Waiting for a great Olympus or Panasonic 10mm or 10.5mm prime

[Amin]

I can see how those who like to walk around with a 25mm lens might find a 12mm or 14mm to be a good counterpart. But for some of us who like to walk around with a 17 or 17.5mm lens as our wide "normal" - and there are a lot of us in that category - a 10 or 10.5mm lens may be a better complement.

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

We've got a bunch of options at many of the focal lengths. The only primes we have at 10 or 10.5mm are quite heavy (Voigtlander, Rokinon) or not the greatest performers for landscape (SLR Magic). I've long been expecting to see Olympus or Panasonic bring something out. Still waiting!

 

[Dogbert62]

Amin,
I have a very similar desire for a UWA. However, we want slightly different things (I think). I want a small and light landscape lens. So, I would prefer a 8-9mm f/2.0. Alternatively, an IQ upgrade of the 9-18mm would also work. It doesn't have bad IQ but....
My guess is that trying to satisfy all/most UWA folks (walk around... landscape... astro... architecture..) with one lens is a tough nut to crack...

But... I agree... a rectilinear UWA seems like a hole in the lens lineup..

Dogbert

 

[drd1135]

That image is a great aid to seeing the different field of view corresponding to each focal length. As for the 10 mm, I'm just getting used to the 12. When I was shooting with Pentax APS-C, I never had more than 20 mm(equiv) and actually sold my 14 mm prime because it just wasn't being used. I really should make an effort to see more in the wider FoV.

 

[davidzvi]

You would think with both Olympus and Panasonic having zooms starting at 7mm and 9mm that we might have a prime in that range as well. But they didn't have one for 4/3's either and if you look at the big boys in the DSLR world there are only a handful of wide primes. And their zooms are still notably wider.

 

[tkbslc]

I think this need is compounded by the narrower aspect ratio of 4/3. 24mm equiv for us is like 25mm equiv on 2:3 - comparing the longest edge of their frame.

 

[Carbonman]

10mm or 10.5mm isn't wide enough for superwide in my use cases; 7mm or 8mm is the magnitude of change from 12mm that makes sense for me. I'd much rather haul a prime in this focal length than one of the bulky, expensive zooms. I think someone would sell boatloads of this sort of focal length in an f4.0 max aperture if they brought it to market.
Rokinon is starting to produce lenses with electronic connections. Maybe they will be the ones to market something like this first.

 

[Hypilein]

I doubt that if they release one, that it's going to be F4 and compact. Look at the new PL12. It's as big (bigger?) as the P7-14, which I find is quite a good size for a mu43 lens. I don't really need it to be smaller than that, but larger like the O7-14 is definitely too large. I'm personally still waiting for a weather sealed 8-16 (or similar, but wider than 9) that takes filters. Although I did create a filter solution for my P7-14 it is extremely big (105mm thread)

 

[Amin]

10mm or 10.5mm isn't wide enough for superwide in my use cases; 7mm or 8mm is the magnitude of change from 12mm that makes sense for me.

If I used 12mm often, I'd feel the same way. My most used lens is 17mm, and if I have to pick one wide FL to complement that, it would be 10mm.


Sent from my iPhone using Mu-43 mobile app

 

[nstelemark]

I certainly agree with this. I ended up with the 8mm Pro because it was truly wide (not rectilinear obviously). I'd like to see some wider rectilinear primes in this range too.

 

[ijm5012]

This and a fast (f/1.4 or 1.2) 17.5mm seem to be the biggest gaps in the m43 prime lens range.

I'm not certain they could do a 10mm f/1.4, just because of how large the front element/filter threads would be. Just look at the new PL12, a 24mm f/1.4 lens with a 62mm filter thread. Going wider while maintaining that speed would facilitate the need for an even larger element, but maybe they could get away with something like a 10mm f/2 and still keep the front element of a reasonable size. Fuji have a 14mm (21mm eqv FoV) f/2.8 lens that fits an APS-C sensor and it has 58mm filter threads. With the smaller m43 sensor, would it be possible to go a bit wider (20mm eqv FoV), and a stop faster, but maintain the 58mm filter size or even step up to 62mm?

I'm still waiting for a fast 17.5. I honestly had planned to rent a Fuji XT1 with the 23 f/1.4 and 56 f/1.2 for this upcoming weekend (4th of July), but cancelled the order after really thinking whether I wanted to spend $200 on renting the gear. The PL15 is nice from a optical performance standpoint, but the 30mm FoV is noticeably wider than the 35mm FoV, and it would be nice to have an f/1.4 aperture vs. the f/1.7.

I've had grand illusions many times of just using m43 for their fantastic zoom lenses (7-14, 12-35, 35-100 f/2.8 & 50-200), and moving to Fuji for their primes.

 

[Deleted member 20897]

I can see where some people would benefit from a wider/faster prime.

I'm happy right now with the Oly 9-18 as it is. Pulled some nice shots from my recent trip to NYC with it.

I believe that we will start seeing faster primes (f/1.2 I believe is the most recent rumor), so maybe they will do something faster....we'll just have to live with the size if they do.

 

[tkbslc]

I've had grand illusions many times of just using m43 for their fantastic zoom lenses (7-14, 12-35, 35-100 f/2.8 & 50-200), and moving to Fuji for their primes.

Fuji has nice zooms, too, though.

 

[Turbofrog]

Fuji has nice zooms, too, though.

With the exception of the 18-55 kit lens, though, they tend to FF size and price...

...but I shan't say another word on the subject. I fear the topic is already heading towards a pear-shaped Fuji vs. M4/3 thread, as they so often tend to do...

 

[tkbslc]

I'm still waiting for a fast 17.5. I honestly had planned to rent a Fuji XT1 with the 23 f/1.4 and 56 f/1.2 for this upcoming weekend (4th of July), but cancelled the order after really thinking whether I wanted to spend $200 on renting the gear. The PL15 is nice from a optical performance standpoint, but the 30mm FoV is noticeably wider than the 35mm FoV, and it would be nice to have an f/1.4 aperture vs. the f/1.7.

I've had similar thoughts, but would your pictures actually be any better? Could anyone tell? IMO, if you are going to be so worried about max bg blur control at wide angle, then you just need to go FF.

Using Fuji X Lenses vs Canon Full Frame Lenses - Ottawa Wedding & Portrait Photography

As you can see from the first shot, Fuji 23mm f1.4 still has weak bg blur, even in a large room.

 

[ijm5012]

@tkbslc, yes they do. But as @Turbofrog said, they can be quite large and heavy. This comparison shows the size difference, as Fuji's f/2.8 "standard" zoom is larger than the 7-14 f/2.8 (which I own, and find manageable given what it offers in terms of speed and FoV), 120g heavier, AND it extends making the balance even more difficult. For me personally, that's too big and heavy for what it offers. But the same comparison shows the 18-55 and the 12-35, which are basically equal in size and weight. Obviously, the 18-55 lacks the 24mm FoV on the wide end, and it also isn't weather sealed. It's a great performer, but I'd still take the 12-35 or 12-40 over it.

Where Fuji really shines IMO is with their prime lenses though. I admit they don't have the small and compact primes that m43 does have (although they're working on it). IMO, where Fuji really excels is with their fast, optically excellent prime lenses, that when compared to their m43 counterparts, aren't all that much larger.

Now sure, there are downsides to the Fuji system. Most notably is the lack of any image stabilization with the Fuji primes (which is probably the biggest advantage of Olympus). However there are some benefits as well, namely the better high ISO performance (about 2/3 stop better) and ability to generate a shallower DoF/greater OoF backgrounds. There are tradeoffs with every system, it's just a matter of finding what works best for the type of shooting you like to do. Some have left m43 for Fuji and come running back. There have been others who have done the same, and never looked back. Ultimately, the only way to find out is to use a camera for a few days and see for yourself.

Personally, I can deal with primes the size of the f/1.4 Fuji's, because I don't view them as being all that large. There are others who will disagree, but that's the great thing about the m43 system is that we have the ability to choose whether we want to use the small, compact primes and zooms, or step up to the larger, stunning primes and zooms.

It appears to be going this way, and I hope it continues, that Panasonic and Olympus are delivering larger, faster primes lenses with the 42.5 f/1.2, 12mm f/1.4, and rumored 25mm f/1.2. I hope that they continue to build out the "professional" level of primes, and do so sooner rather than later.

 

[ijm5012]

I've had similar thoughts, but would your pictures actually be any better? Could anyone tell? IMO, if you are going to be so worried about max bg blur control at wide angle, then you just need to go FF.

Using Fuji X Lenses vs Canon Full Frame Lenses - Ottawa Wedding & Portrait Photography

As you can see from the first shot, Fuji 23mm f1.4 still has weak bg blur, even in a large room.

FF serves no interest to me. While the cameras may be small like the A7 series, they lack the functionality of a Panasonic/Olympus/Fuji (typical Sony device, right?). On top of that, the lenses are just massive. I'm OK with the size of the f/1.4 Fuji primes, but not f/1.4 FF primes.

And as for the difference, sure it's subtle. In the same way that the ISO performance between m43 to APS-C is subtle, and APS-C to FF is subtle, but each increment matters. The same is true when it comes to DoF/OoF backgrounds. The marginal improvements really can make a difference, as the 23mm f/1.4 yields the same DoF as the Voigtlander 17.5 shot wide open, but can AF, and is definitely better optically when shooting wide open.

I can generate the type of backgrounds I want with my PL15 when the conditions are right, but it generally involves having to get closer to my subject (30mm FoV vs 35mm FoV), and having the background be a sufficient distance away. If that PL12 would have been a 17.5 f/1.4, my PL15 & PL25 would've been up for sale and I'd be on the pre-order list. I'm still holding out hope that once will come, as the PL15 was a compromised design, built to suit a series of Panasonic cameras that appears to have been abandoned (the GM line).

 

[Yong]

10.5mm should be world different from 12mm when it comes to perspective distortion since its AOV exceeds 90°. While 12mm has the AOV within right angle at about 84°, lenses shorter than 10.5mm already exceed the borderline of 90° and that gives rise to surrealistic feeling. Even 11mm isn't wide enough to be ultra-wide as its diagonal AOV stops at about 89° on 4/3 sensor.
Even if I have a one of 12mm lenses, I'd gladly add a 10.5mm lens to my kit since it depicts the world in essentially different manner than 12mm. So yes, I want 10.5mm or shorter lens.

 

[Amin]

This and a fast (f/1.4 or 1.2) 17.5mm seem to be the biggest gaps in the m43 prime lens range.

I agree. Compact size is important to me, so I'd prefer 17.5/1.4 to 17.5/1.2 and 10/2.8 to 10/2.

 

[Danny_SWE]

Maybe it will be easier to make such a lens soon, check this out:
Flat lens promises possible revolution in optics - BBC News

 

[brettmaxwell]

If I used 12mm often, I'd feel the same way. My most used lens is 17mm, and if I have to pick one wide FL to complement that, it would be 10mm.

Yep. I've spent years with FF gear shooting mainly with 35mm and 85mm, to complement I used 20 for wide, 150 for telephoto, and occasionally a 50. m4/3 has a nice comparable lineup with 17, 25, 42/45, and 75... notably absent, 10mm.