(FT5) Olympus 75mm f/1.8 priced at around $800. In Store by end of June /early July!


A couple of weeks ago a new source told us that the new 75mm f/1.8 lens would arrive on June 18th and priced at $799. Trusted sources now confirmed that the lens will be priced at “around $800“. Of course this is subject change depending on tax and conversion rate (Some sources know the real price in other currency). And the lens will start to be in Store by end of June /early July (more or less the same time when the new Panasonic 12-35mm X lens will ship). There is no word about the other 60mm macro lens release or eventual new PEN cameras. But I have been told something else “could” come. Don’t know what it is now but I am working on it.

Oh, and two of my sources said the lens is simply astonishing! Just for comparison. The lens corresponds to 150mm f/1.8 lens in Full frame terms (f/3.6 in DOF terms) or to a 100mm f/1.8 in APS-C terms (f/2.7 in DOF terms). Lenses giving a similar field view and aperture (but different DOF) to the 75mm Olympus lens like the Nikon 105mm f/2.0 (150mm on APS-C) costs more than $1000 at Amazon (Click here). And so the Canon 135mm f/2.0 (135mm on FF). The only weird thing is that Olympus sees the lens as a portrait lens while in my opinion it is not. But anyway, if it delivers the highest quality of all m43 lenses I am sure it will become a hotseller! Don’t you think?

Speaking of hotseller: The Panasonic 12-35mm managed to get into the 20 most sold lenses at Amazon (here is the ranking). Please let me know if you find more stores accepting preorders and I will post it here on 43rumors. Thanks! Here is the (short) list:
in USA at Amazon (Click here), BHphoto (Click here) and Adorama (Click here).
in Europe at FotoHanzKeuzekamp (Click here).
in Asia at Amazon Japan (Click here).

Rumors classification explained (FT= FourThirds):
FT1=1-20% chance the rumor is correct
FT2=21-40% chance the rumor is correct
FT3=41-60% chance the rumor is correct
FT4=61-80% chance the rumor is correct
FT5=81-99% chance the rumor is correct

  • PS

    Micro 43 gets better and better

    • GreyOwl


  • SuperDupont

    I am a m43 user but sorry, in the APS-c format you compare with, you can find the canon 100mm f2.0 USM for instance wich is not bigger and wich can be found for 450 €… I would like more lenses in this price range, with this level of quality in the m43 line-up.

    • admin

      Right, Forgot to add it. Anyway, It’s a tack slower.

      • Agent00soul

        And is it as sharp wide open?

    • WT21

      The 100mm 2.0 is a 10+ year old design. The lens has already made it’s money, and was designed at a time when prices were cheaper anyway. Canon’s 50/1.8, 35/2.0, 85/1.8, 100/2.0, and many others were designed loooooong ago, and have more than recouped their investment.

      This lens was designed by engineers earning salaries in today’s market. It’s a reasonable price, and inside of a year, the street and used prices will be lower.

      For a relatively specialty lens, I think it’s a reasonable price. The NEX equivalent lens would probably cost $1,100 (judging by the price of their 24mm!)

      • Exactly. Canon (and Nikon to a degree) might have 100+ lenses in their lineups but the big majority of those are dinosaurs from the film era – particularly in the primes department. It is only in the past few years that both manufacturers are catching up with new designs, but at a slow pace.

        I’d rather have lenses designed from the ground up for digital cameras, and which can actually be used right from wide open.

  • MacT

    some of olympus m43 lenses are just.. pieces of art. 12mm, 45, now 75 and 60. I do not need 75 but when I look at it – maybe it’s stupid but i get that warm feeling in my stomach :)

    • My feeling exactly. The 75mm leaves me trying to come up with a use for it.

      Then again, my money will go to the 60mm Macro lens this year, in the hope that Olympus will come up with a more affordable equivalent of Panasonic’s new zoom. There’s hope…

      • David C

        I agree that they are piece of art. I have the 12mm and would love to get my hands on the 75mm, but it will have to wait. The 45mm is more in my price range just now. But I love the 12mm.

    • John.R

      Strangely, my 100mm F2 from dinosaur Canon works extremely well wide open on APS-C and full frame.

      • Vlad

        You missed the point.

  • GreyOwl

    Seems to be to long for a portrait lens to me as well, but I could find other uses for it though.

  • The 75mm F1.8 does not correspond to a full frame 150 F1.8 lens.

    It only does in terms of angle of view and speed. If you consider depth of field (and many will for that type of lens) it corresponds to a 150mm F3.6 lens.

    I find it natural that you have to pay less for small m43 lenses than for big FF lenses. But is it the glass or the development that is expensive?

    • Bob B.

      WOW. Still the DOF comments?????????
      I can’t wait to get my hands on this incredible glass genade of a lens. The thing will be freaking awesome for portraits in the MFT format. Awesome. Now…if I could just figure out these menus on my OM….the world would be perfect! LOL!

      • +1 DOF equivalence.

        ++1 This lens will be awesome.

        • Bob B.

          I can’t believe they are STILL having that discussion below!!! LOL! This 75mm will flatten out features and give more background bokeh for portraits….if it is as sharp as anticipated it should be a windfall for MFT. $799 is a GREAT price for this lens if it is as expected. Puuuuuuuuuuuuulease.

          • Chez Wimpy

            >I can’t believe they are STILL having that discussion below!

            The “discussion” starts every time Admin makes the KenRockwellian hyperbolic “equivalent to FF 150mm f1.8 AND its cheaper!” statement at the top of the article. I personally don’t care what other 43 users believe wrt “equivalence,” but then again I don’t go and proclaim the Pentax Q + 50/1.8 to match the D700 + 300/2.0 on any Q-rumors sites.

            • Bob B.

              please pick a format and go take some photos.

              • Charlie

                Yes. Choose, then go away.

                But NOT before you explain these Olympus menus ans why some changes don’t actually … change anything. :|

                I may be too dumb for Oly.

            • Vlad


      • Thisguythere

        Either you use equivalence on all front or you don’t. Admin knows comparing this lens to another fast 75-85mm lens will show how expensive it is and being the admin of a site dedicated to m43 he has every advantage in showing the format in the good light and a 800$ 75mm 1.8 lens doesn’t do that. He therefore uses equivalence on focal lenght to show how cheap and great this lens is but the fanboys and him get their panties all up in a bunch if normal m43 users point out that equivalence also work for DoF, the main reason why people want fast lenses, and that 150mm 3.6 is no more sexy than 75mm 1.8 when it is priced at 800$. This will probably be an awesome lens, sure is a lens I would like to own but fanboys an admin will have to deal with it, we are not all guillible and hellbent on pretending m43 is the ultimate format, or in other words, the DoF comment won’t stop because they ARE relevant.

        • ha

          Yes of course. With m43 you get DOF so sharp lenses make lot more sense!

        • avds


        • Me

          But then, you can’t compare it to 150mm full-frame! Why? Because 75mm are 75mm, always – no matter what sensor is behind. What changes is the field of view, and that changes just like the depth of view. Either you accept that 75mm stays the same just like f1.8 stays the same – no matter of the camera behind, or you adapt both when comparing to full-frame. Everything else is pure ignorance.

          • mx

            The result of any lens+sensor system is just a picture. When I talking about picture, not about cameras, not about canon vs nikon, I need to talk in terms of equivalent parameters. So picture from FF+150/3.6 will be almost the same as m43+75/1.8, as H4D+200/4.5 and so on.

          • Nikku

            Bingo. That’s why T stops and angle of view are so much more useful. BTW, at 10 feet, this lens will give a DoF of about 3.3 inches wide open. Just enough for eyes and part of the ears to be in focus.

            • ssgreenley

              Wow, thanks for that. It really puts all this talk in perspective…

            • Yes and in fact *ANY* other M43 lens irrespective of focal length (except extreme wide angles) would give the same DOF for that same head shot/head and shoulders application at f/1.8.

        • SF

          If you really want to compare, you have to say that a 75mm f/1.8 on µFT matches a 150mm f/3.6 on FF if the µFT cam is set to Iso 100 and the FF to Iso 400.
          A 150mm f/1.8 FF-lens is a much mor flexible lens than a 75 f/1.8 lens because it allows shallower depth of field.
          So the criticims is fair, if you compare across formats, please recalculate for everything and not only the beneficial part for µFT. And I say that as a µFT owner und I really like the new 75mm lens.

          • admin

            I am not disussing the depth of field. but light gathering and focal length corrisposnd to 150mmf /1.8. Stop.

            • Chez Wimpy

              “light gathering” is a loaded term. You are talking flux, but not light gathering in an absolute (photon count) sense. If you were, just crop any 85/1.8 on FF down to the same FOV as a 75/1.8 on m43, and voila, a bargain basement 150mm f1.8 lens. I am sure someone will point out the 75/1.8 is likely a better optic (moving the goalposts), but why stop there? Any Canon/Nikon 50/1.8 is $100, and it too becomes a FF 150/1.8 if you crop it enough (still enough for a decent 8×10). Mount it on a Pentax Q, and it becomes a 280mm f1.8 – as good as the legendary Nikkor 300mm f2.0, but still fits in a jacket pocket!! Free lunches all around.

              • sorry my inglish

                now i understand… i have E620 and ZD 40-150/f4-5.6; that means in FF Gestapo language 80-300/f8-11,2! Chicks for free all around.

                • I have tried to calculate the proper f-number equivalence of my imagined pinhole lens, but computer crashed when trying to display such a huge number.

            • silk

              Maybe you should overthink the whole issue. Light gathering depends on sensor size (obviously a 4 x bigger sensor is able to gather 4 x more light within the same time frame) and the entrance pupil (also called effective aperture). The f-number is just a technical term, a ratio (focal length divided by entrance pupil) that is not related to a static “light gathering ability” as you are suggesting.

              What does this mean for us? – The effective aperture (entrance pupil) of a 75mm f/1.8 lens has got the same diameter as for a 150mm f/3.6 lens. -> “light gathering” is the same (the same amount of photons will pass both lenses in the same period of time)
              The effective aperture of a 150mm f/1.8 however is 2 x bigger, resulting in 2^2 (=4) x more light passing through the entrance pupil of the lens. -> “light gathering” is 4 x higher

              Always keep in mind that the f-number is relative. Physics is a cunning bitch – you can’t cheat her so easily.

              (By the way, I’m a happy µFT user and enjoying your blog. I just don’t think that µFT requires these comparisons to be seen as more attractive. The system is sexy enough without cheating in a pissing contest.)

              • Vlad

                Don’t see your point, where is the cheating?

                • Walter Freeman

                  It’s the claim that f/1.8 on Four Thirds lets you do the same things as f/1.8 on FX does.

                  It doesn’t let you get as narrow of depth of field, if that’s your thing. It also doesn’t let you do as well in low light, since FX is better at high ISO.

                  This lens is a 75mm f/1.8 on Four Thirds, and those of us who have been shooting Four Thirds for years are more than happy to call it that without any comparisons to other formats that we don’t shoot. But if you’re going to call it “150mm equivalent”, then you can’t compare it to a FX 150mm f/1.8; the correct comparison is to a 150mm f/3.6. Is a FX 150mm f/3.6 a bad lens? Not at all; as has been said, f/1.8 (Four Thirds) or f/3.6 (fullframe) depth of field control and light-gathering capability is enough for lots of folks.

                  • Bart

                    It lets you get the same field of view, it does allow you to do the same things exposure-wise, but will give different DOF.

                    For quite a few cases, a bit more DOF is actually an advantage, sometimes its not, and most often its mostly irrelevant as long as it is within certain limits. Exposure possibilities however are always important. Hence, for the majority of cases, a 75/1.8 on a 4/3 sensor does indeed let you do the same things as a 150/1.8 on a full frame sensor. For a minority of cases it doesn’t.

                    Beyond that, your statement about FX being better at higher ISO is at the very least incomplete and misleading.

                    If one develops photosite with specific quantum efficiency, size and fill ratio, it works exactly the same and provides exactly the same noise levels when confronted by a specific amount of light, completely independent of sensor size.

                    The ONLY thing for which sensor size matters is how many such pixels you can have.

                    But but but but smaller sensors have smaller pixels!

                    Indeed, and guess what, smaller electronics produce less heat, and smaller pixels can have a higher fill ratio, so the difference is still not those 2 stops claimed, but less (provided otherwise identical state of technology and the same number of pixels)

                    So… your argument is rather simplified and based on assumptions that almost always fail, and consequently the argument is at the very least somewhat inaccurate in many cases.

                • The cheating would be to put a 75/1.8 µFT lens on a level with a 150/1.8 FF lens and then praise how much more affordable and compact the µFT version is.

                  For the technical reason see the posting above.

                  Of course, there is also a photographic/artistic reason: When composing your image you’ll determine the technical parameters according to your intended result, i.e. you choose appropriate framing/focal length (equiv. to the FOV), shutter speed and aperture. Evidently, if you would choose the same aperture independent of sensor format you will get a different image for each sensor size (as DOF is different). IMHO it makes more sense to compare the performance of lenses based on equivalent results (and not based on a virtual ratio like f-number).

                  Sure enough, this plea doesn’t make the 75/1.8 any worse. Indeed, I prefer the µFt solution at anytime – most notably because it is much more compact. However, I don’t need arbitrary comparisons to justify my decision. I don’t care about FF lenses and how much they cost. I know and love the advantages of the µFT system and I feel no necessity to put it in front of FF or other camera systems for all intents and purposes. This is silly and childish.

                • Vlad

                  @Walter Freeman – in terms of exposure, 1.8 on MFT will let you do the same thing as 1.8 on 135. In terms of DOF it won’t. I guess it depends on your needs. But unless you absolutely want razor-thin DOF, I find the m43 solution better. In the end, we do need to see in focus.

                  @ silk – it seems to me that you absolutely believe that a 135 lens will be more expensive to produce than a MFT one. Why?
                  DOF is not manufacturable, lens diameter is. From there, a 135 lens will require more glass and plastic/metal, while a MFT lens needs to deliver on smaller pixels. I can easily see an MFT lens costing more.

                  And why would a comparison be a bad idea? What if someone wants to invest in a system and wants to see how much a specific setup in each format would cost them?

                  • Though I am not an lens engineer, I would indeed assume that the µFT lens is easier to develop/produce – at least when you stay at the same max. aperture (e.g. 150/1.8 FF lens vs. 75/1.8 µFT lens). That is probably not valid for an µFT lens with an equivalent aperture (which would be a 75/0.9).

                    If your assumption were true (costs of lenses delivering higher resolution were not (over-)compensated by the smaller sensor they illuminate), then lenses for compact cameras and mobile phones were most expensive of all. Evidently, this is not true.

                    I agree upon the other things you mentioned. DOF is shallow enough (for me at last) with the 75/1.8 lens. I don’t need more (well, actually less) and enjoy the advantage of weight and size that until today only µFT is offering.

                    By the way, a comparison is not a bad idea at all. Eventually people want to know where they get the most bang for their bucks and I think for the preferences of most poeple µFT isn’t doing so bad in such a comparison. However, if you are fine with let’s say the DOF of a f/1.4 µFT lens you can look after the f/1.8 counterpart for APS-C systems or the f/2.8 equivalent for FF.

                    • Vlad

                      Hmmm. I think we mostly agree, so I will focus on the part where we don’t :)
                      Lenses for compact cameras might actually be expensive relatively speaking, but because they are made for a really tiny sensor, their cost might not be that visible.
                      Let’s say the price is proportional to the crop factor, just for the sake of the exercise. An MFT lens then should cost half the price of the 135 equivalent. Now, let’s look at the Pen E-P3 with 14-42 lens (900US) and the XZ1 (400US). Doesn’t translate. On top of that, I believe (but can’t prove) that sensors are not proportionally cheaper. Smaller sensor are probably way cheaper actually. Then you have a crappier body, less features, etc.

              • Esa Tuunanen

                > Always keep in mind that the f-number is relative.
                It really isn’t relative number because it isn’t even aperture but ratio between focal length and aperture.
                Photographers just do good job at messing these optical things.

                But it being ratio is what enables it to tell that brightness of image projected by lenses is same regardless of focal length for as long as f-number stays the same.

                • Sorry for the misunderstanding, I thought it was clear in the context of my posting, but your are right – the assertion was not precise. In fact, I just wanted to say that the f-number is relative to the amount of light gathered (the reason being that the effective aperture may vary even though f-numbers are identical). Of course you’re right too with your last statement.

              • yortuk

                The way I see it, you can compare lenses directly without comparing the sensors. I have an old Pentax 50mm 1.4 lens that I use on my GH2, so it makes perfect sense to compare that to m43 lenses like the Olympus 45mm. But in this context it doesn’t make as much sense to compare an “equivalent” lens like the Pan/Leica DG 25mm, since for my use they’re completely different focal lengths.

                LIkewise, I would rather compare this new Olympus 75mm with actual similar options like the Samyang 85mm 1.4 or an old Canon 85mm 1.8, which would both be considerably cheaper and reportedly have great IQ, but obviously without the benefit of AE & AF and auto-correction. So I tend to think in terms of how much I’d be willing to pay for those extra features. In this case it’s a difference of about $300 for a focal length I might not use that much. On the other hand, I picked up a used Pan/Leica DG 25/1.4 for $380, which is a steal compared to any other 25/1.4 lens, of which there are very few comparable options and none that aren’t expensive (aside from the Panasonic 20/1.8).

            • adman

              You are discussing DOLLARS and EUROS. Stop.

            • adman
            • jevfp

              we should leave them alone,.I’m getting tired with to read and is really annoying when someone just come and trolling this m43 forum and keep talking about DoF equivalence on a full frame , is just like ,…WE NEVER UNDERSTAND ABOUT IT.

              I believe many of us as a m43 user was an old school /veteran photographer who want’ to safe their back bone by carrying small equipment. so it really funny and weird just to hear and argument about FF equivalent.
              anyway ,.do they even REALIZE how shallow the depth of field of 150mm F3.5 on a Fullframe Camera ,.

              This 75 mm F 1.8 is really bargain for me ,.you have the advantage of carrying a small lens of 75mm rather than 150mm [is not exist]., but still give me a very shallow depth of field of 3.5 on 150 mm equivalent . and the great thing is ; we can have the light gathering -shutter speed value of F1.8,.which is WE WONT GET THAT ON A MONSTROSE 70-200 2.8 or even Canon/nikon 100-105mm F2

              • Walter Freeman

                “we can have the light gathering -shutter speed value of F1.8,.which is WE WONT GET THAT ON A MONSTROSE 70-200 2.8 or even Canon/nikon 100-105mm F2”

                Well, you do. You’ll just have to set the fullframe camera to an ISO four times higher.

                You’ll get the same shutter speed, the same angle of view, and the same DOF with a 150mm f/3.6 at ISO 1600 on FX as you will with the 75mm f/1.8 at ISO 800 on Four Thirds. Which will be noisier? That depends, but all the tests I’ve seen indicate that they’re pretty close.

          • fan_guo_lai_xiang_xiang

            Why should he recalculate everything? There’s enough of the FF Gestapo around on this board to make sure that everything is recalculated properly down everybody’s throat. Thank you for enlightening us, again.

            BTW Before we talk about the legendary sharpness of this lens, maybe we should wait around for the first actual image samples?

            • SF

              Its not me who started comparing and I don’t need comparisons. But if you compare, you should recalculate
              all parameters and not only half of them.
              For me, a 75mm f1.8 FT lens is a 75 f1.8 FT lens and that is great.
              And concerning the FF gestapo, I never had a FF cam.
              But it is simply not true to say the lens is cheap and state that by making incomplete comparisons to other systems.

          • Bart

            If you are so extremely anal about ‘correctly comparing’ things, then your comment is amazingly incomplete and based on bad assumptions.

            ISO 100 on a m4/3 camera and ISO 400 on a full frame camera are not the same thing, do not give the same amount of noise or grain, UNLESS you also include that the photosites have to be of identical quality, and the pixelcount is identical (resulting in 4x larger pixels on the full frame camera)

            And even if you do, your comparison is incorrect because with identical state of technology, smaller electronics generate less heat, and as a consequence less noise.

            Focal ratio (or relative aperture as photographers often mistakenly call this) is focal length/aperture diameter. This is a property of a lens, and is totally and fundamentally unrelated to sensor size. It is however directly related to image brightness (photons/area), and consequently directly related to exposure.

            DOF is sometimes very interesting, but very often fast lenses give too shallow DOF and need to be stopped down because of that, and because of their typical performance wide open. larger image circle for same field of view and identical lens design results needing more ‘light bending’, which results in more visible aberrations outside the center of the image.

            The bottomline is that given the exact same state of technology for sensors, identical fill ratio of those sensors, and equal pixel count, you can achieve the same field of view and DOF but better noise levels with a smaller sensor, obviously needing shorter, faster lenses for smaller sensors. Hence, if you include all the relevant parameters, full frame is actually at a disadvantage here.

            So…. if you REALLY want to be anal about equivalence, please ensure you involve ALL parameters and make all assumptions explicit, and not just a few that happen to work for your argument.

            Blanket statements about any format with regards to performance are bound to be nonsensical, you must include all relevant parameters.

            Case in point, for last weekends concert photography, my E-M5 ran circles around both a slightly older Canon 5D (original) and a D700. In the first case simply because of state of technology, and in the second case because I could get enough DOF at around F2 often, where the D700 user had to resort to around F4, and then state of technology kicks in again.

        • Jan

          Exactly, this is probably the only forum where people are happy about prices of the equipment.

          I remember a joke where two rich people meet and one says, “Look, I have a new tie, I paid $1000 for it.” and the other replies “That’s nothing. I have the same tie for $2000”.

          I think the best would be not to make any equivalences, becase it’s not that simple – you can compare 75mm m43 to 85mm FF (same FOV on m43 w/adapter) or to 150mm FF (75 m43 can be scaled-down design – less glass), but you cannot compare 12mm m43 to 12mm FF lens (different design).

          Not comparing to FF and not commenting about the prices if there is no other similar m43 lens, would really make this site and the forum better.

        • Mr. Reeee

          Give it a rest.

          I buy fast lenses to be able to shoot in lower light at higher shutter speeds. DoF is NOT a major concern.

          If it were, I certainly wouldn’t compare it to other formats. What’s important is what the DoF is on MY camera.

        • Coby

          @ThisGuyhere: Excuse me … do I know you? Have we met? I don’t recall you ever asking me why I buy lenses, and even if you did I wouldn’t have told you because you and your FF cronies are annoying twerps. (For the record I choose lenses for a combination of resolution vs portability, and secondarily for decent light-gathering. M43’s DOF is a non-issue for me.)

        • BLI

          Please, Thisguythere: you must be virtually the only person on this forum who has not registered that EVERYONE ELSE IS AWARE OF THE DOF THING! So spare us for ridiculous “conspiracy theories”. For almost all of us, the most important “equivalence things” are (1) focal length, and (2) light gathering (and please, spare us for the talk about the need for a smaller lens to have longer exposure time/a lower ISO number).

          For normal portraits, a 75/1.8 will have plenty control of DOF, so for such use the main important thing is whether it is pin sharp wide open. For those that want to play with thin DOF, there are other lenses. But this is well known on this forum.

        • BLI

      • WT21

        +1 to Bob B. comments

      • tmrgrs

        Yes these DOF sermons are very tiresome. We all know about it now but we still get lectured about this kindergarten level information that is part of the choice when choosing a sensor format. These DSLR diehards would be doing us all a big favor if they would just go back to wherever it is that the larger format users congregate and leave us in peace. Losers!

        • Blair


          It is well beyond tiresome, and getting into making the comments unreadable!!

          • Yup. Half these comments are equiv. arguements and NOT about the 75mm lens at all. Use your time more wisely folks.

        • Steve

          EXACTLY. I am so sick of these stupid DOF discussions.

    • Agent00soul

      When the Leica came out, it was NOT cheaper than a high quality MF folder from Zeiss Ikon etc. One reason is that it’s actually more difficult to make a high quality lens for a small format. For the MF folders back in the ’30s, a four element Tessar yielded excellent results. For the Leica, however, Barnack had to design the Elmar, which is quite a bit more advanced.

    • cybervand

      Why…oh why do people always whine about the price of lenses…find a lens of 75mm f/1.8 that’s cheaper and that is either apsc format or full frame…oh wait that’s right THERE ISN’T ANY!!!!

      • cybervand

        that is just as sharp also…so far I only found one, that Voigtlander Heliar 75mm f/1.8 is not sharp at all @ f/1.8

        • Mr. Reeee

          Voigtländer also used to make a 75mm f2.5 Color Heliar in a Leica L39 screwmount that’s quite sharp wide open. It’s also a bit smaller and half the weight of the Nokton 25mm. Very nice lens. cameraquest.com still has a few for $489.

      • Umbalito

        Pentax 77mm f/1.8 Limited. Sharp wide-open, covers FF, very compact. 50usd cheaper on B&H, hehe.

        Personally, I think this Oly 75mm is going to be a great lens, I just don’t see why it’s not priced closer to the 45mm.

        • cybervand

          because its alot more expensive then making a 45mm…which is essentially a 50mm… which @ f/1.8 is the most common lens design in the world

          • The 45 is nothing like the common 50mm FF lens’. The classic 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 is a double gauss (circa 1888) design which is archaic but effective especially when stopped down. The 45mm is a modern design that is optimized to work wide open and to have less aberrations.

            Typically lens’ are priced at their usecase which is primarily aperture and angle of view. There’s no sense comparing a 14mm prime from full frame and a 14mm prime in fourthirds and wonder why they’re not similar in price. I own the 14mm nikon AF-D and it’s a monster with a front element so big and bulbus that lens’ caps and filters can’t fit.

            Granted, I feel that 43 and m43 should be slightly cheaper for lens’ than the equivalent FF lens’ just due to materials saved, though miniaturization isn’t cheap either, and for higher density sensors, you typically need higher tolerances and higher MFT’s. I felt SHG Olympus lens’ had some justification to be priced where they were, not that it helped them in the end, but in general they were in a class of their own.

            The 75mm seems pretty reasonably priced given the system that it’s being sold for. There is no lens’ like it in the current line up. Legacy and other makers have 85mm f/1.8’s that could be adapted, but would lack autofocus or any type of correction/communication. And again the lens’ design is modern and should work much better wide open with more pleasing bokeh than the FF 85mm f/1.8 lens’ (they are again lens designs that date back to the 80s or some derivative of it and lack any type of exotic glass or special coatings).

        • cybervand

          by the way I found the lens available in norway for the same price as the 75mm…so its not cheaper…

    • bilgy_no1

      Yes, in DOF equivalence etc… But the reality is that with a 75mm f/1.8 lens, you can already obliterate the background to oblurvion! A 150mm f/1.8 lens would need to be stopped down in most instances to get workable DOF anyway (e.g. get both the tip of the nose and the ears in focus in a headshot).

      • Woodent

        that’s a proper comment here! I was just about to say that on equiv. 150mm full frame angle of view no sane one would use a 2.8, not to mention 1.8 for any practical reason, othe than “pure art”. So 3.6 DOF with 1.8 light-gathering capability is absolutely perfect in real world use

        • Walter Freeman

          Sure they would. One of the best wildlife photos I know of is a picture of a fox taken at 200mm f/2 with a Nikon FX camera at ISO 3200. The photographer needed every bit of that f/2 aperture.

          And there is no “f/1.8 light gathering capability”. Exam time: what is the aperture diameter of a 75mm f/1.8? A 150mm f/3.6? How much light goes in the hole at the front of the lens?

          • > And there is no “f/1.8 light gathering capability”.

            What a bunch of arrogant dimwits.

            Please educate yourself:
            and specifically:

            • Walter Freeman

              I think I know what I’m talking about a little bit more than you do.

              Simple explanation times, since I’m in the middle of a project:

              You have two lenses. Each one has the same pupil diameter and the same angle of view, and (for the sake of not having to do any math that you don’t understand involving rescaling images) let’s say that they both fall on sensors of the same resolution. This would be, say, a 100 f/4 on a D3 compared with a 50 f/2 on Olympus.

              Light striking either sensor will correspond to the same image, and thus to the same solid angle in space. The lenses have the same physical aperture, so they both gather the exact same amount of light.

              Now, on the Four Thirds sensor, that light will be four times as concentrated: it’s the same light, spread over a sensor with 1/4 the area. This is what the f/number and ISO measure: the aperture divided by the focal length is half as big on the FX system and the luminous intensity at the sensor plane is 1/4 as much. The ISO system was designed to deal with arbitrarily-sized pieces of film, so it is defined in terms of “amount of light per square mm of sensor” rather than “amount of light per image frame”.

              But ISO 400 on FX and ISO 100 on 4/3 correspond to the exact same amount of light! It’s just that on 4/3, that light is four times as concentrated.

              Don’t tell people to “educate themselves” unless you know what you’re talking about, and don’t tell somebody to go read wikipedia articles when you yourself have no clue about the physics (which, again, is as simple as “how much light goes in the hole”).

              • Bart

                Too bad for you that exposure depends on brightness, that is, amount of light per area, and not on total amount of light regardless of area.

                Hence, sorry but you should go educate yourself indeed, for example about what ISO values are and how they are determined.

                Your story is incomplete, and consequently inaccurate, and if we’d follow it, then ISO 100 on 135 format corresponds to what value on 120 format? The reality is that ISO 100 is ISO 100, regardless of format, because it says something about response to BRIGHTNESS and nothing whatsoever about size of the medium.

              • > But ISO 400 on FX and ISO 100 on 4/3 correspond to the exact same amount of light! It’s just that on 4/3, that light is four times as concentrated.


                > you yourself have no clue about the physics

                You got me. I’m a math man. What makes talking to you even more complicated to me: what you say is contradictory, absurd and doesn’t calculate. In essence, you are trying to prove here that 1 = 1/4. The predicate is false, however hard you spin the reality.

                Otherwise, I have in my company two floors nearly full of physicist, three avid photographers (DSLR owners) among them. They would heartily laugh at what you wrote.

                If you wish I can even drag one optical physicist into the “discussion.” Just to keep the race up. ;)

                (Kidding, I will not disturb him with the nonsense. He got already his share of the equivalency stuff on Canon forums.)

                In the end, it’s simply impossible to talk intelligently with somebody, who blatantly ignores fundamental definitions.

              • Steve

                “I think I know what I’m talking about a little bit more than you do.”

                Oh my. Why take that tack in a discussion? We’re all photography fans here and quite a few people here are Physicists, Mathematicians, etc. Why pull the “I know more than you do!” card? What are you trying to prove by that attempt at fiat?

          • BLI

            @Walter Freeman: Exam time — set your FF 200/2 at f=2 and ISO=200, assuming this gives the correct exposure. Now, if you set your m43 camera w/ 100mm (200 mm equiv.) to ISO=200, what aperture should you use?

            • Walter Freeman

              f/2, which corresponds to gathering 1/4 as much light as the FX camera, which is the whole point.

              This is why FX has better noise performance than 4/3 at the same ISO: because a given ISO on FX corresponds to four times the amount of light gathered. Asking “what ISO number do you need” (or, equally, what aperture should you use at a given ISO) is meaningless unless you understand what ISO means.

              The ISO standard was defined relative to light gathered *per square mm* — that is, ISO 100 means “you need this many photons per square mm to get middle grey”. If you have a big sensor, this corresponds to more photons in total, and it is the total number of photons that dictates the noise performance. This is what we are talking about re: “light gathering capability” — what you ought to be worried about is the total number of photons falling on corresponding regions of the image, since it is that value that dictates how much noise you’ll have for a given shutter speed.

              And that value is the same for 100 f/4 on FX and 50 f/2 on 4/3.

              • Bart

                Bullshit, photosites, their size, fill ratio and quantum efficiency determine noise level. Additionally, heat production affects noise level, and heat production is directly related to component size.

                Sensor size has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

          • 2345357342

            Wrong. It’s about the intensity of the light that’s projected onto the sensor, not about how much area the projected light covers. The brightness of the small image circle that is projected with the 75mm F1.8 is the same as the larger circle from the 150mm F1.8. This is why exposure is the same. The same brightness of light hits the sensor either way, F1.8 is F1.8 in this case.

            • Coby

              “The same brightness of light hits the sensor either way, F1.8 is F1.8”

              Nicely put. Why is that simply concept so hard for these FF folk to understand? In fact, why is it even slightly hard to understand???


    • Camaman

      Here we go again…

    • Jesper

      @ darrask, please explain to me why the smaller size mean cheaper price. If you are talking about less material cost then i would say they are negligible. If you pay attention to the modern gadget logic you will see the smaller the product is the higher is the price. Simply because of the higher level of enigneering (to keep things small but maintain quality) and more advance manufacturing methods and precise tools. The cases where larger products are more expensive are when they have more rooms for more features, but in this case the features provided by the lens and the compared lenses are almost identical.

      • Chez Wimpy

        >If you pay attention to the modern gadget logic you will see the smaller the product is the higher is the price.

        Tell that to any P&S user… hard to imagine a f1.8 zoom on our m43 cameras fitting into your pocket, with the camera attached, and costing less as a set than 1/3 of a m43 12-35/2.8. Yet, that is the reality of camera/optic miniaturization.

      • dzv

        > If you pay attention to the modern gadget logic you will see the smaller the product is the higher is the price.

        This generally applies when devices start to get into the realm of true miniaturization. In the case of lenses, m4/3 lenses are hardly miniature, and there’s no need to use ultra small electronics in them (by today’s standards). Now if you’re talking phone and P&S cameras, then that’s where you might expect the miniaturization to be expensive, and yet that’s not the case. So, I don’t think our expensive m4/3 lens prices can be chalked up to the smaller size. I’m pretty sure modern manufacturing processes can produce these lenses without breaking a sweat.

        The cost of the glass is always mentioned as one of the biggest factors in the manufacturing cost of a lens, which goes against the “small lenses cost more to produce” argument. It seems pretty clear that m4/3 lenses are priced according to what PanOly think people will pay for them. What baffles me is not that there are so many people who feel the prices are reasonable, but that there are so many people who actually want to defend the high prices. It’s as if you all don’t want to be able to buy cheaper lenses!

        • Vlad

          You are only talking about quantity of glass, but what about the quality, which needs to satisfy these tiny pixels?
          Camera gear as a whole is overpriced, but if we leave that aside, I find the 75mm well priced.

          • dzv

            > You are only talking about quantity of glass, but what about the quality, which needs to satisfy these tiny pixels?

            I admit, I don’t know. Your question is based on the assumption that our sensors do actually require higher quality (resolution) than lenses for larger sensors. Is that actually true?

        • BLI

          @dzv: as far as I understand CDAF, very small and high quality servo motors are needed to get fast auo focus.

          • dzv

            Right, but again, I don’t think (personal opinion) that we’re getting into the realm of true miniaturization by today’s standards. There’s still a decent amount of room for motors. Also, the smaller/lighter glass elements necessitate relatively less powerful motors.

  • Tamron_lover

    Oh yeah babe, come to GF1/papa!

    Admin: do you happen to know if $800 equals or not 800EUR?

    • admin

      No. But I think it will cost more. Maybe 899? :(

      • Leave a reply

        What? 899…€?

      • Geoff

        Just checked exchange rates, $799 equates to £510 or 630 EUR approximately but then we know these things do not cost the same in different countries.

    • yortuk

      Doesn’t seem like you get full value on Panasonic cameras, since at this focal length I think image stabilization can be pretty important. I have a GH2 that I’m quite happy with, but when I see some of these Olympus lenses I feel a bit of jealousy for those with Olympus cameras. Maybe Panasonic will have a similar lens, though it would probably cost even more. I suppose the upcoming 35-100 zoom might be good enough to substitute, though likely twice the price and twice the size.

  • Jesper

    I still think the prices of this 75 and the 12-35 seems pretty motivated. I agree they are not cheap, but if the optic quality is similiar to the corresponding lenses for canon and nikon, i see no reasons why they shouldn’t cost that much. Remeber for gadget, smaller does NOT means cheaper, it is often the opposite. Since it require more precise manufacturing methods and tools, and R&D for shrinking the size while maintaining the performance.

    • +10
      Well done actually posting a comment about this lens and not about an equivalency arguements. Those are REALLLLY getting old quick.

      Can’t we all agree that we understand there are differences between FF and M43 lenses? Isn’t that obvious? Admin is only using them for price/value comparison and to pre-empt the attacks from equivalency trolls.

      • Stopkidding

        Hoping to buy this lens sometime. The price seems fair. what gets lost among the “DoF” noise is that lenses designed for smaller sensor formats have to be sharper and account for finer manufacturing tolerances than lenses for bigger formats. So the prices seems reasonable to me if it indeed going to provide the “high performance yet among m43”..

        • Walter Freeman

          This is definitely true, which is why a lot of these lenses designed for fullframe really show warts on APS-C. Olympus designs lenses specifically for 4/3, and does a damn good job at it. I just wish they made a 300/4 tuned for the 4/3 format … that would be an amazing lens.

  • bilgy_no1

    75mm is on the edge of the classic portrait range, which was something between 85mm and 135mm. I see the 75mm lens as the m4/3 version of the classic 135mm fast telelens, and as such it is suitable for portraits.

    • WT21

      I agree, and I bet if you went back and looked at the prices of the 135/3.5 portrait lenses and ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, this one is priced well.

      My only concern is the longevity of plasticky/focus-by-wire lenses.

      • DonTom

        Yes, this is an issue for me as well. How long will the manufacturers support the electronic side of these lenses?
        Some companies are amazing at this, take Swarovski Optics for example. Not sure how Olympus and Panasonic are.
        For this reason alone, I would spend a little more for a CV F0.95 lens than a comparable focal length AF F1.4 or 1.8. Not just for the speed or DOF, reliability comes into play when I am spending “big money” (anything over $500, for me) on something that is basically a hobby.
        For the same reason, I am really reluctant to buy used electronics from any source. You never know if those circuits have had exposure to water or impact, and are on their way out…..

        • WT21

          DonTom, I agree, but the way I look at it is like musical chairs. I don’t intend to hold onto these lenses long term. The issue is to not get caught with them when the music stops, lol.

          More seriously, there’s enough life in them to do a lot of shooting. I just don’t think you can think of them in the same terms as older, mf lenses. But for me, I prefer AF, so that’s what I buy.

        • Mr. Reeee

          I agree. When you hear talk of limits on how many actuations your camera’s shutter has, that’s not very comforting, either.

          That’s mostly why I’ve been buying mostly manual lenses that are adaptable… Voigtländer L39 and M mounts, Nikon AI-S, plus Pentax SMC Takumar and Olympus OM lenses I got from family members.

          Although there are some very good native M4/3 lenses, like my 7-14mm, this 75mm, and the just announced 12-35mm that are extremely tempting

          • Sounds like a reasonable approach, but for my style of shooting, I’d rather have AF. Its quite possible this system will be around for quite a few more years, and frankly, with the consumerism frenzy its quite possible most users would sell gear and move to the “next big thing” way before the system has dissappeared or is no longer relevant. Basically, what i’m saying is: i don’t worry about if this lens will be usable in 15 years…

            • Mr. Reeee

              True enough.

              I prefer primes and have not been too excited by all the slow M4/3 zooms, or most of the native primes, until recently. There are exceptions, like the 20mm, Nokton 25mm, 7-14mm and 100-300mm.

              How many slow 14-42mm lenses does a system need? FIVE? REALLY?
              P&O are finally getting around to making lenses for enthusiasts!

              @Archer Sully
              1000 shots a day. No kidding. If I went on a 2 week trip and shot 15 rolls of 36, I thought it was pretty excessive. Paying for processing got to be, that’s for sure!

              • +1 on the primes vs zooms. In fact, my GH2 came with the 14-42 zoom, which I sold a few days ago as a “kit” along my venerable GF1 – a great camera, but at the end of its life cycle.

                m43(to me at least) really make the most sense when using compact bright primes, because of their great quality and sharpness, low weight and small size. The 7-14 is tempting, and i guess I’ll be getting it at some point (and probably the new panny zooms when they go down in price as well).

          • Actuations have always been an issue, its just that in the film days photographers didn’t go around shooting 1000 frames a day as a rule.

    • flash

      a “150” is very useful in taking portraits. It seems longer lengths are more preferred today, with at least the professional portrait photographers I know.

      I think it will give 16 degree field of view, while a Leica S 180mm Portrait lens on a S2 (the lens of choose) will give 17 degrees. Taking in to account the squarer 43 format they are near equivalent in field of view.

      If I was not able to borrow the big glass, and if the Olympus a little better then the 45 it would be a quick purchase. I still may get one latter on, even though I thing it is 200 dollars more then it should be, unless I get the 60; I will only buy one. Small lens should cost less, as less glass is used.

  • Yun

    Good news ! I’m ready to get it .
    Need to find my models to shoot with magnificent glass .

  • jacek

    Why do you think this is not portaits lens? I am sick of people who think that 50mm or APSC is portrait lens (it’s much too wide for portrait). ZD50 is perfect portait lens. 75mm will be just little longer.

    • Geoff

      +1 The 50mm ZD is not a ‘perfect’ portrait lens, it is a ‘stunning’ portrait lens, that doubles up as a great macro lens when used with EX-25.

    • CobyD

      While this lens is certainly useable for portraits, there’s a substantial difference between 50mm on APSC and 75mm on M43!

      • Geoff

        Who mentioned APSC, I certainly did not.

    • Do

      I’ve read so often in literature that the classical portrait length on full frame is 85mm – 135 mm that i consider that as a broad consensus amongst experts. So, 50mm on APS-C corresponds to 75mm on FF and is therefore a little bit wider, while 75mm/MFT corresponds to 150mm/FF and is therefore a little bit longer, but nothing to worry about.

    • Walter Freeman

      Some of the best portraits I’ve seen (taken by the late Bill Algood) were done with the PL 25mm. I’ve seen good portraits with the ZD 35 f/3.5 macro, the ZD 50, and at ridiculous focal lengths like 200 and 300mm on Four Thirds.

      One of the best wildlife photos I ever took (of a wild rat snake) was with a 9mm (Zuiko, not Glock).

      Turns out you can use lots of different lenses to do lots of different things.

  • For admin:
    Here in Czech Republic is the first shop accepting preorders for 12-35 (price is TBD, but expected date is June 21): http://www.megapixel.cz/panasonic-lumix-g-x-vario-hd-12-35-mm-f-2-8-asph-power-ois

    • Coby

      The post immediately above you, dude.

  • Viktor

    M43 lenses are getting better and better, but I still miss a 35mm equiv. AF fast prime for lowlight indoor shooting!

    • +1

    • st3v4nt

      Have you ever heard about Voigtlander 17.5 mm f/0.95 for m4/3 that’s your equivalent of 35 mm, it’s expensive and MF only tough. But it looks like we have to use a correct calculation nowadays otherwise FF gestapo will hunt us down :-)

    • mx

      20/1.7 (eq. 40mm), 17/2.8 (eq. 35), 17.5/0.95 (eq. 35), 9-18/4-5.6 (eq. 17-35). Still have no choice?))

  • Just an observation:
    In m4/3 terms 20mm is the sweet spot for size.
    In every format 75-85mm is the sweet spot for quality.

    It looks like a sweet, sweet piece of glass. Not immensely useful to me, though.

  • Noob

    Reading this from North America, I immediately thought admin opened up the equivalence can of worms when comparing to FF. I only had to read a few comments to see I was right. Haven’t we had enough of this at DPR the last few days? Do the DOF gestapho march from forum to forum rehasing this stuff?

    • Coby

      We had enough of them about 30 seconds after the first of them started posting here.

  • MP Burke

    The macro is the lens that interests me. Now summer has finally (probably briefly) arrived, I would love to be able to try that lens for photographing damselflies and butterflies. Though my old manual focus 50mm macro gives pretty good results, I would love to be able to see if the focus limiters help achieve good results with autofocus and touch focus.
    It would be nice (though unlikely) if using a native macro lens would enable me to get this enormous depth of field that people keep going on about. I find my little subjects are often not completely in focus even at f8.

  • avds

    “The lens corresponds to 150mm f/1.8 lens in Full frame terms or to a 100mm f/1.8 in APS-C terms.”

    Look here, someone has just started the equivalence discussion…

    Well… No, it doesn’t actually “correspond” to those lenses :)

  • Salty

    Some of those full frame lenses mentioned seem like awesome value for money compared to equiv medium format lenses.

    Doll house furniture seems like good value compared to real furniture.

    • BLI

      Real furniture = medium format? Large format?

  • hendrik

    too much dof wont kill u…..

  • Mar

    Equivalence zealots will have a point when there are new FF cameras the price of m43 and when they’re as compact….so, never. :)
    All the people I know with canon 85 1.2 are not using it wide open sice dof is so shallow and unusable. Not to mention AF is extremely unreliable at that.
    People should learn how to place your subject and position yourself, and not blame it on the gear, because you can get plenty odd shallow dof on m43 em easily.

  • Mr. Reeee

    @ Admin…
    completely off-topic, but why is comment editing broken? On my Mac and iPad, too.

    Also, there’s a weird scrolling glitch in article comments in browsers on iPad 3 (I tried, Safari, Atomic and Grazing browsers). If you tap a comment, it works fine. If you tap the blue title “Comments” link and try to scroll up or down, it bounces back. Weird.

    BTW, thanks for all your efforts! And tolerance of DoFDorks! This has been an exciting week with all the lens announcements!

    • admin


      Will forward this to my designer! Anyway, ther will be a major website upgrade this weekend to get rid of some problems and old plugins! Hope there will be less issues and less spam after!

      Thanks for the compliments :)

      • Will this include repair or removal of the ‘camera database’ at the top-o-page? None of the user-reviews that used to be there are there anymore…

        • Mr. Reeee

          It would be nice to get rid of the non-reviews by people who bitch about prices and don’t even own or use them and are just trying to drive the ratings down.

  • 1player

    “The Panasonic 12-35mm managed to get into the 20 most sold lenses” are you kidding amazon :) the lens is just announced two days ago…

    75 1.8 look great but i think 60 2.8 looks too big for m43..

    • The photo at the top is just a render of them together. Look at the mounts on both lenses. Two different sizes. 60 2.8 won’t be SOOO big, but probably still bigger than 75mm

    • It’s a macro. Does it make a difference if a macro lens is large? I don’t think so.

      • Well uhhh, that’s like, your opinion, man.

        • Yes, that’s what I said :) Wouldn’t mind hearing yours.

          • Vlad

            Yep, in my opinion his opinion about your opinion doesn’t give us his opinion about the lens.

            • Thanks for your opinion :) So what’s your opinion (I mean, about the lens)?

              • Vlad

                I walked into that, didn’t I? I think it is very fairly priced, I was actually expecting it to be more. Would wait to see the price and performance of the 35-100 Panasonic X though.

      • 1player

        of course it make difference.. i choose m43 system bcoz of body+lens size and weight.. i like my 7d but i dont want to carry a big ,heavy bag.

  • Mattias

    I don’t like all this over the format comparisons. If you do you Will always find cheaper alternatives. Like the Nikon 50/1.8 on a Nikon V1.

  • Anonymous

    A lens I deffinitely want to pickup at some point, even if it is a refurb/used copy (just like that is how I am planning on picking up the 12/2). If they wanted a real killer portrait lens, even though they have an excellent 45/1.8, is make a 50 or 52mm f/1.4 or even f/1.2 lens at some point (all metal construction, etc, etc). A hair longer combined with 2/3rds of a stop or 1 1/3 stops faster than the 45, with high optical quality would be absolutely killer.

  • Scarka

    Great portrait lens are coming^^

  • bonzo

    Seems like “DOF” ist the “next big issue” for m4/3. First we had rants about “high ISO being not sufficient”, than we switched to “crappy DR” and now it’s DOF ;)

    • tmrgrs

      The Equivalency Freaks are trolling the bejesus out of DPR’s m4/3 forum. A POX on all of those jerks!

  • SLOtographer

    My prediction: the Oly 75mm will be known as the Bokehmaster!

  • This is completely OT (or is it?)

    Admin, I would suggest that you stop comparing 4/3 lenses to 135 glass. We all understand the equivalence issues and those little comments draw unnecessary fire.

    Everybody else, please ignore the DOF police. Thin DOF is an artistic preference and those who fanatically pursue it are hardly artists, I suspect. In fact, with a lens such as the one discussed here “too much DOF” should be the least of our worries. I feel that thin DOF has become the end rather than the means. The level of ignorance in those comments saddens me.

  • I’m really keen for these lenses!!! :)

    BTW, this whole equivalent stuff… I don’t need to know. I have no problems with admin writing the equivalent FoV for FF 35mm but it’s really doesn’t matter. I never shot with film so it doesn’t mean much to me. I’m more used to the 4/3 FoV anyway.

    I did firmly state in another news article all about equivalence but that was because someone was wrong… I think it’s the Nikon FF users who get all flustered about equivalence, but I don’t want to get in another argument.

    Yes, sensor size does change a lot of things, but it’s not always a bad thing.

    OK, so FF can result in more shallow/narrow DOF. BUT, on a 4/3 system, for a similar (or equivalent) DOF and FoV, you can get away with a shorter exposure either by lowering the ISO (that’s a good thing) or by fastening the shutter speed (less hand shake).

    You can still get shallow/narrow DOF on 4/3!!!

    You can do polls here, admin. Do one for who stills uses film/who doesn’t. If an overwhelming amount don’t, maybe don’t bother writing equivalent figures at all and just post good news!! :)

  • Rob-L

    So June/July is Olympus-speak for Aug/Sept?

  • chronocommando

    Nice lens but I don’t see the point for it.
    Why should someone pay 800 $/€ for 150mm lens with a very special range of use? Streetphotography? Indoorsports? For me its to long as a portrait lens.
    I don’t know how much the pana 35-100 will cost in the end, but it seems to be a much more reasonable lens. And it will be weather sealed.

  • BillM

    I am very excited about this lens. The focal length is a tad long for portraits; however, a majority of my big selling portrait shots for weddings and portrait sessions were done with the Canon 135mm f/2L, I realize this lens will not have as tight of DOF as the 135 at f/2 on FF; however, as long as the bokeh is still soft and creamy (which I expect it will) then I will be more than thrilled. This will be a fantastic low light beast for mFT. Now, if Oly will come out with a 50-200 f/2.8 – 3.5 for mFT I would be thrilled :) I like the new Panny X f/2.8 zooms but with the E-M5 I do not need OIS and would appreciate a cheaper non-OIS versions from Oly.

    • I would expect a weather sealed 50-200 f/3.5-4.5 designed after the 12-50. Any faster than that would be too big.

  • more OT rubbish, but my om-d kit finally delivered at my door!

    • Congratulations buddy!

    • Congratulations, I’m still waiting ;-)

      • thx Matthias, I am glad the waiting is over here, now planning some shootings asap.

      • Duchemin

        Guys, I got mine last Friday (Black Body Only) from Amazon US via Bongo to Switzerland. Worked like a charm! It’s a wonderful camera, great output and a joy to hold and handle!

        • did you pay import taxes?

  • Nikku

    If this is anywhere near the quality of the old OM Zuiko 100/2.0 (which still sells for $1000 used), I will own it. Maybe not for a few years, but I will own it.

    • Nikku, I have the OM Zuiko 100/2.0, it is a great lens, but not near the quality of the mFT primes when used with adaptor on mFT cameras.

      • Nikku

        I had it too, but used it almost exclusively on an OM body. I feel the same way you do regarding any adapted legacy lens. Anyway, I was thinking of the 100/2 as used on a film camera as intended. Very high quality with amazing bokeh.

  • Chris

    +1 to Sneye

    Everyone here will be able to calculate the 35mm equivalent if they want to; to refer to equivalence in the posts is effectively troll bait.

    FWIW I’d prefer it if you used angle of view rather than 35mm equivalent, Admin. There’s nothing artistically ideal about 35mm, but referring to 35mm equivalence implies that there is. Fewer and fewer people have shot with 35mm format, so it seems to just become an increasingly abstract thing that people cling to instead of wondering what type of shots that super-shallow DOF is useful for.

    Referring to angle of view would be much more interesting as a lens’ focal length conceals more than it reveals. I don’t know how many times I’ve read people say they’re buying the 14mm rather than the 12mm partly because it’s ‘just 2mm difference.’ But the difference in angle of view between 12mm and 14mm is greater than the entire range of the 100-300m lens! (84.1 degrees – 75.4 = 8.7; 12.4 – 4.13 = 8.27) A lot of people get misled by focal length, I think.

  • I’m more interested about the macro lens ;) And (I know I wrote that several times before but I still hope that Olympus will read this here ;-) ) something similar to the 14-54. And 50-200, even if I like the 40-150 more and more, really great lens for that price. It would be great for traveling with 3 lenses from 9 to 200 mm.

  • Just about everyone who posted here is a douche. Yep..I said it.

  • I wonder how it will compare to Voigtländer 75mm f/1.8 (52mm filters, 14.9 oz. /423g, about $715) or LEICA 90mm f/2.8 ELMARIT-M

  • KID

    Is the 75mm f/1.8 metal like the 12mm f/2 or plastic like the 45mm f/1.8? It looks metal.
    Note to Olympus: make in black Please!

    • BLI

      It is metal. And it will be silverv (At leat for now.)

  • Ken B

    You can always tell when a system has matured and become excelent.

    All they have left is the “Thin DOF” rubbish over and over.

    I have an EM5 and I like the EXTRA DOF the system gives me, a real plus for some.

    We are not all thin DOF masters and we dont really care for it.

    75mm F1.8 yes another storming low light beauty, MFT certainly has a good selection of cracking prime lens.

    Thick DOF and great glass what more do you need.


  • Fish

    I got a little distracted by Panasonic’s announcement of their lovely new zoom, but I think this lens will be my next purchase.

    I personally think these DOF tirades are very useful. If I am ever unsure about about a poster, I can simply refer back to these comments and tell, at a glance, whether that person is more interested in “camera theory” than they are in real world photography. These posts become a very useful reference guide in distinguishing the gits from the rest.

    I am trying to picture what percentage of people are more interested in how thin their depth of field is, than they are in their ISO and shutter speed? DOF is relevant but a little thing called EXPOSURE isn’t??

    One final equivalence/price question: if you have to stop a FF lens down to f3.6 for it to be as sharp as the m4/3 lens wide open at f1.8, how can you say that you cant’ compare the two in terms of price? It isn’t magic or math riddles that makes that possible, it is engineering, high tolerances, and high quality materials… And guess what, those things aren’t free.

  • Tadeo

    Bla bla bla bla bla DOF bla bla FF bla bla…
    Promising lens lets wait for some image samples.

  • compositor20

    In this post there are full body portraits with a FF sony + 135mm f2.8 lens shot at f3.5 so if if you are happy with that amount of background blur, this will be possible with 75mm f1.8…


    Pros know what they need and if they know a scene needs f2.8 1/500 and iso 3200 they just need to wait so that new cameras are good at that setting… FF lenses are not getting faster like say f0.95 and such… they have been in common aperture sizes regarding a measure… and that is usually f2.8 for zooms.. and f1.4 to f1.8 to f2 for primes… in the normal range… f2.8 in the wide area and f2.8 to f4 in the long tele lenses…

    If they have a f1.8 lens its great…since they know what to expect in shutter speeds even though they would may have a DOF penalty/advantage…

  • Jessy Plames

    Admin – The Panasonic 12-35mm has an AUGUST release date according to all the official press releases and news.

  • blastingmills

    This lens will be great for headshot type portraits. Full body portraits will be nice, but the photographer will have to be a good distance away from the subject.

    Other uses for this focal length will be photojournalism type assignments. Should be a nice medium lens for press conferences and events. In addition, this will be a wonderful focal length for concerts.

    Sometimes I wish I had just a bit more reach with the 50mm f2 Zuiko. I look forward to the focal length, the image quality, the big aperture and the fast speed of use with this lens. Judging by the other hi-end micro 4/3 lenses, I bet this lens will focus really fast!

    Plus, it will look damn sexy on a silver OMD body.

  • 43shot

    All this talk is nice but will there be a black model so they can actually sell more units?

    • Bart

      I asked Olympus…. their not so useful response was that they passed the comment to research/development….

      I’m sure it takes a fair bit of research to figure out that if you sell a black camera, people might want to have a black lens to go with it, and then again a fair bit of development to figure out how to paint it black… :)

      • LOL. Let me say this one more time: WE WANT BLACK LENSES!!!

  • Any 4/3 rumors Admin??

    • admin

      no :(

  • AndersN

    Admin, to end this pointless equivalence discussion I think you should quit comparing to “full frame” (whatever that is) and instead compare to Pentax Q lenses and 6*9 medium format lenses. That would be confusing enough for most people to stop regurgitating the issue.

  • awaler

    Simple question (no pun intended)

    I own a Zuiko 2.0/85 mm which fits my PEN by way of a suitable adapter (and I am very satisfied with sharpness etc.).

    Now, when I finally buy an OM-D E5, which has an EVF that in theory should support manual focussing well, will there be any sense in shelling out 800 quid for the 1.8/75mm lens?

  • I’m waiting for news on the companion in the background, the macro lens! The initial estimates were sometime this summer, but I haven’t heard anything recently. Date? Estimated price?

  • awaler

    All this DOF discussion is beyond me.
    I am not an artist.
    For nearly all of my takes, shallow DOF is no good.
    I want people and things in the background to be recognizable.

  • Matt

    You could always just get the Samyang/Rokinon 85mm 1.4 for much less and it’s usable wide open.

  • awaler

    On the press release given in dpreview, they mention a price tag of 899 USD.

    To me, this sounds outrageous. Add VAT and a Hood and you will be well above 1000 Euros.

    Is this intended as a lens or as a status symbol?

  • Jim

    Hello all.

    I shot with this little 75mm last week for a short while both outside and inside and while it’s definitely atrractive I will not be purchasiong it. Several reasons. Mostly the 150mm equivelent is totally weird to my experince. Neither a 180mm which I have had many nor any other focal length I’m aware of. None.
    It’s definitely too long as a”portrait” lens. maybe a fixed sports lens for some applications but I really doubt it. It’s neither in the middle of any normal zoom range as it’s not a zoom or it’s just too darn short as a tele lens.

    It certainly appeard sharp but that’s my other main complaint. It was very difficilt to hold steady. I did not want to use the accessory grip as I want the camera in normal use to be without it. So it’s simply not for me…


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, 43rumors.com, 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: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/partners/
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/analyticsjs/cookie-usage?csw=1#cookiesSet Addthis cookies: http://www.addthis.com/privacy.
Disqus cookies: https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466235-use-of-cookies.
Vimeo cookies: http://vimeo.com/privacy.
Youtube cookies: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/171780?hl=en-GB

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.