DPReview TV: Olympus M.Zuiko 8-25mm F4 Pro review

Smartphones cameras with a 1" sensor have only the one sensor/lens. They can't go wider, they will have to crop to get more reach. As far as I know there is only the Pana CM1, which didn't sell that well, and the new Sony Experia which is super expensive. What's the point in putting big sensors in smartphones? make it harder to design them? more expensive to produce? bring the battery life back to a couple of hours?
I think cameras on smartphone have reached a point where most people are happy with them. The harm is done already. Only a few customers will buy smartphones with a bigger sensor. It's like the CPU that's inside, how many of us care what's really inside? we know it's 2x faster than the one we have, but since it wasn't a problem before, the upgrade is just nice to have. Since my LG G6, I don't really check how good the pictures are. It just works.

Jun 11, 2021permalink

noirdesir

There is one current 1" camera sensor phone that I know of, the Sharp Aquos R6 where a 1" sensor is coupled with a 19 mm equiv. lens. Getting a conventional AOV for smartphones of about 27 mm equiv. thus requires a crop, meaning you end up with an effective sensor area of about 1/1.4".

The next one is the Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra with a 1/1.2" sensor, again coupled with a slightly wider than usual lens, 24 mm equiv.. Cropping that to a more conventional 27 mm, gets us to 1/1.4" effective sensor area as well, which probably isn't a complete coincidence.

And those two phones are relatively thick. The Sharp only has one camera which makes the camera bump smaller in height and width but the Xiaomi's camera bump is pretty massive; judging from images the latter is about 3.4 mm thick. And note that this is a on a 6.8" screen device, ie, a pretty large phone in all dimensions. The full thickness at the camera bump of these two phones is 12 mm for the Sharp and 11.8 mm for the Xiaomi.

Jun 11, 2021*permalink

Oh I was wrong, it was indeed a Sharp, not Sony...

Jun 11, 2021permalink

Triplet Perar

I watched the video by other Chris, Chris Eyre-Walker, and DPR’s best attempt is pale in comparison. Whilst Chris E.W. literally keeps you on the edge of the seat, DPR review is so predictable to the last second.
Can’t you freshen up your approach, DPR?

Jun 10, 2021permalink

Jonathan F/2

I love Olympus glass. I wish they stayed in the game and just made lenses!

Jun 10, 2021permalink

Tom Wuergler

I like Olympus gear, too. Why just glass?

Olympus PRO stuff is fantastic, however, F4 is not particularly exciting on m43. I would rather get two prime lenses.

The expensive 7 -14mm (F2.8) may be an alternative.

Jun 10, 2021*permalink

noirdesir

The point of this 8-25 mm lens is that you don't have to change lenses for a lot of landscape, architecture, etc. type of shooting. A 7-14 mm lens will require a lens change noticeably more often.

Jun 10, 2021permalink

Tom Wuergler

@ noirdesir: point taken. For landscape / architecture the lens will be an obvious choice.

Jun 11, 2021permalink

Jonathan F/2

@Tom Wuergler - Sure I would have liked if Olympus had stayed in the business to make cameras as well, but I still think their glass is underrated and many photographers are unaware of Olympus lens design and quality.

Even though I don't shoot M43 anymore, this 8-25mm f/4 Pro would have been my dream lens, paired with the 12-100mm f/4 and throw in the compact 17mm 1.8 for street and travel!

Just thinking about it maybe I might come back...

Jun 11, 2021*permalink

stateit

Zweeko?

Jun 9, 2021permalink

bluevellet

The somewhat correct pronunciation of Zuiko.

Jun 10, 2021permalink

robgendreau

What's the M stand for?

Jun 10, 2021permalink

bluevellet

Micro.

I think

Jun 11, 2021permalink

I don't see this lens being the only lens you carry on travel. But one thing is for sure, Olympus is certainly obsessed with making Zuiko Pro zooms, there are far more options than any other first party manufacturers. 7-14, 8-25, 12-40 12-45 12-100 plus Panasonic 7-14 8-18 10-25 12-35 12-60. If you like pro tier zoom, M43 got you truly well covered. I would pick 12-100 for the best IS and versatility, 560g is not much heavier compared to 400g in any meaningful way.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

Memoochi

"Olympus is certainly obsessed with making Zuiko Pro zooms"
Yup, despite all the complaints about wanting "small and light" the Pro lenses are awesome.

My only disappointment is their pivot to focusing only on the SLO-PROs, instead of bringing out some faster PRO lenses. Low light is the weakness of MFT, and thus faster is exactly what is needed.

Jun 10, 2021permalink

Tim Reidy Productions

you can buy a 10-25 if you want a bigger aperture.

Jun 11, 2021permalink

@memoochi: I respectfully disagree. The slow lenses mean that they're focusing on MFT's strength. The weakness of MFT is trying to offer the same possibility as bigger sensors like FF, when it's much harder to design a fast lens that will not be bigger and heavier (not to mention the price) than what the competition has to offer.
They've released f1.2 lenses that are stellar (I can confirm, having the 17mm) but those lenses won't appeal to the MFT users who bought into the system to get a lighter alternative, or non MFT users who will see that it's a f2.4 $1000+ 390g FF equivalent.
The 8-25mm is the only lens I know covering that range. Before the 12-100mm f4 those superzooms had bad IQ, and no lens allows to shoot handheld for one second at 100mm. For landscape it trumps any advantage bigger sensors might have in low light.

Jun 11, 2021permalink

@larkhon without considering the price, you are right 8-25 offers something unique and lightweight. However, it retails in the same ball park of EF 16-35F4 IS, Tamron 17-28F2.8 plus a Sony 50mm F1.8 It kind of defeats the purpose of a smaller sensor. People in M43 just don't want to spend as much as full frame, otherwise they might as well go full frame. Size and weight is more or less a side effect of lower budget. Small sensor and professional quality glasses are not best combo. Look at EM1X and Fuji 200F2 sales.

Jun 11, 2021permalink

MNE

@Photofrankenstein. Your statement “ People in M43 just don't want to spend as much as full frame, otherwise they might as well go full frame” is backwards. You miss the point as to why people go to m43 - It is size and weight. Lower cost is the side effect. If a m43 lens costs the same as a FF version, that is irrelevant because we didn’t choose m43 based on cost.

Jun 12, 2021permalink

@MNE you can keep telling this to yourself, sadly repeating one thousand times wouldn't make it a reality. No matter u look at average user spending, average lens price and lens per body sold statistics, M43 system is at the lower end of interchangeable lens systems. Not to say the lenses are of lower quality or people bought M43 are poorer than people bought full frame. Just hardcore fact no matter you or me like it or not. Olympus and Panasonic had each attempted to move M43 upmarket a bit. In the end, EM1X was a failure Olympus lost direction and Panasonic slashed G9 price to sell more, eventually ventured into full frame L mount system.

Individual user might choose M43 and couldn't care less about price, each to its own.

Jun 12, 2021permalink

MNE

Your thoughts about the success or failure of m43, Olympus, and Panasonic are also opinions not necessarily based on facts. All camera makers are struggling.

Jun 12, 2021permalink

@photofrankenstein: it is wrong to think that if the cost is the same one is necessarily going FF and size and weight are a side effect. First of all, why would FF manufacturers make smaller lenses and body like the A7c + 28-60mm? They're obviously slow and of limited range.
I'll make an assumption here. I think people who are used to FF look at M43 thinking it's not up to the task, that there's little gain because they need an equivalent lens and size and weight doesn't matter. M43 should be cheaper because it can't do everything FF can.
For one coming from the other hand of the spectrum, is FF that attractive? Why should one sell their M43 to switch to FF? Would a smartphone user buy a FF camera as their first dedicated camera or rather this new small E-P7?
From my enthusiast point of view I would be happy with my Z7 + 14-30mm which will give almost the same range with DX mode. But if I need another lens to bring with me it will get a lot heavier compared to M43

Jun 13, 2021permalink

@larkhon,

I just think the amount of people move upstream is far larger than the amount of people move downstream. Even 0.1% of smartphone users is a huge number for any interchangeable lens manufacturers. Every year there are a lot of people not happy with smartphone image quality and upgrade to a dedicated camera. Then some go M43 some APSC some go FF. Comparatively, FF users who are not happy with FF size and weight then decide to go back to M43 are of a smaller number. Just my speculation you may disagree.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

@photofrankenstein: I don't think there are a lot of people moving from FF to M43 either. There was maybe a trend at some point of older people tired to carry big heavy DSLRs, and who couldn't find what they needed from APS-C (often under developed in terms of lenses' lineup).
I was trying to explain that for FF owners there's a higher chance that they'll dismiss M43 if they have no reason to sacrifice IQ for size and weight, especially if they think they need to find equivalent lenses for their previous gear. They most likely won't even save weight if they're only considering the Pro lenses.
But also FF isn't necessarily an upgrade path for everyone. I don't think all M43 or APS-C users constantly think, if I have the money I will buy FF. That's why this kind of lenses are interesting. Obviously M43 can't improve enough to rival FF on the sensor side so giving lenses that didn't exist yet is a form of improvement for some.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

red pencil

There is lesson to be learnt when making a video about Olympus gear …..don’t because whatever you say will draw the wrath of a Oly tragic

Jun 9, 2021*permalink

Astrotripper

Huh? The comments about close-up capability, especially compared to 12-100, are very confusing.

12-100 has objectively better close focusing capability. At the wide end, it's order of magnitude better (x0.3 vs x0.07 on 8-25) and at tele end it's the same (x0.21 for both).

And a note on sunstars. For lenses that are designed to produce nice sunstars, there is no need to stop down to diffraction levels. PanaLeica 12/1.4 starts producing them very quickly, so do Voigtlanders. And with other lenses, no matter how far you stop down, the sunstars will be ugly.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

mosc

would like to see the side by side with the 10-25 f1.7. It's a lot more lens but it's not THAT much bigger on a camera body and it's just so much faster... Jordan really going to give up the 10-25 for this?

Jun 9, 2021permalink

sbszine

The 10-25 is an excellent lens, but it is considerably heavier and more expensive, while not going as wide. You'd choose it if you needed the faster aperture more than the additional range and lighter weight.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

next you're going to say it's not that much wider than the 10-25mm?

Jun 11, 2021permalink

TheRealYeats

The situation with Kananaskis Country is pricier than Chris is letting on. Sure, it's $15, but that is for only one vehicle and one day. It's $90 for up to 2 vehicles, per year.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

Rand Fotogott

I wonder with an EM1.3 if you could leave the tripod at home and shoot those long exposures hand held? Maybe use trees and such to help brace yourself for extra stability.

This would be the first lens I'd get since it is excellent for stills and video.

Jun 9, 2021*permalink

Albert Valentino

The answer to that is a clear Yes!. I say this because I have the PL 8-18 which I have used to shoot waterfalls on my EM1.2 and now EM1.3 handheld, almost always stopped down to f/5.6 and usually with stacked CPL and ND filters.

Let me put it another, perhaps more useful way, I can shoot 1 to 2 second exposures handheld and get sharp results. 2-3 seconds is hit or miss for wide shots but either bracing yourself or shooting in bursts, will generally get a sharp capture. I would expect that routinely getting sharp results at 1 second handheld, even at 25mm, would not be a problem. I have a good tripod and head, but rarely ever use it other than for macro. (But will never part with my rarely used tripod)

Jun 9, 2021permalink

https://youtu.be/iub7nVNACzE

My experience mimics Albert's even with my older E-M5 II, the III does a little better... 1-2s was definitely doable without a lot of trial and error with a wide lens on the former. I still tend to carry a tripod for longer exposures and group shots, etc.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

stateit

This Olympus Q&A video from today (09/06/21) will help let you work that question out. It's an hour long, but worth it if your thinking of investing in the lens.

Jun 9, 2021*permalink

Ab Latchin

C'mon DPR team. One point you make in the video is the lclose up of the 12-100. I bought the 12-100 for its close up capabilities which, as far as I can tell are better :/

12-100 - 0.6x（Wide）/ 0.42x（Tele）(equiv.)
8-25 - 0.14x （Wide）/ 0.42x （Tele）(equiv)

Obviously it starts at 8mm, and is a different beast, but saying the 12-100 disappointed for its close focus is just plain old wrong.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

Yeah, I noticed that too although I couldn’t recall the figures off the top of my head.

As you note, the 12–100, like the 12–40 and many other Micro Four Thirds lenses, has strong close-up performance. It’s one of the unheralded delights of the system.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

Ab Latchin

It certainly helps not having to bring too many lenses when out and about, or when shooting in the studio I don't have to change lenses too often.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

Albert Valentino

Exactly. Although I do not think in terms of different formats, I think if that mag as 0.3x at the wide end, and 0.2x at the long end. The mag factor is always relative to sensor size. One of the reasons why I switched from Fuji to Olympus years ago was because many Pro m43 lenses have close focus ability which I cherish

Jun 9, 2021permalink

One of the reasons I switched from the 45/1.8 to the 42.5/1.7, the much shorter MFD makes it more versatile.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

Jonathan Gladstone

I am rather surprised to note that the first mention that this lens can take filters, without an adapter, about 3-4 hours ago (in relation to my reply).

I would have that that the 'lensatic duo' reviewing the lens would have mentioned that ability as a massive positive for landscape photographers, (and motorsport photographers such as myself), for the ability to whack an ND filter, or grad ND filter or polariser or or whatever on the front of the lens.

"You can do eet" - without an adapter.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

George1958

Good review, nice and punchy and to the point

Jun 9, 2021permalink

shineofleo

Sorry but I though m43 system is disappearing, but not really?

Jun 9, 2021permalink

zakk9

Not the only lens I need, but very, very close.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

It’s interesting to consider that the majority of important photographs in the history of the medium could have been taken with this single lens.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

Why is one ordinary lens worth 4 news articles on DPR? That's insane.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

“Ordinary”, he says. For a lens with a unique angle-of-view range in the entire industry.

Besides, almost all lenses get the press release / announcement article, a hands-on article, a sample gallery, and, these days, a DPReview TV video. It doesn’t mean anything in particular.

I am certain you can think of something more sensible to complain about.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

Wait, I thought complaining about the banal was the default for commenting around here... ;P

Jun 9, 2021permalink

@Samuel Dilworth
You are right, *everything* now gets at least 4 news articles at DPR. That's exactly what I do complain about. It is noise making me waste my time in watching DPR having actual news to consider.

I already have reduced the frequency I visit DPR partly b/c of this. And maybe, DPR should take notice.

BTW, an16-50/F8 (35mm-eq.) for a thousand $$ is nothing to be particularly proud about.

Jun 9, 2021*permalink

I have seen complaints about DPReview covering arts, human-interest stories, etc. (not that I usually agree with them). But it’s fairly surreal to complain about dpreview.com covering a new lens.

If you’re looking for “actual news to consider”, you want nytimes.com rather than dpreview.com. This is for new lenses.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

btwango

@falconeyes
lol It's *making* you waste your time? lol

Jun 9, 2021permalink

unhappymeal

...and how many full frame mounts have a 16-50 lens?

Jun 9, 2021permalink

Unhappymeal: a hypothetical lens is no impediment to hypothetical photography. I can conjure up any number of hypothetical 16–50 mm full-frame lenses. $500 for you in the mount of your choice.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

emersonik

Yep, now go cry to your FF 16-50mm ordinary lens. Oh, you don't have one? Sorry.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

unhappymeal

I think it's absurd that people are calling this a pedestrian lens. 16-50 equivalent focal length, collapsible, manual focus clutch, no focus breathing, IPX1 weather sealed with 1:2 magnification at the closest focusing distance and longest focal length. Yep, completely pedestrian and not unique at all.

Jun 9, 2021*permalink

s1oth1ovechunk

Boo hoo.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

Minor quibble, 1:2.5 no?

Jun 9, 2021permalink

MoonMadness

@falconeyes, I see you finally came to your senses and removed the part about these articles "making me waste my time" reading them, lol. Guess what? Posts complaining about articles being a wasting time is the real waste of time.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

s1oth1ovechunk

He didn't remove anything. He still sounds like a mewling infant with poor impulse control. Look at his first reply in this thread.

Jun 10, 2021permalink

Revenant

As long as I've visited the site, roughly a decade, DPR has always had separate articles for announcements, hands-on, first impressions and sample galleries. The new addition is DPR TV.

Jun 10, 2021permalink

MoonMadness

I stand corrected! It was his next reply where he wrote it was a waste. So he still hasn't come to his senses. lol

Jun 10, 2021permalink

as usual people are referring to the equivalence rule for a wide angle lens. As if one is going to do portraits with a f4 lens. Use your brain people.

Jun 11, 2021permalink

I never got this many replies to any of my more thoughtful posts. I see what makes social media tick …

Jun 11, 2021*permalink

emersonik

Get your more thoughtful posts and write a book. It's gonna be a best seller, for sure! And then you'll have the readership you deserve.

Jun 11, 2021permalink

s1oth1ovechunk

Yes falconeyes, trolling often gets an outsized response, welcome to the internet.

Jun 11, 2021permalink

“I never got this many replies to any of my more thoughtful posts.”

That is nothing to be particularly proud about.

Jun 11, 2021permalink

ScanSpeak

Falcon is like the beaten boxer who wont stay down.

Jun 12, 2021permalink

https://img2.thejournal.ie/inline/1399879/original/?width=300&version=1399879

> Falcon is like the beaten boxer who wont stay down.
Lol. Yeah, who cries loudest certainly must be right ;)

Jun 14, 2021permalink

emersonik

Jun 15, 2021permalink

Platinumkid

16-50 is great range. Regardless of brand and sensor size.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

rawdinal

Regardless of sensor size? Focal length always combines with sensor size... On a mobile phone sensor this would be a Tele lens.

Jun 9, 2021*permalink

Madden

I think you misunderstood, @rawdinal. "16-50" is already the 'translated' focal length into 35mm format, the lens has a real focal length range of 8-25mm.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

ecka84

Yeah, it is 16-50mm F8 eqv.

Jun 10, 2021permalink

AbrasiveReducer

Since nobody seems willing to spell it out, 411 grams is 14.5 ounces which, in the tradition of telling you what you already know, is almost a pound. That's a lot for m43 where some of the best lenses are just 3 or 4 ounces (which you also know.) On the other hand, the 8-18 Panasonic is also 14 ounces so if the 8-25 is as good as the 8-18, it looks like a nice option for $1000.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

No, the PL8-18 is 11 ounces, 14+ is far from ordinary for the more premium or fastest M4/3 zooms tho, specially Oly's. The 7-14 Pro is nearly 19 ounces and the much lauded 12-100 Pro is close to 20oz. Oly has never made the system's lightest zooms outside of a few exceptions like the 9-18 and the more recent 12-45 Pro.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

Jer81

Slightly heavier than the 12-40 f2.8. not a big deal.
No idea what ounces and pounds are. Use the metric system.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

AbrasiveReducer

Sorry, but no. I am not readng a spec sheet. I have my Pansonic 8-18 sitting on a postal scale, and with the hood, caps and a UV filter, it weighs 14 ounces. For those unfamiiar with ounces, that's 397 grams. And since DPR can go to the effort of calculate percentage of a metric ton, it would be nice if the manufacturers could make the effort to specify both grams and ounces.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

That's not how the specs are measured tho, you're comparing the weight of the PL8-18 with caps, hood, filters (why?) against the weight of the Oly with none of that... I'm surprised the difference would amount to 100g but AFAIK given specs are always for the naked lens, I owned the PL8-18 too FWIW.

I'd be very surprised if the PL8-18 has gone mis-spec'd for so long but w/e...

Jun 9, 2021*permalink

Nokiron

@Impulses Yes, given weight is almost always without front/rear caps, without hoods and without tripod collars. (I'm not sure if it is standardized, but I haven't seen anything other than that yet.)

Jun 9, 2021permalink

The Lamentable Lens

“Sorry, but no. … I have my Pansonic 8-18 sitting on a postal scale, and with the hood, caps and a UV filter, it weighs 14 ounces.”

@abrasive: at the risk of stating the obvious, if you’re trying to compare the weight of the 8-18 to the weight of this new 8-25, then you need to remove the hood, the caps, and the filter, then put it back on the scale.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

LJ - Eljot

It is 1/5 Noct, wich is the ultimate unit for lenses.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

Bigsensorisbest

Its been a bit of a journey, but Im actually okay with your videos now :-)

Jun 9, 2021permalink

Idaho_X

They are releasing quite a lot very good lenses. And people say Olympus is dead.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

A Owens

It is dead.
https://www.diyphotography.net/jip-to-kill-olympus-brand-name-as-a-part-of-the-new-deal/

Jun 9, 2021permalink

Revenant

What that article (from Oct 2020) says is basically that OMDS likely won't be using the Olympus brand name indefinitely, but only "for the foreseeable future". As we saw with today's camera release, though, they haven't dropped the brand name yet, which means that it's not "dead".

Jun 9, 2021permalink

A Owens

I stand corrected. Its merely pining for the fjords.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

Stefan Hundhammer

@Idaho_X:

In this case, we can be pretty sure that most design and development was already done when JIP took over, so what we see here is the Olympus lineage.

Will OMDS also spend that amount of R&D funding? Time will tell. It would be great, but realistically they will be on a much tighter budget.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

A Owens: You're sounding like Tony Northrup. And no, that isn't a compliment.

Jun 10, 2021permalink

When a brand name is used for a company that sold it, then yes, for all intents and purposes, it is dead.

Jun 11, 2021permalink

A Owens

I am not familiar with Tony's work but note your chastising tone and am on the naughty step as I type.

Jun 11, 2021permalink

The company got divested from the parent company. Happens all the time. JIP has not only retained the brand name, but also the factories, R&D unit, engineers, sales staff etc. Olympus's biggest problem was a bloated management, and it looks like the company will now be more efficient.

Porsche is owned by Volkswagen. Is Porsche dead?

Jun 11, 2021permalink

Yes, Porsche is dead. It is just a name now. Even a comedy like Tommy Boy explains this.

Jun 13, 2021*permalink

Better not tell all the Porsche lovers who spent $500,000+ on their dream car! Cars which, by the way, work perfectly, can be serviced, and are a joy to use - just like the "dead" Olympus cameras. :)

Jun 13, 2021permalink

They slapped the Porsche name on their own car. Pretty simple. I could buy the rights to Lord of the Rings and write a book named LOTR 2. It will still be a book and people will pay for it.

It is amazing to me that buying a name works with such naive customers.

Jun 14, 2021*permalink

If you think I'm naive, want to compare your photographs with mine? You talk a big game - let's see what you're made of. I'm happy to show the capabilities of my gear of choice. Are you?

Jun 14, 2021permalink

It isn't unique to camera manufacturers. Video game developers are bought out all the time. Take a look at Bioware for what happens when a company sells out. They can literally buy a company, sack all of them, and still use the name...and sadly enough, it works!

How would comparing photography be relevant? Lets say that I take pictures of only brick walls and you make it to national geographic...it would still not change this fact. Olynpus sold their company to a bankruptcy specialist, and they are releasing what is left of the pipeline. Olympus is gone and some randoms will be using the name.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

Your example of Bioware shows what generally happens when a company is bought out by a competitor. If Olympus were bought out by Sony, I'd be certain that they are doomed. With JIP, what will happen next is anyone's guess. There's a new firmware update coming for the E-M1X this month, a 100mm macro later this year, and rumors indicate that an E-M1X Mark ii may be released in summer 2022. JIP has milked some brands (like Vaio) but they have also turned around other companies. So who knows.

What is known is this: Olympus offers unique features that appeal to wildlife and travel photographers. They can't keep up with demand for the 150-400. Panasonic will continue releasing new m43 cameras. JIP knows all this and I doubt that they will simply sell off the company's assets. Why else would they have retained the R&D team? In any case the latest cameras will remain relevant for at least the next 3-4 years.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

It is funny because the other conversation I am having is about how every camera company in the past year including sony, nikon, fuji, etc is using that line about super demand and no supply. It is just marketing scarcity corporate speak. Literally everyone has been parroting it. Purposely create low supply, more than 5 people buy and all of a sudden they all tall about how craaaaazy demand is. No. That is not a thing.

After the olympus pipeline is emptied, it will simply be another company having bought a name.

Larian is releasing Baldur's Gate 3 just to capitalize on the name. None of them developed the original. What made it special were the creators, not the name. What made star trek TNG and DS9 special were Ron Moore and the other great writers. Not the name star trek. But most people just don't get it. They only have the capacity to follow a name as if the name itself creates the quality.

Jun 15, 2021permalink

"But most people just don't get it". Well, since you're so much smarter than the rest of us, I'll have you know that Olympus's R&D team is very much in place and working as before under new management. I'm sure a business prodigy like you can figure the rest out.

Jun 15, 2021permalink

You sound very angry, so I am going to leave you to that.

Jun 15, 2021permalink

Auf Reisen

This is looking fantastic. Amazing range for city trips, light and compact, great build quality, top-notch weather-sealing. This is probably going to be my next lens. That, or go ultra-light with the Olympus 9-18.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

Bigsensorisbest

Or think that its only slightly smaller and lighter than a Sony 16-35mm f4 full frame... I hoped it would be smaller

Jun 9, 2021permalink

Idaho_X

It's not that compact for a MFT lens. Exact same size as a Nikon 24-70 full frame lens that has IS and bigger than the Panasonic 20-60 full frame.
But I'm sure it's very good as all the other Oly F4 zooms.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

Not sure why you would expect it to be smaller, the PL8-18 is around the same size (tho 100g lighter) and Pana usually goes for somewhat smaller zoom designs than Oly does.

It's about what I expected for an Oly Pro zoom with a longer range tbh, right down to the price. I thought it might even be bigger tbh but making it an extending design and gaining the extra magnification at the long end seems like an ok compromise.

The 9-18 gets knocked a lot for not being as sharp wide open as the more premium UWAs but it's got a pretty unique form factor and it's quite usable if you're fine w/f5.6 and the funky / unnecessary lock button.

I actually missed mine when I upgraded to the PL-18 because sometimes I did want an UWA option in my smallest waist pack, scratched that itch with the Laowa 7.5/2... I'm now shooting FF for UWA but M4/3 is pretty spoiled for UWA choices tbh, despite the extra challenges that go into making them for smaller formats.

Jun 9, 2021*permalink

AbrasiveReducer

Alas the Olympus 9-18 is a stinker. It's light as a feather and priced right, but it's the kind of lens even unbiased reviewers have a hard time raving about. However, both the Panasonic 7-14 and 8-18 are excellent and work just fine on Olympus bodies. I'm actually sorry I got rid of the 7-14 because it's truly tiny.

Of course, everything's relative. To some people, a m43 lens with a 72mm filter is incredibly compact.

Jun 9, 2021permalink

The Pana 7-14 has a reputation for producing unappealing purple blobs/flares on Oly bodies due to the different levels of UV filtering in the Oly & Pana sensor stacks. Some people modified theirs with a rear gel filter...

Jun 9, 2021permalink