First Olympus 15mm f/8.0 image samples!


Image courtesy Pekka Potka.

Finally you can see plenty of image samples taken with the strangest of all Micro Four Thirds lenses…the Olympus body cap lens.

Pekka Potka just posted the first B&W pictures of his dog and writes: “Aperture f/8 is far too dim to be usable (without flash) casually in a traditional P&S style whenever, if you expect normally sharp images. You really have to set your eye and mind to f/8 and work with the consequensies of it, namely blur.

Also Peter Norman (via mu43) posted a set of image samples on Flickr. This time in color!

Lens preorders at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here) and Bhphoto (Click here).


  • Farrukh

    In retrospect, the lens cap lens looks great :)

    • Thewy

      These are just rubbish photos bottom line. its not that you cannot take decent photos at F8 and 15mm. It has however a very narrow useage . I wonder how he managed to get so many soft looking shots with the same DOF as a 30mm FF at F16 { example a FF 30mm focused at 6.5 feet would give depth of field from 3ft to infinity.}

      • That is a very silly statement. You should look at the shots with reference to the comments. True some are not in the best of images but it is a set from a lens test where limitations have been noted.
        There are however some startlingly good shots that show a great old fashioned image quality and well composed, #22 house and #29 the road being prime examples. #3,9,11 and 20 I like as well they have endearing qualities. I like the way #15 rotates as the screen is scrolled.
        Aussie in Gurnsey has some shots that look like the ones that people used to take. They have an immortal quality and B&W sits well with the 15mm

        • 354pete

          At JimD , I have to agree with the previous poster that the photos linked to are very poor , this does not mean that the lens can only take poor photos but these are

          • Friggin’ Einstein

            Reviewers are almost never good photographers. Worst of all most have no real interest in becoming good photographers. Most of the people who frequent these tech websites don’t know anything about composition past “the rule of thirds”, a root rectangle would be so far over their head they’d cry. Photography has been dumbed down just as music and filmmaking was before it. A pictures merit is now based on how creamy the bokeh is or how sharp the image is rather than the composition or subject… you know the part the photographer controls…

            Everyone waiting and crying about one new feature or another instead of actually learning art. It’s incredible sad to see for anyone who loves this media.

      • caver3d

        Your comments are absolute rubbish. You also have no concept of DOF.

        Those photos are excellent.

        • 354pete

          Yes DOF management is a big thing with an F8 15mm mFT lens lol the photos suck big time

    • fRET

      Diffraction is not a theory it is a reality at F8 on mFT you are losing around 10% of your resolution from the peak score of the lens by F11 its around 20%.The composition of the picture may benefit more from the extra DOF so it is swings and roundabouts but diffraction is very real.

      • Bart

        No, diffraction is a reality regardless of f-stop, it is an inherent effect of waves going through an aperture. What you should have said is that generally, diffraction may become observable at around f8 on a 12mp 4/3″ sensor.

        If diffraction is what limits resolution depends on the amount of diffraction as much as on aberrations that affect resolution (spherical aberrations, astigmatism, coma etc), and of course on the resolution of the medium. Your numbers may be correct for a 4/3″ type sensor with a specific resolution, but will be wrong for a 4/3″ type sensor with a different resolution and in either case will depend also on the performance of the lens.

        Diffraction isn’t a simple black/white thing really.

  • Woodent

    what a strange conclusion about f8 being unusable for anything but blury pictures. Street photography is mostly shot at that aperture, even on film, not to mention cameras like E-M5 where you can easily shoot at ISO 1600, especially B&W

    • RMA

      Yeah, bizarre. If you don’t have time to focus, of course you’re at f8! I don’t understand the complaint. Film cameras were set at f8 all the time in the 60s and 70s.

      • alvarelias

        Film cameras have a quite bigger “sensor” surface, hence f/4 it’s f/8 in terms of focus deep… f8 is useless in m4/3. Check luminous landscape where they explain at f8 you can never reach 8MP of resolution because of diffraction. So why bother? At f8 and hyper-high ISO my E-M5 can easily be outperormd by an iphone… And it’s even smaller…. ;)

        • Brod1er

          Diffraction limiting does in theory set in around f8, however many lenses in practice work fine to f11 on mft. Diffraction limiting will be much more severe on the iphone. Saying f8 is “useless on mft” is nonsense. It actually gives much greater DOF than F8 on FF which will be very helpful for street photography. You would require iso800 f16 on FF for equivalent iso200 f8 on mft.

          • alvarelias

            Iphone lens is a 30mm f/22 equivalent lens. I,ve to admit that a lens in not only diffraction limited but my point is that many point are shoots or mobile phones are better for street photo. A phone is very discreet and nobody could imagine you’re shooting sometimes…

            • Response time is an issue with street work. Lacking AF, this thingy would be much superior to a cell phone in some situations. Proper point & shoot.

        • Martin

          I think you should return to the luminous landscape article and follow the links to the theory behind it. Then you’ll find out that the diffraction limit for a 16MP 4/3rds sensor is just under f8 such that f8 is far from useless. Wrong calculations of diffraction limits for digital cameras abound; most of them are flawed by forgetting that the sensor cells are monochromatic, each being R, G, or B only (unless you go for FOVEON sensors). This reduces actual resolution to below the pixel count, letting diffraction limitation kick in later. While it is true that at f8, resolution on a 4/3rds sensor is in the 8Mpixel range, this doesn’t constitute relevant diffraction limitation. Due to the demosaicing, the effective resolution isn’t higher anyway.

          • alvarelias

            So I was right then? I’m not a theory geek but for me the decency level in m4/3 lens for the size I’m used to enlarge (A3+) f8 is avoided except in tele lens

            • Martin

              No, you were wrong. At f8, diffraction limitation just starts to kick in on 16MP 4/3rds. Hence, f8 is close to the optimal aperture resolutionwise. No need to worry about a lens being f8. And it is completely misplaced to call it “useless”.

              • Dani

                alvardelias is right, f/8 is quite soft for any wide angle lens (for a US$1,300 camera)

                • Martin

                  “…is quite soft for any wide-angle lens”: Did you ever try whether it depends on the focal length? It doesn’t. Sure, the telephoto lens has a larger aperture at the same f-stop, but it also has a longer focal distance. And the dependence of diffraction on aperture size plus the theorem of intercepting lines implies that those two cancel such that diffraction only depends on the f-stop, independent of focal length.

            • JF

              LOL ! you know it is not all about diffraction, for landscape you often need a deep DOF from few meters to infinity if you want sharp pictures. If you have no diffraction but out of focus background it is worst…that why I often shoot landscapes at f8 which is equivalent to f16 in full frame and which is often used by professional landscapes photographers (I’m not…) In addition, lenses have often the best edges sharpness at f8. I have printed some landscapes at f8 (from 9 mm to 12 mm in m43, eq. 18 mm to 24 mm FF) in A3 and it is very sharp !!
              12mm f8 landscape:
              Concerning the oly 15mm f8: LOL, if I need a lens cap, I use a lens cap, if I need a lens…I use a lens…

        • Me

          > Check luminous landscape where they explain at f8 you can never reach 8MP of resolution because of diffraction.

          Are you aware of that fact that the focal length plays a big role on that, too? Your statement is nonsense because of that. With longer focal lengths, diffraction starts way beyond f8, because what really matters for diffraction is the diameter of the aperture, not the f-stop.

          • alvarelias

            Even more at 15mm, as I said in othe post I avoid f8 except in tele range where I found tele zooms to show their sweetest point

            In LL website they’ve calculate it around 22mm focal length…

          • Bart

            You are only considering object size diffraction, but there is a bit more to this.

            On the projection side, there is also diffraction, and a very important factor in that is the distance between the exit pupil and the medium, the shorter the better. Because a longer lens has its exit pupil further away from the medium, it will have more projection/image side diffraction then a shorter lens.

            It just so turns out that this effect and the object side diffraction (which gets lower with longer lenses with the same f-stop) nicely compensate eachother, and your telelens will start showing diffraction at about the same f-stop as a wider angle lens.


            A short quote of the relevant part:
            “Technical Note: Independence of Focal Length

            Since the physical size of an aperture is larger for telephoto lenses (f/4 is has a 50 mm diameter at 200 mm, but only 25 mm diameter at 100 mm), why doesn’t the airy disk become smaller? This is because longer focal lengths also cause light to travel further before hitting the camera sensor — thus increasing the distance over which the airy disk can continue to diverge. The competing effects of larger aperture and longer focal length therefore cancel, leaving only the f-number as being important (which describes focal length relative to aperture size)”

          • trtrtr

            emmm I think you should read up on what aperture actually means before correcting others

        • Digifan

          What a croc o’ Bull F8 is F8 on ANY format so it’s not totally useless on m43. How the h.. can you think F4=F8 in terms of light gathering capability.
          You shouldn’t blabber the same after any perseived expert.
          Come on Pekka can make great pictures but maybe this is not his “style”.
          I’ve made many quality shots with setting aperture on F7.1 and F8.

          • y5y5

            @ digifan are you guys retarded that cannot grasp the simple fact that FF lens gathers four times more light at any given aperture compared to mFT. Oddly enough even the impaired users like you can multiply the focal length by two to give an effective focal length. Now try working out the real aperture size on an F1.4 25mm mFT lens compared to an F1.4 lens on fill frame,you guys make all us mFT users look like dicks.

            • What you don’t understand is that the FF lens does not gather four times the light. The sensor area in the FF camera is larger and that’s why more total light falls on it compared to a smaller sensor. The light “density” is the same for any sensor size at the same f-stop.

              The FF lens is not miraculously “gathering” more light as you seem to believe (the sensor is “gathering”). According to your brilliant claim, if I stick my 60 mm f/2.8 Nikon FF macro lens on an m4/3 camera, this FF lens would “gather” more light then the 60 mm f/2.8 m4/3 lens. The only difference is that the FF lens has increased coverage.

            • Retarded, OK 4x the light, 4x the surface area, amount of light per sq mm. = equals =. Thats why its a ratio.

      • Mr. Reeee

        No kidding, I regularly set my lenses at f8 or f11… gotta love a real aperture ring!… and walk around using zone focus.

        I really like the look of what this little thing can do. I’ve been thinking of getting one of the dirt-cheap GF3s as a place to park my rarely used 20mm, but the 15mm really has me ready to pull the trigger. Now, I’m glad i pre-ordered one!

        Anybody wanna buy a 14-42mm kit lens? ;-)

    • fred schumacher

      Noted street and crime photographer Weegee, when asked about the technical details of a photo, famously replied “f8 and be there.”

  • Yun

    This is the most disappointing lens I ever see .
    Waste of resources !
    I have shot thousands of pictures but none of them in F8 .
    F8 need bigger sensor to support , even APS Cmos also have hard time with such slow aperature .
    Overall I don’t see why such lens can exist in M4/3’s book .

    • KI

      What planet do you live on? … We, on the earth, are quite close to the sun, and can take nice pictures with f/8 without the need for ISO-434000002030000

      • alvarelias

        Even at full sun light, you will need at least ISO 800 to prevent motion blur (let’s say 1/200) and 8MP due to diffraction and forget to inlude any source of light because of your are shooting “wide open” and ase the picture shows you get nasty flares… It depends of tastes I know…

        • Agent00soul

          Never heard of “sunny-16”?
          According to that rule, you would shoot at 1/400 s with f/8 and 200 ISO at full sunlight.

          • alvarelias

            No, if you want to prevent the higlight clipping of m4/3 sensors. That’s what I’ve used to calculate it, what I always use wiht film cameras, but the point is that many mobile phone camera are better than a m4/3 f8 lens in terms of noise and resolution, and size…

            Check this link


            • JohnR

              If you want to prevent highlight clipping you need to increase the shutter speed.

            • The incidence of blur is directly related to focal length – the shorter the focal length, the slower you can shoot with acceptable sharpness. In full sunlight, sharp pics can definitely be produced at f8, provided the lens is sharp.

        • Bro

          It seems we are living in different universes, because I often go to f8 on bright summer days to avoid that my E-PL1 goes from ISO 200 to Iso 100 (whith it’s shoter dynamic range) and it still produces shots between 1/500 and 1/2000. Or you once forgot your ND filters on your lenses.

          • Bro

            P.S.: I forgot the third possibility: You are David Hamilton. Stop smearing butter over your lenses than ;-)

        • Mr. Reeee

          Using a lens like the 15mm, about the last thing I’d care, or even think about are motion blur and diffraction… in fact, bring ’em on!

          There IS a thing called having fun… yeah, even with a camera. Imagine that! At least TRY. ;-)

    • If you haven’t shot any images at f/8 in your life, then you certainly don’t know much about photography…

      In terms of depth of field, f/8 would translate to f/16 on a 35mm camera and even with slow film I shoot loads of pictures at f/16 in good sunlight.

      Ever heard of the “Sunny 16” rule? No? Maybe you should brush up on your photography knowledge before embarrassing yourself.

      • ulli

        “If you haven’t shot any images at f/8 in your life, then you certainly don’t know much about photography…”

        thats a bold claim!

        • Probably correct though Ulli! Yun may have taken thousands of photos, big deal. I think I took a few thousand photos in the first week of buying my E-PL1!
          He/she doesn’t seem to grasp some simple photographic facts, based on the comments made over the last day or two. Would be better off sitting back and listening, rather than trying to be a know it all.

          • Ulli

            hmmm…wether having used f8 or not can also depend on your style, ok many studio shoots have been done at f8 or smaller…but if object isolation is part of your style, f8 is surely not an option in most cases. I could also come up with a claim, saying that f/8 or even smaller is used by a lot of beginning photographers, practising the “f/8 and be there” rule ;-)
            Anyway, I just find it a questionable claim, just like saying if you never use a lens wideopen, you have never tried to make a really moodful shot.

            • deniz

              shallow dof is not a ‘style’

              • Ulli

                if its a consequent part of your photography, it is part of your signature, so i would consider it a style, being either a part or a dominating key of visualizing.

                • Digifan

                  Well if only ultra small DOF is your game, one is a very limited photographer. Nobody I know only stays at wide open. Why not, because most lenses are crap wide open. Also I’ve never seen landscape guys shooting wide open ALL the time, if ever they should wide open (I think they are more often at F8 than anybody else).
                  On an event outdoors at good weather I’m at F7.1-F8 on m43 if a scene is important, If you want to isolate a subject I take a longer lens and often are at F2.8/F3.5 or F5.6 depending on the FL.
                  Indoors is a different story, there the light is more scarse so many times I’m working with wide open aperture where I really would have liked to stop down.

                  • Ulli

                    “most lenses are crap wide open”

                    another bold claim.

                    • Digifan

                      Well crap is a bit harsh, but most lenses are not at their best wide open anyway. I know of very few that don’t need to bee stopped down. Of those few most are Digital Zuiko’s.

                    • Ulli

                      Digifan, i think you have consider the point of view of any photographer how to use a lens; is the setting where max optical resolving power applies most important, or is another certain characteristic like isolation or moodful rendering the preferred mode? A landscape shooter prob opts for the first where alot of portrait shooters go for the near-open to wide open. Ofcourse portraits are also done with closed apertures, especially in studios. My preferred style is wide-open, since my Canon EOS D2000 in 2004 untill several other camera’s now, all my portraits have been done wide-open, simply because i like the characteristics of a lens that way.

          • Ulli


    • Chris K

      Why is f/8 a problem? For a lack of light? Clearly you’ve never shot during the day. There are times when ISO200 is too bright unless you stop down to f/8 or smaller. I often miss the ISO50 of my 5D when shooting with my EM5.

      Or is f/8 bad for diffraction? Again, try shooting at f/8. There IS diffraction softening at f/8 on M43, but it doesn’t start to become a problem until f/11, and generally isn’t noticeable without zooming into your image until f/16. I shot a lot of macro on FF at f/22, and likewise f/11 on M43 is just fine. It’s a DOF vs sharpness tradeoff on any system.

      Looks like a fun lens. I’d love to have one, but it’s down my list right now.

      • alvarelias

        It all depends of your decency level, for me a 1000€ camera body should be better than a point and shoot…. Or mobile phone…

        • Bart

          It is better.

          Oh, you mean it should produce better results?

          Its totally capable of that.

          With the 15/8? possibly, possibly not, but I’d argue that this in most cases depends on the photographer and how well (s)he uses the tools at her disposal.

          • alvarelias

            Yeah I mean better results. My point is that a f8 lens on a 4/3body is not way beyond of some P&S or even mobiles phones.

            Anyway you’ll never get the same results as with the 14mm f2.5

            And didn’t know what you told me about the projection diffraction, thanks about that, it’s nice to learn something new

            • I bet you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. Get any m43 camera + lens and go out shoot at f/8. Simple as that.

            • bart

              That phone is forever limited to the lens that comes with it, whereas a m4/3 camera isn’t.

              The bodycap/lens makes an e-pm nicely pocketable, still allows using it near instantly, and iallows carrying a much better lens that can be mounted when appropriate.

              The 14/2.5 is both more expensive, and larger. It is an interesting lens, but for different uses.

              I currently use a 17/2.8 for making a m4/3 camera pocketable (e-p1 initially, e-m5 now), and that lens is very close to the 14/2.5 in size. Replacing it with a body cap changes the size from barely pocketable to very easy pocketable.

              So even if a m4/3 camera with this 15/8 doesn’t produce results better then a phone cam, it is a lot more flexible.

        • Brod1er

          You seem very confused. One minute the benefits of FF, the next a smartphone- whilst mft is useless?! You confuse s $1000 camera body with a $50 dollar novelty lens?! They all have their uses. One of the strengths of MFT is its flexibility to operate as a compact fun camera (eg with the 15f8) and as a high quality DSLR alternative (eg with Oly 75f1.8, pana 12-35f2.8)

        • Tell me what is wrong with shot #22 the road as taken by PeterP. It has exceptional lookability, nostalgic, and instantly recognisable by anyone who has walked down a country lane in the morning with a low weak sun and forgotten their camera.
          What else does a photo need to be?

        • Digifan

          The point is, everybody rates the 15mm as if it should be a quality lens. For gods sake it’s just an expensive lens cap, and also meant to be such, a lenscap you could shoot with if necessary.

  • taran

    I heard that focus peaking was part of the contract between Sony and Olympus. In exchange for sensors, Sony made Olympus promise to never implement focus peaking for the PEN line.

    This lens was supposed to mitigate the street shooters concerns for portability and speed on Pen, but the NEX line has infinite more choices due to the peaking feature. If this lens had been f4.0, like it should have been, and Olympus had peaking, the Pen line becomes instantly more useable than NEX for street, and has wonderful built in stabilization.

    Sony saw this coming and nipped it right in the bud, relegating m43 to eating Sony’s table scraps, forever.

    • Tim

      Were do you heard that “Rumor”? Someone i a forum dreaming about business deals?
      It is quite normal for “some” companies to SELL there product to other people/companies for money…

      About focusppeping in general, i dont think that it is as important as the internet people think it is. Because it is not as accurate and trustworthy as everybody think it is and you only need it for manuel lenses.

    • I wonder where all those moronic ideas come from…

      Of course the NEX line depends on focus peaking. Since there are hardly any good native auto-focus lenses in NEX-land, the only reason to buy a NEX is a large arsenal of legacy glass in the cabinet.

      Most Olympus users probably do not use manual focus glass.

      I do, and I can tell you I have no problem focussing my Voigtländer 25mm at f/0.95 through the E-M5’s viewfinder. The finder has enough resolution to do this fast and reliably.

    • Chris K

      > I heard that focus peaking was part of the
      > contract between Sony and Olympus. In
      > exchange for sensors, Sony made
      > Olympus promise to never implement
      > focus peaking for the PEN line.

      Source or it didn’t happen! This is a dangerous rumor to spread without a solid source.

      • Bart

        Olympus went on record saying that focus peaking is an option. While I do not exactly take whatever Olympus says as gospel (there is some little tiny issue regarding financial stuff where they kinda showed it is a very good idea to not take their word as gospel), this still carries a lot more weight then some dude on some forum making a rather blatantly biased post saying Olympus can’t implement it by contract.

    • Uberzone

      I heard taran is an instigating troll who sold his soul to Sony for a peak at the newest NEX. At first he was praising the new OM-D, but Sony caught wind of it and nipped that in the bud. Now he is required to post dribble and false rumors on M4/3 sites for all eternity.

  • Woodent

    and, yes, the quality of images is disappointing so far – I am looking at the shots made with my Voigtlander 15/4.5@f8, and they are infenitely sharper (but then again, Voigtlander is 10x more expensive that the lens cap…)

  • AC

    I like a slim lens on my E-P3 and the Panny 14mm f2.5 is the best choice I found. Sharp and very quick AF. And you can get one on eBay brand new for £120. So here is the problem for this 15mm… For an extra £50 (roughly) and a cm longer length, you can get a fab 14mm proper lens.

    • Neil Evans

      Yeah, this might be more interesting if the 14mm weren’t already the best deal on the market.

    • Uberzone

      I agree. At 15 or 20 bucks, ok I might get one, but at the asking price of 50 I’d just rather go for the 14mm

    • Apparently you folks have never priced a Lensbaby for either 4/3 or micro 4/3. Even an SLR Magic “Toy Lens” for micro 4/3 costs $170. People pay good money for optics that intentionally degrade their images — comparatively speaking, the body-cap lens is a bargain!

      • Dugo

        “People pay good money for optics that intentionally degrade their images.”

        Agreed. Personally, I would spend up to US$1,500 immediately for a real good lens that would degrade the quality of images to something really, really bad. It would be such a bargain, thank you, Mr. Ansel Adams.

        I am just wondering, why is only or at least primarily the M4/3 form factor “privileged” to lens-cap lenses and pancake lenses and toy lenses?

        • bart

          Oh yes, look at all those bodycap lenses that exist for m4/3, how many do you have already?

          And lets not forget the toy 12, 14, 20, 25, 45 and 75 primes, absolutely hilarious toys!

          What I don’t understand is this urge of people like you to make themselves look like total idiots.

        • @Dugo — “why is only or at least primarily the M4/3 form factor “privileged” to lens-cap lenses and pancake lenses and toy lenses?”

          Let’s take a peek on eBay, shall we? Just search for “toy lens.”

          Here’s a toy lens for Canon —

          And here’s one for Sony NEX —

          And here’s one for Pentax —

          And of course Lensbaby — it’s available for Canon, Nikon, Sony Alpha, Pentax K, 4/3…

          So where does “primarily M4/3” come from?

  • Like the samples, looks like a fun lens. I want one.

    As to f8, it is what it is. Maybe not a low light lens, but I suspect we’ll see a lot of nice street photography from this lens, and a lot of nice “walkin’ around” pictures as well.

  • Al

    The cookie lens would be my go to lens for black and white.

  • Haha. I think most of you are getting a bit too bent out of shape. This looks like a fun little lens. You know, what photography is supposed to be, FUN? You all just keep stressing about specs, and I will keep earning a living shooting, and having a good time doing it.

  • Paul Alexander

    My $5.00 Kodak brownie can shoot like that :)

  • Neonart
    • Ulli

      These look more convincing yes. nice!

  • Jon

    You guys are a bunch of whiners. This is first and foremost a lens cap! Second it’s a lens cap that is a lens! You can whip this baby out right away and shoot something without having to worry about which lens you want to shoot with.

  • Llamaman

    Interesting concept, but at the current price it’s pointless.

    For the same money you could get the 14mm and stop it down to f/8. That lens focusses very fast wide-open so at f8 it should be easily fast enough to render this pre-focussed lens redundant. Plus the Panny canned be opened up for low-light, unlike the body cap. And weight isn’t an issue – the Panny is only 55g!

    Maybe it’s for Oly fanboys who can’t bear to use anything Panasonic… ;o)

    • Neonart

      The 14mm is $170 on eBay. A great deal. However, $170 does not equal $50. Therefore, “for the same money” you CAN’T get the 14mm. But that’s ok.

      I have the 14mm f2.5 and ordered this lens cap as well for my OMD. Why not? It’s fun.

      What is wrong with everybody and their insistence on specs, and diffraction, and f8, and comparisons!? People are so bitter and competitive about everything!

      CAN’T YOU ALLOW YOURSELF TO HAVE SOME FUN? Take some photos and stop comparing everything to everything. Enjoy something new and different.

    • It’s not a great lens, but even Olympus calls it an accessory. And it’s priced as such – $59. The 14mm is cheap, but nowhere near that cheap. I think the target market is someone who actually uses a body cap but wants to take a photo in a pinch without having to attach a lens.

  • I don’t understand the rant.
    The 15mm cap is not supposed to be a quality optic. It’s just a gimmick (somewhat useful, but still a gimmick). The technical discussion about diffraction, sharpness and usefulness in dim light is amusing more than it is annoying. This product turns your m4/3 camera into a mobile phone camera: a quick and easy tool for recording everyday impressions. It’s supposed to be fun!

    • Dugo

      “This product turns your m4/3 camera into a mobile phone camera: a quick and easy tool for recording everyday impressions. It’s supposed to be fun!”

      Yes indeed, and who amongst us could resist the temptation of spending US$1,300 for a Panasonic GH3 body, only to turn it into a cell phone camera with this $50 “lens.”

      • Don’t buy it then (I’m not going to either).

  • Dugo

    Wow, FIFTY DOLLARS (!!!!) for THIS???? Heck, I can get a superior lens on eBay for 5 bucks to this one any time of day or night. Of course, it is not going to be a Micro 4/3 mount lens, that’s true.

    Everyone, let’s wait for the F16 Panasonic lens-cap lens, I understand that will be much better because Panny will charge a hundred bucks for it.

  • Something’s wrong with Pekka’s shots. Lot of smear at 1/100 shutter, presumably unintentional? It just shouldn’t happen with a 15mm lens irrespective of any practical aperture size.

    • Boooo!

      The answer is right here:

      Yes, this lens made me want to try all kinds of motion blurs, shoot while walking, shake the camera, focus almost right or make all soft. Shoot into sun and take even a few sharp ones. Many times restrictions can be fun and good… ;-)

      … which should have been obvious to anyone.

      • He only stated this in a comment relating to the one shot that was clearly smeared intentionally by spinning the camera. Maybe he didn’t even try to get sharp results, but his post doesn’t directly indicate this instead suggesting the lens itself makes this impossible, which doesn’t sound convicing.

  • deniz

    for gods sake hasn’t anyone used f8 in their lives?

    • Eric

      I don’t know. I usually use P mode :-p

      Looking more closely at my mountain skiing pictures, I can find:

      – top of mountain with full sun : 14 mm, f/11, 1/1000 s, 200 ISO
      – bottom of mountain with first direct sun lights : 14 mm, f/9.5, 1/500 s, 200 ISO
      – fully cloudy : 14 mm, f/6.7, 1/350 s, 200 ISO

      So, in the skiing scenario, I can use such an aperture. But I use the kit lens. f=12 mm would have been more fun for me.

    • Every day. And with my MFT E-M5 too!

  • I imagine one of the use scenarios is casual shooters bringing the camera for a day at the beach, on the boat or skiing. Few mechanical elements, small size, hyperfocal DOF and wide angle sounds like a winning combo for bright sunlight and action.

    • This is exactly why I’ll be geting one. I use an E-PL1. I just dug out my body cap, tied it on. The whole rig (minus VF-2) fits in my pants pocket, a bit more than a fat wallet.
      This will be my skiing rig, in a jacket pocket. 45/1.8 in the other pocket. Should be able to do plenty with the combo, and a little imagination.

  • Ulli

    i think the only minus is that the size of this lens wont impress any of my juicy photomodels.

    • Ahh, lens envy and substitution? Is it satisfying?

  • Fish

    The Pekka Potka shots convinced me that I would not spend anything on this lens. But then I saw the Peter Norman pictures and thought, “not bad, might be fun…”. What a difference.

    I think Olympus should not be trying to make a bunch of money from the sale of this cap but should instead make it super affordable – like $20 on its own, and free with the purchase of any body.

    Their goal of this strategy should be to increase feelings of good-will and brand-loyalty from consumers. If people felt that they were getting a bonus or special value from Olympus, it might help repair some of the damage that their overpriced “optional” lens hoods have caused to that relationship.

    • Bart

      Agree regarding the 2 reviews.

      Don’t agree regarding the policy you propose however.

      Something like a 75/1.8 is a premium product. Olympus is simply extremely short-sighted for not treating it as such. Package it like a premium product, and include standard accessories, especially those that are simply required for using the product. Changing the price for the 15/8 will not address this, neither will it make them look less short-sighted. The only way for them to address this is doing 2 things:

      1. include lens hoods with all premium lenses, starting right here and now
      2. give everyone who bought the 12/2 or 75/1.8 without lenshood a $50 rebate when registering their product, and do the same for all already registered owners.

      Something along those lines is really the only option for them to deal with this.

      That the 45/1.8 comes without hood is at least somewhat forgivable at that price point, but for the 12/2 and the 75/1.8 it is simply a matter of bad and very short-sighted product placement, and bad marketing as a result.

      Sure, I’ll still buy the 75/1.8, but will definitely go grab a lenshood from one of my contacts in China, JJC makes one which seems to do fine, and will cost a fraction, oh, and will ensure Olympus gets confronted with that more often then they’ll like.

      • Fish

        We are not in disagreement. My point was that while Olympus is very good at designing lenses and bodies, it is not enough to just to sell those. Olympus needs to put more effort and more thought into selling “Olympus” (something they have not done very well at).

        Some companies understand that how a customer feels about a product is as important or more important than the product itself. The engineers really came through on the 75mm but someone dropped the ball if when you pay $900 for this optic, by some accounts one of the sharpest ever made, and it comes in a cheap cardboard box, missing a lens hood, and with only a sleeve of bubble wrap to store it in.

        They shouldn’t be viewing this body cap as a way to charge as much as the market will bear, but rather an Opportunity to differenciate their products. “Instead of a plain body cap like everyone else, when you buy an Olympus you get a cool little triplet lens. Even when you buy the body-only package. Olympus still includes a free lens in the box”. And purchased separately, they should make this lens cheap enough that non-m4/3 users would be jealous at what we could buy a lens for – so far not the case. It would be a special little detail that sets them apart from the competition and makes the customer feel like they are getting something extra. Like the burger joint by my house that gives you 1 and 1/2 patties when you order a single burger.

  • Diffractions…f/8s…sunny 16s… it seems to me that you’re forgetting two things.

    1. Most photography is meant to be fun
    2. The lens comes in black

    I’m raiding my piggy bank as soon as it becomes available.

  • Marilyn

    So many trolls lol…. Anyway as for me that lens is worth it at f8 and please people have you tried it what the lens can give you… For the its so basic plus and minus… This lens is meant to be use not in streets or what so ever but it gives you. Freedom to used it anytime anywhere that you don’t need to change the lens in certain situation having a good sensor like the em5 with this lens is a great combo… And when the sun is up this lens will shine better.. If your thinking that this lens is a all round one you must be kidding… And comparing this lens with a iPhone lol…

  • What a lot of gabfest all over a cheap 15mm lens. It’s 15mm, if you don’t like 15mm don’t buy it. Its fixed f8, if you don’t like fixed aperture don’t buy it. If you don’t like f8 don’t buy it. It has very wide DOF if you shave with your DOF don’t buy it.
    Personally, I think the images I have seen have persuaded me to get one and use it in B&W on my old ep2.

  • 15mm Owner

    I have bought one and I‘m happy with it. Its a fun lens. I only point and shoot and let the camera do the rest. (High ISO and flash indoors is recommended) I’m absolutely pleased with the results.

    I can not understand all the comparison with top-lenses. The 15mm will never be one.

  • The Real Stig

    I suspect the optical engineers at Olympus know more about diffraction limits and how it applies to M4/3 than all the internet forum experts and camera testing gurus put together.

    Anyway, why get so serious about a body cap that moonlights as a lens.

  • AG

    CAN SOMEONE COULD PERFORM A TEST WITH FLASH (nearest distance portrait) ???

  • Lukav

    I’m appalled by the fact that so many individuals are complaining about the IQ of a pinhole (it’s pretty much a pinhole) style LENS CAP. I’m not even going to bat an eyelid while buying this. In fact, im actually looking forward to having this on a GF2 or something similarly small, for fun snaps outdoors. If slow shutter speeds bother you, kick up the ISO and embrace the noise grain. It’s good enough for what it’s expected to do, moreover at a price point that has pretty much no equal.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The 43rumors website,, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps:
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: Addthis cookies:
Disqus cookies:
Vimeo cookies:
Youtube cookies:

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.