Faster and even faster lenses...

[Shade]

I know I may be asking too much, and many of you may go "boo" on me... But I'm just wondering, with so many third party lens makers being able to go to 0.95 aperture these days (manual focus of course), why can't Olympus make a F1.2 aperture with autofocus?

I mean sure the lens would be large in comparison with other lenses, but some people are willing to take that "large". And I believe a 20/1.2 or 30/1.2 wouldn't be as large as a canon 50/1.2.

See how tiny the 25/1.4 or the 45/1.8 is compared to lenses with the same specs from other larger sensors.

Is it feasable you think?

 

[noohoggin1]

Sure, I believe it's feasible.... WHY they won't make them (yet) is a mystery. Perhaps prioritizing cheaper/slower lenses to the average snapshooter (non-enthusiast) market? I would assume this is the majority of their sales...?

 

[st3v4nt]

Yes they can make that fast lens, if you look into Olympus history of making lens, a lot of 4/3 and m4/3 have their inspiration coming from fast lenses of OM line.

But outside technically able to make fast lenses Olympus also must put the price and demand factor of said lens. There's no benefit in making fast good lens if no one want to buy it. A lot of people think that price of m4/3 lens already too high. Because they think since m4/3 lens use less material it should cheaper forgetting that it's not easy to miniaturize the design.

So the question is if Olympus make expensive fast good lens do you want to buy it ? What if the price equal with Leica lens price do you still want to buy it?

 

[Shade]

I'm not bragging this. But I bought the Noctilux just for the 0.95. But in day to day use the DOF was SO shallow I think it's a nuisance to me.

So yes, if Olympus makes a 30/1 or 30/1.2, I'd definitely buy it.

 

[jloden]

Out of curiosity, why the big desire for an f/1.2 versus the existing f/1.4, f/1.7 or f/1.8 lenses already available? A third of a stop difference isn't really a huge difference in low light in my experience, and at < f/1.4 the focus area gets so thin it's of limited use.

I've got the 25mm f/0.95 and I find I usually shoot with it at f/1.4 or smaller apertures. As you noted with the Noctilux, at f/0.95 and f/1.1 or 1.2 I find the DOF *too* small for typical use. It's pretty specialized at that point, and I consider f/1.4 the upper limit for "normal" shooting based on my experiences with the fasted m4/3 lenses.

 

[strang]

Human eye supposedly sees at F2. So anything around that is fine by me. I'll take F1.8 lenses all day if they're reasonably priced.

 

[hkpzee]

I would be happy if they make a 17/1.8 and keep the price and size down. f/1.2 would be even better, but if that means substantially higher price than the 45/1.8, I might as well get the voigtlander 17.5/0.95...

 

[Shade]

Yeah but I have this thing for shallow DOF. 50/0.95 is TOO shallow.

But then that's on a full frame.

a 25/1 would have a dof like 50/2 in fullframe. Something I would really like.

 

[jloden]

Yeah but I have this thing for shallow DOF. 50/0.95 is TOO shallow.

But then that's on a full frame.

a 25/1 would have a dof like 50/2 in fullframe. Something I would really like.

Ah ok, gotcha. I wasn't sure if it was a DOF thing you were after, or a low light issue. I'm still not sure a 1/3 of a stop difference in DOF is that significant... in FF terms if you think that way, 25mm f/1.4 is still only f/2.8 instead of f/2.4 for an f/1.2 lens. But we are all entitled to our individual wishes of course :smile:

You might try renting the Voigtlander 25mm and try it for yourself. I know you want autofocus, but you could compare the DOF and see if the difference between f/0.95 or f/1.1 is really significant (or useful to you) compared to the 25mm f/1.4 which does have autofocus.

 

[Shade]

You might try renting the Voigtlander 25mm and try it for yourself. I know you want autofocus, but you could compare the DOF and see if the difference between f/0.95 or f/1.1 is really significant (or useful to you) compared to the 25mm f/1.4 which does have autofocus.

Thanks for the input my friend, and yes I have already tried the 25/0.95, its very nice and it's what I wanted, with AF.

If only OLYMPUS got focus peaking, manual focus would work. I hate zooming in to see if my shots are in focus or not, it wastes time kinda.

 

[usayit]

Speciality lenses that play in a niche market that are expensive to create with limited applications.... often equate little business sense. This is especialty true for the micro 43 system as its customer base tend to have a price ceiling and an expectation that it should be a compact lens. There is also deminishing returns for those that see lens performance in the purest technical sense. This is often due to compromises made to achieve those fast apertures. Leica shooters often turn to slower summilux f/1.4 or summicron f/2 knowing full well of the performance advantages over the noctilux. Its why most own two 50s relegating the noctllux for those times when they want that unique look. I rarely shoot the Noctilux at anything other than wide open.... at any other aperture, I am almost certainly shooting with a Summilux. The Noctilux also tends to be a lens that is purchased and resold several times as photographers feed their curosity and either fall inlove with it or find it as a very expensive and too limiting. Another example is the Canon 50 f/1 in Eos mount.... high price plus performance even when stopped down made the regular 50 f1.4 a better choice for all shooters but the 1% that specifically needed to shoot at f/1. Even then there were many issues with them. Its often regarded as a failed product in terms of generating sales.... A shop I worked at had one for years collecting dust on the used counter..

I would have no doubt Olympus can do it...... If they did, I probably would pass as I dont specifically find any need for it in micro 4 3 system. I dont see the voigtlander nor the hyperprime (or whatever its called now) generating much sales either. As it is the 25mm f/1.4 or the 20mm f/1.7 already fill the needs of a fast prime already.

 

[gummyrabbit]

You might want to consider this article about paying extra for fast lenses and how much you really benefit from them with a digital camera. Basically the article says that on a digital camera going from say an f2.8 to f2.0 lens, the sensor doesn't get double the light because of the increased size of the lens means more light hits the sensor at an angle.

As the article states...
“We can suspect,” Guichard continued, “that sensors collect the incoming light all the more improperly, in that this light comes from a more oblique angle. Since faster lens have, by definition, a wider opening, they raise the proportion of oblique light, hence the proportion of lost energy which never lands on the pixels.”

Interesting read...
DxOMark - F-stop blues

 

[emirabal]

Two things, how about another pancake lens, i know its far fetched, but i love the portability of it all, im almost ready to buy the 14mm just to get that extra wide range tahn the 20 (minimal i know) but highly convenient.

Also, are you saying (BELOW) and by you i mean the article that even though more comes through the same is captured at a lower aperture.

As the article states...
“We can suspect,” Guichard continued, “that sensors collect the incoming light all the more improperly, in that this light comes from a more oblique angle. Since faster lens have, by definition, a wider opening, they raise the proportion of oblique light, hence the proportion of lost energy which never lands on the pixels.”

Interesting read...
DxOMark - F-stop blues

 

[GaryAyala]

You might want to consider this article about paying extra for fast lenses and how much you really benefit from them with a digital camera. Basically the article says that on a digital camera going from say an f2.8 to f2.0 lens, the sensor doesn't get double the light because of the increased size of the lens means more light hits the sensor at an angle.

As the article states...
“We can suspect,” Guichard continued, “that sensors collect the incoming light all the more improperly, in that this light comes from a more oblique angle. Since faster lens have, by definition, a wider opening, they raise the proportion of oblique light, hence the proportion of lost energy which never lands on the pixels.”

Interesting read...
DxOMark - F-stop blues

If this was significant, wouldn't that affect metering, rendering handheld meters wrong/off unless adjusted for digital?

In any event, I want fast short and long lenses. A 200mm 2.8 and an 8mm 2.8 would be a great start. (All else being equal, faster is better, "I have a need for speed".)

G

 

[silversx80]

If this was significant, wouldn't that affect metering, rendering handheld meters wrong/off unless adjusted for digital?

In any event, I was fast short and long lenses. A 200mm 2.8 and an 8mm 2.8 would be a great start. (All else being equal, faster is better, "I have a need for speed".)

G

It also doesn't take into account that the center of the frame is affected much less by that effect (read: negligible). Basically, lens vignetting would be amplified at wider apertures if it was a problem. Furthermore, modern lenses designed for a digital image capture are complex in their optical design because the idea is to get the light to hit normal to the focal plane.

 

[dhazeghi]

I know I may be asking too much, and many of you may go "boo" on me... But I'm just wondering, with so many third party lens makers being able to go to 0.95 aperture these days (manual focus of course), why can't Olympus make a F1.2 aperture with autofocus?

I mean sure the lens would be large in comparison with other lenses, but some people are willing to take that "large". And I believe a 20/1.2 or 30/1.2 wouldn't be as large as a canon 50/1.2.

They shouldn't be. More like a 40/2 or 60/2 in size.

See how tiny the 25/1.4 or the 45/1.8 is compared to lenses with the same specs from other larger sensors.

Is it feasable you think?

Feasible? Yes. Voigtlander has two f/0.95 lenses, so the optics are not an issue. What is an issue is cost and market. Considering that they already charge $550 for a 25/1.4, $900-$1000 seems likely for the f/1.2 versions. I don't know about you, but that's not a price that interests me.

Of course, they could surprise us all, but price/performance on lenses is not really m4/3's forte.

DH

 

[Sammyboy]

You might want to consider this article about paying extra for fast lenses and how much you really benefit from them with a digital camera. Basically the article says that on a digital camera going from say an f2.8 to f2.0 lens, the sensor doesn't get double the light because of the increased size of the lens means more light hits the sensor at an angle.

As the article states...
“We can suspect,” Guichard continued, “that sensors collect the incoming light all the more improperly, in that this light comes from a more oblique angle. Since faster lens have, by definition, a wider opening, they raise the proportion of oblique light, hence the proportion of lost energy which never lands on the pixels.”

Interesting read...
DxOMark - F-stop blues

on a digital camera going from say an f2.8 to f2.0 lens, the sensor doesn't get double the light because of the increased size of the lens means more light hits the sensor at an angle. .... This is B.S.. straight from the "Bureau of Misinformation"

“that sensors collect the incoming light all the more improperly, in that this light comes from a more oblique angle. .... This is the reason Olympus pioneered "Digital Interchangeable Lenses" in the early days of digital photography.

 

[Hikari]

You might want to consider this article about paying extra for fast lenses and how much you really benefit from them with a digital camera. Basically the article says that on a digital camera going from say an f2.8 to f2.0 lens, the sensor doesn't get double the light because of the increased size of the lens means more light hits the sensor at an angle.

As the article states...
“We can suspect,” Guichard continued, “that sensors collect the incoming light all the more improperly, in that this light comes from a more oblique angle. Since faster lens have, by definition, a wider opening, they raise the proportion of oblique light, hence the proportion of lost energy which never lands on the pixels.”

Interesting read...
DxOMark - F-stop blues

That only applies to classic designs. Telecentric lenses can over come that limit.

 

[Hikari]

Why not faster lenses?

Cost and quality.

 

[GaryAyala]

Why not faster lenses?

Cost and quality.

Damn the torpedos ... Full speed ahead.