The Complete Wedding Training System is Finally Here!

Your content will be up shortly. Please allow up to 5 seconds
Gear Announcements

Olympus Announces Two New PRO Lenses & Limited Edition E-M5 II

By Anthony Thurston on May 12th 2015

Well, the leaks said they were coming soon, and they were right. Today, Olympus expanded its ever growing PRO lens lineup with two new offerings, as well as announced the leaked Titanium OM-D E-M5 II.

olympus-7-14mm-pro

The first of the lenses is a new 7-14mm F/2.8, a wide angle lens that features weather sealing, an ultra close 3 inch minimum focusing distance, and a custom function button that can be assigned to one of 27 custom functions. And it is also incredibly light, weighing in at just under 19 ounces.

The Olympus 7-14mm F/2.8 will retail for $1,299 and is now available for pre-order over on B&H.

RV_M0818Fish_stand_s

The other lens announcement is an impressive 8mm F/1.8 ultra-wide angle prime lens, which gives M 4/3 users the same FOV as a 16mm lens on a traditional FF DSLR. The new 8mm PRO lens is also weather sealed, and a very close minimum focusing distance of just under 1 inch.

The Olympus 8mm f/1.8 will retail for $999 and is now available for pre-order over on B&H.

E-M5MarkII_GMT_add1

As mentioned above, in addition to the two new PRO lenses, Olympus has officially announced the Titanium OM-D E-M5 II. Also, as expected, the new limited edition body style does not include any new functionality over the normal E-M5 II models.

That said, you do get a leather strap, and leather memory card case, as well as a number card that you can use to authenticate your limited edition camera body.

The Titanium OM-D E-M5 II will retail for $1,199 and is also now available for pre-order over on B&H.

All three of today’s Olympus announcements are expected to begin shipping in June. So get those pre-orders in now so you can be one of the first to receive these exciting new products from Olympus.

Anthony Thurston is a photographer based in the Salem, Oregon area specializing in Boudoir. He recently started a new project, Fiercely Boudoir to help support the growing boudoir community. Find him over on Instagram. You may also connect with him via Email.

Q&A Discussions

Please or register to post a comment.

  1. Lissette Garcia

    Fuji’s prices have gone up as well. I still have not purchased the lovely 50-140mm because the $1,600 price tag is a bit steep.

    | |
  2. Kristopher Galuska

    These prices are just ridiculous. This is part of the reason I just left Micro 4/3 for Nikon Full frame. At this point the only advantage m4/3 has is size. I understand that for some people that is the main deciding factor. I myself have been a big proponent of M4/3. Carrying a camera and 3 primes in a 7 inch bag is pretty nice and great for travel, but It’s hard to justify paying that amount for just the size convenience.

    | |
    • J. Dennis Thomas

      That’s exactly what I was thinking. If they keep pricing their lenses this way they will go under. I’d never go Olympus M4/3 when I could get an APS-C Fuji X series for about the same price point and nearly the same size.

      | |
    • Dave Haynie

      I really don’t think the prices are all that terrible. The 7-14mm f/2.8 runs $1300 on introduction; a Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G will run close to $2,000, while Canon’s 11-24mm f/4L is nearly $3000. Sure, Fujifilm makes a 10-14mm f/4.0 at about $850, but … f/4 again. Panasonic also makes a 7-14mm f/4.0 for about the same for m43.

      Of course, you do have more 3rd party alternatives for Canon or Nikon. My Sigma 11-24mm f/4.5-5.6 for Canon was under a grand, but only just so. And for what it’s worth, DxO rates it worse than any m43 lens I own. Maybe there’s something to that $3,000 Canon… but I’d be surprised if the new Olympus 7-14mm PRO weren’t in the same league as the Nikon or Canon, versus the Sigma.

      | |
    • Kristopher Galuska

      Well, third party you can get them around $500 – $700 for Nikon and Canon. And that is an advantage. There are some great third party lenses. Also physically they have more glass, so you expect them to be more expensive to produce. But I know zooms are expensive to design. The real sting here for me is the cost of the 8mm fish-eye. For that price I could get a Sigma art lens on full frame, or the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 on APSC (just as a price reference). I absolutely adored my Olympus 17mm 1.8 and 45mm 1.8. Those tiny little primes for $300-$400 were such a great value, and still are one of the best reasons to have a micro 4/3 system. But I don’t see how they expect people to keep investing thousands into their system.

      | |
    • J. Dennis Thomas

      First of all you’re comparing Nikon and Canon’s full-frame lenses to a lens that only needs to cover 1/2 the area. There’s much less that goes into a lens that small so the prices are still not comparable. The Oly should be much less. The Oly isn’t in the same league as the FF lenses.

      So Fuji’s ultra-wide lens is an f/4? The Oly gets the same DoF as an f/5.6 and the one stop of speed doesn’t negate the fact that M4/3 is noisier and let’s not forget the 4:3 ratio which takes away from the “wide look”.

      Anyway I look at it the Olympus loses.

      | |
    • Andrew Leinonen

      “There’s much less that goes into a lens that small so the prices are still not comparable.”

      The Nikon 16mm/2.8 fisheye has 8 elements in 5 groups. The Sigma 15mm/2.8 has 7 elements in 6 groups. Both lens designs are about 15 years old now. The Nikon predates digital.

      The Olympus 8mm/1.8? It has 17 elements in 15 groups, and has 1 Aspherical, 5 ED, and 3 HR Elements. It looks like there’s a lot more that goes into it. There’s probably even more physical mass of glass, let alone quality of glass.

      You can argue about the ultimate output, but there’s no denying that there is a lot of impressive engineering that had to go into creating that to justify the pricing.

      | |
    • Dave Haynie

      Olympus’ m43 sensor has 40% less area than a Fujifilm APS sensor, but the f/2.8 is bringing in 100% more light than the f/4 Fujinon. So yes, Olympus does win here.

      | |
    • J. Dennis Thomas

      The picture quality isn’t 100% better because of the f/2.8, only the gain in shutter speed if you need it. So it’s almost a tie, but the Fuji still edges it out in image quality. Sorry, but no matter how you spin it M4/3 isn’t quite up to the same par as APS-C or 24X36 at the prices Oly is trying to get.

      And being that I think Fuji is overpriced that’s saying something.

      | |
    • Dave Haynie

      A faster shutter speed OR a lower ISO. And in particular, because Fujifilm’s ISOs are all about 2/3 of a stop off from everyone else’s.

      As far as quality goes, the Olympus 14-40mm f/2.8 PRO tests out better on DxO’s lens analysis on the OM-D E-M1 or E-M5II than my Canon 24-105 f/4.0L on my 6D. They don’t seem to have actually done any tests on a comparable Fujifilm lens, and yes, this does evaluate that lens’s performance on a specific camera. But that’s PRO vs. L, at comparable prices incidently, m43 vs. full frame.

      If you have Nikon or Canon (or Fujifilm) glass that’s 2-3x the price of an Olympus lens and it’s NOT producing a better image, you had better get your money back.

      | |
    • J. Dennis Thomas

      Out come the DxO mark scores. OK, you win. The Olympus M4/3 system is clearly better than all.

      | |
  3. adam sanford

    [Hand to face] They pulled a Tamron 15-30 and s— the bed –> 7-14m on m43 is a 14-28 FF equivalent. Most lenses cannot support threadable front-filterability under 16mm FF, and this is no exception –> no front filter on this according to B&H.

    I hope that extra 2mm of width was worth it for events or astro, Olympus — b/c you just shot yourself in the foot with landscapers.

    | |
    • Dave Haynie

      I have the same issue on my Sigma 12-24mm for Canon.. just the kind of thing you live with for an ultra-wide. Same as the Canon 11-24mm, or pretty much any fisheye. A filter thread that clears the front element would vignette with a filter installed, if not without one. No one’s going to get you the widest wide AND a front filter.

      | |