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?

A

asabet

Guest
I bought an E-410 because it is so compact and light. With the 14-42 kit lens, it is in a class of it's own. Unfortunately there are no light and compact primes wider than 35mm (the Sigma 30, Sigma 28, and Leicasonic 25 are not light and compact to me), so I've turned to the OM primes. Stop down metering and manual focus through a small VF (even with the 1.2x magnifier and split prism VF installed) are far from perfect, so I'm really hoping that the rumored compact Oly 25 is a reality. The most obvious advantage of the Four Thirds system is the potential for a compact kit. Having a few compact primes seems like a no brainer.
 

Riley

New member
well we both know what happens with rumours but
a source elsewhere claims 3 primes
also talk of more bodies in the Exx series, as opposed to Ex and Exxx
 

jonoslack

Active member
HI Riley, Amin
I think there is lots of light in the 4/3 tunnel.
First of all the viewfinder - of all the cameras I've owned, I think the E3 has the nicest viewfinder - it's very bright, it's just the right size (i.e. it's big, but you don't have to scan around it).
Secondly, as you say, the primes - I'm sure they'll come, Pentax have done a good job with the primes for their system, and Olympus must see them as a competitor, mind you, personally speaking, those small Olympus zooms are so much better than they ought to be that it's hardly worth bothering.
One word of caution -- I remember reading some theoretical stuff by an extremely knowledgeable guy a year or two back which said that you couldn't actually comply with the 4/3 standards exactly and produce a lens faster than f2 - if this is true, then Sigma and Leica clearly ignored it in the design of their f1.4 lenses, and I guess that Olympus might now do the same:)
What I'd really like is something the size of the 410, with the build quality, image quality and viewfinder quality of the E3 . . . surely it's not too much to ask :)
 

Jonathon Delacour

Subscriber Member
I've been on the brink of "moving up" to a DSLR for months now and, after reading Sean Reid's recent review, had pretty much decided on the Pentax K10D -- mainly because of the great variety of prime lenses (with more listed on the lens roadmap).

But, since joining this forum, I've read Sean's observations about taking advantage of the greater depth of field offered by the 4/3rds format and Mitch Alland's post about how he prefers the 4:3 aspect ratio to the 3:2 ratio of APS-C and full frame DSLRs. These two insights articulated what I prize about my GR Digital and also indicated that the 4/3rds format is a better fit than APS-C for the pictures I like to make.

Pretty much the only thing stopping me from picking up an E-3 is the lack of compact prime lenses. I simply don't understand why Pentax has placed such an emphasis on primes whereas Olympus has concentrated on making (admittedly excellent) zooms. Could it be differences in the history or corporate cultures of the two companies? Or a preference at the top level of management for primes over zooms, or vice versa?

I also wonder whether it's just the echo chamber effect that makes me imagine that there are lots of us who want light, compact primes. Yet that doesn't explain the range and popularity of Pentax's offerings (and, of course, the M8).

What I'd really like is something the size of the 410, with the build quality, image quality and viewfinder quality of the E3 . . . surely it's not too much to ask :)
What I'd really like is an E-3 with 14mm, 30mm, and 45mm lenses (each f/2), plus a 50-200mm SWD zoom.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
The lack of primes at Olympus is certainly not due to tradition. Small, good quality primes was one of the things they were famous for, and for each focal length, there were usually at least two models with different apertures, not to mention the huge number of macros (Olympus is also one of the leading microscope manufacturers, and some of their OM macros were rather unique).

My guess is that Olympus, as an innovative company, decided to invent zooms that are as good as primes, and nearly as fast. They have come very close to succeeding, although not all of the zooms are small.

Looking at it from a commercial point of view, both amateurs and professionals use mostly zooms nowadays. Primes are for the enthusiasts, and we are outnumbered many times by the hordes of point & shooters.

I have often considered buying a Pentax to be able to use their excellent primes, but as my collection of older, interesting glass that can be used on the Olympus with adapters increases, Pentax disappears further and further down the priority list. And with their best primes costing the same as the Olympus mid-level zooms, it's probably best for my bank account that it stays that way. Cheap, old primes and great new zooms work very well, at least for me :)
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Pentax is currently the only DSLR maker that has put serious effort into producing very compact new prime lenses. It's one of the things that distinguishes them. It would make tremendous sense for 4/3 lens makers to follow their lead.

Jonathan,

I can well understand why you might debate between the K10D and the E3. My wife is leaning towards the E3 but we'll wait until I test the camera. Zeiss on K10D is turning out to be very impressive.

Cheers,

Sean
 

jonoslack

Active member
Pretty much the only thing stopping me from picking up an E-3 is the lack of compact prime lenses. I simply don't understand why Pentax has placed such an emphasis on primes whereas Olympus has concentrated on making (admittedly excellent) zooms. Could it be differences in the history or corporate cultures of the two companies? Or a preference at the top level of management for primes over zooms, or vice versa?

I also wonder whether it's just the echo chamber effect that makes me imagine that there are lots of us who want light, compact primes. Yet that doesn't explain the range and popularity of Pentax's offerings (and, of course, the M8).

Pentax is currently the only DSLR maker that has put serious effort into producing very compact new prime lenses. It's one of the things that distinguishes them. It would make tremendous sense for 4/3 lens makers to follow their lead.

Jonathan,

I can well understand why you might debate between the K10D and the E3. My wife is leaning towards the E3 but we'll wait until I test the camera. Zeiss on K10D is turning out to be very impressive.

Cheers,

Sean
A couple of points really:
1. do you think that the reason Pentax has gone for primes are:
a) that they can see a gap in the market
b) it's not so easy to make great zooms for aps-c sensor and their lens mount

2. Olympus have gone along the zoom route because:
a) they can make great f2 zooms which really are as good as primes (but bigger)
b) they are still being doctrinaire about their 4/3 whitepaper which, as I understand it, precludes lenses at less than f2 which will still conform.

Sean
Do you think there really is a noticeable demand for such lenses? (I'm not saying that there isn't), like Jonathan, I wonder whether it isn't an echo chamber effect.

Whatever the answer, it would serve them well to bring out at least a couple more fixed lenses:
40 f1.x and a 16 are the obvious candidates.

I suspect that they'd say that their new 14-35 f2 is as good as any fixed focal length (and of course, they may be right judging by the quality of the 35-100 f2)
 

Riley

New member
my source for the rumour is the same gentleman that released that notorious pdf paper about EP1, which was later to become E3.

In an interview (pretty interesting in itself) with Ms. Sally Smith-Clemens, Product Manager of Olympus Imaging America, Mr. Richard Pelkowski, Product Manager Digital SLR of Olympus Imaging America, and Mr. Toshiyuki Terada, Product Planning Manager Olympus Tokyo just prior to the release of E3.

http://fourthirdsphoto.com/special/E3interview.php

Tony asked about the 'refit' of lenses to SWD

Terada said that “We have to consider which lenses, in priority, we will change over. As well as, we are going to look at the development of some single focal length [prime lenses]” Mr Terada said. No matter what, it looks like we should see more prime lenses to be released in the near future.

*******
I am also aware that Olympus's strategy was to fill out the range with 3 levels of zooms first, and then to look at primes. And elsewhere again, in a translation from a Japanese interview they spoke of something called 'thin glass', which I take to mean pancake prime.

For Tony himself, who is not to know all that is happening with Olympus he says "I believe that we will see primes in the market this year, or at least announced, but till this point it would not make since. Add another long macro, maybe another super telephoto, and then produce a 1/2 dozen prime lenses."
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
A couple of points really:
1. do you think that the reason Pentax has gone for primes are:
a) that they can see a gap in the market
b) it's not so easy to make great zooms for aps-c sensor and their lens mount


Sean
Do you think there really is a noticeable demand for such lenses? (I'm not saying that there isn't), like Jonathan, I wonder whether it isn't an echo chamber effect.
Hi Jono,

I think the primes were introduced for their own sake, not because of any reservations about making zooms per se. Their little primes are mostly wonderful lenses. Pentax makes several zooms as well.

Is there a wide demand? I don't know. That's a market analyst kind of thing to know. But I know that many serious photographers, myself included, appreciate very compact primes.

Pentax is smart in not trying to be another "me too" DSLR company. They set their own priorities and make a distinctive system. Ditto for Oly.

Cheers,

Sean
 
A

asabet

Guest
A couple of points really:
2. Olympus have gone along the zoom route because:
a) they can make great f2 zooms which really are as good as primes (but bigger)
b) they are still being doctrinaire about their 4/3 whitepaper which, as I understand it, precludes lenses at less than f2 which will still conform.
I'm hoping for f2 primes. Any faster, and they won't be as compact as I'd like.
 

Riley

New member
fast wides arnt really an issue as they arnt really as useful and a cheap UWA (8mm zoom) is inbound in 08. What I see as the black hole in Olympus class is a fast portrait solution, Im not at all sure they need much else. But I do see a conflict of interests between the objectives optical finesse and fast small lenses.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
fast wides arnt really an issue as they arnt really as useful and a cheap UWA (8mm zoom) is inbound in 08. What I see as the black hole in Olympus class is a fast portrait solution, Im not at all sure they need much else. But I do see a conflict of interests between the objectives optical finesse and fast small lenses.
I agree that a fast UWA is rarely needed. A small WA on the other hand, something similar to the 21mm f/3.5 for OM, would be very welcome. Currently, the 11-22 is doing the job for me, but it's at least 3 times as big as the old 21. A 9, 10 or 11mm f/3.5 or 4.0 would be nice.

I've considered the fish-eye, but neither fishing nor de-fishing are among my favourite hobbies :cool:

Occasionally, I'm using the OM 35mm f/2.0 for portraits. Something between that and the 50 macro, preferably one stop faster would be nice. The macro isn't bad for portraits, but with slow focusing and no limiter, it's far from ideal. I would even welcome a fast 70mm for tight head-shots (I use the OM 100 for that now, but it's a bit long), but that's only me.

Oh well, one can always dream :p
 

Riley

New member
what I meant by the 8mm wasn't the fish eye Jorgen. If you check out this image of the lens roadmap on the bottom left there's an ultra-wide zoom, we believe this to be a 8-16mm and a cheaper version of the 7-14/4

Riley
 
A

asabet

Guest
In an interview (pretty interesting in itself) with Ms. Sally Smith-Clemens, Product Manager of Olympus Imaging America, Mr. Richard Pelkowski, Product Manager Digital SLR of Olympus Imaging America, and Mr. Toshiyuki Terada, Product Planning Manager Olympus Tokyo just prior to the release of E3.

http://fourthirdsphoto.com/special/E3interview.php

Tony asked about the 'refit' of lenses to SWD

Terada said that “We have to consider which lenses, in priority, we will change over. As well as, we are going to look at the development of some single focal length” Mr Terada said.
It may be that he was simply referring to the 100 macro which is on the roadmap. I hope I'm wrong.
 

Riley

New member
yes could be
but i came away from it feeling like they really didnt know at that point
while upgrading some lenses, 35-100/2 is an obvious one
others are less than clear, and the apparent lack of instruction as to the FL of the primes on the roadmap suggests its all still in the air.
 
S

spylaw4

Guest
More and more am I coming to find the bulk of the D3/L1 + 14-50 or 25/1.4, just a bit too big. Not so much to hump around all day, although I now take out only 1 lens/day(any more is just too much weight/bulk), but to pack away to take on a trip.

I am looking forward to next week to the arrival of my D2 back from Solms!

I thus find myself in a real quandry - 4/3 or not 4/3? With the D2 back I feel that for digital I will be using that rather than the L1. I suppose it all depends on what happens later this year from Panasonic and Leica + of course Leica at Photokina which I am going to go to.
Despite my complaint about the size/weight I am hoping for a new Leica 4/3 body based on the E-3 or a similar(?) Panasonic. That might well persuade me to stay 4/3. In the meantime I may well sell the L1+14-50 but hold onto the 25/1.4
 

Riley

New member
i tend to think that shooting some considerably smaller AF primes would make a world of difference to 4/3rds for many shooters. Thing is, the ones I've looked at are not especially small.
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
I've been using the E-3 to shoot sports in a confined space, close to the action, with not particularly great light. The E-3's autofocus with the 50/2 at ISO 800 and 1600 gives me reasonable results (now it's up to me, not the equipment), and the combination handles well. An attempt yesterday to get a little wider with my M8 and a 35/2.0 did not work out as well. It may take another year or two of relearning the rangefinder for me to compete with AF in that setting. I could use a wide angle zoom at its tele end on the E-3, but that means having at most f/3.5 at my disposal. 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.

scott
 

Riley

New member
i was thinking more like the Nocton 35/1.2, the format desperately needs a fast portrait solution (not that its my gig). But I agree that a fast compact 20 or so would be very desirable too
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
I've been using the E-3 to shoot sports in a confined space, close to the action, with not particularly great light. The E-3's autofocus with the 50/2 at ISO 800 and 1600 gives me reasonable results (now it's up to me, not the equipment), and the combination handles well. An attempt yesterday to get a little wider with my M8 and a 35/2.0 did not work out as well. It may take another year or two of relearning the rangefinder for me to compete with AF in that setting. I could use a wide angle zoom at its tele end on the E-3, but that means having at most f/3.5 at my disposal. 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.

scott
 
Top