No threads on the 8mm PRO f1.8 Fisheye?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by LowriderS10, Feb 4, 2015.

  1. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    I was reading through 43rumors and saw this:

    8mm f/1.8 fisheye PRO lens:
    – It’s watherproof
    – made with high quality material
    – will ship in Summer. Pricing to be announced in Spring
    – very fast and silent autofocus system
    – comes in Black only like any other PRO lenses in the range

    Supposedly it'll be announced alongside the E-M5 II.

    I'm always happy to see more choices in lenses and our system expanding in general...HOWEVER...

    - We already have enough fishies for the system...the Panasonic is good (though no one buys it), the Sam/Roki/Bower is excellent, and the bodycap
    - AF is a bit pointless for a fisheye...I can't see anyone ditching the excellent Samyang/Roki for that.
    - I love fast lenses, but I can't remember more than one or two times during my extensive usage of my fisheye that I wished it was faster.

    I have a feeling that this lens is going to be bigger than the existing options (f1.8 and AF) and far more expensive.

    Quite frankly, I'm a bit disappointed. We've been begging for a 7-8-9mm non-fish prime for sooooo loooong. I love my 9-18, but I'm itching to go all primes...but it's just not happening.

    I really can't see too much sense in a PRO fisheye, when the available options are excellent for what will likely be far, far less money.

    Is anyone excited about this lens? Or are people wishing Oly went the non-fish UWA prime route instead?
  2. faithblinded

    faithblinded Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Nov 25, 2014
    Cleveland, OH
    Astrophotography. I am still more interested in the 7-14 2.8.
    • Like Like x 4
  3. DoofClenas

    DoofClenas Who needs a Mirror! Subscribing Member

    Nov 9, 2012
    Traverse City, MI
    It's the lens I've been waiting for since I sold the SHG 4/3 version a year ago.
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Astro and underwater. If it's very sharp then defishing is not problem either.
  5. letsgofishing

    letsgofishing Mu-43 Veteran

    Nov 21, 2012
    South Africa
    Mike Kaplan
    IMO, a 9mm rectilinear 2.8 that takes filters would have made far more sense and reaches a much wider market....
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Underwater

    Underwater Mu-43 Veteran

    Jun 1, 2014
    Eugene, Oregon
    Yeah, underwater. Not that Olympus execs stay up late worrying about us divers, but they've carved out a nice little niche for themselves by being one of the few camera manufacturers to offer housings. It's actually why I shoot M43, and why I'm trying to decide between the E-M1 and the Mark II. If dimensionally it will work in an existing dome port, and if it's priced reasonably, then it will definitely be on my radar. That's a couple of big ifs, though.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Absolutely. That's what I was hoping for. And, sadly, will continue to hope for. Given how many lenses we have, the fact that we don't have a sub-24mm (equiv) prime is simply ridiculous.
  8. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    I seem to recall reading somewhere that the housing will have a special front piece designed specifically for this lens...I'll try to dig it up tomorrow for you. :) 
    • Like Like x 2
  9. zensu

    zensu Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Aug 8, 2012
    Alabama USA
    A rectilinear 8 or 9mm prime (even f2.8) would have been preferable as the Panasonic 8mm and Rok/Sam 7.5mm FEs are both excellent, although not weatherproof. It makes me wonder if Olympus might have a production issue with the 7-14mm Pro zoom (like way too expensive).
    • Like Like x 1
  10. evilnim

    evilnim Mu-43 Veteran

    Mar 27, 2012
    Ridiculous to farm out another fisheye in the gaping lack of a wide rectilinear prime as others have said. If I was a more emotional person I might even be angry about this.

    Sent from my iPhone using Mu-43 mobile app
    • Like Like x 1
  11. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Looks like the E-M5 Mark II is the answer for you:

    "A dedicated underwater lens port is also under development, allowing users to capture wide-angle images at depths of up to 147 ft. (45 meters) when paired with the Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II® and PT-EP13 protective case." - dpreview

    Or maybe not...the wording is slightly different, suggesting that the port being developed may work with housings other than just the PT-EP13:

    Along with the recently announced Olympus E-M5 II and its PT-EP13 underwater protective housing, Olympus is also developing an underwater lens port for the new 8mm fisheye lens, allowing for ultra-wide photography down to 45 meters (147 ft.). - imaging-resource
  12. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    I'm glad I'm not alone in this...
  13. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    This was my understanding as well. If this port works with the existing Olympus housings then I would be very interested.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Yeah, I'm really unclear on whether that port will only work with the II case, or other ones as well...(I updated my post above), though neither source says it explicitly, they seem to imply two different things...
  15. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Images from ephotozine:




    Looks like it'll be significantly chunkier than the Samyang/Roki...
  16. jasjb

    jasjb Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 28, 2014
    What are peoples thoughts on this lens such as this as astrophotography?

    When photographing mountains + stars I rarely see M43 match APS-C in quality of results.... often Fuji and Sony can get deeper colours mixed with brighter/clearer stars.

    I used to think it did actually come back to sensor sizes, but light gathering doesn't directly depend on sensors... (sensor size and pixel size, maybe have some effect, but still not the whole equation).

    I'd be interested to see what people can achieve with a wide lens with such a wide aperture.
  17. I've used the PL15 at f/1.7 and the 7.5 FE at f/3.5. Both work so I'm sure a fast fish eye would work fine.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Zee

    Zee Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Pretty much the reason I will consider replacing my Smyang FE with this. I love the Sammy, but when 30m under water, manual aperture and focus adjustment is not really an option. It can get very dark down there, too, and sitting at F8 with infinite focus will result in lots of black images...

    Manual focus and aperture gears would be nice, but I doubt anyone would bother making such a port... Would probably end up costing more than just buying an AF fisheye lens.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    At f/1.8, this lens will be able to shoot the milky way at ISO 1200 rather than the ISO 3200 required by a f/2.8 fisheye. That's pretty awesome for micro four thirds astrophotography.
  20. sandpiper

    sandpiper New to Mu-43

    Jan 20, 2015
    This is the lens I have been dreaming of for indoor music photography in dark gloomy pubs. I much prefer the way people at the edges of a fisheye are distorted compared to an ultra wide prime, and the fisheye gives a much wider angle of view as well. And the lens looks to be reasonably discreet - just slightly bigger than the 75 f/1.8.

    Has anyone seen a mention of whether this fisheye will be diagonal or spherical?
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.