Should Olympus start a new f/2.8 prime lineup?

Do you think you would see much difference between f/1.7 and f/1.4, Jacques?

Tommi K1 wrote:

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.

I've been a photographer since the 1960s. I've read plenty of photographic magazines from that period. We used to have subscriptions, delivered to the house every week. It was my hobby, I read them avidly. I dare say I know a whole load more about that than you do (as I do about most things, it seems). Sure there were many discussions, with many points of view. I think the salutary lesson is just how the Japanese camera industry took off, when American press photographers in Korea discovered that they preferred the locally available Nikkors to their Zeiss and Leica lenses. Why was that? Nippon Kogaku computed their lenses for high central resolution wide open, whilst letting the edges suffer comparatively, whilst the German tradition went for more even resolution across the frame. The photographers were finding that their subject was usually in the middle of the frame, what was at the edges was anyway outside the DOF wide open, and overall they preferred to have the centre sharper even at the cost of some edge sharpness.

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.

The biggest problems facing typical D-SLR cameras are the image degradation of peripherals and the appearance of ghosts and flares. Picture quality problems such as resolution loss, chromatic aberration, and shading in peripheral areas are particularly noticeable when a wide-angle type lens is used. Ghosts and flares are produced when the light reflected on the image sensor surface is reflected again on a lens surface. Both photographs above were taken using the same angle of view and F-number, but one was taken using a standard 35mm film camera lens and the other with a Four Thirds lens. A comparison of the images clearly shows flaring and ghosting in the picture taken with the 35mm film camera lens, as well as coma flare around the periphery and an overall lack of sharpness. The picture taken with the Four Thirds lens, on the other hand, does not have any apparent flares or ghosts and is uniformly sharp throughout the image plane.

https://www.four-thirds.org/en/fourthirds/index.html

Olympus specifically touted edge to edge sharpness as a particular property of Four Thirds. That wasn't the only porkie they told:

The diagonal size of the 4/3-type image sensor is about half that of a 35mm film sensor. This means that the focal distance required to obtain a given angle of view is half that needed for a 35mm film camera. As a result, the optical system can be made much smaller. Moreover, because the effective aperture can be reduced without reducing brightness, the Four Thirds system makes it possible to design much brighter lenses. Thanks to this compatibility between compact size and large aperture, the potential for evolution of lenses is virtually unlimited. In other words, the adoption of the 4/3-type image sensor has made it possible to develop lenses that not only offer performance that surpasses almost anything achieved with traditional lenses, but are also compact and highly mobile.

Total nonsense. Shame that some people believed it so much that you will say almost anything to defend it - and that's where most of the arguments here come from.

mFT is a great system, it needs no lies to defend it. Unfortunately, it was promoted with 'creative marketing' from the beginning, which leads some people to try to make the untruths the truth, because otherwise, they'd be lies.

"When I'm at f1.7 and a marginally usable shutter speed - which happens a lot in my event work"

I can see how it's worth it to you. I'm put off by $1,000 primes too. If I were an artist, if I used them for work, or all the time, maybe. For personal travel when I'm indoors, f/1.8 is good enough for me.

MShot wrote:

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,

That Minolta was an SLR

https://www.lomography.com/magazine/197593-after-a-110-slr-consider-the-minolta-110-zoom-slr

Paulmorgan wrote:

MShot wrote:

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,

That Minolta was an SLR

https://www.lomography.com/magazine/197593-after-a-110-slr-consider-the-minolta-110-zoom-slr

But not half as cute as the Pentax 110 SLR. Given that Four Thirds is 110, these cameras are direct ancestors of today's high quality Four Thirds camera. Especially looking at the Pentax, it shows how much bloat digital has been responsible for:

bobn2 wrote:

Tommi K1 wrote:

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.

I've been a photographer since the 1960s. I've read plenty of photographic magazines from that period. We used to have subscriptions, delivered to the house every week. It was my hobby, I read them avidly. I dare say I know a whole load more about that than you do (as I do about most things, it seems).

And seems you have forgotten more than you realize then...

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.

The biggest problems facing typical D-SLR cameras are the image degradation of peripherals and the appearance of ghosts and flares. Picture quality problems such as resolution loss, chromatic aberration, and shading in peripheral areas are particularly noticeable when a wide-angle type lens is used. Ghosts and flares are produced when the light reflected on the image sensor surface is reflected again on a lens surface. Both photographs above were taken using the same angle of view and F-number, but one was taken using a standard 35mm film camera lens and the other with a Four Thirds lens. A comparison of the images clearly shows flaring and ghosting in the picture taken with the 35mm film camera lens, as well as coma flare around the periphery and an overall lack of sharpness. The picture taken with the Four Thirds lens, on the other hand, does not have any apparent flares or ghosts and is uniformly sharp throughout the image plane.

https://www.four-thirds.org/en/fourthirds/index.html

Olympus specifically touted edge to edge sharpness as a particular property of Four Thirds. That wasn't the only porkie they told:

Yes, but Olympus was not the first one for the corner to corner sharpness trend starting as you claim.

The diagonal size of the 4/3-type image sensor is about half that of a 35mm film sensor. This means that the focal distance required to obtain a given angle of view is half that needed for a 35mm film camera. As a result, the optical system can be made much smaller. Moreover, because the effective aperture can be reduced without reducing brightness, the Four Thirds system makes it possible to design much brighter lenses. Thanks to this compatibility between compact size and large aperture, the potential for evolution of lenses is virtually unlimited. In other words, the adoption of the 4/3-type image sensor has made it possible to develop lenses that not only offer performance that surpasses almost anything achieved with traditional lenses, but are also compact and highly mobile.

Total nonsense. Shame that some people believed it so much that you will say almost anything to defend it - and that's where most of the arguments here come from.

Where the most arguments comes that you are claiming that Olympus was the first one to set goal to be corner to corner sharpness and no one else before that.

mFT is a great system, it needs no lies to defend it. Unfortunately, it was promoted with 'creative marketing' from the beginning, which leads some people to try to make the untruths the truth, because otherwise, they'd be lies.

No it doesn't, but neither does it need lies to shame it via equivalence and other nonsense that people can't see.

So now you as well have agreed, that Olympus was not the one to make corner to corner sharpness as trend. But yet Olympus was right with the above statement. Problem just is that people got so hanged out back then again for the sensor size... Just like today people get so easily hanged about sensor size.

Sergey_Green wrote:

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.

Then I am way over 150 years old if it is my own definition... Oh of course it is as next you imply that I invented the photography...

MShot wrote:

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

Most of my fav M4/3 primes are around F2.8, one`s f2.5.

Tommi K1 wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

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.

Then I am way over 150 years old if it is my own definition... Oh of course it is as next you imply that I invented the photography...

Forget it. On this forum, you will consistently get claims that even a basic word like "speed" doesn't mean what it actually means. Obviously "speed" refers to shutter movement speed, as it always has, and people call lenses that gather more light "faster lenses" only because it's possible to use a faster SHUTTER SPEED at their maximum aperture while getting a similar exposure to what a SLOWER shutter speed enables with another lens's smaller maximum aperture. Like you said, DOF has absolutely nothing to do with it, but you will get arguments upon arguments forever and ever, despite the plain fact that you're correct.

Jacques Cornell wrote:

My 12-35/2.8 already replaces 3 or 4 f2.8 primes, probably at lower cost and with excellent optical quality.

12-40mm and 12-35mm are great in that. But you do know that those lenses are still huge compared to any pancake lenses? That is the great thing with the pancake lens designs that you can just take the tiny body + single tiny lens with you and not get any level burden with it.

12-35mm f/2.8 is still too big and heavy compared to example 14mm f/2.5 if you can come along with that single focal length.

I am all for the variable focal length lenses (zooms), but there are always situations where one would want to go for tiny and small (like 14mm f/2.5 is amazing reportage lens when put on GF850 kind camera).

I'd much rather see a set of f1.4 primes priced between the f1.2 and f1.8 lines.

I wouldn't, really. But I can always think the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 what is nicely made for its capabilities, but still not a tiny one.

Panasonic won my heart with the 12/1.4, though the price is higher than I'd like. I'd have preferred the 42.5mm Nocticron to be f1.4 and cheaper. And, a 17mm f1.4 would be most welcome. Leave the pricey f1.2 lenses to Olympus. Oh, and a 100mm f2.0, please, without the PanLeica price tag. That 200/2.8 is absurdly expensive, almost 4x more than Canon's 200/2.8. C'mon...

I haven't even looked anything toward Panasonic 200mm f/2.8 since its announcement news topics and hearing its set price. One reason already is that it is just a 200mm, then it is a fixed focal length lens. The same thing is with Olympus 300mm f/4. Doesn't just interest at all. But if there would be a 150-450mm f/4, no hesitation to pre-order one even if price set to 12000€ (of course considering it is at level of 40-150mm PRO)

I say about that 100mm that would be something I could consider. Few fixed focal lengths really are that I would consider for myself. A 8mm f/4 UWA pancake. If possible get it f/2.8 in a size of 14mm f/2.5 then of course! Then a 100mm f/1.8 would be insta buy for portraits. And then 120mm f/4 Macro (in level of 60mm f/2.8 Macro).

I don't mind the prices so much for a good tool, but when you know that so many would like to buy lenses, but you get quickly to expensive lineup, it just kills it. There really is no cheap 12mm, 17mm and 25mm that most users could buy and get a set for their photography hobby. The 45mm f/1.8 is really something unique with 250€ price, among the Olympus 40-150mm R for 99€ price. It would be so nice to recommend the 25mm f/1.8 but its 350€ price is just too much for most. If it would be same, 200-250€ then it would be like "Why not" range.

I still have the 17mm f/2.8 and I admire its idea. Dislike its slow and noisy focus mechanism and that it extends by 2-3 millimeters when powering and focusing. And that it is just ugly lens (todays designs). Redesigning that to look like a 25mm f/1.8 lens and be same size, remove the focus mechanism extending mechanism and add MSC, and golden.

I still have little odd feeling that when I saw that lens first time, I just bought it for no good reason as its price was nothing. For a year I thought that I should buy a few more to gift them, and then it got discontinued and sold off few last remaining ones for 69€. And I was little angry for myself that I didn't find that firesale in time as I would have bought all of them. The similar thing is with the 14mm f/2.5. Dislike the f/2.5 instead being a f/2.8. But otherwise just astounded still that it cost 450€! Too much just for fun lens to carry few times a year.

Tommi K1 wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

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.

Then I am way over 150 years old if it is my own definition... Oh of course it is as next you imply that I invented the photography...

I would say perhaps the 70's, you might have been stuck in there but even then, see my next post with the hint. You might refer to flickr , as I mentioned before, or whatever other photo-portal you are familiar with; people do not buy fast lenses for the shutter speeds, but for the certain look that those lenses deliver. As the portrait lenses are usually fast, and those are not used in the dark, whereas the macro lenses can take it slower, although they do need all the light they can get. Strange fact, is not it?

Adielle wrote:

Tommi K1 wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

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.

Then I am way over 150 years old if it is my own definition... Oh of course it is as next you imply that I invented the photography...

Forget it. On this forum, you will consistently get claims that even a basic word like "speed" doesn't mean what it actually means. Obviously "speed" refers to shutter movement speed, as it always has, and people call lenses that gather more light "faster lenses" only because it's possible to use a faster SHUTTER SPEED at their maximum aperture while getting a similar exposure to what a SLOWER shutter speed enables with another lens's smaller maximum aperture. Like you said, DOF has absolutely nothing to do with it, but you will get arguments upon arguments forever and ever, despite the plain fact that you're correct.

Hint

No, I do not see anything about the shutter speeds there.

No, I'd be down for a f1.4 lineup though. F1.2 is just too expensive and big

JaKing wrote:

Are you speaking for lots of other people, Green?

Get your magnifying glass - think different! There is a link in that post I replied to.

If so, I hope you have signed and witnessed enduring powers of attorney that allow you to make such statements on their behalf ... (to paraphrase Newman).

Everyone I know personally who buys a large aperture lens buys it primarily for its optical speed. That is my experience both today and for the last 60+ years.

JaKing wrote:

This person patently bought it for some other reason (from your reference ... ):

https://flic.kr/p/vhBC23

Happens to be handy, this is F1.4 lens.