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

comment23

mu-43 frequent flyer
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
1,918
Location
Hampshire, UK
Real Name
Simon
I think you're overthinking my comment. It was a comment/observation, nothing more.

I understand why it doesn't apply to the RAW file, it's pretty much impossible. A RAW file is a raw data dump of what's on the camera sensor. If the camera processor has to apply any processing or correction, technically it's no longer a RAW file.
Except for automatic lens corrections... 😉
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
1,289
Location
Brisbane, Australia
Real Name
Angus
Except for automatic lens corrections... 😉
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is the camera bakes the instructions for the RAW processor on how to make the corrections into the RAW file. IE, the camera doesn't actually do the correction, it just provides information for the RAW processor to make the correction itself (similar to White Balance)
 

comment23

mu-43 frequent flyer
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
1,918
Location
Hampshire, UK
Real Name
Simon
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is the camera bakes the instructions for the RAW processor on how to make the corrections into the RAW file. IE, the camera doesn't actually do the correction, it just provides information for the RAW processor to make the correction itself (similar to White Balance)
Correct as I understand it too. Wonder if this could be possible with FE corrections.
 

Dave Black

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Dec 14, 2019
Messages
44
Does the Olympus 8mm f1.8 Pro not work for you?

With the built in defish in the newer bodies it is kind nice.

Or if you don't want to defish you could get the Kowa 8.5mm f2.8 which has some nice photos here on the fora.
I do own the Olympus 8mm/f1.8 Fisheye lens and like it a lot. Still it is a fisheye lens that needs to be defished. Plus it does not take threaded filters.
The Kowa 8.5mm/f2.8 is manual focus so Starry Sky AF of the E-M1.3 will not work. Plus is is too slow at f2.8 for astro-landscape. I would just use my 7-14mm/f2.8 instead of buying the Kowa 8mm/f2.8.
I would love to have a 9mm or 10mm f1.4 or f1.8 that is not a fisheye and does take threaded filters to complement my 12-40/2.8, 12-100/4.0 zoom lenses.
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
1,289
Location
Brisbane, Australia
Real Name
Angus
Correct as I understand it too. Wonder if this could be possible with FE corrections.
That's not the camera applying automatic lens correction then.

Probably could be but it's a different nature of correction (if that makes sense). IE. Generally you're buying the 8mm fisheye because it's a fisheye, not because it's a fast ultra-wide lens. The fisheye effect is intentional.

Don't forget as well with other lenses the correction instruction-set is built into the lens, not the camera body. With the defish, it's functionality built into the camera. It might just not be possible to put the instructions in the lens with its current hardware.


Plus it does not take threaded filters.
Not uncommon for ultra wides to not have threads though.
 

Dave Black

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Dec 14, 2019
Messages
44
That's not the camera applying automatic lens correction then.

Probably could be but it's a different nature of correction (if that makes sense). IE. Generally you're buying the 8mm fisheye because it's a fisheye, not because it's a fast ultra-wide lens. The fisheye effect is intentional.

Don't forget as well with other lenses the correction instruction-set is built into the lens, not the camera body. With the defish, it's functionality built into the camera. It might just not be possible to put the instructions in the lens with its current hardware.




Not uncommon for ultra wides to not have threads though.
That is true. That is why I have an filter holder and adapter for the 7-14/2.8. I kind of expect the upcoming 8-25/4.0 will take threaded filters and be more compact than the 7-14/2.8. I usually don't have the 7-14/2.8 in my normal kit because of the bulk, especially when the filter holder is packed.
 
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,113
Olympus has to come out with a great 50-200 f3.5 in m43 mount to get me interested.

Another macro... meh. I can slap a Raynox 150 on any lens to make it a macro and that gives me unlimited focal length options. More wide angle lense... also meh since the world is full of possiblities.

But I would certainly pay for a better m43 version of the 50-200 SWD that does real CAF.
 

Mike Wingate

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
3,388
Location
Altrincham
Real Name
Mike Wingate
The Panasonic Leica 50-200 is only splash/dust/freeze-proof. Splash Proof does not guarantee that damage will not occur if this lens is subjected to direct contact with water. Whereas I have seen people rinsing Olympus camera/lens combos under a running tap.
 

Zman

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2016
Messages
685
Olympus has to come out with a great 50-200 f3.5 in m43 mount to get me interested.

Another macro... meh. I can slap a Raynox 150 on any lens to make it a macro and that gives me unlimited focal length options. More wide angle lense... also meh since the world is full of possiblities.

But I would certainly pay for a better m43 version of the 50-200 SWD that does real CAF.
I thought I read someplace that the 50-200 shown on the Oly lens lineup would be f4, if that matters. I keep looking at the old 50-200's, but when I add up the cost of the lens plus Oly adapter, I've decided to wait and see if they ever come out with the new lens. I'm hoping ...
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,781
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Looks like a great lens, and hope to find some discounts on it someday.
Certainly, but you did say...
But I would certainly pay for a better m43 version of the 50-200 SWD that does real CAF.
Considering both versions of the 50-200 (the first non-SWD and later the SWD) were $1000+ lenses back in their day, any modern m43 lens that is even as good, let alone better, you would have to expect to pay over $1000 for that lens as well. That is one of the reasons the old ZD 50-200s stay relevant today since it is a hard bargain to beat getting a $1k+ high quality lens for pennies on the dollar. You just need to get the ever harder to find adapter and a PDAF model to take full advantage of it.


I thought I read someplace that the 50-200 shown on the Oly lens lineup would be f4, if that matters. I keep looking at the old 50-200's, but when I add up the cost of the lens plus Oly adapter, I've decided to wait and see if they ever come out with the new lens.
Ya but same comment as above. Everyone hoping to get that quality & performance in a lens and not have to also pay for it is dreaming. If they want to keep the price down then they have to start compromising and going to f4 is a start like they did with the 12-45 PRO vs. the 12-40 PRO. This is why the 40-150 PRO is as expensive as it is. The old 50-200 lens were not constant aperture but they only closed down 2/3rds a stop through their focal range. I could see Oly making a (45)50-200 F4 PRO lens to go with the 12-45 PRO and not compete directly with the 40-150 PRO, but like the 12-45, while it will be cheaper, it won't be cheap.

Usually where you can get a good deal on a 50-200+MMF-3 is finding someone who upgraded to a new lens and no longer needs the combination. They often price the set not much more than the lens itself. It is trying to find an MMF-3 by itself where I am seeing a lot of price gouging these days.
 

doady

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
154
Location
Canada
There is already a 50-230mm grouped with the F4 lenses on the road map, and 50-200mm is grouped with the F2.8 lenses on the map, so I'm guessing 50-200mm will be F2.8 as well. The 4/3 50-200mm is also F2.8 at the wide end and only goes down to F3.5 at the telephoto end so I can't imagine the m4/3 version being worse.

It could be hard to justify the 40-150mm F2.8 if 40-150mm F4, 50-200 F2.8, and 50-230 F4 added to the lineup, so I wouldn't be surprised if upcoming lenses are meant to replace older lens as well, especially if the newer lenses have IS, which the older lens lacks.

Btw, I read somewhere (maybe here) that the SWD version of the old 50-200 does not last very long, so I would probably avoid that version at least.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
3,751
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
Certainly, but you did say...


Considering both versions of the 50-200 (the first non-SWD and later the SWD) were $1000+ lenses back in their day, any modern m43 lens that is even as good, let alone better, you would have to expect to pay over $1000 for that lens as well. That is one of the reasons the old ZD 50-200s stay relevant today since it is a hard bargain to beat getting a $1k+ high quality lens for pennies on the dollar. You just need to get the ever harder to find adapter and a PDAF model to take full advantage of it.




Ya but same comment as above. Everyone hoping to get that quality & performance in a lens and not have to also pay for it is dreaming. If they want to keep the price down then they have to start compromising and going to f4 is a start like they did with the 12-45 PRO vs. the 12-40 PRO. This is why the 40-150 PRO is as expensive as it is. The old 50-200 lens were not constant aperture but they only closed down 2/3rds a stop through their focal range. I could see Oly making a (45)50-200 F4 PRO lens to go with the 12-45 PRO and not compete directly with the 40-150 PRO, but like the 12-45, while it will be cheaper, it won't be cheap.

Usually where you can get a good deal on a 50-200+MMF-3 is finding someone who upgraded to a new lens and no longer needs the combination. They often price the set not much more than the lens itself. It is trying to find an MMF-3 by itself where I am seeing a lot of price gouging these days.
In fact, I need to put my 50-200 SWD+MMF-3 up for sale. Haven't gotten it together yet. Bought a 100-400 and already got the 40-150 Pro.
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
3,083
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
I wonder what changes will happen to the roadmap with JIP running the show?
There are some neat lenses on the roadmap, but if they have not been designed . . . Did JIP retain the optical and manufacturing engineers needed to design and manufacture those lenses?
While I am hopeful, my expectations have gone down.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
3,751
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
I wonder what changes will happen to the roadmap with JIP running the show?
There are some neat lenses on the roadmap, but if they have not been designed . . . Did JIP retain the optical and manufacturing engineers needed to design and manufacture those lenses?
While I am hopeful, my expectations have gone down.
I believe the press releases or interviews said that the R&D people are going with JIP. Manufacturing will continue at the Vietnam factory.
 

Mike Wingate

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
3,388
Location
Altrincham
Real Name
Mike Wingate
Surprised at the number of f4 lenses appearing. And people singing their praises. My P7-14 gets so much stick for being a slow f4 In comments on various forums and reviews. Plus lacking the ability to take filters without the use of a diy hood, or the use of blu tack.
 
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