etc) are corrected in-camera.

But the fact is that their optical quality, is inferior.

In the meantime, their price tends to be higher than better primes or otherwise comparable lenses for APS-C cameras.

Why?

Because these are the early days of a new system, and the pricing remains very premium. Possibly too high by 30 percent.

Not a big issue though - all you need is to wait a bit. Either the price will drop by itself once early adopters have bought and once Panasonic and Olympus reach better economies of scale in production. Or, competitors will come up with similar cameras which will force Panasonic and Olympus to set their prices to more competitive levels.

But for the time being, with a niche market to themselves, the rules of micro-economics say that they SHOULD price as high as possible. And that's exactly what they're doing.

antoineb said:

A seriours and independent reviewer, has found the lenses available for micro four-thirds to be optically quite average or even poor.

Click to expand...

Link? Reviewers name?

Every review I have seen is telling us that the Panasonic lenses (at least) are up there with the best lenses in their class (7-14, 14-140, 20, 45):

20mm:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/panasonic_20_1p7_o20/page4.asp

Conclusion

• Extremely small size and light weight - the perfect match for the E-P1 and GF1
• Fast maximum aperture
• Impressive image quality at all apertures
• Good build quality, proper manual focus ring and non-rotating front element

14-140:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgh1/page17.asp

The 14-140mm puts in a very good performance for a superzoom in our studio tests - it's at its best in the 18-50mm range, but gets soft towards the long end of the zoom. It's more or less on a par with the cream of the current crop of APS-C image-stabilised superzooms such as the Tamron 18-270mm F3.5-5.6 VC, and therefore marginally more consistent than the 18-200mm zooms from Canon and Nikon.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgh1/page17.asp

45

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/panasonic_45_2p8_o20/page5.asp

Conclusion

• Very good, if not quite outstanding, optics
• Extremely compact and lightweight
• True 1:1 macro
• Reasonably effective image stabilization (but really need to use mode 1)

7-14

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1252/cat/69

Conclusion

The Panasonic 7-14mm tested very well , offering images that were very sharp all the way to ƒ 11 , and provided extremely impressive distortion correction with minimal light falloff .

antoineb said:

Sure their problems (record vignetting for the 20mm prime, lots of distorsion, etc) are corrected in-camera.

But the fact is that their optical quality, is inferior.

Click to expand...

Link? Proof? Compared to what?

Yes, software correction is used. It has been explained time and time again that this enables smaller and better lenses - it is no different than adding correcting optical elements, and in fact can have less compromises and achieve better final quality (you know, the pictures we end up looking at).

I'm calling you out as yet another big mouthed troll (of which there are way too many on this forum).
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30225435@N00/

Given the size of the sensor, 4/3 should be able to have f2 zooms where other mounts have f2.8, and at the same size & cost. The reason I didn´t get into olympus was partially the cost of the lens & partially how slow they are. For the price of a constant 2.8 in Nikon, Canon or Pentax, you get a 2.8-4 in olympus. But surely the small size of the sensor whould make the faster lenses lighter & cheaper to make, not rarer & more expensive.

millsart said:

I have the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 ...
I bought the 7-14mm...

Sure I paid 75% of the price ... but I'd do it again in a heartbeat because I can literally carry it in my pocket.

Click to expand...

Although I find myself at inappropriate hours lusting about the gorgeous 7-14mm, I must conclude that you have a pocket so much bigger than mine!

Ciao!

--
Vegetarians do eat better!

Is it possible to use AF assist illuminator ( FL- 36R ) on EP-1 ?

For the sort of shots i want to take with that 100mm EFL the closest focusing distance of 0.9m is no good... My OM 50/1.8 can focus as close as about 0.45m which is much more useful. Too bad its uselessly soft at anywhere near wide open...

Thats why i want a fast 100mm EFL m4/3 lens with at least 0.45m close focusing ability. That way i can get some really shallow DOF joy! OH! it has to be sharp wide open also... at least as sharp as the lumix 20mm wide open..

I'd pay between AU$600-700 street price.. so probably a AU RRP of $1000ish
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/Robbie_e-p1/