This guy fecal joker is trying to be funny I guess. What is wrong with comparing it with the classic Lumix 20mm?

This side by side would be a real world comparison of an $800 lens with an M43 alternative available everywhere second hand for under $150.

So what is your point? You seem to be suggesting the new lens is heavy and large. Yet film lenses are not the same and neither is as fast as the OM 20 mm, and both are comparatively less complex.
You could get away with more in film , modern digital sensors require more correction via both lens groups and in camera correction . That is likely to increase weight and size

I have to wonder about this lens from a market standpoint. I want the new OM to succeed, but in an era of declining demand for photographic equipment in general, do they really want to compete directly with a product that enjoys almost cult-like status among an already shallow pool of users?

Nah, the initial Oly 12-100 gallery (new one was added more recently, not half bad) was way worse. Random litter, used cigarettes and homeless people. Awful.

As for this 20mm f1.4 gallery. The Seattle weather does not help, sure, but I think there's enough in there to make a judgement on the lens quality in terms of rendering, contrast, bokeh, etc. The lens seems good.

And I noticed they took out the EM5III instead of the usual EM1III for this gallery. No difference in IQ, of course, but they were probably testing portability with the lens.

Seattle weather in November is absolutely abysmal. Thick clouds, endless rain, and terrible, flat lighting. It's hard enough to get motivated to go outside, much less go outside to take pictures.

You're assuming I took an aperture run of Christmas lights on a table for artistic purposes? Hm.

But it has to be said if the DPR office moved to some place more... sunny and buzzing with people, all their new galleries would immediately shoot up in quality. Imagine DPR... in Barcelona Spain or in Santorini Greece. :D

There's this other photo site, lenstip I think. Great for all their lens reviews, but man, they are based in grey Poland and their galleries are brutal. Certainly does not make anyone want to go there.

Foskito - for all your chest-thumping about the 35mm format, it's a pity that your IQ isn't even 35, or you'd have seen that Focal Yokel's comment is satire about trolls just like you.

Sadly, the debate is lost when one needs to become personal, instead of attacking the issue.

It's a different animal when run through Lightroom.

This is based on this gallery ? Personal experience ? YouTubers and fellow ney sayers ?

Well, you can blame DPR for incorrectly processing RAW files in Capture One instead of using OOC JPEGs or otherwise correcting for lateral CA.

I don’t really know what is happening, I have seen better images taken with this lens and there issues in others. It may as you suggest a processing issue. That said we do know that Olympus / OM have always used in camera correction for their optics. OOC JPG should contain fewer issues. What is good is the DPR gallery has a lot of backlit high contrast scenes that will expose aberrations . That is not always the case with other galleries and you find out only after purchase.

Hi George, I ran some of the RAWs through the Olympus Work Space RAW-converter, which in my experience matches the original camera JPEG 99.99%.

Of course this way LaCA is eliminated, but what cannot be corrected are
- strong LoCA
- so-so sharpness
- quite rough bokeh.

The lens per se is not super-bad, but the price tag is too optimistic. It is simply not in the same quality level as the older f/1.2 lenses, or other high tripple digit $$$ offerings from other brands.

"Lets say i want the best possible quality a system can offer which way would be cheaper..."

Easy. Nikon Z5 for 999 bucks and their new 40 f2 and 28 f2.8 primes. (I am a Fuji owner BTW) but I have no problem acknowledging the obvious, like other system members can't do.

Foskito has it backwards. For image quality, the Z5 (and I say this as a Olympus m43 user, although I'm not fan of any brand.) But for a complete system, which I take to mean more than one lens, the Nikon with good lenses will ultimately cost the most. And that's not even addressing the temptation to move to Nikon full frame which will obviously be their focus in the future. Finally, the jury is still out on the Nikon 40mm. People are thrilled with the price but even DPR says it's not Nikon's greatest lens so what does that translate to?

" And that's not even addressing the temptation to move to Nikon full frame which will obviously be their focus in the future. Finally, the jury is still out on the Nikon 40mm. " -Abrasive

Umm, the Z5 is a FF body... From a pure IQ perspective Foskito is not wrong, the main argument for smaller formats IMO is some of the smaller teles for which there isn't always a FF equivalent, which is why I pointed to the lenses and misspiggy's needs in my first comment. Without knowing that it's all just a shot in the dark.

There's already some credible/reputable reviews of the 40/2 FWIW, eg Cameralabs'. Other FF lenses might or might not be more expensive than M4/3 & Fuji X stuff, it really depends on what he/she is shooting. I've spent about as much (or a little less actually) per lens for my half dozen FF lenses as I did for my dozen+ M4/3 lenses.

So far the IQ I have seen from the 40mm f2 is by a large margin, more than enough of what I might need to capture images of my travels. I bet the 28mm will be great too.

In my case, a Z5 with the 28 and 40 would cost me 300 USD less than the X-pro3 body I was planning to get, and I won't need any other Z lens. Is the GAS talking I guess but the Z5 would allow me to use my Nikkor AIs lenses I already have at their intended FoV, so why not.

Go to a camera store. Pick up both bodies with favourite FL lens. Walk out with the one that feels best. Ultimately that's what really matters because if you can't take great pics with either, it's not the fault of the gear.

I've actually got a z6 and have used an early loaner of the 40mm Z on it, and I also use an em5 mkiii and a lowly zuiko 17mm f1.8 lens, and I can unequivocally say that the little 17mm/e-m5 setup has higher and more consistent IQ below iso 1600. Optically the Zuiko is better than the nikkor, and they're actually a similar price. The 35mm 1.8S is a different story, but even without a body is the same size as my entire e-m5/17mm setup. Too big.

If you're after the best possible image quality (assuming that's what you mean by quality), I suggest you start by deciding which lenses you'd buy and use with each system, and then compare sample images from those lenses.

blse59:

No, smaller higher optical quality lenses, that are also well built, aren't inexpensive.

Never really have been.

There are all sorts of slower, still more than good optically, m4/3s lenses that retail for lower prices. Ainisru cited some examples.

This sounds sensible but it doesn't make much sense. If a really sharp Canon lens has 19 elements, meticulously assembled, aligned and tested...and a Micro 43 lens has the same optical formula, why would the m43 lens cost less? Some raw optical glasses are expensive but it isn't like buying carpet.

Why do manufacturers move production from Japan to China or even Vietnam? Labor.

But it's certainly true that if size and weight don't concern you, m43 is a poor value by other measures.

m43 is a good value for IBIS, for video, for WR, and the E-M5III is smaller by a good margin than my Fuji bodies. The pics in this gallery show more than adequate separation and quite smooth bokeh, too.

Yeah, put that $999 Z5 in video mode and enjoy the soft, rolling shutter 1080p goodness.

No, I don't. I was bringing up camera size because others did. Some m43 bodies are pretty chunky. Size and weight do concern me, see Abrasivereducer's comment above.

@Mr Bolton
Point taken. There comes a point where a camera is too small for the average hand particularly with so many buttons. Even with the E-M1 I have to be careful where I grip. Then there is the battery which is a big leveller albeit a smaller sensor system should consume a little less power.

A smaller price has never been a promise of Micro Four Thirds.

There are a range of options at different price points and the MFT system has some excellent value propositions. It depends on what the user would want, how the gear would be used and how the final images are going to be used.

However, Pro/Premium level gear is always going to be priced higher. This is true of most camera companies whether MFT, APSC or FF.

^ Yeah, AFAIK under correcting CA would only have a negative impact on bokeh...

Fast MFT lenses (or, earlier, FT lenses) were never about being cheaper than others. They always were and still are about getting a bit closer to FF in a domain in which the smaller sensor is in a natural disadvantage.

The question which of the two lenses is better, though, can probably not be answered by looking at two "galleries".

Why is that sad? No one is surprised a full-frame Z5 even with cheap, tiny primes will outperform an m43 setup even with their expensive and heavy "pro” lenses.

I didn’t mention noise.

@phouphou: And what about most of the lenses in the first two rows here:

https://www.getolympus.com//media/wysiwyg/cms_clp/mzuiko/Mzuiko_35lenses_groupshot.jpg

Most of those lenses are very compact and also affordable, that's what makes MFT attrractive, today just as a few years ago. There are lenses among them which you won't get on FF for any money. And still the system as a whole wouldn't be as half attractive if the rest of the lineup, with the more expensive and bigger items, wasn't there, too.

"Olympus 1.7/17mm for $449 or Nikkor 2/40mm for $299 i know which one", of course, if you don't look at anything else. For your "comparison" you selectively choose those few lenses (reasonably fast lenses in the moderately wide to short tele range) in which the smaller format has and always had a natural disadvantage compared to larger formats. We know that already, and we've known that for many years. You don't look at the small, affordable zooms. You don't look at lenses like the tiny, lightweight 60mm f/2.8 Macro. You don't see that even larger and expensive lenses like the Panasonic 10-25/1.7 or 50-200/2.8-4 simply know no equal in any other system, let alone FF. Each of those lenses would be a reason by itself to choose MFT as a system, because you don't get them elsewhere. And when someone did make that choice, why should they care about a Nikon 40mm f/2? Pana 15/1.4, Oly 17/1.2, Oly 17/1.8, Pana 20/1.7, Oly 20/1.4, Oly 25/1.2, Pana 25/1.7, Oly 25/1.8 — one of these sure will do.

The zuiko 17mm f1.8 is optically superior to the nikkor 40. I've used both.

The 17mm 1.8 gives you the DoF of the 40mm @ f4. Close the Nikon @ f4 and I doubt the m43 would be “superior”. And don't go to high iso territory where the inferior m43 sensor can't compete regardless of how pro their lenses are.

The 17mm gives you f3.6 equivalent DOF on full frame, and you'd have to stop the nikon down to f4 to get equal optical performance to the zuiko 17mm wide open anyway. But that still means you'd be shooting at iso1600 to get the same shutter speed as you would at iso400 on the m4/3 body, and if you're shooting a static scene you could probably quite easily be at iso 200 or 100 on the m4/3 if it's a late model olympus. I'm happy to shoot at 1-2sec with an e-m1, but I'm not confident going below 1/15th on my z6 with a 35mm. Add to that the 20mp m4/3 resolves better than the z5/z6 sensors, and has (subjectively) better colour out of camera....

And then f1.8 on m4/3 might equal f3.6 full frame DOF, but it still LOOKS like it's shot at f1.8, when as the nikkor 40 shot at f3. 6 looks like it's been shot at f3.6. Equivalency isn't just numbers.

Nope. M43 will give you the DoF of an f3.4 FF lens...
There is no such thing as “ but it still LOOKS like it's shot at f1.8”

The END.

phophou no the FF 100-400s can only dream of being an m43 lens ie reach the height of m43 100-400s. That’d be asking for optimal 2xTC performance, and such performance would be so good, you can stack yet another 1.4x TC with acceptable performance on 20mp bodies. This is not the design goals of FF 100-400s.
Olympus may have tweaked a good but not great Sigma design, but that’s not to say the same design, modified in total disregard of IQ beyond 12mm, cannot beat the original lens or any FF lens in 0-12mm performance.

Sorry, I am just pointing the obvious.

You're trolling.

Nope. I am just saying that these samples don't justify the asking price. The Lumix 20mm is great for 1/4 of the price and size.

So, Foskito, if this lens isn't JIP's finest offering, maybe you should inform the class what is. As for the asking price, you're not going to buy it, so what do you care how much it is and what it does?

Why do m43 club members always get ballistic when someone is pointing the obvious?

Maybe you should stop talking to them? You don't seem to be very useful.

Well, because the obvious is obvious. By now, even people reading reviews at Costco.com know that a smaller sensor will give lower quality if all other things are equal. They may also grasp something not obvous to DPR pros; that a camera outfit consists of multiple items so a few extra ounces add up quickly.

And, while the may not be aware of how good m43 results can be, if they're generally satisfied with the results they're getting from their phone, they may question why they need to carry so much additional paraphernalia in the first place.

Not sad at all, actually I found it amusing how the m43 crowd can't take any constructive critic. Comment this is not a great first lens from "Japan Industrial Partners", AKA JIP, is not trolling, is just a fact.

Trolls find threads like this "amusing".

No one enjoys trolling except the troll....

No.

I'm sorry I wrote something positive, won't do it again.