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!

PMA rumor - compact 25mm prime coming from Olympus?

Jonathon Delacour

Subscriber Member
Wouldn't a 21/2.0 for the 4/3 line be great? Even a 2.8, if it could be kept closer in size to the 50/2 than to the 25/1.4. If size can be made a selling point, a 25/2.0 should fly off the shelves.
Last week at The Online Photographer, Mike Johnston pointed to various reviews of the E-3. He concluded the post with this observation:
Alas, I just can't get over the lack of prime lenses in the system, and I've decided I can't buy into the Olympus system for that reason. I'm a prime lens partisan but not a prime lens snob—I've enjoyed using a zoom on my Konica-Minolta 7D, and on the Contax Aria I had in the late '90s. But I require that at least one or two wide-normal semi-fast single-focal-length street-shooting/snapshooting lenses be available in a system as an option.

Were it not for this, I would buy an E-3. It's a beautifully designed and built camera.
In the comment thread there are, as one would expect, opinions for and against Mike's view. Some of the comments bemoan the lack of semi-fast, wide-normal prime lenses for the 4/3rds system; others argue that the available zooms offer a more than adequate substitute. A comment by andy, however, was the one that resonated with me:
It's a weird moment when you realize that a Nikon D200/D300 with any of three sharp, inexpensive AF primes (35/2, 24/2.8. 28/2.8) is considerably smaller than the E-3 with any comparable length Oly zoom. I am a fan of Oly going back to its OM days, and think their prosumer model cameras are pretty great, but when I saw the size and weight of the E-3 I was completely dismayed. It is almost exactly the size of the D200, no svelte figure there, and with the 12-60 that Oly is flaunting it's a big, honking beast. Sure the AF feels nice, and I'm sure the 12-60 is stellar, but it's all 30% too big.
I compared an E-3 with a D300 in a camera store a couple of weeks ago and, although I walked into the store fully expecting to be blown away by the E-3, I was instead underwhelmed. The E-3 body is hardly any smaller or lighter than the D300 -- as the following specifications indicate:

Olympus E-3
Dimensions 142.5 x 116.5 x 74.5 mm
Weight 810 g (body only)

Nikon D300
Dimensions 147 x 114 x 74 mm
Weight 825 g (without battery, memory card, body cap, or monitor cover)

Given that there are no small semi-fast, wide-normal prime lenses for the E-3, I'm beginning to wonder what real advantages -- apart from in-body stablilization and an articulating LCD screen -- the E-3 offers over the D300. The upcoming Pentax K20D reportedly has Live View and, given that the K10D weighs 790g *with* battery & memory card, it's unlikely that the K20D will weigh more than the E-3. Pentax already has a range of prime lenses and the highly regarded Zeiss primes as well as the recently released Voigtlander Ultron 40/2 pancake and Nokton 58/1.4 lenses come in both Nikon and Pentax mounts. Admittedly the Zeiss primes aren't small, but they're full-frame designs, as are the Voigtlander lenses.

I can understand the appeal of the E-3 as a supplementary system for a Leica M-8 user who already has access to a full range of stellar prime lenses. For example:

If, like me, your m8 is your main camera, there are still times when it's good to have an SLR about the place - an E3 and a couple of lenses makes an attractive, robust and flexible outfit, without having to sacrifice very much with respect to image quality, and without breaking the bank (or your shoulder!)
But, having been initially attracted to the E-3, I'm now hard pressed to see why I should purchase an E-3 rather than a Nikon D3 or a Pentax K10D/K20D. Even the 4/3rds depth of field advantage is not that significant (assuming that you regard increased depth of field as an advantage, which I do).

For example, I prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio and, if I used an APS-C camera, would crop my shots accordingly. "Cropping" the D300's 15.8 x 23.6 mm sensor to 4:3 proportions reduces it to 15.8 x 21.1 mm. For an EFoV of 40mm, one must use a 20mm lens on the E-3 and a 23.5mm lens on the "cropped" D300 (which now has a FoV multiplier of 1.7). The DOFMaster Depth of Field Calculator indicates that, at a given subject distance and aperture, one only needs to stop down the D300 a further half stop to get the same depth of field as the E-3.

Finally, I'm beginning to wonder whether small semi-fast, wide-normal prime lenses can actually be designed for the 4/3rds system, particularly given given this comment by Paul Norheim on Mike's E-3 post:
Olympus said that TELE lenses would be smaller than comparable 35mm designs. Nowhere will you find an original claim that they'll make wides, normals or zooms nor bodies 'smaller'.
Taking into account its 3:2 aspect ratio, the 20.7 x 13.8 mm Foveon sensor in Sigma's long-promised DP-1 is almost identical in size to that of the E-3. Yet the DP-1 has a 16.6mm (EFoV 28mm) f/4 lens -- not exactly what you'd call a fast, wide prime. Am I wrong in assuming that it should be easier to design a fast wide lens for a compact camera like the DP-1 than for an SLR such as the E-3? If Sigma can't do it, can anyone else?

Apologies for the long post. I'm thinking aloud here (and, in a sense, playing the Devil's Advocate) because, despite the reservations with which I left the camera store, I'm emotionally drawn to the 4/3rds system in general and the E-3 and the Olympus lenses in particular. I may appear to have made up my mind against the E-3 but that's not the case. Rather, I'd be delighted if someone could point out the error(s) in my arguments. But at this point I can't help thinking that a D300 (from which I could "move up" to a full-frame Nikon later on) or a K20D (with its rumored 1.25 field of view multiplier and correspondingly larger sensor) would be a better choice...
 

clay stewart

New member
No primes have kept me from going back to Olympus as well. I know they have the Pan/Leica 25/1.4, but it's huge. It doesn't really seem to me, that Oly is catering to the amature, as much as the more advanced users, so not having small wide to nomal primes seems like a poor move on their part. Had they come out with a 12/2.0, 14/2.0 17/2.0 and a 25/2.0 or at least one of those a few years ago, I think a lot more people would have made the switch, I know I would have. On the other hand, what do I know? :)
 

Riley

New member
yes but you could say that pentax dont have enough zooms
or sony are really funded by KM film lenses.

since Olympus decided to scrap OM and go digital, including lenses designed for that size, theyve had a hard time getting a lens range together for complete coverage. Now they are saying thats nearly complete and the primes are to follow. I do support the view that primes ought be smaller, but many we are looking at belong to Sigma and Leica, not essentially an Olympus problem.

Pana/leica could have capitalised in a prime lens range for 4/3rds, but have failed to do so. Im thinking pretty soon that opportunity will be gone.
 

Riley

New member
Finally, I'm beginning to wonder whether small semi-fast, wide-normal prime lenses can actually be designed for the 4/3rds system, particularly given given this comment by Paul Norheim on Mike's E-3 post:
Olympus said that TELE lenses would be smaller than comparable 35mm designs. Nowhere will you find an original claim that they'll make wides, normals or zooms nor bodies 'smaller'.​


and i thought 410 was too small for some people
would the lenses look like this ? Or am i mistaken, and this guy is suggesting a 150mm Olympus lens should be somehow smaller. I dont know who he is but indifference to his 'expert' view, these 3 lenses from Nikon Canon and Oly are all in the range of 80-300mm EFL.


Taking into account its 3:2 aspect ratio, the 20.7 x 13.8 mm Foveon sensor in Sigma's long-promised DP-1 is almost identical in size to that of the E-3. Yet the DP-1 has a 16.6mm (EFoV 28mm) f/4 lens -- not exactly what you'd call a fast, wide prime. Am I wrong in assuming that it should be easier to design a fast wide lens for a compact camera like the DP-1 than for an SLR such as the E-3? If Sigma can't do it, can anyone else?
foveons exclusive properties are the issue for Sigma, since fall-off is an assertible risk on such a design, but where because of the deeper well design of foveon, falloff would mean losing red (at the very least) in the falloff zone. The obvious way to deal with this is to forcibly stop the lens down, by limiting it to F4. Its not the lens architecture that is really at fault, short lenses will vignet etc, its more to do with the properties of this unique sensor.

As an aside, Sigma probably should have made SD14 a 4/3rds pattern, but got hooked into their own design philosophy with SD9 before they hooked up with four-thirds. As an example of what can be done and that works fine, you can use Konica Hexanon primes on 4/3rds and they do work very well. This is a 40mm/1.8



Jonathon Delacour said:
Apologies for the long post. I'm thinking aloud here (and, in a sense, playing the Devil's Advocate) because, despite the reservations with which I left the camera store, I'm emotionally drawn to the 4/3rds system in general and the E-3 and the Olympus lenses in particular. I may appear to have made up my mind against the E-3 but that's not the case. Rather, I'd be delighted if someone could point out the error(s) in my arguments. But at this point I can't help thinking that a D300 (from which I could "move up" to a full-frame Nikon later on) or a K20D (with its rumored 1.25 field of view multiplier and correspondingly larger sensor) would be a better choice...
my idea of moving from Dx series cameras to FF135 means losing the glass anyway. What would you expect to keep?​
 
Last edited:

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
But, having been initially attracted to the E-3, I'm now hard pressed to see why I should purchase an E-3 rather than a Nikon D3 or a Pentax K10D/K20D. Even the 4/3rds depth of field advantage is not that significant (assuming that you regard increased depth of field as an advantage, which I do).
I have the same dilemma, but tend towards two systems: an E-3 with two zooms, 11-22 and 50-200, plus two Pentax bodies, a (cheap backup) K10D and a K20D with an assortment of primes. There seem to be an endless selection of primes available for the Pentax bodies now, and with more "prime supporters" buying their cameras, it will hopefully only get better.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Apologies for the long post. I'm thinking aloud here (and, in a sense, playing the Devil's Advocate) because, despite the reservations with which I left the camera store, I'm emotionally drawn to the 4/3rds system in general and the E-3 and the Olympus lenses in particular. I may appear to have made up my mind against the E-3 but that's not the case. Rather, I'd be delighted if someone could point out the error(s) in my arguments. But at this point I can't help thinking that a D300 (from which I could "move up" to a full-frame Nikon later on) or a K20D (with its rumored 1.25 field of view multiplier and correspondingly larger sensor) would be a better choice...
HI Jonathan
Interesting post and arguments - I'm pretty sure that there is no real problem in producing fast-wide primes to work with 4/3, BUT they may not be completely telecentric (and it seems as though Olympus are sticking to their rules about telecentricity, even though Sigma probably aren't) - for others, telecentricity means that all the light hits the sensor at right angles - very unlike most mid-wide angle lenses on FF.

I've been all around these houses, and I'm pretty sure that the primes will appear, but if you're looking for a reason to buy into the Olympus system, in my opinion it's three fold:

1. the great natural colours which seem so elusive on other cameras
2. the splendid mid range f2.8 - f3.5 zooms:
11-22 f2.8 f3.5
12-60 f2.8 f4 (or the lesser 14-54 f2.8 f3.5)
55-200 f2.8 f3.5
They are decently priced, water resistant to a very high level, and they are excellent quality - from wide open to stopped down. They are also a decent size and weight. They all focus very close indeed (you hardly need a macro lens)
3. the camera build quality and water resistance

I don't think there are any equivalents to these fast, quality mid range lenses in any other manufacturer's list, and for me, together with the proven ruggedness and water resistance of the E3, they make a compelling argument (so much so that my Nikon D2x / D200 / 70-200 / 17-55 etc. went to the wall).

Still, for most purposes, and for most of the time, I keep the 12-60 on - it's a splendid lens, focuses very fast in all light, and you can shoot it wide open without a second thought.

I'd like to see the primes as well, but I use an M8 for that particular job!
 
H

hiro

Guest
I too was put off the Olympus by the overall size and weight of a minimum usable system. Given the reduced sensor size something closer to the size of a compact camera should be achievable, and the lack of small prime lenses is part of the problem. For me the E410 is already the bulkiest sub-35mm sensor SLR I would consider (being only slightly lighter than some compact 35mm SLR bodies).

I do mainly wideangle work, so I considered the E410 with the 11-22mm f2.8-3.5 zoom (which is not quite as wide as I'd like but near enough), but with the lens weighing more than the body you have a total camera weight of 920g even before you add in a telezoom to complete the outfit.

So instead I opted for a compact, the Ricoh GX100, which even when you add its ultra-wide adaptor in comes to a total system weight (380g) of slightly less than just the E410 body. This gives me 24-72mm f2.5-4.4 (35mm equiv), and 19-57mm f2.5-4.4 with the adaptor fitted, which is exactly the range I need. Of course the sensor is much smaller, but this was a price I was willing to pay for a system only 40% the weight of even a single lens Olympus system (and coming in at half the price didn't hurt).

I would still consider a DSLR at some point, but the fact that the 4/3 sensor hasn't resulted in significantly smaller camera systems makes me wonder what the point is of getting a 4/3 camera rather than one with a larger sensor.
 
Last edited:

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Two years ago, I would say that Olympus was about to paint themselves into a technological corner, but with cameras like the E-410 and E-3, I see some possibilities that would make them more unique and more attractive at the same time.

Many users point to the OM-1 when they express their hopes or expectations, and we are getting closer. If Olympus could fit an E-3 viewfinder on an E-410 body with IS, and add two or three relatively compact faster-than-2.8 primes, they would have an instant hit. Combining the camera parts is pure engineering, and they have shown with the 14-42 that it is possible to make good quality, compact lenses for 4/3.

I know I'm not the only one that hope for something like this. Hopefully, Olympus understands that.
 

Photon-hunter

New member
I tend to see "image-making" devices as systems: No matter how fantastic a camera is, if the lenses to go with it are not what you need then it´s useless. I have allways been very interested in the fourthirds system, and have been following it all the way from the begining.

I have been tempted by the E410 as I believe it is a unique camera in many ways. My Canon DSL´s do their job OK but they don´t "speak" to me..The E-410, everytime I hold it in the store (and I´ve been in the fence a few times) speaks to me with sweet words and whispers..."buy me".

But I believe the 410 is a "flawed" product from a "system" point of view. Why? The lenses. If you want to keep it small (and this camera begs to be used with small lenses , and I mean compact pancake primes), you need to stick with the kit zoom, which is, well, ehmm, a ZOOM (and not very fast at that,being only 3.5-6.6), which completely destroys the concept of what this camera should be: compact,well built, carry everywhere, available light camera.

A pitty, really, because I keep going back to this camera, it´s just, that the current Olympus lens lineup makes this camera unusable for those purposes...
 

Photon-hunter

New member
By the way, this is my idea of what would make the "system" perfect. This is what the E-410 should be (don´t you think that is SEXY??):


This is a Hexanon lens converted to fit fourthirds mount by Brian Mosley ("borrowed the picture from another thread in "THAT" other place...:angel:

Erik.
 

Riley

New member
i think the problem Oly have with pancakes is this
based on the unremarkable finding that Olympus pursue optical excellence
pancakes are non-telecentric

since the exit pupil is variously 85mm from the filmplane, limiting angular light to around 6 degrees, this pushes the design of the lens farther out from the mount. The glass then becomes larger and heavier on both the front and the rear optic.

The lenses Brian and others are playing with have an exit pupil a lot closer, some are perhaps 40mm from the sensor. While they are compact and light, they wont shoot as well wide open.

Last comment, the kit lenses are by virtue slower, and a more average lens speed is F2.8.
 

Brian Mosley

New member
I wonder whether future sensors will reduce the need for telecentricity... at that time, we could see more compact wide angle lenses.

Until then, I'm happy with the compromise - switching to legacy lenses for compact primes and shallow dof - which are also relatively cheap.

Kind Regards

Brian
 

Photon-hunter

New member
To put my previous post in an image (and ignoring older manual lenses) this home-made chart :eek: shows the current options in the fourthirds lineup by the various manufacturers:



The Zuiko 14-42 and the Sigma 18-50 3.5 zooms are impressive in size (I ignore how they perform), but the slow aperture rules them out for available light.The fast zooms might be very good performers, but for that I might as well stick o my Canon gear(to me,they simply don´t match the camera´s philosophy). Should I have to choose, I would probably go with the Sigma 30 1.4 (I allready own this lens in Canon mount and absolutely love it, it´s one of my most used), but the effective FOV of 60mm when mounted in a fourthirds camera would make it a bit difficult to use, specially indoors.

Photon.
 

Riley

New member
sorta glad you asked that Brian
as it happens there have been developments since the concept was announced. Microlenses and offset microlenses can deal with some of the ills that telecentricity seeks to prevail on.

With more normal film based lens applications the exit pupil is circa 50mm, v/s 4/3rds 85mm. With FF the deviation from parallel light is around 20 degrees at 50mm, this is beyond the capacity of offset microlenses which i believe top out around 12 degrees. Curiously (or not) foveons crop of 1.74 sees around 11 degrees. 4/3rds with OM glass sees (52mm exit pupil) around 10 degrees. Also 52mm exit pupil and the variously 1.52x and 1.62x APSC see around 12 - 13 degrees.

This presents 2 conclusions
that FF will require stopping down to shake vignetting/falloff and soft edges.
that 4/3rds could indeed now utilise a shorter exit pupil for more compact lens builds. Perhaps not 50mm, but less than 85mm. These effects are more prevalent in WA and UWA cases.

It also means for 4/3rds that a larger sensor itteration is a distinct possibility. Since the object is sharper edges without fall-off/vignetting wide open, on an 85mm exit pupil they could move to around 1.7x+ without issue. Indeed the E3 sensor at 10.1Mp has additional area beyond the mask edges, where the entire sensor area seen it would rate 11.8Mp. One could surmise that this is necessary for the 5 stops of IS.

At a density of 41,563 pixels per sq mm for 10.1Mp on 243 sq mm, this becomes 44,888 pixels per sq mm or 263 sq mm. Marginally short of foveons 285 sq mm at 20.8 x 13.8mm at 1.74x.

Development wise, there are 3 ways they can go to increase available sensor real estate.
1/ keep chasing smaller wiring (these gains so far have similar well sizes to 40D on much less area)
2/ do as i just indicated and increase the crop size.
3/ go the way of video, with 3 sensors and a beam splitter, this isnt new for Olympus in particular who used this approach for E20/E30, and it has been seen elsewhere but years ago now. This virtually requires telecentricity to work well, and would give then at least 5 yrs lead time on the competition, it being not possible on much larger sensor areas and requiring a telecentric lens suite.
 
Last edited:

Photon-hunter

New member
Hi Brian. Though I believe you have moved to the E3 now, could you comment how hard you found manual focusing those lenses with the E400/410? Was it generally succesfull or more a hit & miss thing?

Thanks.
 

Brian Mosley

New member
Hi Brian. Though I believe you have moved to the E3 now, could you comment how hard you found manual focusing those lenses with the E400/410? Was it generally succesfull or more a hit & miss thing?

Thanks.
I would say that the KatzEye split prism focusing screen is essential for manual focusing on anything smaller than the E-3 viewfinder.

With the KatzEye, manual focusing is fine on the E-400/E-410 - and of course on the E-410 you also have live view for macro shooting.

Kind Regards

Brian
 

Photon-hunter

New member
Thanks for your kind reply. Now that you mention the katzeye, how did it affect (if at all) the metering with the adapted lenses?

Thanks.
 

Brian Mosley

New member
Thanks for the info Riley, it will be interesting to see the next big breakthrough in sensor technology... and I also wonder whether we'll see more exotic optical lens designs - with more sophisticated computing technology and new glass technology.

Plenty of scope for further improvements.

Kind Regards

Brian
 

Brian Mosley

New member
Thanks for your kind reply. Now that you mention the katzeye, how did it affect (if at all) the metering with the adapted lenses?

Thanks.
Metering with the E-400 was always a bit variable, until I added an Orion rubber eyeguard - this cuts out stray light entering through the OVF :


For lenses less than f2 you have to keep an eye on auto exposure - but applying -0.3EV is very quick and easy with the controls on this cam.

Kind Regards

Brian
 

Photon-hunter

New member
Thanks. I feel dangerously tempted...Does anybody know if you can adapt m42 lenses to be mounted in this camera?

Thanks, Erik.
 
Top