The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

E-M1 and 12-40mm f/2.8

Thorkil

Well-known member
Yes, and LL is just updated.
But the ED 7-14/4.0, which I would like, is rather expensive in Denmark, 2.230$, and slow..
Better stick to my small cameras for a while....
Thorkil
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
...
But the ED 7-14/4.0, which I would like, is rather expensive in Denmark, 2.230$, and slow..
The ZD 7-14/4 ED is expensive here too ... about $1800 currently ... but I don't consider f/4 slow for an ultra-ultra-wide lens like this. Matter of opinion, of course. I hadn't purchased one as I never really felt the need for something that wide.

I'm more likely to be interested in the ZD 14-35/2 anyway, one of the finest performing lenses in the focal length range regardless of zoom or prime, but it's a very large and heavy thing, not generally my cup of tea.

The LuLa update made a big deal about the power switch location in this second installment, too big imo. I basically just turn my camera on and leave it that way, having the switch somewhere I won't hit it by accident is nice.

G
 

Brian Mosley

New member
The new Olympus lens roadmap (43 rumors) for m4/3rds looks very interesting... An M Zuiko Pro ultra wide and ultra zoom planned. Could Olympus be developing a 6-12mm f2.8?

Cheers

Brian
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
by the way:
Olympus OMD EM1 quality | Cameralabs
thorkil
PS. don't forget to look at this for any that will use the Pana 7-14mm, which have strong purple flare artefacts, as claimed here
Olympus OMD EM1 review | Cameralabs
The 7-14 has been one of my most used lenses for years, and I've never seen those artifacts. What does look worrying is that the Panasonic algorithm removing the artifacts seems to remove a lot of detail as well without getting totally rid of the problem.
 

Thorkil

Well-known member
The 7-14 has been one of my most used lenses for years, and I've never seen those artifacts. What does look worrying is that the Panasonic algorithm removing the artifacts seems to remove a lot of detail as well without getting totally rid of the problem.
Yes, I have considered it too. And that could be a reason to leave the GX7-thoughts. The Pana 7-14 is ok in size and weight(or one could perhaps just use the Zuiko 9-18 in those rare occations) And I gues that those occations (Buildings inside and outside) where I need it, flare wouldn't be a problem.
But one thing would be nice to know, if the metering can compete with the matrix-metering of the Nikons, which I think always have been spot on, even in difficult situations(hanging out of a roof-window with too much sky...the Nikons opened up in the right way)...the Pentax K-5II wouldn't sing my way for that part.
And if one havn't got any 4/3 lenses, I think the 12-40 would fit in, all the time.
Thorkil
 

Thorkil

Well-known member
don't show me that, Jørgen. Then I suddenly think its HUGE, even though I know it's not....almost not. (which lense?) But I wount use extra batteri, will keep it small(allmost small)....but I won't buy it....I wount buy...I wont....I....
Thorkil
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
don't show me that, Jørgen. Then I suddenly think its HUGE, even though I know it's not....almost not. (which lense?) But I wount use extra batteri, will keep it small(allmost small)....but I won't buy it....I wount buy...I wont....I....
Thorkil
It's the PanaLeica 14-50mm f/2.8-3.5, one of the best "normal" zooms ever produced. If AF works as advertised with this lens, I don't need to buy the 12-40mm. I would like the 14-35mm f/2.0 also, but it's much more expensive, much heavier, larger, has shorter reach but is weather sealed and pin sharp from f/2.0 :)

Then there's the 150mm f/2.0 :p
 

Thorkil

Well-known member
It's the PanaLeica 14-50mm f/2.8-3.5, one of the best "normal" zooms ever produced. If AF works as advertised with this lens, I don't need to buy the 12-40mm. I would like the 14-35mm f/2.0 also, but it's much more expensive, much heavier, larger, has shorter reach but is weather sealed and pin sharp from f/2.0 :)

Then there's the 150mm f/2.0 :p
:)
If I ever buy...
then I will need those extra 2/4mm a lot, so just the 12-40 + 7-14 Pana, thats it, period. (well perhaps the 12/2.0 for the uncomplicated and small walkabouts..)
Thorkil
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi There You Two

It's the PanaLeica 14-50mm f/2.8-3.5, one of the best "normal" zooms ever produced. If AF works as advertised with this lens, I don't need to buy the 12-40mm. I would like the 14-35mm f/2.0 also, but it's much more expensive, much heavier, larger, has shorter reach but is weather sealed and pin sharp from f/2.0 :)

Then there's the 150mm f/2.0 :p
. . . . but there is also the Zuiko 12-60 f2.8 / f4, which is ALSO one of the best "normal" zooms ever produced - it even get's a 'highly recommended' at photozone.de

:)
If I ever buy...
then I will need those extra 2/4mm a lot, so just the 12-40 + 7-14 Pana, thats it, period. (well perhaps the 12/2.0 for the uncomplicated and small walkabouts..)
Thorkil
I just bought one of the 12-60 Zuiko lenses on ebay for £430 (they're about £900 new, and still available).

You get your extra 2/4mm (I agree, necessary) and also an extra 10/20mm at the long end (which is nice).

Added to which it's properly weather sealed.


one from last night with the extra 2/4mm

here it is on the E-M1


 

jonoslack

Active member
But I do have a 4/3 lens, and this is what it will look like on the E-M1 with grip. I can hardly wait :)

It's the PanaLeica 14-50mm f/2.8-3.5, one of the best "normal" zooms ever produced. If AF works as advertised with this lens, I don't need to buy the 12-40mm. I would like the 14-35mm f/2.0 also, but it's much more expensive, much heavier, larger, has shorter reach but is weather sealed and pin sharp from f/2.0 :)

Then there's the 150mm f/2.0 :p
If you want this lens, there is a stonking deal on the UK ebay for £399

Pana-Leica 14-50 f2.8 Vario-Elmar (plus free camera)

Grab it whilst you can!

all the best
 

Thorkil

Well-known member
Hi There You Two

. . . . but there is also the Zuiko 12-60 f2.8 / f4, which is ALSO one of the best "normal" zooms ever produced - it even get's a 'highly recommended' at photozone.de
I just bought one of the 12-60 Zuiko lenses on ebay for £430 (they're about £900 new, and still available).
You get your extra 2/4mm (I agree, necessary) and also an extra 10/20mm at the long end (which is nice).
Added to which it's properly weather sealed.
here it is on the E-M1

Thank you!, even though it still looks big, but not bigger than the 12-40' length at 84mm I guess. Got any length in mm's?
Thorkil
'ps. got it: 98,5 + the adapter.....´hhmm
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
If you want this lens, there is a stonking deal on the UK ebay for £399

Pana-Leica 14-50 f2.8 Vario-Elmar (plus free camera)

Grab it whilst you can!

all the best
I bought it two years ago, hoping that a camera like the E-M1 would some day appear :)
This lens will probably increase in value. It's very good (like your Zuiko) and in addition, it has an aperture ring with 1/3 stops that work on (as far as I know) all m4/3 cameras.
 

Georg Baumann

Subscriber Member
Just a thought, not being a techincal guy when it comes to lenses. Is it not that the FT ZD lenses are calculated fo use on the particular FT sensor and not micro FT? I think so. Hence would it not be reasonable to assume that the picture quality of newly developed MFT lenses will be performing better in terms of IQ, or is that negliable?
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I bought it two years ago, hoping that a camera like the E-M1 would some day appear :)
This lens will probably increase in value. It's very good (like your Zuiko) and in addition, it has an aperture ring with 1/3 stops that work on (as far as I know) all m4/3 cameras.
I have two of these lenses when I had a matched pair of Panasonic L1 bodies. It is indeed an excellent performer.

The aperture ring will only work on Panasonic cameras. Olympus ignores the ring and you adjust aperture using the on-body controls. It's all servo actuation, not directly connected to the iris mechanism.

G
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Just a thought, not being a techincal guy when it comes to lenses. Is it not that the FT ZD lenses are calculated fo use on the particular FT sensor and not micro FT? I think so. Hence would it not be reasonable to assume that the picture quality of newly developed MFT lenses will be performing better in terms of IQ, or is that negliable?
FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds use the same sensor size. The only difference is the mount register. So a lens that performs well on one will perform well on the others.

mFT lenses are newer designs, and the shorter mount register allows more degrees of freedom for the lens designer, which could mean better lens performance. Also, mFT lenses are designed for CDAF, so focusing performance can be faster. However, it's very difficult to better the optical performance of the Olympus High Grade and Super High Grade lenses ... They are still state of the art on optical performance.

G
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds use the same sensor size. The only difference is the mount register. So a lens that performs well on one will perform well on the others.

mFT lenses are newer designs, and the shorter mount register allows more degrees of freedom for the lens designer, which could mean better lens performance. Also, mFT lenses are designed for CDAF, so focusing performance can be faster. However, it's very difficult to better the optical performance of the Olympus High Grade and Super High Grade lenses ... They are still state of the art on optical performance.

G
Add to that the fact that most m4/3 lenses are designed with software corrections in mind. The 7-14mm is in principle somewhere between a rectilinear WA lens and a fisheye lens, corrected for distortion in-camera, making it easier to design a smaller lens. In addition, most of the original 4/3 lenses are telecentric or close to telecentric, meaning that the light hits the sensor at a right angle. This was, as far as I remember, one of the reasons for choosing a relatively small sensor, since telecentric lenses for larger sensors will become rather large and heavy.

I believe the telecentric design has become less important with modern sensors, but the extremely even sharpness across the frame of the best 4/3 lenses can be attributed to this principle.
 

Georg Baumann

Subscriber Member
In addition, most of the original 4/3 lenses are telecentric or close to telecentric, meaning that the light hits the sensor at a right angle. This was, as far as I remember, one of the reasons for choosing a relatively small sensor, since telecentric lenses for larger sensors will become rather large and heavy.
Yeah, telecentric rings a bell in the deep clouded memories of mine. LOL
 
Top