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

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?

What you haven't specified is what you need this lens for.  Is it shallower DOF, or higher shutter speed?

In either case, the sweet spot for m4/3 is f/1.7-1.8.  Compact lenses are not available at faster apertures.

If you are looking for shallow DOF, then you are out of luck.  Faster lenses are big and expensive.

If you want faster shutter speeds, then you are also out of luck.  Faster lenses have too many elements, and thus have T stops (transmission) that is significantly higher than the rated aperture.  Olympus f/1.2 lenses have T stops of 1.8, while Olympus f/1.8 lenses have T stops of 2.0.  Barely noticeable.

Vince P wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

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?

What you haven't specified is what you need this lens for. Is it shallower DOF, or higher shutter speed?

In either case, the sweet spot for m4/3 is f/1.7-1.8. Compact lenses are not available at faster apertures.

If you are looking for shallow DOF, then you are out of luck. Faster lenses are big and expensive.

If you want faster shutter speeds, then you are also out of luck. Faster lenses have too many elements, and thus have T stops (transmission) that is significantly higher than the rated aperture. Olympus f/1.2 lenses have T stops of 1.8, while Olympus f/1.8 lenses have T stops of 2.0. Barely noticeable.

I have specified that it is mostly for Shutter speed I have also pointed out that compact 1.4 lenses exist at 12 25 and a 1.2 at 42.5mm. I was wondering why it was just at these focal lengths that there isn't one.

Your point about T stops is really well made thanks. I would only be gaining 1/2 a stop, based on the lenses I mentioned but even that would still be of benefit. But it further rules out the Olympus 1.2 which was on my last resort list. I think that my best option is currently the 25mm 1.4. I will grab one and see if it can work.

Thanks again.

I don't think of the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 lens as compact, but it is small compared to the f/1.2 options.  Transmissivity is good.  There are issues with that lens on some Olympus bodies (the AF makes a noise characterized as "rattlesnake"), but I don't have a problem with mine.

The lens hood for that lens is very large and cannot be reversed over the lens.  Very bad (I call it stupid) design.  I replaced the original hood with the one that comes with the 45mm lens, which is smaller (but still can't be reversed unless you deform it...search the web for that solution).

So here's the question for Panasonic...how come the 45mm lens hood is smaller (shallower) than the 25mm lens hood?  In which universe does that make sense?  Which idiot is responsible for that design?

john isaacs wrote:

Vince P wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

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?

What you haven't specified is what you need this lens for. Is it shallower DOF, or higher shutter speed?

In either case, the sweet spot for m4/3 is f/1.7-1.8. Compact lenses are not available at faster apertures.

If you are looking for shallow DOF, then you are out of luck. Faster lenses are big and expensive.

If you want faster shutter speeds, then you are also out of luck. Faster lenses have too many elements, and thus have T stops (transmission) that is significantly higher than the rated aperture. Olympus f/1.2 lenses have T stops of 1.8, while Olympus f/1.8 lenses have T stops of 2.0. Barely noticeable.

I have specified that it is mostly for Shutter speed I have also pointed out that compact 1.4 lenses exist at 12 25 and a 1.2 at 42.5mm. I was wondering why it was just at these focal lengths that there isn't one.

Your point about T stops is really well made thanks. I would only be gaining 1/2 a stop, based on the lenses I mentioned but even that would still be of benefit. But it further rules out the Olympus 1.2 which was on my last resort list. I think that my best option is currently the 25mm 1.4. I will grab one and see if it can work.

Thanks again.

I don't think of the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 lens as compact, but it is small compared to the f/1.2 options. Transmissivity is good. There are issues with that lens on some Olympus bodies (the AF makes a noise characterized as "rattlesnake"), but I don't have a problem with mine.

The lens hood for that lens is very large and cannot be reversed over the lens. Very bad (I call it stupid) design. I replaced the original hood with the one that comes with the 45mm lens, which is smaller (but still can't be reversed unless you deform it...search the web for that solution).

So here's the question for Panasonic...how come the 45mm lens hood is smaller (shallower) than the 25mm lens hood? In which universe does that make sense? Which idiot is responsible for that design?

It's funny, I agree with all downsides you mention of 25/1.4, and mine rattlesnakes on both my Olympus bodies, but it is my fave lens. Yes, far larger than the 25/1.8, but still pretty small to me. The worst is that damn lens hood.

And to me, 1.4 would be a sweet spot for some m4/3 primes. Not that much faster than 1.8, but often the faster lenses have different qualities than the slower ones, including better bokeh, even stopped down. And not that much slower than 1.2, while not having a lot of the downsides of the 1.2s.

Sergey Borachev wrote:

Carol T wrote:

So, I guess they might sell at least two copies, lol.

Seriously, I have wanted Olympus or Panasonic one to make a 17-18/1.4 forever. I gritted my teeth and bought the 17/1.8 long ago, but am not very fond of it. And, the 15/1.7 is wider than I want, and the 20/whatever does not work well on Olympus cameras, it seems.

So, I would like at least a better option at 17-18/1.8ish, but prefer something a little faster. To answer the '1.4 is unnecessary' comments above, to me a 1.4 should give most of the benefits of a 1.2 with fewer of the shortcomings, and gives some room to stop down. A few m4/3 lenses are as sharp wide open as stopped down a bit, but most are like most lenses in general, better when stopped down some. The wider aperture gives more room to do that.

As for why there isn't one, like others I would say it is return on investment. For Olympus, the same reason they haven't made another slowish 12: They are making too much money with the outrageous 12/2 as the only option (which I also have, and consider one of the worst lens purchases I ever made...no, actually, THE worst). Panasonic has the 15 and 20 lenses, which work well for Panasonic bodies, so they probably wouldn't gain anything by making a 17-18.

Oh, and while I am wishing, I wish Panasonic would update the 25/1.4, or Olympus would make one. But that isn't likely to happen, either.

For the longest time, M43 didn't have a quality 35mm EFL AF lens, arguably the single most important lens for any system. Then came the 15mm, but it is a bit wide and so pricy for the not exactly special IQ or build, and then we have the 17mm f/1.2 that is so big and even pricier. Very nice but clumpsy for a standard prime. I would be happy to just have a 17mm f/1.8 if it is small and high quality, something that can be used comfortable and confidently for street, travel and carrying anywhere. Maybe Sigma will have pity on us?

The 17mm 1.8 is actually pretty good in the real world, I've seen many great pics with it by street photographers. The 15mm isn't that much wider and the price has come down a lot, it's not a lot more expensive than the 17mm. You also have the 20mm which is also an excellent lens. I think some people spend too much time looking at test charts. If you actually look at real pictures on flickr or other such sites instead you'll see that you're actually spoilt for choice.