Olympus 8-25 f4 PRO

[John King]

@davidzvi I think that having an UWA lens that is symmetrical around the 12-14mm point will very much interest me.

I like my 11-22. Beautiful lens. However, never quite wide enough or long enough.

My 7-14 is wide enough, but nowhere near long enough.

If the f/4 8-25 is as good as my 12-100, I'm sold.

The f/1.8 primes are all I need for low light. My f/4 zooms are mostly stopped down to f/5.6 (or smaller). So the f/4 doesn't bother me much.

 

[djtaylor7]

camerasize.com just added the 8-25 to their database.

That's pretty fast. Was wanting to compare it to other lenses. Might be time to give camerasize.com another little donation.

 

[JonSnih]

I like my 11-22. Beautiful lens. However, never quite wide enough or long enough.

The beauty of the 11-22 was the long end. A 22mm was very useful over the 17/18mm. I agree that the zoom was not wide enough but that was in the times when 4/3 had majority of 14-something zooms.

If the f/4 8-25 is as good as my 12-100, I'm sold.

The optical formula is very promising. Thay made no compromises, that is why it is much bigger than ppl anticipated.

The f/1.8 primes are all I need for low light. My f/4 zooms are mostly stopped down to f/5.6 (or smaller). So the f/4 doesn't bother me much.

F1.8 primes are fine. I wish there was an update to the 17mm F1.8.

 

[davidzvi]

@davidzvi I think that having an UWA lens that is symmetrical around the 12-14mm point will very much interest me.

I like my 11-22. Beautiful lens. However, never quite wide enough or long enough.

My 7-14 is wide enough, but nowhere near long enough.

If the f/4 8-25 is as good as my 12-100, I'm sold.

The f/1.8 primes are all I need for low light. My f/4 zooms are mostly stopped down to f/5.6 (or smaller). So the f/4 doesn't bother me much.

I'm right there with you, 8-25 + 12-100 could be a great combo. Now they just need the longer Pro zoom that was on the Olympus map, 75-225 or 80-240, a great 3x range. That would be a GREAT trio.

 

[doady]

I remember in 2004 when I bought my first camera, 28mm EFL was typical for "wide angle" in a standard zoom. So a couple of years later, when I was considering getting E-330, the 11-22mm F2.8-3.5 seemed very interesting, and now 8-25mm is even better.

There are still two telephoto zooms hinted on the roadmap that might be a good complement to the 12-100mm F4. There is a ~50-200mm (F2.8?) and a ~50-230mm (F4?), and they might have IS too. I think if I ever decide to get a third lens it would be a macro lens. But who knows maybe I will get a telephoto instead.

 

[Holoholo55]

I'm right there with you, 8-25 + 12-100 could be a great combo. Now they just need the longer Pro zoom that was on the Olympus map, 75-225 or 80-240, a great 3x range. That would be a GREAT trio.

If I got the 8-25 f4 Pro, I'd probably include it in my travel kit along with my 12-100 f4 Pro. It would replace a 9-18 which I really like for a travel kit, but it's not weather sealed, which I really prefer for travel lenses. If I needed a telephoto zoom, I might bring a 40-150 Pro+MC-14, which would give me 56-210 f4. I have a 40-150 R, which is a convenient size, but not long or sharp enough at the long end. Now, if OMDS came out with a 50-250 f4, that would really be an interesting addition.

 

[davidzvi]

.....
There are still two telephoto zooms hinted on the roadmap that might be a good complement to the 12-100mm F4. There is a ~50-200mm (F2.8?) and a ~50-230mm (F4?), and they might have IS too. I think if I ever decide to get a third lens it would be a macro lens. But who knows maybe I will get a telephoto instead.

Looking at the map there are 3 telephones still unknown. While I'd love to see all 3, B is the one I'd like personally.

A could very well be something like your 50-200 f/2.8 (or like the 4/3's f/2.8-3.5). It could have OIS as well. But it'll probably be too big, heavy, and too much $$$ for me.

C seems like a companion 12-45 Pro, smaller, lighter, but too short for me. I can see it having the collapse function found in the new 8-25 Pro and older lenses like the 9-18 and 14-42. If it has this functionality to keep the size down it probably wouldn't be TC compatible. And I'd be surprise if it had OIS.

B should be something to 225-240 which is the range I'd like, in the range of a 300mm on an APS-C body which is a range I'm comfortable with using. Using my current 75-300 really needs more technique than I have patience for. And I would like it faster then my 75-300. It would probably be TC compatible, but I wouldn't need it. Should it (would it) have OIS? It would be nice if it had it and at least worked "with" IBIS like the 100-400. Better if it supported Sync IS, but I'd take it without it as well.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[ac12]

Looking at the map there are 3 telephones still unknown. While I'd love to see all 3, B is the one I'd like personally.

A could very well be something like your 50-200 f/2.8 (or like the 4/3's f/2.8-3.5). It could have OIS as well. But it'll probably be too big, heavy, and too much $$$ for me.

C seems like a companion 12-45 Pro, smaller, lighter, but too short for me. I can see it having the collapse function found in the new 8-25 Pro and older lenses like the 9-18 and 14-42. If it has this functionality to keep the size down it probably wouldn't be TC compatible. And I'd be surprise if it had OIS.

B should be something to 225-240 which is the range I'd like, in the range of a 300mm on an APS-C body which is a range I'm comfortable with using. Using my current 75-300 really needs more technique than I have patience for. And I would like it faster then my 75-300. It would probably be TC compatible, but I wouldn't need it. Should it (would it) have OIS? It would be nice if it had it and at least worked "with" IBIS like the 100-400. Better if it supported Sync IS, but I'd take it without it as well.

View attachment 892950

Two possible things with the 75-300, individually or in combination:
1 - At 300mm, the 12x magnification is too high, to easily hand hold, even with IBIS.
2 - It is too light.

At 12x magnification, without weight to help dampen the body wobble, it is hard to handhold steady.​

Shooting both the 75-300 and 40-150/2.8 at 150mm, it is easier for me to hand hold the heavier 40-150 steady.​

I always try to find something SOLID to brace myself against, when shooting the 75-300 at max FL.
I only do free-hand when I can't find something to brace against. And that requires me to pay attention to technique.

I will venture to say, that a 250 will be just as difficult to shoot, unless like you said, it has OIS that works with IBIS, and more weight.

Lens B and C seem confusing, as they overlap a LOT.
My thought is if they make C (the 40-150/4) small and light. Then that becomes a way to make it different than the bigger heavier B (the 50-250/4).
The math is there, a 150/4 has a min objective lens diameter of 38mm, vs a 250/4 with a min 63mm objective lens.

Note, min objective lens diameter is simply math, FL/aperture. Designing the lens may require a larger diameter, for various reasons. But, it cannot be smaller than the math.​

And a small/light C lens becomes an alternative to the Panasonic 35-100/2.8, which is a size and weight competitor to the 40-150/2.8.

I've been eyeing the 35-100/2.8 for a long time, as a smaller/lighter alternative to the 40-150/2.8, for those times when I want smaller/lighter.​

 

[Holoholo55]

Two possible things with the 75-300, individually or in combination:
1 - At 300mm, the 12x magnification is too high, to easily hand hold, even with IBIS.
2 - It is too light.

At 12x magnification, without weight to help dampen the body wobble, it is hard to handhold steady.​

Shooting both the 75-300 and 40-150/2.8 at 150mm, it is easier for me to hand hold the heavier 40-150 steady.​

I always try to find something SOLID to brace myself against, when shooting the 75-300 at max FL.
I only do free-hand when I can't find something to brace against. And that requires me to pay attention to technique.

I will venture to say, that a 250 will be just as difficult to shoot, unless like you said, it has OIS that works with IBIS, and more weight.

Lens B and C seem confusing, as they overlap a LOT.
My thought is if they make C (the 40-150/4) small and light. Then that becomes a way to make it different than the bigger heavier B (the 50-250/4).
The math is there, a 150/4 has a min objective lens diameter of 38mm, vs a 250/4 with a min 63mm objective lens.

Note, min objective lens diameter is simply math, FL/aperture. Designing the lens may require a larger diameter, for various reasons. But, it cannot be smaller than the math.​

And a small/light C lens becomes an alternative to the Panasonic 35-100/2.8, which is a size and weight competitor to the 40-150/2.8.

I've been eyeing the 35-100/2.8 for a long time, as a smaller/lighter alternative to the 40-150/2.8, for those times when I want smaller/lighter.​

I thought the 8-25 f4 and 35-100 f2.8 might make a good pair for a travel kit. But, I would find it problematic to change lenses for the middle range, especially in inclement weather, as sometimes occurs during travel. Which is why a wide-range lens like the 12-100 is so appealing. Seamless coverage through probably my most used focal lengths. Which is why other lenses are supplements to the 12-100 in my travel kit.

However, in a general purpose or landscape kit, the 8-25 would be a very useful lens. I would still have the 12-100, but I might also have the 40-150 Pro+MC-14 or the O100-400, especially if I want an all weather-sealed kit. I'd probably have a second body like my EM5.3 or even the EM1X if I'm shooting wildlife, so I could have the 8-25 mounted and ready for use.

 

[Danny_SWE]

I was hoping it would be a little smaller and lighter than my PL8-18, oh well.

But I'm still considering selling off the PL8-18 and Pro 12-45 to fund it (or maybe the PL8-18 and PL15). This range is just so useful.

Size is almost the same. But it is about ~100g heavier.

If I was you I would think one extra time about selling the PL8-18. Difference between 18 and 25 mm is not huge. See my comparison below which I made (for FF equivalent). Ok, if you regularly shoot at 18-25 it would be sad to miss it perhaps. I thought that if used on 20Mpix-bodies a slight crop on the wider image would make a good smaller one also depending on quality needed of course.



The MF clutch and L-Fn button doesn't work on many of the Panny bodies (I think only G9 and GH5 is supported?!). While the 8-18 has AF/MF button that works on Oly (well at least my E-M5.3).

Just some things to consider if swapping.

Otherwise I think the 8-25 will be a most wonderful lens. Can imagine it selling quite good

 

[davidzvi]

Two possible things with the 75-300, individually or in combination:
1 - At 300mm, the 12x magnification is too high, to easily hand hold, even with IBIS.
2 - It is too light.

At 12x magnification, without weight to help dampen the body wobble, it is hard to handhold steady.​

Shooting both the 75-300 and 40-150/2.8 at 150mm, it is easier for me to hand hold the heavier 40-150 steady.​

I always try to find something SOLID to brace myself against, when shooting the 75-300 at max FL.
I only do free-hand when I can't find something to brace against. And that requires me to pay attention to technique.

I will venture to say, that a 250 will be just as difficult to shoot, unless like you said, it has OIS that works with IBIS, and more weight.

Lens B and C seem confusing, as they overlap a LOT.
My thought is if they make C (the 40-150/4) small and light. Then that becomes a way to make it different than the bigger heavier B (the 50-250/4).
The math is there, a 150/4 has a min objective lens diameter of 38mm, vs a 250/4 with a min 63mm objective lens.

Note, min objective lens diameter is simply math, FL/aperture. Designing the lens may require a larger diameter, for various reasons. But, it cannot be smaller than the math.​

And a small/light C lens becomes an alternative to the Panasonic 35-100/2.8, which is a size and weight competitor to the 40-150/2.8.

I've been eyeing the 35-100/2.8 for a long time, as a smaller/lighter alternative to the 40-150/2.8, for those times when I want smaller/lighter.​

Weight does play into it, the 75-300 seems to have none. As for 250mm not being much better? I'm not sure given the map that it would go to 250mm. It looks well less than half way, but it's hard to tell.

The 35-100 f/2.8 is a nice little lens and yes a collapsible 40-150 f/4 with Pro features and optics could be a nice competitor for the small Panasonic.

Size is almost the same. But it is about ~100g heavier.

If I was you I would think one extra time about selling the PL8-18. Difference between 18 and 25 mm is not huge. See my comparison below which I made (for FF equivalent). Ok, if you regularly shoot at 18-25 it would be sad to miss it perhaps. I thought that if used on 20Mpix-bodies a slight crop on the wider image would make a good smaller one also depending on quality needed of course.
......
The MF clutch and L-Fn button doesn't work on many of the Panny bodies (I think only G9 and GH5 is supported?!). While the 8-18 has AF/MF button that works on Oly (well at least my E-M5.3).

Just some things to consider if swapping.

Otherwise I think the 8-25 will be a most wonderful lens. Can imagine it selling quite good

A lot has to do with swapping lenses as @Holoholo55 mentions while on the go, I prefer a bit of focal length overlap.

 

[John King]

Imaging Resource review looks good, here:

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/8-25mm-f4-pro-m.zuiko-digital-ed/review/

Don't know if this has already been posted, and too exhausted to read the whole thread again.

 

[Holoholo55]

Imaging Resource review looks good, here:

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/8-25mm-f4-pro-m.zuiko-digital-ed/review/

Don't know if this has already been posted, and too exhausted to read the whole thread again.

They posted the Field Test a while ago, but it usually takes Imaging Resource a while to finish their entire review. Looks pretty good so far...

 

[Holoholo55]

Dunno if this was posted earlier, but here's a pretty thorough video review by Matt Horsland.

I also posted Robin Wong's hands-on of his recently acquired 8-25.
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/olympus-8-25-f4-pro-leaked.111412/post-1484814

 

[stevedo]

There's a good review comparing the 8-25 with the 8-18 over at mirrorless comparisons:

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/micro-four-thirds-lenses/olympus-8-25mm-vs-panasonic-8-18mm/

 

[davidzvi]

There's a good review comparing the 8-25 with the 8-18 over at mirrorless comparisons:

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/micro-four-thirds-lenses/olympus-8-25mm-vs-panasonic-8-18mm/

I've been waiting to see some of these comparisons. So far I'm really liking what I've seen.

 

[Holoholo55]

Here's a review by Jimmy Cheng (Red35), comparing it to the 7-14 f2.8 Pro.

And again, comparing sharpness.

 

[Holoholo55]

Robin Wong does a cat photo with his new 8-25. https://robinwong.blogspot.com/2021/07/olympus-8-25mm-is-sharp.html

 

[Aristophanes]

Robin Wong does a cat photo with his new 8-25. https://robinwong.blogspot.com/2021/07/olympus-8-25mm-is-sharp.html

Cat photo?

That settles it.

 

[Holoholo55]

My apologies if this was already posted, but here's a review by Gordon Laing, who compares it to other wide-angle M43 zooms and says nice things about it.
https://www.cameralabs.com/olympus-m-zuiko-digital-ed-8-25mm-f4-pro-review/