Should Olympus start a new f/2.8 prime lineup?

Tommi K1 wrote:

Now most of the Olympus primes are f/1.8 ones in their Premium line. But they had a 25mm f/2.8 in their 4/3 system and 17mm f/2.8 in m4/3. But both are gone.

Should Olympus revive that f/2.8 line with something new, special for cheaper prices?

9mm f/4

17mm f/2.8

25mm f/2.8

75mm f/2.8

120mm f/4 (Macro?)

The 9mm, 17mm and 25mm in pancake designs, and 75mm to be made as small as possible. The 120mm f/4 macro in quality of 60mm Macro.

If one could get a 17mm and 25mm f/2.8 for lets say 200€ each, would it be worth to consider new users those, instead their f/1.8 Premium line that are 1.3 stops faster?

Considering that 17mm and 25mm f/1.8 models costs like 350€. Being pancake models without any fancy clutches etc, it would be nice cheap set to buy someone to start with. Ie E-PL9 + 17mm and 25mm for lower price.

Check this out, OOC

Look at the hairs on the paintbrush mid frame.

Hand held, natural window lighting, 6th second. For the price of £140 this 17mm f2.8 cannot be beaten, in my opinion.

Cheers

Sup

Okapi001 wrote:

Tommi K1 wrote:

Now most of the Olympus primes are f/1.8 ones in their Premium line. But they had a 25mm f/2.8 in their 4/3 system and 17mm f/2.8 in m4/3. But both are gone.

Should Olympus revive that f/2.8 line with something new, special for cheaper prices?

9mm f/4

17mm f/2.8

25mm f/2.8

75mm f/2.8

120mm f/4 (Macro?)

The 9mm, 17mm and 25mm in pancake designs, and 75mm to be made as small as possible. The 120mm f/4 macro in quality of 60mm Macro.

If one could get a 17mm and 25mm f/2.8 for lets say 200€ each, would it be worth to consider new users those, instead their f/1.8 Premium line that are 1.3 stops faster?

Considering that 17mm and 25mm f/1.8 models costs like 350€. Being pancake models without any fancy clutches etc, it would be nice cheap set to buy someone to start with. Ie E-PL9 + 17mm and 25mm for lower price.

Not a good idea, IMHO. Primes are for the more advanced users (others use zooms), and more advanced users use primes, because they are better (and faster) than zooms.

Total bull obviously.

Used everything from plate to quarter plate, sheet film to 120, 35mm, 110 etc, most of those lenses were prime (apart from 35mm) and most pretty slow to very slow, the type of lens and speed of lens used has naff to do with being more experienced.

These days its the skill/experience lacking amateurs the go for the fast primes, thinking it would make them better photographers.

f/2.8 is not that much faster than kit zooms, and they would not be that much smaller and cheaper than f/1.8 primes to attract advanced users.

From your list, only 9mm and 120mm macro could be interesting, because those focal lenghts currently do not exist as primes at all. But again, it would be much better if both were faster than f/4, for example f/2.8.

jaeae wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

F1.4 would be like F2.8, which is what most standard zooms for other (larger) systems are, including 3-rd party lenses as well. That should probably be the goal, to convince the potential buyers of the real weight savings. If there is any.

"If there is any" --> yep, there isn't much.

It's like zero-sum game, you can counteract FF sensors in MFT world using very fast glass and the same time ending up with just as big and expensive system.

If one wants small system, something has to give.

I think that 'pancake' f/1.4 lenses are quite feasible for mFT. The something that has to give is edge-to edge sharpness wide open, but the importance of that for general photography gets vastly overplayed. In a way, mFT has been trapped in it's own hype. Many of the faithful chant the edge-to-edge mantra to the extent that any mFT lens a bit soft in the corners would be denounced as a failure, so what we get are huge and complex optical formulations for the fast lenses. Ironically, it was Olympus that started the whole compact fast lens thing with the classic Zuiko 50/1.4 for the OM-1. Imagine that half size and you see what could be done.

I'd like the 120, doesn't have to be macro. 150 would be better.

bobn2 wrote:

jaeae wrote:

"If there is any" --> yep, there isn't much.

It's like zero-sum game, you can counteract FF sensors in MFT world using very fast glass and the same time ending up with just as big and expensive system.

If one wants small system, something has to give.

I think that 'pancake' f/1.4 lenses are quite feasible for mFT. The something that has to give is edge-to edge sharpness wide open, but the importance of that for general photography gets vastly overplayed. In a way, mFT has been trapped in it's own hype. Many of the faithful chant the edge-to-edge mantra to the extent that any mFT lens a bit soft in the corners would be denounced as a failure, so what we get are huge and complex optical formulations for the fast lenses. Ironically, it was Olympus that started the whole compact fast lens thing with the classic Zuiko 50/1.4 for the OM-1. Imagine that half size and you see what could be done.

+1.  That is 100% true that edge sharpness (well, also overall sharpness obsession) has trapped MFT.

If some soft corners + huge vignetting would really mean something like 17mm f/1.8 but the size of the old 17mm 2.8, I'm all in..

Sup Mylo wrote:

Tommi K1 wrote:

Now most of the Olympus primes are f/1.8 ones in their Premium line. But they had a 25mm f/2.8 in their 4/3 system and 17mm f/2.8 in m4/3. But both are gone.

Should Olympus revive that f/2.8 line with something new, special for cheaper prices?

9mm f/4

17mm f/2.8

25mm f/2.8

75mm f/2.8

120mm f/4 (Macro?)

The 9mm, 17mm and 25mm in pancake designs, and 75mm to be made as small as possible. The 120mm f/4 macro in quality of 60mm Macro.

If one could get a 17mm and 25mm f/2.8 for lets say 200€ each, would it be worth to consider new users those, instead their f/1.8 Premium line that are 1.3 stops faster?

Considering that 17mm and 25mm f/1.8 models costs like 350€. Being pancake models without any fancy clutches etc, it would be nice cheap set to buy someone to start with. Ie E-PL9 + 17mm and 25mm for lower price.

Check this out, OOC

Look at the hairs on the paintbrush mid frame.

Hand held, natural window lighting, 6th second. For the price of £140 this 17mm f2.8 cannot be beaten, in my opinion.

Cheers

Sup

Sure, for still life.

But people move, and you are not going to take good images of people at 1/6 second in most normal life situations. So that's only underlining that an f2.8 "prime" lens is rather sub-prime...

Osa25 wrote:

Sure, for still life.

But people move, and you are not going to take good images of people at 1/6 second in most normal life situations. So that's only underlining that an f2.8 "prime" lens is rather sub-prime...

And you can still raise ISO, use the external lighting etc. It is 1.3 stops difference. Not that much really.

Remember, average joe and jane ain't pixel peepers who are afraid of the noise.

jaeae wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

jaeae wrote:

"If there is any" --> yep, there isn't much.

It's like zero-sum game, you can counteract FF sensors in MFT world using very fast glass and the same time ending up with just as big and expensive system.

If one wants small system, something has to give.

I think that 'pancake' f/1.4 lenses are quite feasible for mFT. The something that has to give is edge-to edge sharpness wide open, but the importance of that for general photography gets vastly overplayed. In a way, mFT has been trapped in it's own hype. Many of the faithful chant the edge-to-edge mantra to the extent that any mFT lens a bit soft in the corners would be denounced as a failure, so what we get are huge and complex optical formulations for the fast lenses. Ironically, it was Olympus that started the whole compact fast lens thing with the classic Zuiko 50/1.4 for the OM-1. Imagine that half size and you see what could be done.

+1. That is 100% true that edge sharpness (well, also overall sharpness obsession) has trapped MFT.

As I have said long time, the sharpness is overrated thing. Just like is the chase for ultimate dynamic range and lowest noise.

And that is _format agnostic_ obsession, that so many is directing it to smaller and smaller formats with wrong conclusions.

Tommi K1 wrote:

Osa25 wrote:

Sure, for still life.

But people move, and you are not going to take good images of people at 1/6 second in most normal life situations. So that's only underlining that an f2.8 "prime" lens is rather sub-prime...

And you can still raise ISO, use the external lighting etc. It is 1.3 stops difference. Not that much really.

Remember, average joe and jane ain't pixel peepers who are afraid of the noise.

“external lighting” you mean flash. Not acceptable in all situations - and then that leads you to flash sync limitations on my M43 cameras.

As ISO rises over 1600 The noise and reduced dynamic range on m43 is noticeable without being an expert or whatever. That’s well established.

So ultimately f2.8 “prime” is not really worth spending money on over and above the typical zooms.

bobn2 wrote:

I think that 'pancake' f/1.4 lenses are quite feasible for mFT. The something that has to give is edge-to edge sharpness wide open, but the importance of that for general photography gets vastly overplayed. In a way, mFT has been trapped in it's own hype.

I agree with the feasibility part but wonder what you mean by singling out Micro Four Thirds as trapped in its own hype. Is corner-to-corner sharpness a special tenet of Micro Four Thirds? It seems to me to be the driving force behind the majority of new lenses for all platforms.

I was leafing through Stephen Shore’s Uncommon Places today, which was shot on 8-by-10 film. I think a modern Micro Four Thirds camera with a decent lens would do as well for the purposes of a book like this, excepting any lens movements. The image-quality fixation – lenses and sensors alike – has become largely pointless, as revealed by the lack of novel work being done with the new capabilities (in contrast to Shore with his large-format colour work in the 1970s. Of course Shore now uses an iPhone on Instagram).

Osa25 wrote:

Sup Mylo wrote:

Tommi K1 wrote:

Now most of the Olympus primes are f/1.8 ones in their Premium line. But they had a 25mm f/2.8 in their 4/3 system and 17mm f/2.8 in m4/3. But both are gone.

Should Olympus revive that f/2.8 line with something new, special for cheaper prices?

9mm f/4

17mm f/2.8

25mm f/2.8

75mm f/2.8

120mm f/4 (Macro?)

The 9mm, 17mm and 25mm in pancake designs, and 75mm to be made as small as possible. The 120mm f/4 macro in quality of 60mm Macro.

If one could get a 17mm and 25mm f/2.8 for lets say 200€ each, would it be worth to consider new users those, instead their f/1.8 Premium line that are 1.3 stops faster?

Considering that 17mm and 25mm f/1.8 models costs like 350€. Being pancake models without any fancy clutches etc, it would be nice cheap set to buy someone to start with. Ie E-PL9 + 17mm and 25mm for lower price.

Check this out, OOC

Look at the hairs on the paintbrush mid frame.

Hand held, natural window lighting, 6th second. For the price of £140 this 17mm f2.8 cannot be beaten, in my opinion.

Cheers

Sup

Sure, for still life.

But people move, and you are not going to take good images of people at 1/6 second in most normal life situations. So that's only underlining that an f2.8 "prime" lens is rather sub-prime...

No one is suggestion that you use only 1/6 second, or that it's only good for still-life. I was merely illustrating that it's a good lens for the money. You must have missed the question mark in the header.

"Typical" M43 zooms are f/3.5-f/5.6. The 17 is much faster at 17mm where kit lenses are already f/4 - f/4.5, will help keep the ISO down and produce more subject separation with a shallower DOF. It is much sharper and smaller than kit zooms.

ISO 3200 is perfectly acceptable, 6400 with DxO if you know how to use them, and you aren't pixel peeping.

Well said. Stop debating IQ, DOF, MP, ISO, system, format, and take some pictures. Hard to find any current model camera that isn't GREAT. Lots of mediocre photos though. Be a photographer, not a lab test tech.

Osa25 wrote:

Tommi K1 wrote:

Osa25 wrote:

Sure, for still life.

But people move, and you are not going to take good images of people at 1/6 second in most normal life situations. So that's only underlining that an f2.8 "prime" lens is rather sub-prime...

And you can still raise ISO, use the external lighting etc. It is 1.3 stops difference. Not that much really.

Remember, average joe and jane ain't pixel peepers who are afraid of the noise.

“external lighting” you mean flash. Not acceptable in all situations - and then that leads you to flash sync limitations on my M43 cameras.

Nah, just working with what you have.

Iso 400, f2.8, 1/40s and from a 1960`s film camera with only 2 shutter speeds.

As ISO rises over 1600 The noise and reduced dynamic range on m43 is noticeable without being an expert or whatever. That’s well established.

So ultimately f2.8 “prime” is not really worth spending money on over and above the typical zooms.

Not fair when you know what your doing.

MShot wrote:

Not fair when you know what your doing.

Tis all I need for night shooting,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_Trip_35

The last roll of the night got a bit interesting, got some snow inside while changing in a blizzard, the water streak marks looked ace in the negs and prints, the film eventually ended up slipping in the clutch and sprockets, lost the last few, was a fun night.

Sometime the simplest of things are best, they make you work, get them juices flowing.

This is so true

Maybe I should buy film for my vintage PEN OMF. It has film in it but it might be 30 years old. I have a 50 f/1.4 and 135 f/2.8 lenses for it, use them sometime with an OM-M43 adapter. The battery and shutter works. Everything works.

MShot wrote:

Maybe I should buy film for my vintage PEN OMF. It has film in it but it might be 30 years old. I have a 50 f/1.4 and 135 f/2.8 lenses for it, use them sometime with an OM-M43 adapter. The battery and shutter works. Everything works.

Give it a go, most places still process 35mm or you can do it yourself in a bag.

A few days ago I found an old Minolta 110 zoom slr, very tempting but very few 110 films are produced these today and processing is not that easy, at least not like it was twenty years ago.

Very sad, a really fun unusual camera.