Olympus Pro lens sizes - my opinion

[SojiOkita]

It's kind of hard to do when they are working on fast zooms with a bigger range than the Panny alternatives or 1.2 primes. Those lenses will be bigger than most m43 alternatives.

I'm not saying that these lenses should be more compact.
I'm saying I would prefer Olympus to develop other lenses. (like f/4 zooms or f/1.4-f/1.8 primes instead of f/1.2)

For a prime, for example, between a f/1.2 lens and a f/1.4 lens, I think that the difference in terms of light is marginal, in terms of depth of field none will match 24x36, and in terms of size, weight and price, the difference on the final product is huge.

My problem is not that this type of lens exist (that's nice for other people ), but that Olympus seems to focus exclusively on this type of big/heavy/expensive/excellent lenses, which are not my conception of micro 4/3.

 

[vbi]

I'm not saying that these lenses should be more compact.
I'm saying I would prefer Olympus to develop other lenses. (like f/4 zooms or f/1.4-f/1.8 primes instead of f/1.2)

For a prime, for example, between a f/1.2 lens and a f/1.4 lens, I think that the difference in terms of light is marginal, in terms of depth of field none will match 24x36, and in terms of size, weight and price, the difference on the final product is huge.

My problem is not that this type of lens exist (that's nice for other people ), but that Olympus seems to focus exclusively on this type of big/heavy/expensive/excellent lenses, which are not my conception of micro 4/3.

Sometimes a razor thin depth of field is counter productive. I personally prefer the m43 greater depth of field. It allows me to take portrait shots with eyes and the tip of the nose in focus at f2.8 where I would have to stop down to f5.6 on FF to get that. So, lower ISO's which works for me.

Granted, most FF sensors are far superior to m43 in ISO performance, but I like the "grain" effect of the EM1's high ISO shots.

Horses for courses, but I really like my Olympus horse after years of riding Canon FF.

 

[DeoreDX]

Anyway, I hear many people complaining about the size, but I find the size for a f/2.8 pro lens to be very nice, not that heavy, easy to handle, and easy to travel with.

It isn't that the 12-40 is a big lens. For what it is it's a tiny lens. I think the real issue is that for a vast majority of the mu43 bodies the body itself is way too small and not well designed ergonomically to use a lens as "big" as the 12-40. Sure you *can* do it but using it on an E-M5 sans grip and E-P5 sans grip the ergonomics are terrible. I couldn't even imagine comfortably using it on one of the PM or PL bodies for any long period of time.

And yes I have used it on the E-M5 with no grip. Way too front heavy and makes it hard to get to all of the controls one handed.

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

P8153757 by deoredx, on Flickr

Same with the E-P5. Not comfortable at all.

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

PC120975 by deoredx, on Flickr

My E-M1 can comfortably handle much larger lenses. 1.5lbs of Vivitar Series 1 105mm/2.5 Macro handles beautifully even with all of the weight hanging off the front.

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

2016-04-10_06-37-21 by deoredx, on Flickr

 

[SojiOkita]

Sometimes a razor thin depth of field is counter productive. I personally prefer the m43 greater depth of field.

Yes, that's a personal preference.
That's mine too and that's why I'm not frustrated with m43 depth-of-field.
Even in m43, when I review my images, I sometimes regret I didn't choose a slower aperture because my d.o.f is too small. The opposite is very rare.

 

[Turbofrog]

It isn't that the 12-40 is a big lens. For what it is it's a tiny lens. I think the real issue is that for a vast majority of the mu43 bodies the body itself is way too small and not well designed ergonomically to use a lens as "big" as the 12-40. Sure you *can* do it but using it on an E-M5 sans grip and E-P5 sans grip the ergonomics are terrible. I couldn't even imagine comfortably using it on one of the PM or PL bodies for any long period of time.

And yes I have used it on the E-M5 with no grip. Way too front heavy and makes it hard to get to all of the controls one handed.

Same with the E-P5. Not comfortable at all.

My E-M1 can comfortably handle much larger lenses. 1.5lbs of Vivitar Series 1 105mm/2.5 Macro handles beautifully even with all of the weight hanging off the front.

I was astonished at how much of a difference adding a Fotodiox hot-shoe thumb grip to my GX7 made in terms of handling heavy lenses. (Can you tell I don't use strobes much?)

It's a body and grip basically size of an E-M5 or E-P5, but with the thumb grip I can easily use the 11-22/2.8 one-handed, which is a ~525g combo with the MMF-3. It handles shockingly well. Likewise with the Panny 100-300.

That said, balance matters a lot with M4/3 cameras. I find going much longer / heavier than that 11-22 threshold starts to be pretty unpleasant. My 50-135/3.5 + focal reducer weighs about 100g less than the Oly 40-150/2.8 PRO, and it's much too heavy for me to use casually and necessitates a 2-handed grip for more than just focus. So I'm realistically setting my max upper limit for lenses at 600-650g or so, I'm really not interested in anything heavier than that.

 

[SojiOkita]

Anyway, I hear many people complaining about the size, but I find the size for a f/2.8 pro lens to be very nice, not that heavy, easy to handle, and easy to travel with.

It's a discussion board, so everyone gives its opinion but saying "I find this lens too heavy for me" is not really a complaint, it's just giving our point of view.

And the "huge" comment is relative.
The 12-40 is not big for what it is, but it's bigger than other m43 options (it's a little bigger and heavier than the 12-35, and compared to the 12-32 it is huge).

If you compare it, for example, to the Canon APS 17-55 f/2.8, the Olympus is smaller, lighter, and better built.

I have used it a little with an E-M1 and I liked it a lot, the only thing is that if I replace my 12-32 by this 12-40, I would have to take out some primes off my photo bags, and that's not something I want to do.
(nor buying bigger photo bags )

 

[SojiOkita]

It isn't that the 12-40 is a big lens. For what it is it's a tiny lens. I think the real issue is that for a vast majority of the mu43 bodies the body itself is way too small and not well designed ergonomically to use a lens as "big" as the 12-40.

There are also some people that say they don't come to mirrorless (including Sony 24x36) because they think the bodies are too small and that bigger bodies are easier & better to handle.

 

[rbelyell]

Just a clarifying question - when we compare DOF I have understood that fullframe produces the same DOF at half the aperture. Dont know if that is correct and that is really my question as in the above you say 2.8 is equivalent to 5.6 at full frame i.e. 2 stops which would not be double but 4x. Thanks

sure, no problem. compared to FF the 2x crop factor of m4/3 means that a 12/2.8 m4/3 lens will perform approximately as a 24/5.6 FF for FL and DOF purposes. you double the FL and double the aperture for DOF purposes of each m4/3 lens. for SS and iso purposes, it will perform as a 2.8 lens in my example, or as whatever the native max ap is on any other given lens. i hope that is helpful.

 

[jimr.pdx]

I'm not saying that these lenses should be more compact.
I'm saying I would prefer Olympus to develop other lenses. (like f/4 zooms or f/1.4-f/1.8 primes instead of f/1.2)

I agree, and I'm willing to accept f/3.5-4.5 zooms. In SLR/dSLR days I used many excellent f/3.5-4.5 zooms that were quite compact. A largest aperture of f/5.6 on has so little flexibility that it's frustrating to have as the only non/2.8 option.

 

[SojiOkita]

I agree. The difference is quite huge between a zoom that ends with f/2.8 and a zoom that ends with f/5.6.

 

[StefanKruse]

sure, no problem. compared to FF the 2x crop factor of m4/3 means that a 12/2.8 m4/3 lens will perform approximately as a 24/5.6 FF for FL and DOF purposes. you double the FL and double the aperture for DOF purposes of each m4/3 lens. for SS and iso purposes, it will perform as a 2.8 lens in my example, or as whatever the native max ap is on any other given lens. i hope that is helpful.

Thanks - for FL I get it, but doubling the aperture from 2.8 would that not be an aperture of 4.0? I.e. Going from 2.8 to 5.6 is actually quadrupling? Just making sure I get this because t comes up a lot

 

[Turbofrog]

Thanks - for FL I get it, but doubling the aperture from 2.8 would that not be an aperture of 4.0? I.e. Going from 2.8 to 5.6 is actually quadrupling? Just making sure I get this because t comes up a lot

When comparing between M4/3 and FF/135 format, you don't need to just double the light, you really do need to quadruple it. The 2x crop factor is a diagonal measurement only, so in terms of total sensor area, a 135 sensor is actually 4x larger than 4/3 (864 mm^2 vs 225 mm^2). Hence, going from 2.8 to 5.6 is correct.

 

[Johnny The Greek]

Yes, I'm one of them too.
I also find that f/2.8 is not fast enough for me, so I prefer having smaller zooms, because anytime I want something fast, I'd pick a prime anyway.

However, I'm not complaining about the size & weight of these lenses, I just don't buy them.
I'm just a bit disappointed that Olympus seems not wanting to developing compact lenses anymore

I'm sort of in the same boat, however at some point I will graduate to an E-m1 and would love at least one pro lens (most likely the 12-40mm) for focus stacking and a general purpose weatherproof combo. The functionality of the 12-50mm lens is good but I would much prefer the pro zoom just on a basis of overall quality.

At the same time the extra weight of the 40-150mm pro zoom and 300mm lenses are not for me. I'm happy they exist but I'm much happier with the primes.

 

[tkbslc]

.. I bought it for shooting wildlife and the large aperture gives me one major advantage, I can keep the shutter speeds high whilst still using a low ISO, something thats very important when shooting birds/wildlife and in the light we generally get here in the UK and also with the ISO/noise limitations of the M43 sensors.

The difference is quite marked for me where if shooting @ f8 (most F5.6 lenses do best stopped down) I would be shooting ISO's up to 1600 and with shutter speeds as low as 1/250th second when the light levels drop, whereas shooting @ F2.8 I find I'm able to keep the shutter speed up to 1/500th second at lowest and still keep the ISO no higher than 400.
.

While that is true, if you were using a larger sensor you could use higher ISOs to compensate for slower aperture without additional noise. ISO 1600 on a FF sensor is noise free just like ISO 400 on m4/3.

If you are happy with a 40-150mm f2.8 on m4/3, you should also be happy with a 70-300mm f5.6 on FF. (Ignoring factors like sealing and cost, etc)

 

[tkbslc]

Thanks - for FL I get it, but doubling the aperture from 2.8 would that not be an aperture of 4.0? I.e. Going from 2.8 to 5.6 is actually quadrupling? Just making sure I get this because t comes up a lot

When comparing between M4/3 and FF/135 format, you don't need to just double the light, you really do need to quadruple it. The 2x crop factor is a diagonal measurement only, so in terms of total sensor area, a 135 sensor is actually 4x larger than 4/3 (864 mm^2 vs 225 mm^2). Hence, going from 2.8 to 5.6 is correct.

I think you are both saying the same thing, but from different perspectives. Going from f2.8 to 5.6 is in fact "doubling" the diameter of the aperture, but it quadruples the area of the aperture (and amount of light that passes through). Each stop is a 1.414x increase in diameter of the aperture.

Moving one stop (From f2.8-4) would double the amount of light, but not be a doubling of the aperture diameter.

doubling the diagonal (aperture diameter) = 2 stops = 4x the amount of light
doubling the area = 1 stop = 2x the amount of light

 

[MarkNOTL]

Just coming from an APS-C sensor on my Nikon D300, I'm really enjoying the body size of the EM-1. The Nikon 24-70 was always big, so I used the 35-70/2.8 as my comparable combo. The M1 with 12-40 is just right.

I've moved to m4/3 to down size, so even the bigger Olympus lenses to me are smaller. Even better, there are even smaller primes, so one way or t'other I'll get there.

 

[AlanU]

The Oly 12-40 is a remarkable lens but i opted for a Panny 12-35mm. Regardless of physical size the M43 lenses are light. I use the spider holster pro system with my gh3 and I doubt even a heavy Oly telephoto f/2.8 zoom would bother me. Infact when I owned an E-m5 i cant even feel a camera on my waist as it hung on the spider holster.

It would be more impressive if M43 produced faster "PRO" zooms like f/1.8 or f/2. Since the image circle is not that large due to the M43 sensor i would imagine technology would be able to produce a decent fast zoom for smaller sensors. Big dream for me but I think a physically "small" zoom faster than f/2.8 is possible.

After purchasing a 12-35 (or if I bought an oly 12-40) I don't see the purpose of owning a panasonic 14mm f/2.5. I find the IQ in the two lenses to surpass the IQ of the 14mm f/2.5 prime.

 

[Turbofrog]

It would be more impressive if M43 produced faster "PRO" zooms like f/1.8 or f/2. Since the image circle is not that large due to the M43 sensor i would imagine technology would be able to produce a decent fast zoom for smaller sensors. Big dream for me but I think a physically "small" zoom faster than f/2.8 is possible.

It would be possible, but "physically small" is a relative thing. You could probably produce a 14-25/f1.8 M4/3 lens that was 600-650g or so, and took 67mm filters. That's probably a bit on the optimistic side. M4/3 sensors are not much smaller than APS-C, and the Sigma 18-35/1.8 weighs over 800g, and the Olympus 14-35/f2 weighed 900g.

 

[SojiOkita]

I'm sort of in the same boat, however at some point I will graduate to an E-m1 and would love at least one pro lens (most likely the 12-40mm) for focus stacking and a general purpose weatherproof combo. The functionality of the 12-50mm lens is good but I would much prefer the pro zoom just on a basis of overall quality.

I would probably end up with the E-M1 replacement... I tested this body twice (thanks to several Olympus operations where you can borrow a body + lens for free) and I find it really wonderful.
And I might buy the 12-40 at the same time because it's a very good combo
So, on all the pro lenses, it's probably the only one I might own one day (and it's the smallest ).

I also already tested the 12-50 and I just hated it (not optically, I just don't like using the lens).

The Oly 12-40 is a remarkable lens but i opted for a Panny 12-35mm.

Yes, it would be a difficult choice to make between the two.

After purchasing a 12-35 (or if I bought an oly 12-40) I don't see the purpose of owning a panasonic 14mm f/2.5. I find the IQ in the two lenses to surpass the IQ of the 14mm f/2.5 prime.

The purpose of the 14 is to be a very small pancake. I think that even if I get the 12-40 or the 12-35 one day, I would still use the 14 mm sometimes.

 

[GFFPhoto]

My problem is not that this type of lens exist (that's nice for other people ), but that Olympus seems to focus exclusively on this type of big/heavy/expensive/excellent lenses, which are not my conception of micro 4/3.

I get that, but aside from a few standard focal lengths (14mm, 67.5) they have those compact lenses already in production.