'S Wonderful, 'S Marvelous: Olympus's Lavish Lens

The paltry trifling hardly-any-element-having in no way notable
Panaleica 25mm

Okay, last YouTube-mentioning post for a while, promise—I'll give you a break.

As I've watched producers scavenging for ideas for viral videos, one trend that's come up are the answers to odd, offbeat mostest/bestest type questions. In the tradition of the Internet, some of these ask questions that I hadn't even known I was interested in having answered.

Like this one, which asks,"What's the Deepest Hole We Can Possibly Dig?"

...And then doesn't quite answer that question. All it tells us is the deepest hole we have dug, which, critical thinkers will note, isn't quite the same thing.

Let me break the suspense (and spare you from having to watch the video)—the deepest humans have ever dug (according to the video) is the Z44-Chavyo oil and gas well, at a depth of 12,376 meters (7.1 miles).

For some reason, what that video makes me think of is: what's the greatest number of elements humans have ever used for a normal lens for a pictorial camera? 

It takes four elements to make a decent normal lens (the classic 1902 Tessar type and its many variants). It takes six elements to make a decent fast normal lens (the classic double-Gauss a.k.a. Planar type). Over-the-top normal lenses used eight elements, such as the early 8-element Super-Takumar which Asahi supposedly sold at a loss (I like the later 7-element better, and still keep one on my desk), or (one of my favorite Leica lenses) the redesigned 50mm Summilux-M...I can't remember when that one came out now. Early 2000s I think.

Recent assaults on the wallets of minigarchs—sorry, I meant recent assaults on the optical state of the art—such as the 50mm Summilux-SL (11) and the Zeiss Otus 55mm (12, mo bettah!) don't even come close to this:

It is of course the current Olympus 25mm (50mm-e) ƒ/1.2—officially the M.Zuiko ED 25mm ƒ/1.2 PRO—which costs a mere $1,049, vs. $3,990 for the Otus and $5,295 for the SL. If there are too many elements to count from the picture, I'll help you out: the sales verbiage states, "Its unique 19 elements, 14 groups construction incorporates extra-low dispersion, aspherical, and high refractive index elements to significantly reduce both chromatic and spherical aberrations for notable image clarity, sharpness, and color accuracy."

Significantly? Notable? As in, if you look at a picture, you'd say, "I note superior image clarity, sharpness, and color accuracy?" Would you actually note that? Over the Otus, SL, and Summilux-M? I'm not sure about that. Surely there is a level of correction over which more correction stands little chance of being significant and notable.

But then, I haven't used one. (Have you?)

I can tell you this: I love it. I don't care if its superiority is notable (visible) or not. Nineteen elements in a normal lens. That's so radically over the top it's just plain wonderful. Mass creates gravity, and evidently a lavish number of elements in a normal lens creates a GAS attraction field. If I had the money I'd buy one of these just to have it. (It's not even the kind of lens I like best. I like small lenses with a number of lens elements that is, as was said of the horsepower in an older Rolls-Royce, "adequate.") What with the digital camera market calming down, we might never see its like again. It makes the old 8-element stalwarts look antique and quaint.

But is this the most elements humans have ever used in a normal taking lens for a pictorial camera? I certainly suspect so, but I can't prove it. Can you think of one, from now or in history, that has more?

I need one of those mostest/bestest YouTube videos. (Even with their undocumented sources and suspicious-until-proven-otherwise accuracy—I mean, I haven't triple-checked to confirm if the Z44-Chavyo oil and gas well is the deepest hole humans have ever dug. The TOP fact-checking department is good—the Z44-Chavyo borehole was drilled by Exxon Neftegas in 2012 on the Sakhalin Shelf in the Russian Far East—but has limited resources.)

Even better, I'd buy a cutaway M.Zuiko 25mm ƒ/1.2 PRO, for my desk. 'S wonderful, 's marvelous.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Severian: "As with all measurement questions, the specifics need clarification—longest hole in the ground or the deepest point in the Earth's surface? The Wikipedia article on the Kola Superdeep Borehole suggests that it still holds the record for 'deep into the surface' since the length of the Z44 Chavyo gas well is not all vertical—oil/gas wells frequently travel some horizontal distance as well. All of this is to say that even for something simple like 'how deep of a hole have we ever dug' the word 'deep' needs some specification...depending on how precise we need the answer to be."

Mike replies: I knew this would get deep.

Neven Falica: "Just found out this extreme-elements-count beauty—27 elements in 19 groups for 24mm wide-angle prime: Laowa 24mm ƒ/14 2x Macro Probe. Looks like pretty fun-to-use lens!"

cecelia: "I have the Olympus 25mm ƒ/1.8 and it's the nicest normal lens I've ever used. Close focusing, small, lightweight, nice bokeh—not sure why I'd need the pro version. The 12–100mm ƒ/4 Olympus zoom is a miracle lens—sharp in the corners wide open, and amazing stabilization, it's the best zoom I have ever had, bar none. It's big for Micro 4/3, but overall manageable. The Olympus lens designs are strong across the board and I really appreciate the range of prices and sizes."

D. Hufford: "It may just be that it has too much elements. Probably needs less elements, then it would cost fewer money."

Mike replies: You right are.

s.wolters: "One of the most interesting articles on the M.Zuiko PRO prime lenses is this. Some accused Mike Tompkins of writing free advertising for Olympus, but it is in fact a straightforward explanation of what the designers want to achieve. Some people don’t see any difference between the various samples. Some even prefer ring-shaped bokeh. Just like some people cannot hear the difference between various classical sopranos and love Bob Dylan’s singing."

Comments

[Profligatographer]

They say: "Its unique 19 elements, 14 groups construction incorporates extra-low dispersion, aspherical, and high refractive index elements to significantly reduce both chromatic and spherical aberrations for notable image clarity, sharpness, and color accuracy."

And I wonder, how much of that could be addressed in software at far less expense?

My current blog post was made with a 21mm Pentax 'pancake' lens that I purchased in 2007 at a fraction of what this one costs.

[Peter]

I'll stick with my modest and much loved Panasonic 20mm f1.7. It is sharp, a focal length that better suits me and fast enough to use in very low light. And, as you say (infer), I doubt anyone could tell the difference between the two when looking at their monitor or an 11" x 14" print.

So. Why would anyone buy the Oly ?.

[Because it's got nineteen elements!! That's what I'm a-sayin' here. --Mike]

[Speed]

I would like to have a 12 cylinder Ferrari.

[Marcin Wuu]

So, it's an equivalent of a very sharp 50 2.4 lens on a 35mm camera. As impressive as it sounds - just kiddin'. Not really that impressive.

[Nope, it's not an ƒ/2.4 lens. It's an ƒ/1.2 lens. --Mike]

[William Lewis]

The 1.2 pro lens series just makes me deeply wish for a nice 25/2.8 Tessar for my M4/3 cameras. Say for $100.

Of course it will never happen but that is all I really want.

[HR]

I had never even thought about how many elements my lenses contain. I didn't even realize there are people who do care. :-) Anyway, 5 minutes ago I checked my Olympus 25mm f1.8 and it has 9. My Panasonic 20mm f1.7 has 7. My old 1976 Minolta MC Rokkor-X PG 50mm f1.4 has 7. My old 1990 Minolta AF 50mm f1.7 has 6. Oh, and my first "normal" lens was the Mamiya Auto Mamiya/Sekor 55mm f1.8 (M42) and it had 6.

[David Brown]

"Even better, I'd buy a cutaway M.Zuiko 25mm ƒ/1.2 PRO, for my desk. 's wonderful, 's marvelous."

Make yourself a good print of the picture of the cutaway, mount it and put that on your desk.

[William Schneider]

It's probably a high-water mark for the number of glass to air surfaces too.

The coatings had better be good.

[John Nollendorfs]

And how many cameras does a good cell phone need to for high quality pictures?

[Michael Perini]

There is also a cost to all those elements, even now with nano coatings and exotic glass . I’m sure it’s a fine lens.
My nostalgic impulses cause me to keep one of these in the 24” fl
They did an amazing amount with 4 elements
https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00268/00268.pdf

[Stephen Scharf]

Interesting post, but I'm not fully buying into it.

This seems to be, at some level, another "specs for the sake of specs" thang, like this current pre-occupation with super-fast glass to be able to achieve "millimeter-thin" planes of DOF; like that is actually useful in the real world (yeah, lets have the iris in focus and the sclera out of focus; doh!) Designed to appeal to specs geeks who are typically dealing with a major case of GAS.

Back when I started shoot pro racing with creds, I was in the market for a Canon 70-200/2.8 L, either the non-IS or the IS version. I chose the non-IS version because it was sharper than the IS version. Less elements; less chance of flare. (Side bar: And the vast majority of racing photographers don't use OIS for shooting racing anyway as it actually gets in the way, so there's another spec that can be meaningless in some real-world use-cases.)

Less elements also means simpler designs, and simpler designs typically mean less unit-to-unit variance, which means higher overall production quality (which is measured as process sigma or Cp/Cpk), which is a really good thing.

Simpler designs/less elements also means less chance of failure modes (a failure mode is anything that can go wrong).

Less failure modes means: more durability.

Durability is GOOD. I'll take durability over "specs" any day of the week.

And twice on Sunday, which is RACE DAY.

The British [Scottish! —Ed.] turntable company Linn-Sondek (which I am sure Mike is familiar with) had a tag line for many, many years: Simpler is Better

[James Weekes]

And for under $150.00 you can have the panasonic/notleica F/1.7 lens which I find superb.

[Bruce Rubenstein]

It may have the field of view of a "normal" 50mm lens, but it is, in fact, a very fast f1.2, 25mm wide angle lens. This probably requires a more complex optical configuration for the desired performance.

[Nope, it's not a wide angle. It's a slightly long standard lens for the format. --Mike]

[scott kirkpatrick]

I'm afraid that the cutaway lens is created in computer graphics by now. As evidence, you can even find BUGS in the cutaways! Leica's new Super-Vario-Elmar-16-35-ASPH wide angle zoom for the SL mount has 18 elements in 12 groups. Not the record, apparently. In the data sheet, one element is missing from the cutaway drawing but seen in the engineering drawing. The internal complexity of these supercalifragilistic lenses allows moving each of the 12 groups independently as the lens is zoomed or focused (but it is still not parfocal). The new series of four APO Summicron SLs have only 11 elements in 9 groups, but they have figured out how to have the same elements in each design, with the elements differing from one lens to the next. The two focusing elements are moved separately by two motors, so no more FloatingLensElements (FLEs).

[Richard Man]

Do we have to tell you that the Cooke Triplet is the few-elements lens design (3) that correct all 7 types of aberrations?

[Thomas Rink]

Funny that you mention these über-lenses in conjunction with oil drilling. Those lenses and related cameras (D850, A7R3, A9, you name it) always remind me of American muscle cars at the brink of the oil crisis. The oil crisis gave us more utilitarian, more reasonable cars. Hopefully the crisis of the camera industry will bring back reasonable cameras and lenses (soft wide open, sharp 2-3 stops down, portable and affordable). Simple, utilitarian gear for people who just take pictures.

Best, Thomas

[Richard McKenzie]

Olympus and their 410g 25mm lens; Zeiss and their 1.03kg 55mm lens...I presume none of these lens designers ever take their cameras beyond the test bench!

[Kenneth Tanaka]

@ Stephen Scharf: Thanks for the great blast from the past! I actually had a Linn-Sondek turntable back in the 80's. It was a lovely work of art that I recall having to really scrimp and save to purchase.

[Peter]

I'll stick with my modest and much loved Panasonic 20mm f1.7. It is sharp, a focal length that better suits me and fast enough to use in very low light. And, as you say (infer), I doubt anyone could tell the difference between the two when looking at their monitor or an 11" x 14" print.

So. Why would anyone buy the Oly ?.

[Because it's got nineteen elements!! That's what I'm a-sayin' here. --Mike]

Yes Mike. I took your point. But, I'm saying why on earth would you ? ... it goes against the TOP grain !... when another lense is cheaper, lighter, smaller, in-line with the u4/3 ethos and the outputs, for all practical purposes, cannot be told apart !. To me, it is just geek consumerism ... and I did not think that that was you.

[David Bateman]

Yes the Olympus is funny. The problem is that the t stop is about the same or hair slower than the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f1.4 you post at the top.
So you pay for an f1.2 but get same amount of light as the Panasonic f1.4. Also the depth of field differences aren't that significant. What Olympus should sell on is the hood. I have the Panasonic 25mm f1.4 and its an amazing lens, but the hood is the most horrible experience ever.

As for holes. Do you mean straight down or in the open pit version. There would be a limit to an open pit. Just look at mining. You can only go so far until you need to switch from the cheaper open pit.

[Alan Carmody]

Here I was, a simpleton who assumed that five elements in a normal lens was...well, normal, and six elements indicated the height of design sophistication and cost.

And I'm a guy who actually has a copy of Rudolf Kingslake's book about lens design.

[subroto mukerji]

[Because it's got nineteen elements!! That's what I'm a-sayin' here. --Mike]

OK, got it. Oh, the excesses of a latter day plutocracy. Anyhow, all I'M saying here is that small, light and sharp is adequate, as per the stated horse-power of the old Silver Ghost RR's (https://www.scribd.com/document/33494012/Rolls-Royce-The-Phantom-Zone-by-Subroto-Mukerji). More than that - it means 'handy, durable and sharp wide open', though not weather sealed.
Enter the Panasonic Lumix 20mm f1.7 Mk 1 and the fabled M. Zuiko 45mm f1.8, tiny primes capable of nuking the much costlier and bulkier 12-35mm f2.8 II Lumix.
Sure, a zoom is a zoom is a zoom, but wherever possible, I use these two lenses (plus a little footwork), with the diminutive and vastly underestimated Lumix 14mm f2.5 (55 gms) thrown in for good measure (sort of like a Baker's Dozen, ain't it, Ed? Ha ha).

[Thomas Mc Cann]

Linn Sondek British ?

SPIT, SPIT

They're Scottish

[s.wolters]

I have one M.Zuiko 25mm f/1.2 PRO here. Now, does anyone have an idea how to cut it? It’s built like a tank, so it won’t be easy. Diamond? Laser? Water jet cutter perhaps? Think of it: Cutting it in two could make two people happy for the price of one!

The MicroFour Thirds system might set another record soon: 7artisans 25mm f/1.8 MFT, Cosina Voigtländer Nokton 25mm f/0.95, Fujian 25mm f/1.8, Hersmay 25mm f/1.8, Kowa Prominar 25mm f/1.8 MFT, Magic Hyper Prime 25mm f/0.95, Meike 25mm f/0.95, Mitakon Speedmaster 25mm f/0.95, Olympus M.Zuiko 25mm f/1.2 PRO, Olympus M.Zuiko 25mm f/1.8, Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 25mm f/1.4 Asph., Panasonic Lumix G 25mm f/1.7 Asph., Pixco 25mm f/1.8, SLR Magic 25mm T/0.95, Venes 25mm f/1.8, Veydra Mini Prime 25mm T 2.2, Zhongyi Mitakon 25mm f/0.95…

[Michael Walsh]

Am I the only one who really likes the panileica f1.4 (nearly as fast) in the first picture? Works for me. It’s such a good lens I think the Leica boys designed a really ugly lens hood - just in case we got any ideas

[Neven Falica]

Err, Mike, there's a bug in your text - that 8-element Takumar was earlier, Super-Takumar variant. All subsequent 50mm Super-Taks, Super-Multi-Coated Taks and SMC Taks are 7-element only.

[subroto mukerji]

"Bruce Rubenstein: 'It may have the field of view of a "normal" 50mm lens, but it is, in fact, a very fast f1.2, 25mm wide angle lens. This probably requires a more complex optical configuration for the desired performance.'

[Nope, it's not a wide angle. It's a slightly long standard lens for the format. --Mike]"

Mike, I have to respectfully disagree with your note as above. I feel Mr. Rubenstein is right. The focal length of a lens is just as absolute and intrinsic a factor as the f-stop. It just so happens that, on account of the 2X crop factor of a micro-four-thirds sensor, a lens of 25mm focal length gives the equivalent view of a 50mm 'normal' lens in the 35mm format, on an M43 body.
In fact, it's not unusual for M43 users to adapt old 50mm SLR lenses to their cameras just to get the 'great for portraiture' field of view and bokeh as offered by a fast 100mm lens on a full frame camera (been toying with that idea myself / hunting for a mint condition 50mm f1.4 MC Rokkor or 50mm Takumar on the used market, just to challenge my M. Zuiko 45mm f1.8).
https://www.four-thirds.org/en/special/lens_knowledge.html

[Isaac]

If I had the money I'd buy it... Then another one that I'd have cut in half and put on display in a nice shadow box.

[Nope, it's not an ƒ/2.4 lens. It's an ƒ/1.2 lens. --Mike]

Which can gather as much light as a 50mm f/2.4 on FF, doesn't it?

If ƒ = 25 then 25/1.2 = 20.8~mm
If ƒ = 50 then 50/2.4 = 20.8~mm

On the other hand, a FF 50mm ƒ/1.2 lets 4 times more light:

50/1.2 = 41.6~mm

That's double the diameter, or 4 times the area, so 4 times more light (so 2 extra stops).

Now, whether one cares about that difference, or can/wants to justify it, is another thing.

I personally don't and I'd take the Olympus over a Canon 50mm ƒ/1.2 as it is lighter and cheaper, and I quite like it's clutch design and overall construction more.

Ditto for other lenses and even the cameras. For my needs and shooting style a current M43 camera and sensor is more than good enough and I don't need more than ~16MP anyways (online display and prints A4 to A3 max.).

I'd say M43 can cover 90% of my needs, and for the other 10% I'd go with a MF system. What are you waiting for, Olympus?

[Callum Ross]

What about the 7-element double-Gauss in the Olympus 35SP? Must be the most elements in a fixed, normal lens film camera. Even the digital Fujifilm X100 only has 1 more element and it's decades newer. Diagram here: https://www.kenrockwell.com/olympus/35-sp/diagram-1200.gif

[Joakim Ahnfelt]

Lensrentals did a test a while back for those interrested in numbers. https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/01/finally-some-m43-mtf-testing-25mm-prime-lens-comparison/

[Kenneth Tanaka]

In my experience and opinion micro four-thirds sensors simply aren’t good enough to reward such a high financial and technical optical investment. They’re “good” sensors but haven’t really made much advancement since their introduction. Packaging (camera body styling) has been what this line is really all about. I enjoy my GX9 but it ain’t gonna be wearin’ no 19-element lenses!

[Edward P Richards]

>Simple, utilitarian gear for people who just take pictures.

They call those smartphones.

[KeithB]

But, can you turn it up to 11?

[John Shriver]

I wonder what the T-stop is for this? Nowhere near T/1.2, no matter how good the coatings!

The cross-section doesn't show much material (metal? plastic?) holding all those elements in place.

[Peter]

Ken Tanaka wrote:

In my experience and opinion micro four-thirds sensors simply aren’t good enough to reward such a high financial and technical optical investment. They’re “good” sensors but haven’t really made much advancement since their introduction. Packaging (camera body styling) has been what this line is really all about. I enjoy my GX9 but it ain’t gonna be wearin’ no 19-element lenses!
__________________________

Yes. Exactly. Too much lense (cost, size and weight) for this system and its sensor capabilities. If I want to get into this realm of performance, I pick up my Nikon Full Frame and better it !. For me this system is about reduced size and weight and these type of lenses fly in the face of that.

[Peter]

Linn Sondek British ?

SPIT, SPIT
They're Scottish
Posted by: Thomas Mc Cann
____________________________

Do I have news for you Mr Mc Cann. Scotland is part of Britain ... therefore Linn Sondek is British.

[Mark Sampson]

How similar to the current flood of overpowered luxury automobiles. The technology exists in design software and manufacturing capability... and the market requires something 'new and improved' every year, so that's what we get.
I would say the gains are mostly theoretical (like 500hp vs. 300 in a four-door sedan) but of course you can pixel-peep to your heart's content now, so you can prove that 19 lens elements are superior to only 17.
I'm glad that they're making better fast lenses now, don't get me wrong.

[Rob Campbell]

DOF of all lenses, regardless of focal length, at the same aperture and MAGNIFICATION, is the same.

That's all there is to it: depends on the size of the image in your film/sensor plane.

T-stops would, in reality, make a lot more sense for stills photographers too. Depending on auto this 'n' thats will mask the slight exposure differences between T and f stops, but they remain, and that's why movie people were/are more demanding.

[Rob Campbell]

Linn Sondek British ?

SPIT, SPIT
They're Scottish
Posted by: Thomas Mc Cann

Reminded me of an entry in my work book: 23rd September, 1974.

Photographed a transcription deck for them, I think, via John Cherry, Art Director for whom I did much work. I say think, because the work book only mentions his name, a Hamish Robertson and the name Crolla. Crolla was/is a big name in ice cream; you didn't dig too deeply, baby. I didn't even know if they were connected families.

Life was so laid back, then... even in Glasgow.