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

WT21

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
7,199
Location
Boston
This is ridiculous.
Why do you think a medical condition is of interest to those of us who visit this site for m43-centric information?

You can easily share info privately or create a thread in the Open Discussions. Or use Facebook.

Off topic posts ruin these forums for all of us.
I disagree. People being human to each other actually make a community. There are over 300 posts in this thread. One out of 300 isn't so bad, IMO. There are now more posts talking about this OT issue than there is the OT issue (3:1 as of this writing).
 

John King

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
2,011
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
BTW, our favorite rumor site reports that Olympus Germany says the 8-25 f4 is on the way! If the 8-25 is one lens, what do you think the 2nd is? The 100 mm macro?
https://www.43rumors.com/interview-...least-1-new-camera-and-2-new-lenses-per-year/
It's looking good, Walter.

As I said here

https://www.mu-43.com/threads/updat...tick-with-olympus.108783/page-14#post-1452389

This lens could well be the ant's pants for those who prefer the wider end for their photography.

I've already got those FLs well covered with high grade lenses, but for those who haven't ...
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
3,838
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
It's looking good, Walter.

As I said here

https://www.mu-43.com/threads/updat...tick-with-olympus.108783/page-14#post-1452389

This lens could well be the ant's pants for those who prefer the wider end for their photography.

I've already got those FLs well covered with high grade lenses, but for those who haven't ...
I have three lenses that get as wide as 12mm, but only my 9-18 and 9 BCL for UWA. My friend got the PL 8-18 because he wanted an ultra-wide zoom with weather-sealing and able to take screw-in filters. Olympus's 7-14 Pro didn't meet his needs. I like the small size of the 9-18. I'm hoping the 8-25 comes in between size and cost of 9-18 and 7-14. That'd hit my sweet spot. :)
 

John King

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
2,011
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
I have three lenses that get as wide as 12mm, but only my 9-18 and 9 BCL for UWA. My friend got the PL 8-18 because he wanted an ultra-wide zoom with weather-sealing and able to take screw-in filters. Olympus's 7-14 Pro didn't meet his needs. I like the small size of the 9-18. I'm hoping the 8-25 comes in between size and cost of 9-18 and 7-14. That'd hit my sweet spot. :)
I've already got the FTs f/4 7-14 and 11-22, so cover this range very well.
 

doady

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
193
Location
Canada
Because I shoot cityscape/architecture mostly, 8-25mm f4 could end up becoming my main lens, and I leave 12-100mm at home. But smaller size might also complement 12-100mm better too, easier to carry them together and use them interchangeably.
Carrying both 7-14 and 12-100 together in the bag on a long walk might be too much for me. Plus, I have to save up for that 100mm macro, right? A smaller, cheaper, more versatile 8-25mm f4 will probably be better for me than 7-14mm f2.8, especially if it has filter threads.
 

RAH

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
1,531
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
I have three lenses that get as wide as 12mm, but only my 9-18 and 9 BCL for UWA. My friend got the PL 8-18 because he wanted an ultra-wide zoom with weather-sealing and able to take screw-in filters. Olympus's 7-14 Pro didn't meet his needs. I like the small size of the 9-18. I'm hoping the 8-25 comes in between size and cost of 9-18 and 7-14. That'd hit my sweet spot. :)
If I didn't have the 8-18 already, the 8-25 would have me VERY interested. I think I'd give up the f2.8 at the widest aperture to get the extra reach at the far end on the 8-25. Size and weight would probably be the determining factor. But I do have the 8-18, so GAS will be the big factor if the 8-25 is good...
 

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
851
Location
Finland
If I didn't have the 8-18 already, the 8-25 would have me VERY interested. I think I'd give up the f2.8 at the widest aperture to get the extra reach at the far end on the 8-25. Size and weight would probably be the determining factor. But I do have the 8-18, so GAS will be the big factor if the 8-25 is good...
I have always wondered why such lenses as PL 8-18 lose the light advantage of f/2.8 so fast when zoomed. But I realized that with wide-end, f/2.8 will give plenty of DoF, so is quite handy in low-light.

Do you find it this way? Personally I would think that is more useful with our system than the extra 18-25mm, but of course depends on the needs. Especially as people usually have something like 12-40mm Pro, 12-45 Pro or 12-100mm Pro also with them.

Do others think that these lenses will likely be quite similar in size? Or how does this focal length vs f-number work? Of course the size will depend also on the sharpness of the lens etc. in different areas.
 

RAH

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
1,531
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
I will admit that whenever I use my 9-18 or 8-18, it is almost always used at the absolute widest FL. I mean, that's kind of the point. Otherwise I'd be using my P12-35 or PL12-60. I suppose that the 8-25 gives the promise of a more do-all lens where you might use its top FL too (so it would be a 2-trick pony instead of a one), plus sometimes the ones in between, I guess. However, in actual use, I think for me I'd still just be using 8 and using something else if I wanted something more standard.

As far as size, Olympus has never seemed to try to make its lenses smaller, at least perhaps till recently. I mean, for example, the 12-40 is quite a bit larger than the the P12-35, although they are both 2.8 lenses. So I don't hold much hope that the 8-25 will be even similar in size to the 8-18 (let alone smaller). Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprise (e.g. the 12-45 gives me hope).
 

doady

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
193
Location
Canada
In my experience, it's fun and easy to move the feet and camera with ultra-wide, maybe even the proper technique for using ultra-wide, zooming is more necessary for telephoto. So maybe I would actually prefer if they came out with a 10mm f1.4 or something like that, a bright prime to complement my dark superzoom 12-100, but ultra-wide to normal "standard" lens is intriguing too, I won't be too picky.
 

Moula

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
173
I will admit that whenever I use my 9-18 or 8-18, it is almost always used at the absolute widest FL. I mean, that's kind of the point. Otherwise I'd be using my P12-35 or PL12-60. I suppose that the 8-25 gives the promise of a more do-all lens where you might use its top FL too (so it would be a 2-trick pony instead of a one), plus sometimes the ones in between, I guess. However, in actual use, I think for me I'd still just be using 8 and using something else if I wanted something more standard.
I think 8-25 will typically not being paired with 12-x. More likely it will be used either standalone (a bit like replacement of 12-x for some), or in combination with 40-150, 50-200 or so...
 

RAH

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
1,531
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
I think 8-25 will typically not being paired with 12-x. More likely it will be used either standalone (a bit like replacement of 12-x for some), or in combination with 40-150, 50-200 or so...
Yes, I agree that that is the idea behind the lens. However, I wonder if 25mm at the top is really enough. So what I think will happen is that folks will find that 25mm on the top is NOT enough and they'll wind up using the 8-25 the same way they use the 9-18 and the 8-18 - as an ultra-wide - most of the time. I'm sure that's what I would do, but different strokes... :)
 

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
851
Location
Finland
In my experience, it's fun and easy to move the feet and camera with ultra-wide, maybe even the proper technique for using ultra-wide, zooming is more necessary for telephoto. So maybe I would actually prefer if they came out with a 10mm f1.4 or something like that, a bright prime to complement my dark superzoom 12-100, but ultra-wide to normal "standard" lens is intriguing too, I won't be too picky.
Are you sure you want the size of 10mm f/1.4?

As far as I understand with M43, the wider the lens (with great quality), the bigger it is. So think about that PL 12mm f/1.4 lens, but only bigger. I'd much rather see a 9mm or 10mm f/1.6-f/1.8 (max. 2.0, but I don't think they would do that for a Pro lens) lens to keep the size down. Unless they can make it the same size as other new Pro-primes somehow?

From the left, Voigtlander 10.5mm f/0.95, PL 12 f/1.4, Olympus 17mm f/1.2 and Olympus 12mm f/2.0.

(Voigtlander doesn't match Olympus Pro-primes sharpness from wide-open etc. I think, so it is "small".)

Screen Shot 02-23-21 at 04.47 PM.PNG
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,909
Location
Massachusetts, USA
However, I wonder if 25mm at the top is really enough. So what I think will happen is that folks will find that 25mm on the top is NOT enough
I know back in the four thirds days both the 7-14 and the 11-22 were popular lenses and those who used them tended to be primarily wide angle only shooters. But to your point, I think those people might have been more the exception than the rule and it really depends on how much a person wants a general purpose lens vs. a more niche lens coupled with how much they are willing to swap lenses in the field.


Are you sure you want the size of 10mm f/1.4?
Especially when now you have camera bodies that can de-fish the 8mm f1.8 PRO lens which puts you in the ballpark of "10mm" (not sure what you end up with if you have to crop the result to make a rectangular image again) and f1.8 is plenty fast for most uses (assuming the fast aperture on a fisheye is not for DoF but instead faster shutters and/or lower ISO).
 

Moula

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
173
Yes, I agree that that is the idea behind the lens. However, I wonder if 25mm at the top is really enough. So what I think will happen is that folks will find that 25mm on the top is NOT enough and they'll wind up using the 8-25 the same way they use the 9-18 and the 8-18 - as an ultra-wide - most of the time. I'm sure that's what I would do, but different strokes... :)
I've been using 9-18 (on FT) exclusively for about 4 years (mostly fixed on 10), before switching to 17/1.8 (on MFT) due to changed needs. So I'm sure 8-25 would suit me great if I need general purpose weather-sealed zoom. ;-)
 

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
851
Location
Finland
Especially when now you have camera bodies that can de-fish the 8mm f1.8 PRO lens which puts you in the ballpark of "10mm" (not sure what you end up with if you have to crop the result to make a rectangular image again) and f1.8 is plenty fast for most uses (assuming the fast aperture on a fisheye is not for DoF but instead faster shutters and/or lower ISO).
Yeah. I wonder if 10mm f/1.4-f/1.8 can do enough separation unless closer to MFD. What I mean, can these lenses compete with FF wide-lenses for DoF ever?

For that kind of shooting it is recommended to choose a FF camera and lenses I think. It's one of the areas where FF shines, because of the sensor size. PL 12mm f/1.4 still costs something like 1400 €, and 10mm gives less separation.
 

doady

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
193
Location
Canada
Are you sure you want the size of 10mm f/1.4?

As far as I understand with M43, the wider the lens (with great quality), the bigger it is. So think about that PL 12mm f/1.4 lens, but only bigger. I'd much rather see a 9mm or 10mm f/1.6-f/1.8 (max. 2.0, but I don't think they would do that for a Pro lens) lens to keep the size down. Unless they can make it the same size as other new Pro-primes somehow?
Maybe 10mm F1.6 would be more realistic, or 8mm F1.8, I don't know the exact numbers. But I think you guys get the idea: an ultra-wide prime, Pro quality, brighter aperture for interiors, but a bit more compact than 7-14mm F2.8 at the same time. But as I said, I won't be too picky, 8-25mm F4 will probably be more than good enough.
 
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