New patent Olympus 8-24mm f/4.0 lens

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
2,953
Location
New England
Not knowing much about lens design I have to wonder if at these wide angles that 2x optical is about the best you can do with the glass alone not having too much distortion in your image. This would point to why Oly in the 4/3rds days had the 7-14 and the 9-18 lenses and did them again for the m43 world. Likewise Pana/Leica's is also roughly 2x at 8-18. Why aren't these lenses 7-21mm, 9-27mm, and 8-24mm if 3x is no harder than 2x?

If that is the case, then you have to wonder what this 8-24mm is going to be like. Is it going to terrible in distortion requiring a LOT of lens correcting in firmware? I will be interested in seeing RAW files with this lens loaded viewed without the lens correction applied.
 

comment23

mu-43 frequent flyer
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
1,164
Location
Hampshire, UK
Real Name
Simon
Not knowing much about lens design I have to wonder if at these wide angles that 2x optical is about the best you can do with the glass alone not having too much distortion in your image. This would point to why Oly in the 4/3rds days had the 7-14 and the 9-18 lenses and did them again for the m43 world. Likewise Pana/Leica's is also roughly 2x at 8-18. Why aren't these lenses 7-21mm, 9-27mm, and 8-24mm if 3x is no harder than 2x?

If that is the case, then you have to wonder what this 8-24mm is going to be like. Is it going to terrible in distortion requiring a LOT of lens correcting in firmware? I will be interested in seeing RAW files with this lens loaded viewed without the lens correction applied.
We might have assumed the same about the 12-100mm before it was released. Granted it’s not an UWA lens but Olympus smashed it out the park once before in their PRO line so could surprise us again.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
285
Location
The Netherlands
Real Name
Roel
having 3x (8-24mm) would be awesome as the range would be perfect for landscape as it covers the ultra wide- / normal range in one lens. But I can understand that there might be design constraints and I would also be perfectly happy with 8-18 f4 Olympus Pro (if it accepts filters).
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
2,953
Location
New England
We might have assumed the same about the 12-100mm before it was released.
Perhaps but with super zooms we have seen a number of them been done before. In the 4/3rds days Oly had an 18-180, sigma an 18-125 and now in m43 we have a 14-140 and 14-150, so for those types of lenses there is a precedent. With the 12-100 it was finally a lens that took the known & effective superzoom formula and decided to try and fix many of the complaints with other superzooms, mainly with image quality suffering as a tradeoff for zoom performance. But with these ultrawides, I just thought it was notable that in every case the designs seemed to top out 2x. Once you got below 12mm 2x seems to have always been the max attempted.
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
285
Location
The Netherlands
Real Name
Roel
Perhaps but with super zooms we have seen a number of them been done before. In the 4/3rds days Oly had an 18-180, sigma an 18-125 and now in m43 we have a 14-140 and 14-150, so for those types of lenses there is a precedent. With the 12-100 it was finally a lens that took the known & effective superzoom formula and decided to try and fix many of the complaints with other superzooms, mainly with image quality suffering as a tradeoff for zoom performance. But with these ultrawides, I just thought it was notable that in every case the designs seemed to top out 2x. Once you got below 12mm 2x seems to have always been the max attempted.
We do have the Panasonic 8-18 which is 2,25x. Which has it's "worst" performance* regarding sharpness at 18mm (mostly wide open, but still an noticeable difference vs wider FoV sharpness).
But as the 8-18 is definitely build for wide angle and will be mostly used around 8mm it's logical to compromise on image quality at the long end (last ~0,25X of the 2,25X). But it still is quite substantially above the 2X boundary.

* To be honest, this all is pixel peeping which isn't all that interesting in real world applications.
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
2,202
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
My guess it that the angular FoV coverage for a 1mm difference, changes so much more for an ultra-wide zoom vs a standard zoom, that the optics become much harder to design to a "pro" level.

This seems similar to the pro zoom limit of 1:3 that was in place for decades.
The standard 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 are just under 1:3.
 
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
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom