Reason why there is not a compact 1.4 prime in the 14-20mm range.

Micro 4/3rds is not my main kit but it is getting some use.

Part of that is having access to a compact outfit is important to me. One gap for my use is a fastish medium wide prime preferably with IS.

I have the panasonic 14 F2.5 and the 20 1.7 in this range but I would like an option for a faster prime for some purposes.

The Sigma 16mm 1.4 and Olympus 1.2 are just too big to keep an advantage. Closest are the leica 25mm and 12mm but just a little too long or too wide and the 12mm is on the upper end of the size I would be happpy with. Budget is unlikely to be the issue.

This is the 28-35/40mm zone which is well catered for in full frame.

Is anyone aware if there is a technical or other reason why there is not one?

Mitakon 25mm f0.95 is pretty small for what it is, but pretty heavy due to being full metal construction. It's also a full manual lens

Dutch Newchurch wrote:

You've discounted those that are available as 'too big'.

Perhaps that's why there are few of them (and fast wide angle lenses tend to be pricey as well as large).

The only 1.4 that I know of is the Sigma which suffers from their disease of being much larger than it needs to be. The Pan/leica 42.5 1.2 is more compact.

Pan/Leica have the equivalent of 24, 50 and 85. In a classic prime kit this would be an obvious gap with 35mm being the classic street focal length. I accept they will be pricey and larger than a 1.8 but the 1.4s, I mentioned, either side are reasonably compact.

Lu1Wang wrote:

Mitakon 25mm f0.95 is pretty small for what it is, but pretty heavy due to being full metal construction. It's also a full manual lens

Thanks for the suggestion 50mm is a bit long for my use, the weight would be an issue and I would prefer AF if poss.

Vince P wrote:

I have the panasonic 14 F2.5 and the 20 1.7 in this range but I would like an option for a faster prime for some purposes.

May I ask what purpose is that?

Is it the light gathering, DOF, or both?

Say if there's a 20 1.4, that's barely like half a stop from f1.7 which in real life the difference is negligible.

So why fixated on a 1.4?

This is the 28-35/40mm zone which is well catered for in full frame.

Is anyone aware if there is a technical or other reason why there is not one?

Diminishing return.

-- hide signature --

Instagram @vinnypimages

Advent1sam wrote:

Vince P wrote:

Dutch Newchurch wrote:

You've discounted those that are available as 'too big'.

Perhaps that's why there are few of them (and fast wide angle lenses tend to be pricey as well as large).

The only 1.4 that I know of is the Sigma which suffers from their disease of being much larger than it needs to be. The Pan/leica 42.5 1.2 is more compact.

Pan/Leica have the equivalent of 24, 50 and 85. In a classic prime kit this would be an obvious gap with 35mm being the classic street focal length. I accept they will be pricey and larger than a 1.8 but the 1.4s, I mentioned, either side are reasonable compact.

Is the 15 1.7 or 17 1.8 that much slower than 1.4?

+1

For a full body shot it amounts to 2.5 inch more dof in front and behind ie 5 inch more, for a closer shot, say head and shoulders it will amount to about 0,5inch in front and behind ie 1 inch more.!

Agreed.

OP sounds like you're trying to force m43 to match your other system and expect it to be cheaper, smaller and lighter all at the same time.

It simply doesn't work that way.

f1.7/1.8 is plenty fast and good enough to most whilst keeping the overall size small and light, and imo that's the true strength of m43.

Advent1sam wrote:

Vince P wrote:

Dutch Newchurch wrote:

You've discounted those that are available as 'too big'.

Perhaps that's why there are few of them (and fast wide angle lenses tend to be pricey as well as large).

The only 1.4 that I know of is the Sigma which suffers from their disease of being much larger than it needs to be. The Pan/leica 42.5 1.2 is more compact.

Pan/Leica have the equivalent of 24, 50 and 85. In a classic prime kit this would be an obvious gap with 35mm being the classic street focal length. I accept they will be pricey and larger than a 1.8 but the 1.4s, I mentioned, either side are reasonable compact.

Is the 15 1.7 or 17 1.8 that much slower than 1.4?

For a full body shot it amounts to 2.5 inch more dof in front and behind ie 5 inch more, for a closer shot, say head and shoulders it will amount to about 0,5inch in front and behind ie 1 inch more.!

Its not really the DOF for my use it's the shutter speed. 2/3rds of a stop is often useful in low light. M43 is obviously more sensitive in those circumstances.

mg_k wrote:

Advent1sam wrote:

Vince P wrote:

Dutch Newchurch wrote:

You've discounted those that are available as 'too big'.

Perhaps that's why there are few of them (and fast wide angle lenses tend to be pricey as well as large).

The only 1.4 that I know of is the Sigma which suffers from their disease of being much larger than it needs to be. The Pan/leica 42.5 1.2 is more compact.

Pan/Leica have the equivalent of 24, 50 and 85. In a classic prime kit this would be an obvious gap with 35mm being the classic street focal length. I accept they will be pricey and larger than a 1.8 but the 1.4s, I mentioned, either side are reasonable compact.

Is the 15 1.7 or 17 1.8 that much slower than 1.4?

+1

For a full body shot it amounts to 2.5 inch more dof in front and behind ie 5 inch more, for a closer shot, say head and shoulders it will amount to about 0,5inch in front and behind ie 1 inch more.!

Agreed.

OP sounds like you're trying to force m43 to match your other system and expect it to be cheaper, smaller and lighter all at the same time.

It simply doesn't work that way.

f1.7/1.8 is plenty fast and good enough to most whilst keeping the overall size small and light, and imo that's the true strength of m43.

I never said cheaper, I expect to pay for a less mainstream, technically complex design.

I would like it to be smaller & lighter. The existing 1.4 Panasonic primes at other focal lengths (Even the 85 1.2) are accepatble in size so my question is still is there a reason for the gap.

I have 1.7 it's occasionally not enough for me. Since there are a number of 1.4 and 1.2 primes the answer no one needs better than 1.7 is a little strange.

Advent1sam wrote:

Vince P wrote:

Advent1sam wrote:

Vince P wrote:

Dutch Newchurch wrote:

You've discounted those that are available as 'too big'.

Perhaps that's why there are few of them (and fast wide angle lenses tend to be pricey as well as large).

The only 1.4 that I know of is the Sigma which suffers from their disease of being much larger than it needs to be. The Pan/leica 42.5 1.2 is more compact.

Pan/Leica have the equivalent of 24, 50 and 85. In a classic prime kit this would be an obvious gap with 35mm being the classic street focal length. I accept they will be pricey and larger than a 1.8 but the 1.4s, I mentioned, either side are reasonable compact.

Is the 15 1.7 or 17 1.8 that much slower than 1.4?

For a full body shot it amounts to 2.5 inch more dof in front and behind ie 5 inch more, for a closer shot, say head and shoulders it will amount to about 0,5inch in front and behind ie 1 inch more.!

Its not really the DOF for my use it's the shutter speed. 2/3rds of a stop is often useful in low light. M43 is obviously more sensitive in those circumstances.

Is it video related, you have a gh5 on your list? Is the 12 1.4 too wide and the 25 1.4 too long? I have wondered why there wasn't a 15 1.4 before to be honest but then I think 1.4/1.7 that's half a stop, iso 800 or 1250, seriously don't see that as an issue.

It might get an outing for video, I have adapted lenses which I usually use. The primary use would be low light handheld stills with a GX85. Events interiors performances and occasional street

Vince P wrote:

Micro 4/3rds is not my main kit but it is getting some use.

Part of that is having access to a compact outfit is important to me. One gap for my use is a fastish medium wide prime preferably with IS.

I have the panasonic 14 F2.5 and the 20 1.7 in this range but I would like an option for a faster prime for some purposes.

The Sigma 16mm 1.4 and Olympus 1.2 are just too big to keep an advantage. Closest are the leica 25mm and 12mm but just a little too long or too wide and the 12mm is on the upper end of the size I would be happpy with. Budget is unlikely to be the issue.

This is the 28-35/40mm zone which is well catered for in full frame.

Is anyone aware if there is a technical or other reason why there is not one?

I think the simple answer is that Olympus and Panasonic have both decided that F1.4 is not a significant enough change from F1.7/1.8 and that to be a worthwhile step up, F1.2 was required. They are unlikely to produce a full suite of 17mm/25mm/45mm primes at F1.8, F1.4, and F1.2,

Vince P wrote:

Micro 4/3rds is not my main kit but it is getting some use.

Part of that is having access to a compact outfit is important to me. One gap for my use is a fastish medium wide prime preferably with IS.

I have the panasonic 14 F2.5 and the 20 1.7 in this range but I would like an option for a faster prime for some purposes.

The Sigma 16mm 1.4 and Olympus 1.2 are just too big to keep an advantage. Closest are the leica 25mm and 12mm but just a little too long or too wide and the 12mm is on the upper end of the size I would be happpy with. Budget is unlikely to be the issue.

This is the 28-35/40mm zone which is well catered for in full frame.

Is anyone aware if there is a technical or other reason why there is not one?

I would have thought it was fairly obvious really. The market for it is probably too small. Everything that needs to be covered fairly well is already there. If you and a few others want that lens and the majority can already find what they want in that range, then the market must be too small.

It's a bit like me wanting a 500 F/4 and asking why they don't make one for m4/3, fairly obvious and if they did, it would be more expensive than lets say ..... a Canon 500 F/4. Smaller market, larger cost. Same with what you want and I would say, Panasonic and Olympus just can't see the market for it.

Eventually you might get what you want, but only if the market dictates they need one. It doesn't matter what you are willing to pay for it, if they can only sell a few dozen a year, there's no money in it.

All the best.

Danny.