Should Olympus start a new f/2.8 prime lineup?

JaKing wrote:

So why did you stop it down to f/4.5?

Not sharp wide open?

The scene above does not call for wide-open. These does

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

So far, I've never seen anyone here dispute any of this.

while getting a similar exposure to what a SLOWER shutter speed enables with another lens's smaller maximum aperture.

This perhaps is where people diverge. Whether, when comparing 'speed' across formats, exposure is the most sensible criterion on which to base the idea of which shutter speed you may use. Some think that it isn't, nor has it ever ben.

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.

Saying that a 'fast lens' gives shallow DOF is not saying that it is called a fast kens because t give shallow DOF. The two go together. The reasons that people may or may not buy fast lenses has nothing whatever to do with the definition of 'speed', which is, in any case a colloquialism. It doesn't have a hard and fast definition, however much some people like to insist that it does.

Sergey_Green wrote:

JaKing wrote:

So why did you stop it down to f/4.5?

Not sharp wide open?

The scene above does not call for wide-open. These does

Clearly you have forged the EXIF on those, because more than their eyelashes is in focus.

bobn2 wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

JaKing wrote:

So why did you stop it down to f/4.5?

Not sharp wide open?

The scene above does not call for wide-open. These does

Clearly you have forged the EXIF on those, because more than their eyelashes is in focus.

Yup, guilty!

NowHearThis wrote:

Nope. Just make the existing 1.8s (and the 12/2) a bit cheaper.

Asking to drop those prices by about 150€ is a lot for their performance. Considering they are 350€ and to get them to 200€ that is still higher than what 17mm f/2.8 costed is a real challenge.

Sure, Sigma does their APS-C lenses available and those are f/2.8 and less than 150€, but we talk about native ones, and idea that later on a customer can "upgrade" to f/1.8.

Consumer > Premium > PRO.

^^^

Sergey_Green wrote:

Hint

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

Oh boy....

Do you see anything about camera or the ISO there either? How about a clock hands?

Where does it say "Speed" in there? No where. Because the "Fast lens" and "slow lens" comes from the possibility to use a faster shutter speed with same exposure, or same shutter speed in lower light. It is all about control of the time to capture a moving subject in given time period.

Of course by your own logic (unlike the historical fact that "fast" and "slow" means shutter speed as marketing people did) the "speed" changes by focusing closer or further too.

So is the "fast" when you focus close, and "slow" when you focus to infinity?

Tommi K1 wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

Hint

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

Oh boy....

Do you see anything about camera or the ISO there either? How about a clock hands?

Where does it say "Speed" in there? No where. Because the "Fast lens" and "slow lens" comes from the possibility to use a faster shutter speed with same exposure,

I would say 'same outcome', not 'same exposure'. Very few photographers choose a particular exposure just for the sake of it. They select an exposure to get to an outcome.

Tim Reidy Productions wrote:

there is a 1.2 lineup you can stop those down to 1.4

They're already stopped down to f/1.3 when you buy them.

Pixnat2 wrote:

Tim Reidy Productions wrote:

there is a 1.2 lineup you can stop those down to 1.4

1200$ to stop down? No, thanks!

They're all on sale for US$1,000 through October! (Happy to help.)

Cheers,

Rick

JaKing wrote:

Tiny size was what caused me to purchase my 14-42 EZ pancake zoom.

I have that same pancake zoom, love its size, but the optical quality.....