Updated Olympus lens road map - 8-25mm f4, finally a pro macro, ... does it make you want to stick with Olympus?

Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
3,961
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
No, don't use that stuff.
Check the clearances.
It is likely sticky because the clearance it too tight.

You have to scrape/shave the channel until it can easily move.
Sometimes there is very little clearance to get something into the channel, to scrape it.

And do this to the HOOD, not the lens.

I would try the wax before I would scrape the grooves. A little lube is all that's necessary and you don't want to make the hood too loose by overdoing the scraping/shaving. As it is now after the wax treatment, it slides easily but holds its position retracted or extended firmly. I bought the JJC hood almost four years ago and it's still working fine after the first treatment. No scraping done. :)
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
3,961
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
I'll remind that the 8-25mm f/4.0 is the only lens mentioned with specs in the roadmap, so it's pretty obvious it's the next release. I don't have much doubts that they will release something under JIP, because they need to release some products even if they only plan to sell all inventory.

My hope is that, with the CEO specifically mentioning field macro as a focus, ~100mm macro might be the 2nd lens release.

View attachment 873130
http://learnandsupport.getolympus.com/development-announcements

I'm still looking forward to that 8-25 f4 Pro lens. I love the little 9-18 for its small size and big capabilities, but a good 8-25 would be very interesting. Hope it's relatively compact and affordable. :)
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,092
Location
Massachusetts, USA
I used the wax treatment on the lens hood bayonet mount of my old ZD 12-60 SWD which had a very tightly fitting hood.

I had the same issue with that lens. I used a teflon (or was it silicone; now I forget) spray put lightly on a paper town and would use it to wipe down the "threads" of the hood that interfaced to the lens. Worked well.


~100mm macro might be the 2nd lens release

They have had plenty of time to work on it! :laugh1:
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
3,219
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
I would try the wax before I would scrape the grooves. A little lube is all that's necessary and you don't want to make the hood too loose by overdoing the scraping/shaving. As it is now after the wax treatment, it slides easily but holds its position retracted or extended firmly. I bought the JJC hood almost four years ago and it's still working fine after the first treatment. No scraping done. :)

It depends on how bad the hood is.
Agree, if it is just a little bit tight, wax may be the ticket.

The JJC hoods on the Canon 18-135 at school were TIGHT. So tight that you could not turn the hood.
I did try wax, with almost no change. Still too tight. And way too tight to risk it with my students.
So I attacked the problem, lack of enough clearance. I resorted to scrapping the hood, a LOT, to increase the clearance.

Side note: ALL of my plastic JJC hoods had to have some kind of adjustment to make them fit well. And these were hoods advertised as for the specific lenses.
I don't know if it is poor design specs, and lack of QC to test if the design works, or plastic shrinking after coming out of the mold.
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,445
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
You're implying (I think) that the IBIS is effective enough that you get a sharp shot (in the center), but that somehow it is messing up the corners. I have never heard of image stabilization only affecting one portion of an image and only with certain lenses like this.

I mean, usually it's the lens and aperture that are called into question when you have a sharp center and less-sharp edges. But IS? So you're saying that if you had taken the exact same shot on a tripod with the same settings (without IS, of course, but same aperture, etc) and equipment, the image would be sharper in the corners? As I said, I have never heard of that, although I suppose it might be possible.

I agree that the corners might be sharper with the 12-40, but that's just the lens and aperture, not the IS, I should think. Especially since neither lens has IS in the lens, which might be causing some funky interaction with the IBIS.
Oh yes - I'm absolutely sure of this. I took almost the same shot above without LiveND at 1/10s. Here is a crop from the centre of the two images side by side in LR (200% view on my 3240 x 2160 display):

1612990061694.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


The LiveND is marginally softer, but they are both perfectly acceptable.

Now here is the right hand edge:

1612990190291.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


There is now a noticeable difference. Unfortunately one shot is at f4, the other at f5.6 - but I know from experience that there isn't a big difference (the lens is max f2.8 at this focal length).

This is completely reproducible with the 8-18 once you get past about 0.5s.

My guess is that the left/right rotational motion of the IBIS is moving the image out of the focus plane.
 

RAH

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
1,622
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
It depends on how bad the hood is.
Agree, if it is just a little bit tight, wax may be the ticket.

The JJC hoods on the Canon 18-135 at school were TIGHT. So tight that you could not turn the hood.
I did try wax, with almost no change. Still too tight. And way too tight to risk it with my students.
So I attacked the problem, lack of enough clearance. I resorted to scrapping the hood, a LOT, to increase the clearance.

Side note: ALL of my plastic JJC hoods had to have some kind of adjustment to make them fit well. And these were hoods advertised as for the specific lenses.
I don't know if it is poor design specs, and lack of QC to test if the design works, or plastic shrinking after coming out of the mold.
I think we may be somewhat talking about 2 different things here. The JJC LH-J49 hood (specific to the O60mm macro lens, I think) has a pretty unique inner sleeve that allows the outer tube to slide up and down WHILE the hood is attached, extending the hood out. That's the part that is hard to move on my hood. I agree that some hoods are just difficult to lock onto the lens in a normal fashion (especially when they are inverted), but this O60 hood is pretty funky, a lot like the built-in hoods that slide in and out on some lenses. I'm going to try to wax idea... :)

Edit: I tried it. It helps a lot. It left some flecks of wax around the lens, but I cleaned them up and no more are appearing, so it is a success. :) That said, it doesn't move exactly nicely and I'm going to see how much an actual Olympus hood costs...
 
Last edited:

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
956
Location
Finland
Real Name
Riku
I'm still looking forward to that 8-25 f4 Pro lens. I love the little 9-18 for its small size and big capabilities, but a good 8-25 would be very interesting. Hope it's relatively compact and affordable. :)

Yeah, well they designed the 12-45mm f/4.0 Pro pretty small, but I think those great close focusing capabilities impacted its size a bit, and it was a good move.

Hard not to expect that this 8-25mm f/4.0 Pro is not a very similar release. Compact and great wide-open.

Regarding if it will be much better than PL 8-18 f/2.8-4.0, while being smaller, I'm not so sure. Shouldn't these be pretty similar sized? Olympus likely a bit sharper as it will be like 4 years newer design.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
3,961
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
It depends on how bad the hood is.
Agree, if it is just a little bit tight, wax may be the ticket.

The JJC hoods on the Canon 18-135 at school were TIGHT. So tight that you could not turn the hood.
I did try wax, with almost no change. Still too tight. And way too tight to risk it with my students.
So I attacked the problem, lack of enough clearance. I resorted to scrapping the hood, a LOT, to increase the clearance.

Side note: ALL of my plastic JJC hoods had to have some kind of adjustment to make them fit well. And these were hoods advertised as for the specific lenses.
I don't know if it is poor design specs, and lack of QC to test if the design works, or plastic shrinking after coming out of the mold.

I bought a JJC hood for the 14-42 II R kit lens, and it was so loose it'd fall off with the slightest bump. It's in the parts drawer now. :)
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
3,219
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
I bought a JJC hood for the 14-42 II R kit lens, and it was so loose it'd fall off with the slightest bump. It's in the parts drawer now. :)

Seems like the JJC plastic hoods are a roll of the dice.
Cheap, but they need work to fit. And if it does not fit, like yours, it is a waste of money.

I was at a shoot last week, and I got fed up with fiddling with mounting the JJC LH-78II hood (for a Canon lens), to the 40-150/2.8. What was easy to do at home, was a pain to do at the shoot. So I spent about 30 minutes with a small triangle file, trimming down the channel ridges to more easily go on/off the lens. Then I put an orange dot, on the hood, so I could see where to align it, to mount.
 

John King

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
2,547
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
My JJC hoods for 12-50 macro and 75-300 MkII were different.

The 12-50 hood fitted perfectly.

The 75-300 hood was far too tight. Looking closely, it seemed that the mold edges were not clean. About 20-30 minutes of careful cleaning with a pen knife, try, scrape again, try, worked wonders. A drop of liquid paper for mounting marks, and it is a nice snug fit, but not so tight that it's unusable.

A 6B pencil is good for lubrication, as is a cotton bud soaked in silicone based furniture polish.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
3,961
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
Seems like the JJC plastic hoods are a roll of the dice.
Cheap, but they need work to fit. And if it does not fit, like yours, it is a waste of money.

I was at a shoot last week, and I got fed up with fiddling with mounting the JJC LH-78II hood (for a Canon lens), to the 40-150/2.8. What was easy to do at home, was a pain to do at the shoot. So I spent about 30 minutes with a small triangle file, trimming down the channel ridges to more easily go on/off the lens. Then I put an orange dot, on the hood, so I could see where to align it, to mount.

Sorry this is getting OT. I have the same hood for my 40-150 Pro. It is not a great fit, but then again, was not intended for that lens. I use it because it doesn't have the risk of suddenly blowing up with ball bearings flying through the air (a little exaggeration :) ) and was cheap enough. It will reverse on the lens for storage. I keep the fancy OEM hood in storage in case I want to sell the lens at some later date.

I bought a JJC hood for my 45 f1.8 and it works fine. As you say, a bit of a crap shoot (pardon the rude, but correct words).
 

pake

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
2,442
Location
Finland
Real Name
Teemu
Hard not to expect that this 8-25mm f/4.0 Pro is not a very similar release. Compact and great wide-open.
Oh it better be! I was surprised how big & heavy the 12-100mm f/4 is when I got it. I hope I will be just as surprised of how tiny and lightweight the 8-25mm is when I get it. ;)
 

Mike Wingate

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
3,530
Location
Altrincham
Real Name
Mike Wingate
Just tried my JJC O60mm lens-hood on my P100-300. A total waste of time, no way will this fit. I shall try some fine adjustments with the chainsaw and some WD40 after lunch.
 

mawz

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
156
Very much looking forward to the 8-25, I hope it has as good close focus capabilities as the 12-45, I got spoiled by shooting the Laowa 15mm f4 macro on FF last year, the combination of 1:1 macro and UWA is incredible. Don't expect that close from the 8-25, but 12-45 level would be awesome.
 

doady

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
263
Location
Canada
I am keeping an eye out for a deal for 7-14mm but I think most likely 8-25mm would be better for me. Interesting range for cityscapes (my specialty), a bit cheaper, a bit more compact, and maybe will have filter threads too. 7-14mm would be wider and F2.8 would be useful for interiors, but the protruding and bulging front element and lack of filter threads makes be a bit uneasy, but I am still considering it.
 

John King

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
2,547
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
I am keeping an eye out for a deal for 7-14mm but I think most likely 8-25mm would be better for me. Interesting range for cityscapes (my specialty), a bit cheaper, a bit more compact, and maybe will have filter threads too. 7-14mm would be wider and F2.8 would be useful for interiors, but the protruding and bulging front element and lack of filter threads makes be a bit uneasy, but I am still considering it.
For anyone who generally likes the wider end of lenses, my old FTs 11-22 could be a very, very nice walk-around lens. I think that an 8-25 could be the ant's pants for users inclined that way.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,092
Location
Massachusetts, USA
For anyone who generally likes the wider end of lenses, my old FTs 11-22 could be a very, very nice walk-around lens.

Yes a very well regarded lens especially for shooting real estate and such because with the limited 2x zoom, they put their engineering into making the optics as distortion free (pin cushion, barrel, etc.) as possible (back when they didn't have fancy firmware to correct optical flaws like they do now).
 

doady

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
263
Location
Canada
I am a bit worried 8-25mm will rely too much of software correction at wide angle for the sake of the bigger zoom range. I just need UWA, right? Maybe something like a 10mm F1.4 is what I really need, but 8-25mm would be versatile and allow me to leave the 12-100mm at home more.

I was considering getting E-330 + 11-22mm back in the day, back when I considering getting to 4/3 system. 12-100mm seems more like the successor to 12-60mm which was not a lens I ever considered. Maybe the 8-25mm will be the m4/3 lens I wanted all along.
 

RAH

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
1,622
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
I am a bit worried 8-25mm will rely too much of software correction at wide angle for the sake of the bigger zoom range. I just need UWA, right? Maybe something like a 10mm F1.4 is what I really need, but 8-25mm would be versatile and allow me to leave the 12-100mm at home more.
Maybe what you really need is a PL8-18, if you are worried that the "8-25mm will rely too much of software correction at wide angle for the sake of the bigger zoom range." Especially if you "just need UWA." Right? :)
 
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