12mm f/2 and no one here is talking about it?

[Thardy]

Has anyone tried the Panny 7-14 f/4 zoom? I read somewhere that it is excellent. I like the convenience of a good zoom.

 

[gavinlg]

With the X100 being made of unobtanium; not that wide nor great at manual focus, I though I would give µFT another chance.

It's quite nicely made - seems sharp and flare resistent, but not had time to do much more than walk around the block.

All AF lenses should have MF rings like this

The viewfinder is spot on (24mm e135 4:3 aspect for the Dlux-4)

You're gonna post a picture of that beauty but not tease us with some samples!?

*hint*
:angel:

 

[gavinlg]

Has anyone tried the Panny 7-14 f/4 zoom? I read somewhere that it is excellent. I like the convenience of a good zoom.

Yeah it is brilliant, optically it's similar to the nikon 14-24mm f2.8, which is probably the best wide angle zoom ever made.

 

[Contarama]

Oh well I suppose since nearly all of the wide angle micro four thirds lens are all basically the same when it comes to close focus distance I guess it really ain't worth discussing...do they make a black version? lol

 

[LeicaFan]

It looks like a great lens, but it's big and expensive. I plan to buy a m4/3 soon, but cannot see myself getting a lens like this. I want something small and relatively inexpensive and I'd more more than happy with the Panny 14mm or 20mm.

 

[Bobbo]

And nobody said anything about m4/3 being cheaper.

I believe that was part of the marketing when Olympus introduced the E1 and the whole 4/3 system gibberish about how cool smaller sensors are. I'll have to check my Pop Photos from the era.

Also I think you underestimate how difficult it is to make a 12mm f2 lens...

Tell that to Canon. They've been making fast lenses for small cameras since the Canon G1. That was a 7-21mm f/2-2.5 in a camera that barely cost $900 (only because a 3 mp point and shoot cost that much back then). Are you going to tell me making a prime is harder than a zoom? Cosina can make a 12mm rectilinear lens for a full-frame camera and market it at $650 or so, and that's much more of an engineering feat than a small lens for a small sensor. Small lenses are easier/cheaper to make than a big lens. How else could Nikon make an 18-55mm zoom (remember, they're harder to engineer) for a third of the price of a 18mm prime? Because there's less sensor to fill.

The hood in that hands on isn't the official Olympus hood - it's a cheap on the dude found on ebay.

Getting defensive, aren't we?

 

[gavinlg]

It looks like a great lens, but it's big and expensive.

Are you sure you'd regard it as big? It looks really small for a fast wide to me... It's smaller then the kit 14-42mm zoom when retracted and locked.

 

[semilog]

I don't get the point of an $800 lens on a tiny sensor... call me old-fashioned...

You're not old-fashioned. Just a hidebound reactionary.

Small sensors require better (closer to diffraction-limited) optics. A relatively crappy lens can look fabulous on 8"x10" film, and it's easy to drop $10 large on microscope objective that will be used on a small (say, 7X7 mm; 90% quantum efficiency; $30,000) sensor.

Different imaging systems are good for different things. Your preferred parameters may not be optimal for anyone but you.

We won't even talk about the relative technical merits of a latest-generation 4/3 sensor versus Tri-X in 135, or the insanity of using a >$1000 Leica or Zeiss lens with that film, because that would make the L****philes cry.

Some people want really high quality in a small package. In low light, a new Olympus m4/3 camera with the new 25 Summilux and a legitimate 3 stops of sensor-based IS will approach a D3 in low-light capability, and will probably surpass an M9 with a Noctilux (handheld), for both noise and sharpness -- at a tiny fraction of the mass, volume, and expense. And it will have more usable DoF and fewer focusing errors to boot.

Some people might find that combination of parameters appealing.

And yes, my M6 has a ZM lens on it and is currently loaded with Neopan 400. What I do not claim is that this setup is rational, or technically superior to any number of other possible setups.

 

[Yhbv24]

This lens may sell me on the system. An all-metal, small, fast 24mm equivalent lens. If they make more lenses in that style, I'm sold. All I want is a 14mm f/2.0 and a 17mm f/1.8 and I'm in. Maybe an 11mm f/3.5 as well =).

 

[gavinlg]

I believe that was part of the marketing when Olympus introduced the E1 and the whole 4/3 system gibberish about how cool smaller sensors are. I'll have to check my Pop Photos from the era.

Tell that to Canon. They've been making fast lenses for small cameras since the Canon G1. That was a 7-21mm f/2-2.5 in a camera that barely cost $900 (only because a 3 mp point and shoot cost that much back then). Are you going to tell me making a prime is harder than a zoom? Cosina can make a 12mm rectilinear lens for a full-frame camera and market it at $650 or so, and that's much more of an engineering feat than a small lens for a small sensor. Small lenses are easier/cheaper to make than a big lens. How else could Nikon make an 18-55mm zoom (remember, they're harder to engineer) for a third of the price of a 18mm prime? Because there's less sensor to fill.

re: optics on a smaller sensor - see Semilog's post above.
m4/3 is a different mount to 4/3, and also remember that this is a lens that is half the price of an equivalent quality sony/zeiss 24mm f2 for full frame. Half the price is a pretty sizable difference.
I don't mean to sound ultra critical, but I don't regard the canon G series to be comparible to m4/3 in terms of lenses. I always found the canon G cameras to be fairly rubbish personally.

Now, comparing the cosina 12mm f5.6 to the zuiko 12mm f2:
- Cosina is 10 elements in 8 groups, with 1 aspherical element
- Zuiko is 11 elements in 8 groups, with dual aspherical, ED elements, and super HR elements

- Cosina is 230g w/75x43mm dimensions, Zuiko is 130g w/56x43mm dimensions

So basically, the zuiko is optically more complex, with more exotic elements, is an AF lens with an MF clutch mechanism vs the Cosinas MF only construction, is smaller in size and weight despite being 3 whole stops faster, and it's RRP is $200 less than the Cosinas ($1000rrp).

 

[gavinlg]

Nikon 24mm f1.4G vs Zuiko 12mm @ f2

Considering the 24G is really highly regarded, and stopped down some, that result is really very impressive.

 

[LeicaFan]

Are you sure you'd regard it as big? It looks really small for a fast wide to me... It's smaller then the kit 14-42mm zoom when retracted and locked.

Compared to many M-Mount lenses, no, it isn't all that big, but compared to the pancake lenses from Panny, yes it is big. Part of the reason why I want to get a m4/3 is for its ultra-portability. A lens of this size would kill it for me (i.e., I need something that will fit in my jacket pocket, if needed.). If m4/3 was my primary system, I wouldn't mind so much.

I'd imagine others to feel the same way as I do.

 

[gavinlg]

^ Well, fair enough, but there's already the 14mm f2.5 and the 17mm f2.8 that have your wide and small needs covered, so it's not like you don't have choice.
IMO this system has always needed some high quality small primes, especially in the wides, and this is a great start.

 

[gavinlg]

This lens may sell me on the system. An all-metal, small, fast 24mm equivalent lens. If they make more lenses in that style, I'm sold. All I want is a 14mm f/2.0 and a 17mm f/1.8 and I'm in. Maybe an 11mm f/3.5 as well =).

Yes! Especially agreed on the 17mm f1.8. A fast 35 would be so great!

 

[LeicaFan]

^ Well, fair enough, but there's already the 14mm f2.5 and the 17mm f2.8 that have your wide and small needs covered, so it's not like you don't have choice.
IMO this system has always needed some high quality small primes, especially in the wides, and this is a great start.

I agree, it's nice to see some high quality primes coming out for this system.

 

[semilog]

I believe that was part of the marketing when Olympus introduced the E1 and the whole 4/3 system gibberish about how cool smaller sensors are. I'll have to check my Pop Photos from the era.

Tell that to Canon.

Yeah. That's a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge difference in sensor size between Canon APS-C and 4/3 or µ4/3, innit?

The technical term for such a vast difference in size is "negligible," IIRC.

 

[jsrockit]

I hope the idea sticks anyway, but I'm not interested until they make a rangefinder type body with a built in VF.

 

[shadowfox]

rangefinderforum.. kind of gives it away
seriously though, it's quite a wide lens, which makes it more a specialty lens than a walkaround.. which may explain the lack of a frenzy here.

Actually, this lens gets you closer to a real rangefinder operation, it has *surprise* ... a distance scale

Also being a rangefinder forum doesn't prevent X100 from being hyped up to the moon and back.

Thirdly, 24mm is *very* conducive to walkaround shooting, if you want to get interesting photos when you get home, that is. Ask Mr. Moriyama, I read that he uses 21mm even.

 

[shadowfox]

I believe that was part of the marketing when Olympus introduced the E1 and the whole 4/3 system gibberish about how cool smaller sensors are. I'll have to check my Pop Photos from the era.

Well, first of all, you believe the part of Olympus (as a company) that has the least ... erm... brain: Marketing.

Tell that to Canon. They've been making fast lenses for small cameras since the Canon G1. That was a 7-21mm f/2-2.5 in a camera that barely cost $900 (only because a 3 mp point and shoot cost that much back then). Are you going to tell me making a prime is harder than a zoom? Cosina can make a 12mm rectilinear lens for a full-frame camera and market it at $650 or so, and that's much more of an engineering feat than a small lens for a small sensor. Small lenses are easier/cheaper to make than a big lens. How else could Nikon make an 18-55mm zoom (remember, they're harder to engineer) for a third of the price of a 18mm prime? Because there's less sensor to fill.

I'll leave you to semilog to talk about sensor size. Good luck
As for Cosina, their 12mm does not have AF motors inside.

I thank you for your comments. At least we are talking about the dang lens, now.