New LENSES coming! - [Olympus Lens Roadmap 2021!]

doady

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
601
Location
Canada
I guess instead of constant F4, they could make something like F3.5-F4.5 or F2.8-5.6 lenses. If people shoot video, then that would mean setting it F4.5 or F5.6 instead of F4, or one-third of a stop or a full stop less light.

Variable aperture is advantageous for the wide angle end, but a disadvantage for the telephoto end. And where is bigger aperture more important?

Even for stills, I HATED that the maximum aperture getting lower as I zoomed in with my previous camera. Bigger aperture to reduce blur due to camera shake and to add background blur with shallower DOF: telephoto was when I needed that option the most but I didn't have.

Most often I stopped down from the max of F2.8 to F4 for wide angle, while for telephoto I needed F2.8 but the max was F4.8. It was a constant source of frustration for 15 years, and discouraged me from zooming in a lot. Constant aperture a big reason I wanted to buy a new camera. Along with IS, to be able to use all the same apertures at telephoto as with wide angle has given me so much more freedom as a photographer.

Variable aperture means more overlap between lenses, not less. Variable aperture design is a compromise, and the biggest compromise is for telephoto, where brighter aperture is needed most. As a 12-100mm F4 IS user, I might be interested in 50-250mm F4 IS. But a 50-250mm that gets darker and darker and less handholdable as I zoom in, probably not as much. Might as well get the 100-400mm F5-6.3 instead.

Sure, a 50-250mm with variable apertures would be brighter than my 12-100mm F4 at around 50-100mm, but is that why I would buy a 50-250mm lens in the first place?
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2019
Messages
288
Hmmm, that's a really interesting observation. It really would be nice to have more light available on the telephoto end.

I guess what I'm curious about - as a physics thing is this possible? Since the f/stop is the focal length / pupil diameter, it seems like the front would have to get wider as it goes out.

Sounds like interesting engineering at the very least :)
 

Giiba

Something to someone somewhere
Joined
Aug 19, 2016
Messages
1,453
Location
New Westminster, BC
it seems like the front would have to get wider as it goes out.
They are built with a front element big enough for the long end. A lens can always be bigger than required, so the wide end is fine.

I'm sure someone here knows how to calculate what is required, if memory serves it's simply focal length / aperture. Something like the 40-150/4 needs a (minimum) 38mm front element, whereas the 40-150/2.8 is 58mm (min 54mm). The 40-160/4-5.6 is probably about 30mm.
 

sammykhalifa

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
826
Location
Pittsburgh PA
Real Name
Neil
I guess instead of constant F4, they could make something like F3.5-F4.5 or F2.8-5.6 lenses. If people shoot video, then that would mean setting it F4.5 or F5.6 instead of F4, or one-third of a stop or a full stop less light.

Variable aperture is advantageous for the wide angle end, but a disadvantage for the telephoto end. And where is bigger aperture more important?

Even for stills, I HATED that the maximum aperture getting lower as I zoomed in with my previous camera. Bigger aperture to reduce blur due to camera shake and to add background blur with shallower DOF: telephoto was when I needed that option the most but I didn't have.

Most often I stopped down from the max of F2.8 to F4 for wide angle, while for telephoto I needed F2.8 but the max was F4.8. It was a constant source of frustration for 15 years, and discouraged me from zooming in a lot. Constant aperture a big reason I wanted to buy a new camera. Along with IS, to be able to use all the same apertures at telephoto as with wide angle has given me so much more freedom as a photographer.

Variable aperture means more overlap between lenses, not less. Variable aperture design is a compromise, and the biggest compromise is for telephoto, where brighter aperture is needed most. As a 12-100mm F4 IS user, I might be interested in 50-250mm F4 IS. But a 50-250mm that gets darker and darker and less handholdable as I zoom in, probably not as much. Might as well get the 100-400mm F5-6.3 instead.

Sure, a 50-250mm with variable apertures would be brighter than my 12-100mm F4 at around 50-100mm, but is that why I would buy a 50-250mm lens in the first place?
We'll you also have to consider how far you're going to carry the thing. Size is also a compromise, like the variable aperture you already mentioned
 

doady

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
601
Location
Canada
I always preferred 50mm EFL to 35mm EFL for street photography, but 20mm F1.4 with a weather-sealed Pen-F II might be a really good combo.

We'll you also have to consider how far you're going to carry the thing. Size is also a compromise, like the variable aperture you already mentioned
That's why I find the 50-250mm F4 IS most interesting. The 50-200mm F2.8 IS will likely be too much for me.

I came from a point-and-shoot camera with a 1/1.8" sensor, so even the 12-100mm F4 IS is still taking getting used too. E-M1 II + 12-100mm is more than twice the weight of my old camera.

But I also have to consider the extra bulk and weight of a tripod. If constant aperture and IS and F2.8 means less need to carry a tripod, then the extra bulk and weight of a certain lens might be worth it. How much is worth it, and how much is actually needed, is different for everyone, and that's why I think it's important that they start letting people choose exactly how much for their telephoto lens, which is going to be the most demanding in terms of weight and handhold-ability to begin with. 50-250mm F4 IS and 50-200mm F2.8 IS would fill that void nicely.
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
1,445
Location
Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
I always preferred 50mm EFL to 35mm EFL for street photography, but 20mm F1.4 with a weather-sealed Pen-F II might be a really good combo.


That's why I find the 50-250mm F4 IS most interesting. The 50-200mm F2.8 IS will likely be too much for me.

I came from a point-and-shoot camera with a 1/1.8" sensor, so even the 12-100mm F4 IS is still taking getting used too. E-M1 II + 12-100mm is more than twice the weight of my old camera.

But I also have to consider the extra bulk and weight of a tripod. If constant aperture and IS and F2.8 means less need to carry a tripod, then the extra bulk and weight of a certain lens might be worth it. How much is worth it, and how much is actually needed, is different for everyone, and that's why I think it's important that they start letting people choose exactly how much for their telephoto lens, which is going to be the most demanding in terms of weight and handhold-ability to begin with. 50-250mm F4 IS and 50-200mm F2.8 IS would fill that void nicely.
A 50-250/4 IS would be as large and heavy as the 100-400, maybe closer to the 300/4 PRO.
Even more for the 50-200/2.8 IS.

The announced lenses (20/1.4 and 50-150/4 sans TC) are both compact and likely affordable, eschewing some of the "PRO" attributes like manual focus clutch and LFn button to increase handheld shooting compatibility, keep the mass reasonable, with an eye to cost.
 
Last edited:

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
991
Location
Finland
Real Name
Riku
At 1x I focus bracket at 30 fps with the Panasonic-Leica 45 mm at f/2.8 by default since running the lens at an effective aperture of f/5.6 reduces the lighting needed to make the minimum 1/30 shutter speed at base ISO. Capturing 300+ frames is the fastest part of gathering the image and stacking them all is the fastest part of the postprocessing, so there's not really any practical constraint on frame count (a couple thousand's no big deal) unless one's locked into RAW based workflows where buffer exhaustion forces low frame rates, needs to run a computationally inefficient stacker, or has only fairly old hardware available.

Dropping down to 9-18 fps bracket acquisition would be a bit slow IMO for the deeper stacks but not many people go that deep and, if I can routinely gather 300+ at 30 fps fine, y'all can probably do 100+ frames at 10 fps fine. Stacking time is linear with pixel count and it's not hard to get stack rates above 2 GP/min (gigapixels per minute) within a 15 W TDP (thermal design power) on hardware that's a couple generations old, so stacking 100 20 MP frames literally takes like a minute. Or seconds with a higher TDP.


Something I find valuable about 30 fps stacking is its ability to avoid subject motion by hitting breaks in the wind. Easier to pull off a 300 frame stack if you need a 10 second lull than if you need 20-30 seconds. Admittedly, 30 fps is a Panasonic bracketing rate, this is an Olympus thread, and Olympus may or may not give the 100 mm macro the focus motor capability to keep up with 20+ fps. But if the lens ever happens hopefully they get that part right.

Also, for photomacrography, I use coupled front lenses up to f/1.7 and am working on bringing up a second f/1.7. If I had an unconstrained budget I'd also have an f/1.3 and an f/1. There's a conjunction of reasons for that but, basically, it's a balance of tradeoffs between magnification, working distance, diffraction, and ability to put enough diffused light onto the subject area to make full use of a body's fps ability. Bracketing's not video, exactly, but it's more like video than the old school, stop way down approach to macro.

It's a different sort of speed but focus bracketing also maxes out bodies' ability to get data from the sensor onto a card. It therefore benefits from data rate increases driven by 6k and 8k. Quite directly in the case of Panasonic. It's unclear if OMD is going to compete but Panasonic has had 60 fps bracket capability for a while and it looks like the GH6 has a good chance of 120 fps bracketing. It's not often I get enough light for 1/60 or 1/125 so, price and weight considerations aside, I'd expect to eventually have a body which could take advantage of being behind an f/2 or f/1.4 conventional macro lens.
I don't focus stack, so you're the expert here. I was just thinking that if the sharpest aperture is with a smaller aperture, then you would need less photos to get everything sharp in the stack.

So like the cheap 30mm Macro is a bit sharper at the smaller apertures than the 60mm Macro (and the 60mm sharper at bigger apertures), I thought a slower lens which is sharper at smaller apertures might help not needing so many photos for the stack, helping with any movement.

I'm interested if you're talking about hand-held macro, or only about 300+ photo stacking or something? Does the speed of the lens matter so much with all kinds of focus stacking needs? Would you buy the 100mm Macro for your macro photography?
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
4,266
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
40mm has become my favorite FL for a walkaround prime unless I'm inside, when I often find I'd rather have 35mm (or even 28mm).

- K
Agreed that a 14 - 17 mm lens is more suitable for indoors. I have a PL 15 f1.7 which I use for moderate wide angle use as well as a fast prime for travel. One problem, especially for travel, is that it's not weather-sealed. I might seriously consider the 20 f1.4 Pro as a replacement, especially because it'd be weather-sealed.
 

archaeopteryx

Gambian sidling bush
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
1,697
Or am I missing something (not shooting video, I easily could be)?
I use μ43 mainly for 4k video, secondarily for stills, and none of the five zooms I have is constant aperture. It's fine. :laugh: I do usually park my zooms at f/5.6 but that's actually more just a set it and forget it thing than, as you pointed out, avoiding aperture changes whilst zooming. There's enough other issues to manage in order to get good looking zooming during video possible that shifts in exposure whilst a lens transitions between f/4 and 5.6 (or f/2.8 and 4) are fairly far down on my list of things to worry about.

I'm sure someone here knows how to calculate what is required, if memory serves it's simply focal length / aperture.
That's solving the definition of aperture for entrance pupil diameter, yes. This thread, like most, has an abundance of posts which erroneously conflate the entrance pupil with front element size. For telephoto primes and the long end of telephoto zooms it's a pretty decent approximation but anyone who's ever looked into the front of an umounted retrofocal lens has probably realized how wildly incorrect it can get when the pupil magnification ratio goes the other way. I would say conflating the two is clearly inaccurate for most more or less symmetrical lenses in the normal to short tele range as well as for (ultra)wides.

More generally, it's not a simple calculation even just for moderate telezooms of the 50-200ish type being discussed here. There are enough degrees of freedom among the design patterns for mechanically and optically compensated zooms based on two, three, or four groups and fixed or variable aperture targets I would recommend anyone wanting a more complete understanding to have look at an optical textbook and spend some time with lens design software. Or, at lower effort, review some of the information available on variators, compensators, and afocal zooming. To attempt a succinct, albeit admittedly not particularly informative, summary of all of those possibilities I would say the extent to which f/N is a useful predictor of front element diameter requirements depends on the zoom implementation and how flexible one is about vignetting. A lens design may choose to use more glass to reduce vignetting without necessarily enabling a faster f/stop. This is frequently recognized in ultrawides but not discussed as much with telephotos.

Among μ43's various telezooms there's tendency for vignetting to be lowest in their midrange and highest at the wide and long ends. Usually maximum vignetting occurs wide open at the long end but some lenses, both variable and fixed aperture, have their greatest falloff wide open at their wide end. Vignetting indicates some limiting aperture within the lens is increasingly occluding marginal rays which would otherwise reach the sensor. In general, the size, weight, and cost of a lens is minimized by minimizing the diameter of its elements. So, whilst the front element is likely the limiting aperture at the long end, it's extremely likely the rest of the lens is sized such that the fully open position of the aperture blades is a matching limiting aperture. If this is not the case then the lens designer's spending on glass but not getting anything for it. A corollary is, for a given image circle, it's likely all of the other elements and groups in the lens are close to extinguishing marginal rays. Which element(s) have the most influence on vignetting may therefore vary with zooming.

TL;DR forum discussion's emphasis on front element size is a narrow road which easily suffers from its advantage of simplicity.

Whilst I haven't personally analyzed enough lenses to make strong statements, based on the designs I have looked at it would not surprise me if it turned out front element size is influential to vignetting at the wide end of a meaningful fraction of telezooms in addition to long end vignetting.

I thought a slower lens which is sharper at smaller apertures might help not needing so many photos for the stack, helping with any movement.
I think it might first be useful to briefly review sharpness. A lens's sharpness is its RMS spot size. There is then the much discussed Airy disc of Fraunhofer diffraction (assuming macro at low enough magnification Abbe diffraction is negligible). Less often discussed is the blur disc from image features being in front of or behind the distance of sharpest focus for their location in the image circle. And you mention the subject to camera motion differential as well. What ends up on the sensor as the recorded image is the convolution of all of these things. So the arrangement which produces the sharpest overall image is whatever set of photographic approaches minimizes the combination of all of these things.

One end of the continuum you're asking about is the single image, stop down approach to macro which reduces blur disks by increasing Airy discs. Since Airy disks exceed RMS spot sizes by effective apertures of f/5.6–8 in modern lenses and the effective aperture of a lens obtaining magnification M through extension is EA = (M + 1)N, N being the marked aperture, I don't think I'm following your remarks about the RMS spot size being of importance. Also, lens tests are nearly always conducted at long conjugates rather than the relatively short conjugates of macro. So, to the extent a macro lens is operated at effective apertures wide enough for RMS spot size to be influential, lower measured performance may actually indicate increased functional sharpness due to optimization for the upper, rather than lower, end of the lens's magnification range.

Since depth of field is linear in N, stopping down to decrease number of frames in a focus bracket is geared by a square. In general I can make a shutter speed about 1/40 so, on bodies which only make 10 fps brackets, going down by two stops to halve the bracketing time needed to reach a fixed depth of field is feasible. For an f/2.8 macro lens being used at macro magnification (≥1x by definition, so 1x for most macro lenses) this is, however, probably a reduction from EA = 5.6 to EA = 11. And EA = 11 implies Airy disk dominance over RMS spot size, so it's not choice entirely without consequence. While I'm uncertain your questions are entirely informed by recognizance of this tradeoff I will say that, for 30 fps bracketing, adding more stops of continuous lighting isn't trivial and it's not at all uncommon I lift ISO above 200 to make the required 1/30 shutter speed. For subjects in full sun where I can use a low loss diffuser I sometimes make 1/125 or faster at EA = 5.6 but that's fairly rare. So, while there is a window where higher EAs can be exploited to reduce bracketing times and mitigate motion issues, in practice it can be somewhat difficult to access and it's not always beneficial to do so.

Handheld stacking is not especially difficult but often there is loss in image quality without stabilization. OIS and IBIS assist with frame to frame alignment in the image plane but, as bracketing step sizes at 1x are a few hundred of microns, it doesn't take much camera or subject motion along the image axis to generate depth reversals or out of focus brands in the bracket. Wholly handheld bracketing is therefore typically done well below macro magnifications (≪1x). The small number of people who regularly use μ43 to bracket at magnification without a tripod typically combine OIS+IBIS with a monopod, stepping on a rope, or something like that. In the most common case of a fairly a stable camera and a moving subject, pushing the shutter speed in the bracket is helpful in reducing motion blur. If you can compose such that subject motion is mostly in the image plane then xy alignment during stacking can be effective in removing subject motion, though utilizing this aspect of the tooling requires some skill development.

Would you buy the 100mm macro for your macro photography?
Given how long Olympus has been procrastinating with releasing the lens I'm somewhat skeptical buying it will ever be possible. :laugh: But to speculate, most likely not. I primarily use magnifications above 1x, which it's unlikely to provide, and the Panasonic-Leica 45 mm I already have gives about the most useful amount of working distance for nearly all of the subjects I'm interested in. So it's also seeming unlikely that, if the 100 mm is a pro lens as anticipated, the associated cost and weight will offer sufficient improvement in image quality or other benefits for me to consider them worthwhile. If Olympus does release a 100 mm macro actual data about the lens may indicate otherwise, though.

That's fine for stacking.
This response, unfortunately, appears to be based on an incomplete understanding of the question, its answer, or possibly both. Its lack of specifics makes it uncertain whether something beyond a more careful reading is needed.

/end book 🙃
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
172
Location
Northwest Arkansas, USA
Real Name
Mike

https://www.43rumors.com/om-digital...0mm-f-1-4-will-have-size-of-the-12-45mm-zoom/

Supposedly the 20mm f/1.4 will be comparable in size to the 12-45mm f/4 Pro.

LensWeightDiameterLength
Olympus 12-45mm f/4 Pro254 g (0.56 lb)63 mm (2.48″)70 mm (2.76″)
Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 II87 g (0.19 lb)63 mm (2.48″)26 mm (1″)
Olympus 17mm f/1.8120 g (0.26 lb)58 mm (2.26″)36 mm (1.4″)
Olympus 17mm f/1.2 Pro390 g (0.86 lb)68 mm (2.68″)87 mm (3.43″)
 

greensteves

Mu-43 Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
19
Location
Walnut Creek, California
"20mm 1.4 will be sized around 12-45 f4 or smaller as a very vague comparison (he didn’t want to be too precise)"
Hopefully the "or smaller" is the reality. Perhaps the lens closest to 20mm f/1.4 weathersealed is the Pana-Leica 25mm f/1.4 II. It's sizes are:

Filter Size46 mm (Front)
Dimensions (ø x L)2.48 x 2.15" / 63 x 54.5 mm
Weight7.23 oz / 205 g

In terms of ounces, the 12-45 is 8.96 oz, 1.67 oz heavier. I tried it out briefly on the EM5 Mark III, and it was very light and comfortable, though nowhere near pancake range in compactness.
 
Last edited:

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom