Panasonic micro Four-Thirds to Panasonic 135 Format

 I've recently made the jump to the Panasonic Lumix S5 Mk II after quite a while with Four-Thirds and micro Four-Thirds using Panasonic and Olympus equipment.

I've heard people going on about "Full Frame" for the last 20 years, even if they didn't have any of the products. I used 135 Format back in my film days. I couldn't wait to get rid of film after spending 6 hours at a time repairing scanned photos and/or negatives.

I got into Four-Thirds in 2004 and into micro Four-Thirds in 2012. I got into video in late 2014 with the Panasonic GH4, even though the GH3 was fully capable of 1080p recording.

For US$1699, the GH4 was an overachiever. It's still impressive but the goals have changed, and 4K is more easily achievable with a 4K TV in many homes. Fast forward to 2024 when I saw a deal for the Panasonic S5 Mk II with 50mm f/1.8 and 20-60mm f/3.5-5.6 lenses for US$2247.99. The S5 Mk II body itself really isn't much more expensive than the GH4 was in 2014.

I almost bought the G9 Mk II because there was an incredible trade-in deal and I would have saved a lot of money, and wouldn't be looking for lenses. However, I wanted something different, and I wanted to keep my Panasonic GM5.  (What I didn't know is that the GM5 is worth more than the original GM5 + kit lens.  I was going to take the US$600 trade-in value.)

Still, I wanted two things from a new camera body: PDAF and IBIS.

The G9 Mk II and the S5 Mk II have both and they're the best that Panasonic has done. I could have bought an older, used body without the PDAF but I struggled on occasion with the GH4 and the GX8. I recorded video on the GH4 quite a bit. I was photographing a scooter tournament at Woodward West with the GH4 taking video and the Olympus E-M1 taking still photos--the best tools for the job. At a later date, I went back to photograph during a free day there and took a Nikon D7200, as well. It could not keep up.  I looked at the Z50 and the Z5 and the Z6, but didn't think that they were quite right.

I've had the S5 Mk II for a couple of weeks. It's a handful. Getting it set like the GH4 has been an incremental process. It's worked beautifully during the day and struggled at night. For all those people chanting "Full Frame", telling me that micro Four-Thirds wasn't getting enough light, each sensor needs the same exposure to light. The Panasonic 50mm f/1.8 on 135 Format is more difficult at night than my Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 was. Depth of Field doesn't matter if you can't get the shot. Image quality doesn't matter if you can't get the shot.

The difference between the Panasonic 50mm f/1.8 and the 50mm f/1.4 Pro lenses is about US$1500. Holy !@#$ I might as well go another thousand or four for the Leica lens. I really miss my designed-by-Leica-hand-assembled-by-Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 that was a Four-Thirds lens designed for the Leica Digilux 3. I was so afraid to take it out in bad weather, though. There was no weather-sealing at all.  Knowing that lens, I'm certain that the Panasonic 50mm f/1.4 Pro is an extremely capable lens.

Converting from the GH4, I am reminded that the video is going to be an easier transition than the still photography will be. I haven't worked with a 3:2 ratio since 135 Format film. Four-Thirds and micro Four-Thirds used 4:3 ratio, just like Medium Format. Kodak, the maker of the original sensors, was big in Medium Format.

Now, the big deal is the weight of the lenses. If you look back at the family portrait photo at the beginning, you'll notice the rather big lens. That was an Olympus SHG ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 lens. I would say that it's the finest lens I've used on any equipment. It has a 77mm filter size and it is heavy. The rest were quite easy to hand hold without IBIS or OIS but I handheld the 35-100mm f/2.0 on an Olympus E-5 to photograph swimming and basketball. I did not handhold it with any micro Four-Thirds body, including the E-M1 that was supposed to support all of the SHG lenses but was far too small for reasonable balance.

The Panasonic 50mm f/1.8 and 20-60mm f/3.5-5.6 are big and heavy for their apertures. They're weather-sealed and have Auto Focus, but they are shamefully large compared to lenses from the 1970s. Find a 50mm f/1.2 from Nikon, Olympus, or Canon and you'll find them rather small. Obviously, there were no electronic connections, no AF, no weather-sealing, but the optics were good, not great. A maximum aperture of f/1.2 meant that f/2.0 was good; f/1.4 meant that f/2.8 would be good, and it wouldn't be until later that there were amazing, regardless of the price.

Panasonic seems to be pushing daytime performance. The usual f/1.4 lenses aren't there, except for the 50mm f/1.4. As well, the telephoto zooms are few, although that's not unusual for Panasonic. I like that they all work with Dual I.S. so that the lens OIS works in conjunction with the IBIS and you can get a sharp image because of stabilization.

One thing I might do is to buy an adapter and use Canon or Nikon dSLR lenses. With micro Four-Thirds, you could buy an adapter with a focal reducer for increased effective apertures. No such tricks exist from 135 Format to 135 Format.

There are a few Chinese brands such as 7artisans, TTartisan, and Meike that are starting to make manual lenses for L-mount. Meike I trust. I had a 7artisans 55mm f/1.4 for micro Four-Thirds and it was good but heavy. The lens reviews I've seen for 7artisans and TTartisan seem evenly good and bad. Some seem to mention "falling apart", which doesn't give me confidence. Samyang has a 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8 that is appealing, if I can work with the weight. It also has auto focus, but I'll probably need a tripod or monopod to use it.

Update 2024.11.30: I was watching some video where a person had gone from Fujifilm X-T3, X-T4, X-T5 to one of the Nikon Z mirrorless bodies and then, to Fujifilm GFX 100.  He was feeling unhappy about not having any recent telephoto shots.  Instead of going back to a Fujifilm X-T5 with a better chance for better reach, he was going back to a Nikon Z body.  Does that make sense?  Why not stay with a brand you like?

On the adapters, Adorama had a deal on a Canon EF to L-mount adapter.  They also had a used Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 lens (not Milvus) for a bit under US$500.  That would have been about US$800 with tax and shipping.  The lens was rated Excellent but didn't include the lens hood.  Zeiss is not a brand I'd ever considered, but on their own, they're good and sometimes, great.  Partnering with Sony, as Panasonic and Leica are partnered, I lost some respect for them.  As well, Leica has some interesting fixed focal length lenses, but I wouldn't buy one of their zoom lenses.

TTartisan and 7artisans both have 135 Format fisheye lenses, 11mm f/2.8 and 10mm f/2.8 respectively.  The 7artisans lens is a redesign.  The company does that a lot, as if they make and sell a lot of mistakes with the first release.  They're both under US$300 and they're both manual lenses.  I miss my Olympus 8mm f/1.8 Pro for micro Four-Thirds.  That should have gone to the grave with me.

Update 2024.12.03: Watching another video from an S5 Mk II user trying a G9 Mk II, he states that the f-stop is really a f/5.6 for a 135 Format f/2.8.  It isn't.  The Depth of Field is like that, though.  However, it requires the same exposure calculation for any format.  If it really did take less light for the 135 Format sensor, Medium Format would have crushed 135 Format and 135 Format would have crushed APS-C and micro Four-Thirds.  I'm a bit shocked that such misinformation is still happening.  My Intro to Photography professor would have been surprised.

I've ordered a Tamron SP 180mm f/3.5 macro lens.  It isn't something new, as they don't really have any current dSLR lenses on their website any longer.  I ordered it with a Viltrox brand Canon EF-mount to L-mount Pro adapter.  Hopefully, it's enough so I stop whining/whinging about the lack of a telephoto lens.  It's heavy enough that I will be whining/whinging about carrying the extra weight in my backpack.

The latest video review I saw about it was in 2017 and I saw that the lens was introduced in 2003, but I'm hoping for the best and it was a rather expensive lens at one time.  Can't see spending money on one of the Panasonic telephoto zooms at this moment.

Update 2024.12.08: It's amazing how many videos I've seen on the S5 Mk II.  A few of them are people saying that they've switched from Sony equipment, just because support for video is so much better on Panasonic.  Some of what they're claiming are technologies that Panasonic incorporated to the GH* series of micro Four-Thirds bodies a few years ago.

By the way, I'm still waiting on my EF-mount to L-mount adapter that includes support for auto focus.  UPS failed me again.  I suspect that they misplaced the item after receiving it 12 hours after the lens.  I ordered a manual mount adapter which really isn't any good with a lens that doesn't include an aperture ring.  Guess what the Tamron lens doesn't have?

I need to photograph more.  I may need to work out to carry the new combination.

Update 2025.01.20: I got the adapter once Adorama sent another one, and the lens combination works reasonably well.  The weather is generally okay for walking to the store, but it's not really warm enough for me to be out photographing.  Eight years ago, I would have been out most every day and many nights.

I'm waiting for new Panasonic equipment to be announced.  I'd like to see some lenses and bodies (that I will not being buying) that replace the S1, S1R, and S1H with versions that include PDAF.

I'm really hoping for firmware to fix the night-time auto focusing issues.  It's not nearly as reliable as it should be.

Update 2025.01.23: Firmware update is out, and there are updates for Lumix Lab, Lumix Sync, and the Panasonic Image App.  For some reason, Lumix Lab did not see the firmware update, but I downloaded it and put in on the SD Card as I did 10 years ago.  It's night, so I haven't been out to try anything.

There were updates for vehicle recognition, and much more.

 

 

Update 2025.02.03: Vehicle recognition seems to work well.  I believe that the auto focus worked well for everything this afternoon. Someone posted about a pink moon on April 22nd.  I'm not sure it's a joke or real yet.  That would be interesting to photograph.  Took a few shots at night and it seems to be improved when focusing.  I didn't use the same lens during the evening but the detail looks good at 100%.

The latest firmware update seems to be a winner.

 Update 2025.02.26: Panasonic has introduced the S1R Mk II, which is a 44 MP still photo-centric camera body with video capabilities, including 8K30.  It's like a higher resolution version of the G9 Mk II.  They added PDAF (Phase Detection Auto Focus) and more, after five years.  There should be another, video-oriented body in April.  I wonder if they'll update the box camera bodies in micro Four-Thirds and 135 Format.

Update 2025.05.14: Panasonic has introduce the S1 Mk II and S1E Mk II.  I guess the S1H replacement is in there.  I guess a few people will be happy for the partially-stacked sensor and others won't like it, similar to the opinions about the Nikon Z6 Mk III.  I'm just happy that Panasonic has refreshed their lineup.  Having 5-6 year old models wasn't helping them.  There still aren't a bunch of good lenses, but they introduced a 24-60mm f/2.8, which is like a better version of the 20-60mm f/3.5-5.6.  It's not inexpensive, but it's about half the price of the Pro 24-70mm f/2.8 lens.

 

Now that they have all of their currently-sold (except S5D) 135 Format bodies using PDAF, they can make it more accurate.  It generally works on the S5 Mk II but it can be a pain to get it to lock focus.  I've been fighting with it using the Panasonic 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6.  Maybe that lens needs a firmware update.

Update 2025.09.06: Things are still going and there has been another firmware update but the system is far from perfect.  I generally get the shots I want but it takes more work than micro Four-Thirds did, mainly because of the auto focus.  It seems disagreeable with the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6, 20-60mm f/3.5-5.6, and the 50mm f/1.8.  I noticed a setting for quick AF and that had previously helped, but maybe I'm missing another setting or two, or I'm just shooting as a sports photographer.  I see comments from many that they're not having a problem, but I'm not a person to spend 45 minutes to photograph a flower. 

Got the Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 for US$99.00

Recently, Adorama and others had offered the Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 lens at a huge US$150.00 discount.  This is a lens that is priced at US$249.00 normally, which is already US$100 cheaper than the Olympus 25mm f/1.8 lens and quite a bit cheaper than the Panasonic/Leica 25mm f/1.4 lens and less than 25% of the Four-Thirds Leica-designed 25mm f/1.4 lens.  The box is about the same size as that Four-Thirds 25mm f/1.4 lens.

25mm f/1.7 box with Four-Thirds 25mm f/1.4

25mm f/1.7 is much smaller than Four-Thirds 25mm f/1.4

Curiously, there is a decoration ring included, somewhat like the Panasonic/Leica 15mm f/1.7 lens.  Unlike that lens, there is only one front lens cap, but you must remove the decoration ring to use the lens hood.  The lens hood is reversible, so you can store it on the lens.  The build is typically plastic but it doesn't feel so cheap.  The metal mount is a good thing.

I first mounted the lens to my Olympus E-M1 with firmware version 4.0 and it didn't seem happy with the lens.  It was slow to focus and take a shot, not so different from the way the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens works on the E-M1.  The 10 frames per second burst mode seems more like 3 fps with each lens.

Mounting it to the Panasonic GX8, it seems quick and fully functional.

I need to get it outside to determine color and sharpness but I hope it's better than a US$99.00 lens should be, even though I don't expect a lot.  At this price, it's fine.  I wonder if I would have been happy with it at US$249.00.

If I need a sharper 25mm lens, I can use my Four-Thirds Leica/Panasonic lens, which is amazing any day.  Using the adapter, it is possibly faster on the E-M1 than it is on the Olympus E-5, which is not always the case with many of my Four-Thirds lenses on the E-M1.

The Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 and Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4

Panasonic/Leica 15mm f/1.7 and Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4

Update 2015.12.04: My first outdoor experience using the lens was at a skate park after dark.  While the skate park has lights and seems to be well lit, the camera doesn't see it that way.

Looking closely, barely any of this is in focus

I used the Panasonic/Leica 15mm f/1.7 for quite a while and it seemed fine.  We went to eat and on return, I took the 25mm f/1.7 and mounted it to the GX8.  It was responsive but practically nothing was in focus.  Without using it side-by-side with the 15mm f/1.7, I'll guess that the extra darkness played with the ability to focus, even though the GX8's AF works down to EV -4.  I took a couple of very still (no movement whatsoever) shots at the end and was disappointed.  Time will tell.  (Using it on the GX8 might not be fair since it's so new also but the GX8 is much better with other lenses.)

Update 2015.12.05: Using the lens on the Olympus E-M1 gave quite different results but this is, naturally, inconclusive.  More experience is necessary to see how the lens behaves.

100% magnification of the lamp

It looks good enough, very different from the previous evening at about the same time.  As I try it more, I hope it will justify its purchase.

Available light only, it did quite well

Update 2015.12.10: I got more photos out in the dark on the 6th and it seemed okay.  Everything was handheld with the Olympus E-M1.  I need to try it again with the Panasonic GX8 and for the first time with the GH4--without any image stabilization to see the results.

I've noticed something odd.  This is the only lens I've used with Phase One Capture One Pro that doesn't always report its characteristics such as focal length.

Update 2016.01.02: I used the lens with a wide angle/macro converter and it worked well enough.  Capture One Pro reported the combination as 15mm, which is an easy, inexpensive way to get a bit of a wide angle, if you're willing to put up with somewhat significant distortion.

25mm and wide angle converter

25mm f/1.7 by itself

GX8 panorama with 25mm and wide angle converter

For people who like tiny photographic equipment, it should be good with Olympus' 5-axis image stabilization.  The GX8's inbuilt image stabilization doesn't seem quite ready but I have steady hands.  I'm not sure why, but the IS indicator showed that there was no IS with the 25mm f/1.7.  (Yes, I know that the 25mm f/1.7 lens has no OIS.)  As with the lack of information in Capture One Pro, it seems as though the 25mm lens may need a firmware update or two.

25mm f/1.7 on GX8

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 fisheye on E-M1

Update 2016.02.17: I was surprised at how well the lens did yesterday during sunset.  I mounted the 25mm on the GX8 and also used the Olympus E-M1 with the 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lens.  If there was any lens flare, the GX8 must have extinguished it in firmware.

Update 2016.07.04: I was waiting for someone, and walking around a little town taking a few photos with the 25mm f/1.7 and Panasonic GM5.  It seemed okay but not quite as resistant to some ugly results.

 

Update 2016.07.30: I keep finding odd situations where the 25mm just will not focus properly with Panasonic bodies--I have three of them.  It still seems fine with the E-M1.  I'm not sure why the GX8, GM5, or GH4 would have problems with it.  It seems less of a problem with the GH4.  Could this be shutter shock, not a focusing problem when everything looks steady?

Update 2016.09.29: The new Olympus 25mm f/1.2 has been announced.  There are arguments all over the place, from the usual "it's an f/2.4 lens" to "it's too big and expensive for micro Four-Thirds.

Having the Leica-designed Four-Thirds f/1.4 lens, I don't feel much of a need.  It would be great to have a weather-resistant lens but it's not imperative to have, unless California's drought goes away soon.

There is a Panasonic/Leica 12mm f/1.4 that is weather-resistant and seems to fill a need for a wider lens.  At US$1299.99 (US$100 more than the 25mm f/1.2), it's somewhat expensive but fills a need for someone who can't use a zoom lens at night because of the f/2.8 maximum aperture.

For most micro Four-Thirds users, it seems as though economical lenses make sense.  In my case, I've spent my money on fixed maximum aperture zoom lenses with an exception here or there.  They do a good job, until sunset passes.  The few fixed focal length lenses I have sometimes help but in sports, I find them too inflexible, as I just can't get closer to the scene.

Anyway, there are so many native 25mm lenses available for micro Four-Thirds that anyone should be happy.  Add to those a few with a passive mount and you're set for normal view shooting.

Update 2024.10.19: During 2016, I gave away the Panasonic GX8 and the 25mm f/1.7 lens.  I wasn't happy with either and I was tired of the frustration.  The person who got it didn't have any equipment and did fine when I lent him a camera for photographing a baseball game.

Back in late 2021, I bought the Olympus 25mm f/1.8, refurbished for US$249.99, I believe, and it's been quite good.  It works better on the GM5 than the Panasonic lens ever did.

I recently got the Panasonic S5 Mk II with 20-60mm f/3.5-5.6 and 50mm f/1.8.  That nifty fifty is about as large as the GM5 and a 25mm f/1.8 lens.

Four-Thirds and micro Four-Thirds family portrait

I've been working with serious digital equipment since 2004 when I bought an Olympus E-1, ZD 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5, and ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5, and it at times has been a struggle.

Today, as you'll see, I have a lot more equipment, having added micro Four-Thirds equipment from both Olympus and Panasonic.  I also have the latest APS-C based dSLR from Nikon, the D7200.

I'm quite pleased to say that the E-1 is still working and the initial lenses are quite useful, especially after photographing out in three hurricanes.  The specifications of the E-1 aren't great for 2015, but there was some concern about the E-1 from the beginning anyway.  It worked just fine.

As of now, my equipment lists are as follows:

Four-Thirds

• Olympus E-1
• Olympus E-5
• Olympus HG 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5
• Olympus HG 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5
• Olympus HG 50mm f/2.0 macro
• Olympus SHG 14-35mm f/2.0
• Olympus SHG 35-100mm f/2.0
• Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4

micro Four-Thirds

• Olympus E-M1
• Panasonic GH4
• Panasonic GX8
• Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8
• Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8
• Panasonic/Leica 15mm f/1.7
• Olympus 8mm f/1.8 fisheye
• Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8
• Panasonic 25mm f/1.7

Of course, the Four-Thirds lenses can be used with the Olympus MMF-3 adapter, which is also weather-sealed to match the Olympus ZD HG (high grade) and SHG (super high grade) lenses.

There was a flirtation with the Panasonic GH3, and I got the MMF-3 because there just weren't many native mount high quality lenses, and I wasn't exactly thrilled with thrilled with the 35-100mm f/2.8 lens.  Truly, the 35-100mm f/2.8 seems to have been the product of another, lesser company, even differing from the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 lens.  The GH3 is technically great equipment.  It was just a pain for me to use, especially with sunglasses.  The GH4 changes most of that and improves and expands the video capabilities.  I pull out the GH4 first.

Most of my video work has been done with the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens on the GH4.  This is not a stabilized lens and it isn't on a stabilized body, but I've done well with the combination.  I've not had much success with the 35-100mm f/2.8 lens but used it at a recent skate park competition and it was sufficient.  (At a previous competition, the video is practically bouncing, after the latest lens firmware update.)  The 12-35mm f/2.8 works well enough but that extra 5mm of reach with the Olympus lens makes a huge difference.  You can tell me that 24-70mm f/2.8 is sufficient on a 135 Format camera, but when it comes to video, it isn't.  A 3x or 4x zoom would do wonders here, even if it didn't have a constant maximum aperture.  The Panasonic-designed 15mm f/1.7, approved by Leica to wear its name, has been good, even in the dark and the Olympus 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lens has been useful in such conditions.

Four-Thirds behind micro Four-Thirds

Even though the Panasonic GH4 may seem large, it's smaller than the Olympus E-1, which was right-sized, for me, at least.  The grips of the dSLRs and the GH4 are very good, while the E-M1 is uncomfortable and the GX8 is good.  The E-M1 is dwarfed by both dSLRs.

Each of the bodies is weather-sealed, and most of the lenses are, also.  This apparently added bulk (as did the heat handling) to the GX8 over the GX7, but the handling is better with the size increase though the battery power is not.

One of the dSLRs and two of the MILCs (mirror-less interchangeable lens cameras) have sensor-based image stabilization, and the GX8 has the Dual I.S. to coordinate with the lens' OIS, when available.  I wish Panasonic added Power OIS to the 15mm f/1.7 for better work in bad lighting.  The new 42.5mm f/1.7 has it.  I'm still looking for great lenses and haven't found any for micro Four-Thirds, but these will do, and the MMF-3 will allow me to use the ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 and 35-100mm f/2.0 when necessary.

Batteries: Nikon D7200, E-M1, GX8, GH4, E-5

The E-M1 and GX8 batteries at 1220 mAh each and the GH4's battery has 1860 mAh of capacity.  The E-1 battery has 1500 mAh and the E-5 battery, 1620 mAh.  For comparison, the diminutive D7200 battery can hold 1900 mAh.

The GH4, like the GH3 can last quite a long time, and I only have two batteries, one I used to use on the GH3.  For the E-M1, I have three batteries, and I've got two for the GX8.  The E-5 batteries last quite a long time, probably because there is no electronic viewfinder.

Strangely, having got the Nikon D7200, I'm still finding the micro Four-Thirds equipment quite useful while learning the digital Nikon way of doing things.  People have commented in the past that using Canon or Nikon equipment was the only way to go.  There are advantages, but I haven't experienced any of them yet. Since the sensor of the D7200 has a similar pixel density to the 16MP sensors in the GH4 and E-M1, I couldn't expect much better image quality.

If Panasonic could work with Olympus to implement Olympus' auto focus and face recognition for stills, it would be a huge improvement to still photography in the GH4.  Adding their 5-axis image stabilization would be difficult, given the heat dissipating orientation of the body for video.  They'd probably have to increase the size of the body to make it all work safely.  This would make the resulting camera body practically perfect, for me, anyway.

Update 2015.11.22: I saw an amazing deal on the new Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 lens for US$99.00, which seems to be US$150.00 off the regular price.  Regardless of what I might think of the lens at full price, it's quite good at the discounted price, I hope.  I am a little skeptical.  I had the Panasonic 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6 at one time and I got that at the same price.  I didn't have much luck with it, and gave it away.  However, Panasonic has been doing better, at all levels.

Update 2015.12.02: The Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 isn't bad, especially for US$99.00.  It works quickly on the GX8 but not so quickly on the E-M1, and I have yet to mount it to the GH4.

As I have the Leica-designed Four-Thirds 25mm f/1.4 that was important to the Leica Digilux 3, but also for the Panasonic DMC-L1 and Olympus E-330, I have an amazing quality normal lens.  Risking a US$1199.99 lens in the rain isn't a good idea but the 25mm f/1.7 lens at US$249.00 might not be as much of a risk.

Olympus' new Ultra Wide Angle and Fisheye lenses look good: fisheye on order

I'm a long time user of Olympus equipment, though I mostly claim the E-System as helping my serious photographic work.  Starting with the E-1, 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5, and 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5, I did quite well as digital photography was growing out of its infancy.

I have contemplated the Four-Thirds 7-14mm f/4.0 and 8mm f/3.5 lenses for a very long time.

The trouble with both was the relatively small aperture of each.  I don't really photograph landscapes, so using the 7-14mm indoors might be a problem without substantial lighting.

Equally, the 8mm f/3.5 fisheye lens was not enough for interior or lower light work at skate parks.

Today, they announced two micro Four-Thirds lenses that change all that: 7-14mm f/2.8 and 8mm f/1.8 fisheye.

At US$1299.99 and US$999.99, they are not cheap lenses, but they are not exactly expensive lenses, either, given the capabilities.  Both will be available around the end of June 2015.

At US$1799.99 and US$799.99, the Four-Thirds versions were somewhat similar in price and capability but a bit too big and slow for micro Four-Thirds.  The 7-14mm f/4.0 is a Super High Grade lens while the 8mm f/3.5 fisheye is a High Grade lens.

They're all weather-sealed.  I doubt seriously I'll be doing work at skate parks in the rain, but I suspect that these lenses will be great for many more situations.

The micro Four-Thirds lenses look absolutely small, especially compared to the Four-Thirds versions.

According to DPReview, the 8mm f/1.8 fisheye is not really f/1.8.  While they are referring to the effective depth of field, they insinuate more.  I suspect that the shutter speeds used to make use of the maximum aperture will reflect f/1.8, regardless of DPReview.  Their bias against Olympus has been so strong that Olympus refused to send them an E-3 dSLR review unit.

In any case, I'm likely to pre-order the fisheye and I may pre-order the UWA lens as well.

Update 2015.06.29: I went to the camera store to see about the lens.  They have no idea when it will arrive.  Apparently, the only information is that two of us have ordered it.  I'm wondering, as much as they ignore the California stores, if the Colorado stores are getting them first, regardless of when we ordered.  I should have gone with Adorama.

Update 2015.06.30: I returned today and talked to the manager in a firm, but pleasant tone of voice.  I told him that I didn't think that being told "whenever" as a delivery date was acceptable, and that my money didn't seem to be important to the sales person.  He agreed and swore to impress upon that person (through torture, if necessary :-D ) that sales requires a bit more finesse.  The money has been pushed back to my account, but of course, that doesn't happen immediately, does it?

A few minutes later, across the street before entering a store, I called Adorama, checked to see if they had the lens in stock, and they had just received 10 of them.  I should have it Thursday or Friday and I'm using 2nd Day Air.  It could arrive the same time regardless, but UPS will artificially hold packages, even when they don't have enough deliveries, unlike FedEx.

Understanding lens design

I was looking at an article on Olympus' micro Four-Thirds 7-14mm f/2.8 lens.  As the ultra-wide-angle end is at 7mm, they've had to use a pronounced convex front element, which of course, doesn't allow a filter.  It should be obvious that drastic measures are needed to correct for distortion.

Somehow, many people, who probably won't be buying the lens anyway due to the price, think it's a simple matter to design such a lens to accept a filter in front because on formats with larger sensors, the equivalent focal length lenses can accept a filter.

Those lenses don't reach 7mm at the wide end.  There are other lenses from other optics makers which have similar convex front elements, but this is lost on those who just want a fantasy.  "Ultra Wide Angle lens for US$500?  Sure, we can do that.  Oh, and you want it pocket sized?  Easily done."  :-D

Similarly, the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens doesn't have fast auto focusing, even in the second generation lens.  Why?  There isn't enough room for such a motor in a compromised (pancake) design.  The Leica 15mm f/1.7 designed by Panasonic should be really quick since it is a better shape and has more (relative) room.

I can't imagine why people can't understand that optimal (is there ever a perfect?) optics require room.  If you put things into a compact package, there are many compromises.  We've seen this from what Olympus and Panasonic took from Four-Thirds to micro Four-Thirds.

Panasonic's micro Four-Thirds 7-14mm f/4.0 and 8mm fisheye lenses mimic Olympus' Four-Thirds lenses.  They seem very well built, although they lack weather-sealing.  The trouble is that they made them so compact that there are many optical problems, many of which are ameliorated by software.  Similarly, Olympus' 12mm f/2.0 lens fixes things in software to allow such a tiny design to work.  (I'd rather it be the size of the 75mm f/1.8 and eschew any software fixes.)

Many people have complained about the size of the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens.  I find it extremely small.  They find it extremely large.  The difference is that I've been using the 14-35mm f/2.0 lens with a 77mm filter size and the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 with a 67mm filter size, both excellent lenses.  The 12-40mm fits in-between the two in ability and price, but only uses a 62mm filter size.

There are still compromises, I'm sure, but I haven't found them.  The fact that Olympus went to 12mm from 14mm says a lot.  There is a lot of extra work to get 12mm working correctly, especially in a zoom.  That the lens isn't huge also says a lot, especially when its zoom range is bigger than that of the 14-35mm lens.  I expected the lens to have a 67mm or even a 72mm filter size.  It is much more compact than I would have expected.

I'm waiting to see the weather-sealed lenses from FujiFilm--the 16-55mm f/2.8 and 50-140mm f/2.8.  What I thought I saw was that the 50-140mm lens had a smaller filter size than the 16-55mm lens.  That makes me wonder about compromises made to the 50-140mm lens to allow it to be more compact than it should be.  Nikon's 70-200mm f/2.8 lens has a 77mm filter size, though they don't have an APS-C sized version for an easy comparison.  However, if the 50-140mm lens is responsive and sharp, I don't think most people will notice a problem.

Am I more practical about these things?  Is it really difficult to see that larger lenses can have better optics because there is more room for the correct geometry?  When will companies produce a line of (almost) no-compromise lenses for small format camera bodies, when pigs fly?

Panasonic/Leica 15mm f/1.7

Since Panasonic has announced the availability of this lens on Monday, the silly comments have started.  (It's due in early June by itself, or in late June with the black-bodied GM1.)

Got mine!

We have the ever-present "f/3.4" comment from the people who probably don't have 135 Format (commonly, mistakenly known as 35mm) equipment, but can't really find another way to bash micro Four-Thirds.  My thought is always that they've never worked with Medium Format, either, and getting enough depth of field is a wonderful thing.  I've always had to work at getting enough DoF with Four-Thirds and micro Four-Thirds, though I'm almost always working wide open.

Then, there is the US$599.99 is too much for such a tiny lens for a tiny sensor.  I wonder how those who are Nikon users resolve the conflict with the Nikon 1 system--that they probably have in their bag, along with their APS-C-sized dSLR.  There are lenses in that system for around US$900.

I saw one complaining that Leica just sold the name to put on it.  However, they have to approve the design before allowing their name.  It makes me wonder how the 45mm f/2.8 macro and 25mm f/1.4 micro Four-Thirds lenses were allowed, if Leica approved them, which I'm sure they did.  The filter size of the Four-Thirds version of the Leica-branded 25mm f/1.4 is 62mm and the micro Four-Thirds version is 46mm.  That's a huge difference, even when the barrel size of an equivalent micro Four-Thirds lens will be smaller than its Four-Thirds relative.  It's interesting that the 15mm f/1.7 has a filter size of 46mm, also.

Is there a way to build tiny lenses and not compromise?  I'm sure there is, as long as the barrel geometry is not that of a pancake-style lens.  Panasonic's 20mm f/1.7 does a good job, but the compromises are many and software helps quite a lot to fix things, except the focusing speed, of course.  Too bad they didn't create a bigger 20mm lens with a more powerful focusing motor, but then, many people wouldn't love that compromise.

Does the aperture ring lock in Auto?

I expect that the 15mm f/1.7 will be sharp and quick to focus and it will make the Panasonic GM1 a good alternative to the FujiFilm X100s, with some extra flexibility allowed by the ability to use many lenses.  I still want to see the GM1 mounted to my Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0, on the tripod, of course, with the 35-100mm f/2.0 using the tripod collar.  I think I'd take it out with me just to get people's reactions.

I'm guessing that the GM1 will sell better now that there is a second lens made specifically for it, especially if the black body is available in the U.S.A. for "professional" use.  :-D  I just had a thought about the black-anodized bodies from the 1970s and 1980s where the black would rub off after so much use.  US$999.99 seems expensive for the combination but is the FujiFilm X100s at US$1299.99 expensive?  It's all about perspective, right?

I'd love a pocket-able pocket camera with high quality images.  (I've used an iPhone for various wide photography since it's always with me.)  I believe the GM1 with the 15mm f/1.7 will deliver.  Even the 12-32mm kit lens is quite good.

Update 2014.03.27: Please don't expect that Olympus will support the aperture ring.  They've had about 9 or 10 years to support aperture rings from Leica/Panasonic lenses made for Four-Thirds at the time of the Leica Digilux 3, Panasonic DMC-L1, and Olympus E-330 and they still haven't done anything about them.  It's not likely that it's even a thought in their minds.  If everything back then had them, and they didn't support them, it isn't likely now when very few have them.

Update 2014.04.10: It seems odd that the front element of the lens is so small.  I could imagine a smaller barrel, if they were willing to compromise/eliminate physical controls.   Would it have hurt to make it an f/1.4 lens and use more of that space?

Update 2014.06.08: I was looking for this today at Unique Photo, along with the GM1.  Unfortunately, it will probably be available at the end of the month, when I'm long gone from Central New Jersey.  The GM1 is so tiny, it needs a great lens with it, and this could be it.   It really needs the little grip also.

Update 2014.10.01: I'm still considering this, but now with the GM5.  I was reading a review on What Digital Camera--they gave it 89% which is quite good.  The trouble is that the showed pronounced purple fringing at maximum aperture and noted that the lens works best between f/4.0 and f/5.6.  It seems a bit expensive for such performance.  I'm not sure why Panasonic can't create lenses with better optical quality or why Leica would put their name on problematic lenses at all.  I'm not saying that it's a horrible lens.  I think I'm just too critical.  I've seen plenty of photos taken with kit lenses that were surprisingly good to me.

Update 2015.02.05: Yesterday, I went to the most local camera store and asked to buy this lens, which wasn't in stock at that store.  Had a gone 45 miles in a different direction, I would have had it in my hands.  They're delivering it to the store and I'll pick it up, which should also give me a moment or three to talk about video with the staffer who does that sort of thing and is available on the weekend.  They didn't automatically offer the $50 instant rebate but when I asked, it wasn't a problem, as it was in the book and clearly available on Adorama, B&H Photo, etc.

I look forward to having a wider, lower light alternative, considering my only other lens is the rather huge Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 for Four-Thirds with the 62mm filter size, which requires an adapter to be used on the GH4 or E-M1.

Update 2017.01.19: DJI, the drone maker, has a version for the same price as the Panasonic/Leica lens, which includes the aperture ring and lens hood.

I've had the Panasonic/Leica lens for quite a while and it isn't perfect.  This past summer, I got the Panasonic GM5 and the combination is quite impressive.  Obviously, Panasonic does something extra to fix problems with the lens and it's almost impossible to tell that there are any problems, until you put it on an Olympus body.  Thankfully, Olympus lenses on Panasonic bodies don't seem to give optical problems.

Regardless, the lens allows quite good photos and video.

Olympus' new PRO series lenses for micro Four-Thirds

I'm really not sure about these lenses yet but they are good for Olympus.  They have meaning for me because I've been using Four-Thirds equipment for 10 years this April.  The weather-sealed designs of my Olympus equipment have been instrumental in keeping the equipment safe in any circumstance I've had to photograph.

I have several Four-Thirds lenses--2 Super High Grade lenses (14-35mm, 35-100mm), 3 High Grade lenses (14-54mm, 50-200mm, 50mm macro), and 1 Leica/Panasonic lens (25mm).  Weaning myself from these lenses will be difficult because they're quite amazing.  I've found myself time and again disappointed by the majority of micro Four-Thirds lenses.  Those few that are great, are getting some reinforcements.

As they cast off their Four-Thirds line of dSLRs, they brought forth lens designs, in-between the HG and SHG lines of Olympus Four-Thirds lenses, but this time for micro Four-Thirds, and with constant maximum apertures.

The 12-40mm f/2.8 is already available and it's very good, positioned between the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and the 14-35mm f/2.0 Four-Thirds lenses.

The 40-150mm f/2.8 seems to be on-schedule and should arrive about halfway through 2014.  I suspect that the image quality will be roughly the same as the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 and not that close to the 35-100mm f/2.0.

Prior to CP+ expo, they showed new mockups of a 7-14mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4.0.

The 7-14mm f/2.8 obviously has a larger maximum aperture than the current 7-14mm f/4.0 that is highly regarded by Four-Thirds users.  As with any ultra-wide lens, it has a convex lens element in front, meaning that adding an optical filter is not easily possible and the lens doesn't support them directly.  I've been considering the Four-Thirds lens quite a long time, as the weather-sealing is a major factor for me.  I see a demonstrator available every so often for a considerable discount.  However, f/4.0 is difficult to use with the older sensors, unless I carry my cheapo studio lights with me, and somehow power them in an occasional outdoor twilight shoot.

The 300mm f/4.0 has a smaller aperture than its Four-Thirds equivalent, a rather huge lens that is/was priced at US$5999.99, I believe.  That could be the price of the 90-250mm f/2.8.  They were within US$1000 of each other.  The 300mm f/2.8, like the 90-250mm f/2.8 was built to order, rather than trying to stock something so complex and unique.  The f/4.0 lens will be much less unique and won't be able to be that heavy but hopefully, won't rely on electronic tricks to fix optical flaws, due to its smaller size.  I would expect that the 300mm f/4.0 will be roughly twice the price of the other three, possibly US$1999.99.  If higher, I don't see it going for more than US$2999.99.  Photographers of birds would surely like lighter equipment, but I wonder if the maximum aperture will cause them concern.  If  WiFi was enabled, they could have several of them pointed at a certain sport from different angles with the savings they got from not buying a 135 format 600mm lens.

They're still missing a 150-300mm f/2.8 zoom to fill the gap.  I wouldn't expect that lens to be US$999.99 but it shouldn't be outrageous, and being a 2x zoom lens, it could be light even with a very good optical design.  Given the current micro Four-Thirds 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7, they probably wouldn't even want to make people think about a comparison with a similar focal length range.  I currently use both the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 and 35-100mm f/2.0 but for different sports.  I'm not sure that working with two mirror-less bodies and two lenses is convenient to complete the 50-200mm range, but that's what they're doing anyway, not going with a 50-200mm.  The 40-150mm f/2.8 will certainly be close enough to the 35-100mm f/2.0 but there won't likely be a 4x zoom that will directly replace the 50-200mm, which is my most-used lens, followed by my ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 lens.

It's good to see Olympus finally decisive again, after 10 years of an almost completely aimless walkabout, even if there were some interesting highlights.

Update 2014.02.20: I bought the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens yesterday.  It's good to have a somewhat wider view, from 14mm to 12mm.  It made quite a difference--between getting the shot and getting part of the shot.  The lens feels right at home with the GH3, despite the lack of image stabilization.  It's sad that it won't work on the E-5 but times change.

Update 2014.02.25: After a few days of use of the 12-40mm, I'm as much in love with it as the 14-35mm f/2.0 lens, but with slightly lower expectations.  The great thing is that the lens hood is small enough to carry with me, though I can't imagine it's big enough to be incredibly effective.  I'm trying to remember whether I used it during the Olympus photo walk when the sun was just over the state capitol building and the Panasonic lens gave me huge lens flare but the Olympus lens mostly rejected it, even with the sun in the frame.

Could these keep me from moving to FujiFilm?

Update 2014.03.19: The 12-40mm seems quite amazing for the price.  It has brought new life to the GH3, as the color is so much better than that of the 35-100mm f/2.8.   Sadly, I have to wait for the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens to come from Olympus, but that should be around September, which will likely be a good time to purchase the Panasonic GH4.  Since the GH3 has a larger grip than the E-M1, I doubt I'll have any trouble keeping my hands steady during sports.  If I can do it with an E-1 that doesn't have stabilization, and the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 or E-5 with the 35-100mm f/2.0, I should be able to handle the GH3/GH4 and 40-150mm f/2.8.

Update 2014.12.16: I'm interested in the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens and it's available now, along with the 1.4x teleconverter, though I noticed something disturbing earlier.

I found this comment from Jordan Steele concerning his review of the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 lens and also concerning the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8:

The Panny is way better in the flare department

Now, I'm concerned about the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens, considering my previous experience with my 35-100mm f/2.8 lens and huge lens flare.