Should Olympus start a new f/2.8 prime lineup?

I had a 110 Vivitar fixed 35mm lens. Not a great camera but fun. Wish I could find it. My local store is very good. They sell and process film. That would be novel. No doubt the OLY takes good images with the OM lenses I have. The 50 f/1.4 is a very good street shooter,

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.

I can't answer if they " should" do it or not, but I can tell you i probably will never buy one of those. when I buy a prime, i want the largest max aperture possible, especially on a MFT system, even a super "fast" F1.2 lens give me a DOF control of FF equivalent F2.5 , which is already really  slow in my eyes, so anything slower than that will not get a single penny from me. however, if that's a pancake lens then I will get a few for travel.

Yes, but I’d love if they kept iterating on their current releases:

20mm f1.7 iii - increase focusing speed

14mm f2.5 iii - increase sharpness

Maybe introduce an ultra-wide:

10mm f3.5

The 30mm macro is already quite compact.

Samuel Dilworth wrote:

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.

That's actually true. But it's been happening longer on Four Thirds. You could say that Four Thirds set the trend. It was in the original manifesto for FT and I've been through many disputes over the years here where the FT people would dismiss the performance of larger format lenses on the basis of poor edge sharpness. At least in the other formats the option of small, fast and not so sharp at the edges wide open remains.

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).

That part of Olympus' manifesto was on target, that the additional performance of silicon over silver halide allows for smaller sensors to do the same job. And the truth is in film days a 35mm could sometimes do the job of a large format camera, providing the 35mm was loaded with really slow film and the LF with quite fast film.

bobn2 wrote:

You could say that Four Thirds set the trend. It was in the original manifesto for FT and I've been through many disputes over the years here where the FT people would dismiss the performance of larger format lenses on the basis of poor edge sharpness. At least in the other formats the option of small, fast and not so sharp at the edges wide open remains.

I see, thanks. I think it’s fair to say the arrival of Micro Four Thirds briefly de-emphasised corner sharpness, if only because software correction of geometric distortion with high-distortion lenses precludes extremely sharp corners at today’s pixel counts (especially 4/3"-type pixel counts).

But Olympus and Panasonic have taken up that battle again in earnest with their newer, large lenses. Even when they still distort, they’re sharp enough at large image heights to take good advantage of future improvements in pixel count.

I’m interested to see whether Sony, Nikon, and Canon will release high-distortion lenses for their full-frame mirrorless cameras. The possibility to do so seems like an important advantage of mirrorless over SLRs.

Osa25 wrote:

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

Majority of the m4/3 owners use just the kit lenses:

Typical consumer (PEN E-PL line and E-M10)

• 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 EZ
• 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 R
• 14-150mm f/4-5.6 II

Professional line (E-M1, E-M5 PRO, E-M5 II, E-M1 II)

• 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO

Premium line (PEN-F)

• 17mm f/1.8
• 25mm f/1.8

Then there are bunch of bundles where you can get even 45mm f/1.8 and 75mm f/1.8 with the PEN-F etc.

But for a consumers, they could very well go and add a bonus next to a f/3.5-5.6 lenses a fast f/2.8 prime for low price of 200€. Just a something ultra wide if not wanted to get 9-18mm f/4-5.6.

Of course if you really stand behind that, there is no one reason to buy and use any of those typical zooms but go for the PRO line.

Harold66 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.

Yes and maybe it should tell you something . In addition to not getting rare reviews these lenses did not sell enough

Yeah, because idiot reviewers and pixel peepers who doom everything that is not up to some 75mm f/1.8 sharpness.

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

9mm f/4

Funny you mention a 2.8 line and you start with a f4 lens

Keyword here line.

But that aside I think a weather sealed and small 9mm f 2.8 or F3.5 is the only lens that would be a great addition to the line as mentioned by many on another thread

I think the 9mm f/2.8 would be larger than a f/4, not being able be a pancake.

17mm f/2.8

No need

Many would need a need for it as it is general focal length. And f/2.8 making it worth of 149€ priced would be great reason to buy. Like do you know how many buys a 9mm f/8 just for it being 9mm?

25mm f/2.8\

There is already several 25mm brighter and with relatively small

Yeah, 350€ piece. Not 200€ piece.

75mm f/2.8

The 75mm is an odd FOV and one is enough

It is good portrait lens, but cost arm and leg for too many. Many would like to have that focal length but cheaper price (but I do personally recommend 40-150mm for that).

120mm f/4 (Macro?)

I have never heard anyone asking for a 240mm macro lens before

No one is asking 240mm, this is 120mm macro.

To build a complete kit.

30mm f/3.5 with 1:1.25

60mm f/2.8 with 1:1

120mm f/4 with 1:1

Notice that every Macro is 2x of focal length to next. Meaning easy to operate, choose and handle by resolution on nature. 90mm is not enough to go past 60mm, but 120mm is.

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.

I do think that Olympus could use a few smaller but weather sealed prime lenses but your list is not really a valid one IMO

Good. But weather sealed lenses are overrated really. Every lens there takes some rain and snow etc. Just don't put it under pouring water.

Weather sealed lenses as well requires more servicing when the time past. The wear and tear is rough on those seals and you need to lube them and swap them after some time. If you want your lens to last for decades to come, get non weather sealed one.

Harold66 wrote:

Tommi K1 wrote:

Osa25 wrote:

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

Majority of the m4/3 owners use just the kit lenses:

Typical consumer (PEN E-PL line and E-M10)

• 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 EZ
• 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 R
• 14-150mm f/4-5.6 II

P

May I ask how do you know this ?

This is just a guess not a sure thing

Those are the kit lenses for mentioned cameras.

You can buy 17 f/2.8, 14 f/2.5 pancakes now

MShot wrote:

You can buy 17 f/2.8, 14 f/2.5 pancakes now

yes I have those two, I mean to have more of those type, they are so small bring 2 or 4 doesn't make any difference, they all fit inside the pocket.

Dan_168 wrote:

even a super "fast" F1.2 lens give me a DOF control of FF equivalent F2.5 , which is already really slow in my eyes, so anything slower than that will not get a single penny from me.

DOF has nothing to do with "Speed". That is marketing BS. It is a tradeoff for focusing, resolution, image size, viewing distance etc. Speed is only relation to shutter speed.

And f/2.8 is a *fast* lens (even on m4/3, as F-stop is format agnostic). Those would not be there to replace the f/1.8 lenses for any other thing than price and size, but be as good by quality. So you are exchanging the 1.3 stops to size, weight and price. If you need faster shutter speed for the exposure, then you go for the f/1.8 lenses.

however, if that's a pancake lens then I will get a few for travel.

Those would be pancake lenses (12mm, 17mm and 25mm at least), why 9mm would be f/4 instead f/2.8 as I don't think the f/2.8 would be possible.

MShot wrote:

You can buy 17 f/2.8, 14 f/2.5 pancakes now

17mm f/2.8 is discontinued not long time ago, and so was 14mm f/2.5 just this year.

The 14mm f/2.5 was amazing lens, sad thing it was just so stupid expensive (450€, while Olympus 17mm f/2.8 was 99€)

Jouko wrote:

There are zooms at F2.8 - F3.5, and some Sigma primes... Compact, even pancake size. Why carry a lot of primes if you can do the shot with a zoom at F2.8, equal IQ?

I am all for the zoom, as it is best idea for beginners to learn photography, it is most flexible and suitable for professionals and everything is just better with variable focal length lenses. The only thing that is drawback is a size and shutter speed limitation compared to a fixed focal length lens.

Ie. Your 12-40mm is always larger and heavier, and more expensive than a 25mm f/1.8. You can even set all three 17mm, 25mm and 45mm and likely even 30mm and still be lighter than 12-40mm, and at that moment you are far more cheaper with the zoom as well. But regardless weight, size etc, the 12-40mm would be the most flexible for the photography and allow to move freely for best composition and maximize the resolution.

But so many would like to have a little faster lenses than their kit zoom and maybe go just for that "I have heard that 50mm is most general use lens" so cheap pancake 25mm f/2.8 would be great for them for under 200€.

bobn2 wrote:

That's actually true. But it's been happening longer on Four Thirds. You could say that Four Thirds set the trend. It was in the original manifesto for FT and I've been through many disputes over the years here where the FT people would dismiss the performance of larger format lenses on the basis of poor edge sharpness. At least in the other formats the option of small, fast and not so sharp at the edges wide open remains.

Then I recommend to go to library to read at least some photography magazines from 70's to 90's and you can see a lot of discussions about lens sharpness wide open from corner to corner, testing and the goal to reach that.

Four Thirds didn't set anything in that regard as you say.

It is just happened that at the time when the Olympus designed the Four Thirds system and Micro Four Thirds systems, the passion for those things were already a trend. And it just happened that Olympus based that trend set their goal for sharpness.

So do not blame Olympus for things it didn't start nor make more trendy.

Tommi K1 wrote:

Dan_168 wrote:

even a super "fast" F1.2 lens give me a DOF control of FF equivalent F2.5 , which is already really slow in my eyes, so anything slower than that will not get a single penny from me.

DOF has nothing to do with "Speed". That is marketing BS. It is a tradeoff for focusing, resolution, image size, viewing distance etc. Speed is only relation to shutter speed.

It must be your own definition. To me speed is how much light it lets through, or how fast it feels that bucket. Perhaps my own definition too. For shutter speed I used ISO, which does not affect how image will look. For the most part at least.

And f/2.8 is a *fast* lens (even on m4/3, as F-stop is format agnostic). Those would not be there to replace the f/1.8 lenses for any other thing than price and size, but be as good by quality. So you are exchanging the 1.3 stops to size, weight and price. If you need faster shutter speed for the exposure, then you go for the f/1.8 lenses.

If you search for 75/1.8 on flickr you will see that most of the images were taken in broad daylight and wide open. So nothing to do with the shutter speed as it appears. Same goes for most fast lenses from different formats.

however, if that's a pancake lens then I will get a few for travel.

Those would be pancake lenses (12mm, 17mm and 25mm at least), why 9mm would be f/4 instead f/2.8 as I don't think the f/2.8 would be possible.