Should Olympus start a new f/2.8 prime lineup?

JaKing wrote:

Frederic, you seem awfully certain about what everyone else needs /wants ...

He was only talking about the enthusiast. Speaking for myself. a line of compact f/1.4s is just what is needed, something like the original Zuiko 50/1.4 for the OM-1, very small and as good as anything else around at the time.

JaKing wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

JaKing wrote:

Frederic, you seem awfully certain about what everyone else needs /wants ...

He was only talking about the enthusiast. Speaking for myself. a line of compact f/1.4s is just what is needed, something like the original Zuiko 50/1.4 for the OM-1, very small and as good as anything else around at the time.

Which one are you talking about, Bob?

Only one of them was really good optically, i.e. better than the "made in Japan" version of the f/1.8 50 ...

The version doesn't matter so much. The point is that Olympus crafted a 50/1.4 that was as good or better than the competition and smaller. It's a design ethos they seem to have lost. A.friend of mine was telling me about how he's been using one on his Canon, and how much he loves what it produces. But, like all f/1.4 lenses of that era, it isn't sharp wide open in the corners.

-- hide signature --

br, john, from you know where
My gear list and sordid past are here: https://www.dpreview.com/members/1558378718/overview
Gallery: https://www.canopuscomputing.com.au/zen2/page/gallery/

Although mature, I think there is space one day for a mid level tier of lenses. Like FF is doing with high IQ f4 zooms now.

JaKing wrote:

If he had the right version (three different serial number ranges identifies which is which), he would not have this problem. I have version 1, and it's pretty ordinary compared to my "made in Japan" f/1.8 50, even at f/1.8.

Very possibly I found this review of it, which says 'At f/1.4 and f/2, border quality is uninspiring at best, but improves by f/2.8 and reaches maximum around f/5.6-f/8. Conclusion? Consistency is good and while performance around borders at wide apertures is dismal, overall performance can be considered pretty solid.'

Your friend's sounds like version 2, which is better than mine in both centre and corners, but not excellent wide open.

Another source says that the optical formula of v2 is exactly the same as v1. But I'm not sure that there is sufficient information in what I said about Iain's lens to say which it is. All I know is, he likes it.

Version 3 is sharp wide open in the centre and corners. I have a PDF file with all the serial numbers and version number optical characteristics somewhere, but don't think it is on my web site.

I think it's unlikely that it's sharp in the corners. It might be sharper than the other two, but it's still just a seven element double Gauss with no aspherics. Olympus, back in the days when they did design camera lenses, designed very good ones, but they couldn't perform magic. If they did have that magic back in the '60's and 70's, the question would be, why can't they apply it now and make us a compact f/1.4 normal which is sharp.

Still, the point being made, was that magic or no magic, the trade of small size for a bit of corner sharpness is still a good one for some, and one that we should have available.