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

[Dion Houston Sr.]

Great discussion - I'm really trying to figure out the wide side. Right now the widest I have is the 12 on my 12-40mm Pro. But I essentially have two kits -- the "heavy" one with the 12-40mm and 40-150mm f/2.8 pros, and the "light" one with the consumer 17, 45, and 40-150mm el cheapola. I'm assuming since the 8-25mm is f4 that it's lighter (and obviously wider) then the 12-40mm Pro. So that's tempting for my light kit. Frankly, that's going to come down to price.

If the new lens is either expensive or heavy, I'm thinking a prime. But I don't know what's good and economical (a few thousand in lenses already makes another one a non-starter with my chief... aka wife).

 

[Hypilein]

I currently go on trips with only the 8-18 and 35-100. The Gap really is no big deal. Probably in most cases the 8-25mm would be even nicer, but I don't think I will switch lenses as that usually involves some added cost. Also I like the idea of having f2.8 in dim interiors or for astro. This is a rare use case for me though.

Certainly a nice lens for those who only shoot Olympus lenses (there seem to be a view) and also those looking for a can do everything wide angle as the way from 18-25 is certainly helpful.

 

[RS86]

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.

Yeah. I bet they won't make rectiliner 8mm f/1.8, when they have the same fish-eye that can be easily corrected, although losing resolution.

Venus Laowa has now some great small M43 wide primes, so I would think OMDS would try to make a better quality and faster 10mm prime, similar to the PL 12mm f/1.4. But like I said, the size will be an issue if it's too fast.

 

[RS86]

Great discussion - I'm really trying to figure out the wide side. Right now the widest I have is the 12 on my 12-40mm Pro. But I essentially have two kits -- the "heavy" one with the 12-40mm and 40-150mm f/2.8 pros, and the "light" one with the consumer 17, 40, and 40-150mm el cheapola. I'm assuming since the 8-25mm is f4 that it's lighter (and obviously wider) then the 12-40mm Pro. So that's tempting for my light kit. Frankly, that's going to come down to price.

If the new lens is either expensive or heavy, I'm thinking a prime. But I don't know what's good and economical (a few thousand in lenses already makes another one a non-starter with my chief... aka wife).

I think a prime lens makes more sense than 8-25mm with the 12-40. That's just too much overlap. Personally I have the small Olympus 9-18mm lens, just because it is so small and I don't need wider than 12mm very often, but it's important to have. But I bought it when there was no Laowa lenses.

The newest Laowa 10mm f/2.0 lens has electric contacts (no AF, but not a big problem with focus peaking & such a wide lens with big DoF), so I might have chosen that one if I bought a super wide lens currently. But the switch would cost too much for my usage.

 

[Dion Houston Sr.]

I think a prime lens makes more sense than 8-25mm with the 12-40. That's just too much overlap. Personally I have the small Olympus 9-18mm lens, just because it is so small and I don't need wider than 12mm very often, but it's important to have. But I bought it when there was no Laowa lenses.

The newest Laowa 10mm f/2.0 lens has electric contacts (no AF, but not a big problem with focus peaking & such a wide lens with big DoF), so I might have chosen that one if I bought a super wide lens currently. But the switch would cost too much for my usage.

You know, I'm not against MF lenses -- my Dad gifted me a large collection of Pentax lenses (and a film camera) this Christmas. Of course nothing wide for M43, but they weren't terrible to focus, and had great results, and that at a few decades old. So maybe the Laowa's would be a good choice.

I just get really spoiled with auto-focus. I can't help but think that back in the day shooting birds with a large focal length and film must have been an art in frustration... But on the wide side, I shoot mostly stuff that doesn't move...

 

[mawz]

I think a prime lens makes more sense than 8-25mm with the 12-40. That's just too much overlap. Personally I have the small Olympus 9-18mm lens, just because it is so small and I don't need wider than 12mm very often, but it's important to have. But I bought it when there was no Laowa lenses.

The newest Laowa 10mm f/2.0 lens has electric contacts (no AF, but not a big problem with focus peaking & such a wide lens with big DoF), so I might have chosen that one if I bought a super wide lens currently. But the switch would cost too much for my usage.

Agreed, the 8-25 makes more sense to me when paired with a tele zoom with maybe a prime in the gap (Sigma 30 would be perfect for that)

I'd love to see Laowa update their non-electronic MFT lenses now that they are in the consortium and can do electronic lenses. The 7.5 and 17 would be even better if fully integrated.

The 7.5 or 10 both make more sense for pairing with the 12-40 than the 8-25 would be, the latter is more of a replacement for the wide shooter.

 

[RS86]

You know, I'm not against MF lenses -- my Dad gifted me a large collection of Pentax lenses (and a film camera) this Christmas. Of course nothing wide for M43, but they weren't terrible to focus, and had great results, and that at a few decades old. So maybe the Laowa's would be a good choice.

I just get really spoiled with auto-focus. I can't help but think that back in the day shooting birds with a large focal length and film must have been an art in frustration... But on the wide side, I shoot mostly stuff that doesn't move...

Another thing is that a wide lens such 10mm, will have great DoF mostly. As so, much is in focus no matter where you put the focus on, and mostly can keep it at a certain position always if you have f/4.0+ chosen. But I'm not the best with these maths.

 

[Dion Houston Sr.]

OK, so I guess a related question - I can't imagine except when I'm trying to be particularly artsy, that I'd generally want to take photos in fisheye which it seems the bulk of ultrawide angle lenses are at. I know my OM-D E-M1.2 and LightRoom/PhotoShop can correct that, but is it lossless? I.e. does it look the same or should I specifically look for rectilinear lenses?

 

[RAH]

OK, so I guess a related question - I can't imagine except when I'm trying to be particularly artsy, that I'd generally want to take photos in fisheye which it seems the bulk of ultrawide angle lenses are at. I know my OM-D E-M1.2 and LightRoom/PhotoShop can correct that, but is it lossless? I.e. does it look the same or should I specifically look for rectilinear lenses?

If you defish an image, you get blurry, distorted edges. On the other hand, you can afford to crop some of that off because it is VERY wide (wider than 7mm rectilinear with the Oly 8mm FE). I posted an example here:
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/dilemma-8mm-f-1-8-pro-fisheye-or-7-14mm-f-2-8-uwa.108031/post-1373522

 

[SteveAdler]

If you defish an image, you get blurry, distorted edges. On the other hand, you can afford to crop some of that off because it is VERY wide (wider than 7mm rectilinear with the Oly 8mm FE). I posted an example here:
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/dilemma-8mm-f-1-8-pro-fisheye-or-7-14mm-f-2-8-uwa.108031/post-1373522

If you center the horizon in the fisheye photo distortion is minimized and you don't need to de-fish.

 

[Hypilein]

If you center the horizon in the fisheye photo distortion is minimized and you don't need to de-fish.

Not really. If you have any other straight line nearer to the edge you will see the distortion. It is true that a straight line through the middle usually stays straight, but the horizon in the middle is also often not the most pleasing compositionally.

If we get a few more mp in the next generation of cameras defishing will be more attractive though.

 

[mawz]

OK, so I guess a related question - I can't imagine except when I'm trying to be particularly artsy, that I'd generally want to take photos in fisheye which it seems the bulk of ultrawide angle lenses are at. I know my OM-D E-M1.2 and LightRoom/PhotoShop can correct that, but is it lossless? I.e. does it look the same or should I specifically look for rectilinear lenses?

Most UWA's are rectilinear, by far. There's a number of fisheyes, but they mostly sit in bags, in large part because correction is not lossless and using them is actually pretty hard. They can be easy to design, so there's a decent number of cheap ones out there for people on a budget and willing to accept the IQ loss to get really wide on a budget.

 

[PakkyT]

If you center the horizon in the fisheye photo distortion is minimized and you don't need to de-fish.

Well the horizon line distortion will be minimized. But things up top or below will tend to lean in on the photo (building, trees, etc.)

 

[Holoholo55]

BTW, our favorite rumor site reports that OM Digital Solutions will be making announcements at CP on Thursday. Do I hear an 8-25 f4 Pro?
https://www.43rumors.com/om-digital...ome-future-product-details-on-thursday-at-cp/

 

[Mike Wingate]

Big and heavy, or light and small. Why have a zoom when you only shoot at the widest setting. The zoom always loses speed as you open it up. Are you willing to wait perhaps a year for an Olympus, when you can get the 7.5 mm, f2 Laowa rectilinear WA lens. Just keep your feet out of the shot.

 

[PakkyT]

The zoom always loses speed as you open it up.

 

[John King]

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...

Some of us - e.g. me - like to have lots of overlap in our lenses.

 

[John King]

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.

It depends on the lens design.

An example. The FTs 14-54 MkII and 50-200 MkI both stopped down in a relatively linear fashion. The 50-200 MkII (different optics) almost immediately stopped down from f/2.8 to f/3.5.

The 50-200 MkI was still f/2.8 until after 98mm.

 

[John King]

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.

There's already the f/1.8 8mm Olympus. It's a fish eye that is also an UWA rectilinear ...

 

[SteveAdler]

Well the horizon line distortion will be minimized. But things up top or below will tend to lean in on the photo (building, trees, etc.)

I like distortion. Straight lines are so boring.