Why not a 12-35 F1.8 - F2.8?

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
superstar905
Senior MemberPosts: 1,354Gear list
Like?
Why not a 12-35 F1.8 - F2.8?
6 months ago

If Sony can make a 28-70 at the equivalent aperture as noted in the subject, why can't we have one for a M43s lens?  I mean, the 12-35 is a constant F2.8, but if you compare to the Zeiss offering being the same size as the Panny zoom, I don't see why not......

CharlesB58
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,785
Like?
Re: Why not a 12-35 F1.8 - F2.8?
In reply to superstar905, 6 months ago

superstar905 wrote:

If Sony can make a 28-70 at the equivalent aperture as noted in the subject, why can't we have one for a M43s lens? I mean, the 12-35 is a constant F2.8, but if you compare to the Zeiss offering being the same size as the Panny zoom, I don't see why not......

Because you are misunderstanding "equivalency" in regards to actual lens construction vs how a given lens applies to a given sensor.

-- hide signature --

If, in my lifetime, I will have produced just one image that makes a real difference in the life of another, I will have achieved my highest goal as a photographer.
http://eyeguessphotography.com
http://livegigshots.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
drcPhoto
Regular MemberPosts: 422Gear list
Like?
Re: Why not a 12-35 F1.8 - F2.8?
In reply to superstar905, 6 months ago

Most people were already complaining about the price and size/weight of the present 12-35mm F2.8, can you imagine what they would be saying about something better, heavier, and faster than a constant F2.8?

Dale

 drcPhoto's gear list:drcPhoto's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX9V Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm F2.8 OIS Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Laszlo13
Contributing MemberPosts: 810Gear list
Like?
Re: Why not a 12-35 F1.8 - F2.8?
In reply to superstar905, 6 months ago

superstar905 wrote:

If Sony can make a 28-70 at the equivalent aperture as noted in the subject, why can't we have one for a M43s lens? I mean, the 12-35 is a constant F2.8, but if you compare to the Zeiss offering being the same size as the Panny zoom, I don't see why not......

You would not gain much.  At wider angles, you wouldn't get much better subject isolation, and speed isn't as critical for hand holding.  There's a reason lenses are judged by their aperture at the long end, not short end, and hence why fixed aperture lenses are desirable.  Basically, a 1.8-2.8 wouldn't get you a whole lot more - except size and cost.

 Laszlo13's gear list:Laszlo13's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF5
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
superstar905
Senior MemberPosts: 1,354Gear list
Like?
Re: Why not a 12-35 F1.8 - F2.8?
In reply to CharlesB58, 6 months ago

You are probably right. Can you explain in simple terms, or perhaps point me to a resource?

CharlesB58 wrote:

superstar905 wrote:

If Sony can make a 28-70 at the equivalent aperture as noted in the subject, why can't we have one for a M43s lens? I mean, the 12-35 is a constant F2.8, but if you compare to the Zeiss offering being the same size as the Panny zoom, I don't see why not......

Because you are misunderstanding "equivalency" in regards to actual lens construction vs how a given lens applies to a given sensor.

-- hide signature --

If, in my lifetime, I will have produced just one image that makes a real difference in the life of another, I will have achieved my highest goal as a photographer.
http://eyeguessphotography.com
http://livegigshots.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ambercool
Contributing MemberPosts: 653Gear list
Like?
Re: Why not a 12-35 F1.8 - F2.8?
In reply to superstar905, 6 months ago

I'm not sure if you follow 4/3rds or not, but Olympus felt a similar way with their HG and SHG lenses with f/2.0.  There were a lot of complainers about how 2.0 made the lenses just as big as their full frame 2.8 counterparts.  I for one, didn't mind because I loved the idea of competitive f/2.0 lenses.  So maybe they don't want to repeat the same(I wouldn't say mistake) demand projection and keep the lenses small.

-- hide signature --

-Viet

 ambercool's gear list:ambercool's gear list
Sony Alpha 7 Nikon D70 Canon EOS 5D Fujifilm X-E2 Olympus PEN E-P5 +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Fredrik Glckner
Senior MemberPosts: 2,656
Like?
Conservatism
In reply to superstar905, 6 months ago

I think it comes down to conservatism. People who buy the high end zoom lenses expect that they have a constant aperture.

While I am certainly not an expert in lens design, I think that making the lens so that it had an aperture of f/2 in the wide end would not make it a lot more expensive or heavy. But the market for lenses like this expects a constant aperture. A variable max aperture is often viewed as a poor solution.

Personally, I think the lens should have been made with specifications like, e.g., 12-45mm f/2.5-3.5, which could probably have been done at approx the same size and price point. But this deviates from the "traditional" specifications of a pro standard zoom lens.

http://m43photo.blogspot.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Hen3ry
Senior MemberPosts: 9,714Gear list
Like?
I would have been happy with f2.8-f4 12-45
In reply to Fredrik Glckner, 6 months ago

Fredrik Glckner wrote:

Personally, I think the lens should have been made with specifications like, e.g., 12-45mm f/2.5-3.5, which could probably have been done at approx the same size and price point. But this deviates from the "traditional" specifications of a pro standard zoom lens.

The 12-35 f2.8 is a nice piece of work, though!

Cheers, geoff

-- hide signature --

Geoffrey Heard
Down and out in Rabaul in the South Pacific
http://pngtimetraveller.blogspot.com/2011/10/return-to-karai-komana_31.html

 Hen3ry's gear list:Hen3ry's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm F4-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
s_grins
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,878Gear list
Like?
Re: Why not a 12-35 F1.8 - F2.8?
In reply to superstar905, 6 months ago

superstar905 wrote:

If Sony can make a 28-70 at the equivalent aperture as noted in the subject, why can't we have one for a M43s lens? I mean, the 12-35 is a constant F2.8, but if you compare to the Zeiss offering being the same size as the Panny zoom, I don't see why not......

I guess you want this lens because SONY users can get it.

Question 1   Do you have 2.8/12-35?

Question 2  How much did you pay for 2.8/12-35?

Question 3  Are you ready to spend 3 times more for your piece of mind?

Question 4  How many lens shoppers are going buy this lens @ particular price point?

P.S. Please do not tell me that Zeiss is not expensive, and piece does not have to be Zeiss, thus it can cost less.

-- hide signature --

Camera in bag tends to stay in bag...

 s_grins's gear list:s_grins's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Sigma 60mm F2.8 DN Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-200mm F4-5.6 OIS +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Fredrik Glckner
Senior MemberPosts: 2,656
Like?
Re: I would have been happy with f2.8-f4 12-45
In reply to Hen3ry, 6 months ago

Hen3ry wrote:

The 12-35 f2.8 is a nice piece of work, though!

It sure is! The best lens I have ever used!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
agentul
Contributing MemberPosts: 602Gear list
Like?
Re: Why not a 12-35 F1.8 - F2.8?
In reply to s_grins, 6 months ago

s_grins wrote:

P.S. Please do not tell me that Zeiss is not expensive, and piece does not have to be Zeiss, thus it can cost less.

but what if someone's hand slips and writes Leica on it?

 agentul's gear list:agentul's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm F4-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ2 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 18,298Gear list
Like?
Re: Why not a 12-35 F1.8 - F2.8?
In reply to superstar905, 6 months ago

superstar905 wrote:

You are probably right. Can you explain in simple terms, or perhaps point me to a resource?

The fact that a 12-35/1.8-2.8 for MFT is equivalent to a 24-70/3.5-5.6 on FF with regard to total light on the sensor, DoF, and diffraction doesn't mean that the former can be constructed to be as small, light, and optically good as the latter. From a lens design point of view, the former is a more challenging task than the latter. To get an idea, look at the size/weight of the 14-35/2 for FT versus the Sony-Zeiss 24-70/4 for FE-mount.

The difficulty of going equal with FF increases the faster the FF lens with which we are comparing. For example, there are plenty of f/1.4 primes for FF around. But constructing a matching f/0.7 prime for MFT is a near-impossibility.

CharlesB58 wrote:

superstar905 wrote:

If Sony can make a 28-70 at the equivalent aperture as noted in the subject, why can't we have one for a M43s lens? I mean, the 12-35 is a constant F2.8, but if you compare to the Zeiss offering being the same size as the Panny zoom, I don't see why not......

Because you are misunderstanding "equivalency" in regards to actual lens construction vs how a given lens applies to a given sensor.

-- hide signature --

If, in my lifetime, I will have produced just one image that makes a real difference in the life of another, I will have achieved my highest goal as a photographer.
http://eyeguessphotography.com
http://livegigshots.com

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JeanPierre Martel
Senior MemberPosts: 1,956Gear list
Like?
Re: Why not a 12-35 F1.8 - F2.8?
In reply to Anders W, 6 months ago

Anders W wrote:

superstar905 wrote:

You are probably right. Can you explain in simple terms, or perhaps point me to a resource?

The fact that a 12-35/1.8-2.8 for MFT is equivalent to a 24-70/3.5-5.6 on FF with regard to total light on the sensor, DoF, and diffraction

In the XIXth Century, big Daguerreotypes needed long exposure time in order to collect enough light.

Even taking account the influence of the total amount of light on the picture noise, most of m4/3 users couldn't care less that the big FF sensors need more light than m4/3 sensor because they are bigger. That's their problem.

What we care about is the amount of light per mm2 on our sensor: a 12-35mm F/1,8-2,8 m4/3 lens will take a picture exactly as bright as a 24-70mm F/1,8-2,8 FF lens (not F/3,3-5,6). The angle of view and the brightness of the picture will be the same.

In other words, it will be the same photo except for the depth of field, bigger with a m4/3 lens. For FF users, that's an handicap: for me that's a huge advantage, especially in close-up photography.

If we look at the evolution of m4/3 lens, it goes in two opposite directions: brighter and heavier pro lenses on one side (F/2,8 zooms and F/1,4 primes for examples), and smaller and sharper consumer lens on the other (Lumix 12-32mm zoom, for example).

So let's be back at the original question in this thread: Why not even brighter zooms as the next step in the evolution of our gear?

 JeanPierre Martel's gear list:JeanPierre Martel's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro +19 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 18,298Gear list
Like?
Re: Why not a 12-35 F1.8 - F2.8?
In reply to JeanPierre Martel, 6 months ago

JeanPierre Martel wrote:

Anders W wrote:

superstar905 wrote:

You are probably right. Can you explain in simple terms, or perhaps point me to a resource?

The fact that a 12-35/1.8-2.8 for MFT is equivalent to a 24-70/3.5-5.6 on FF with regard to total light on the sensor, DoF, and diffraction

In the XIXth Century, big Daguerreotypes needed long exposure time in order to collect enough light.

So what?

Even taking account the influence of the total amount of light on the picture noise, most of m4/3 users couldn't care less that the big FF sensors need more light than m4/3 sensor because they are bigger. That's their problem.

Could you please explain your claim "that the big FF sensors need more light than MFT sensors because they are bigger". On what ground would that be the case?

What we care about is the amount of light per mm2 on our sensor: a 12-35mm F/1,8-2,8 m4/3 lens will take a picture exactly as bright as a 24-70mm F/1,8-2,8 FF lens (not F/3,3-5,6). The angle of view and the brightness of the picture will be the same.

What I and any other rational person cares about is the amount of light collected by the sensor per image rather than per square millimeter inasmuch as that is what has an impact on image quality. The "brightness" of an image is solely a matter of how much the original signal is amplified.

In other words, it will be the same photo except for the depth of field, bigger with a m4/3 lens. For FF users, that's an handicap: for me that's a huge advantage, especially in close-up photography.

If you shoot at the same f-stop, the FF gear will get more total light on the sensor and less DoF. If you shoot at equivalent f-stops (e.g., f/4 for MFT versus f/8) the total light as well as the DoF will be the same.

If we look at the evolution of m4/3 lens, it goes in two opposite directions: brighter and heavier pro lenses on one side (F/2,8 zooms and F/1,4 primes for examples), and smaller and sharper consumer lens on the other (Lumix 12-32mm zoom, for example).

Yes, so what?

So let's be back at the original question in this thread: Why not even brighter zooms as the next step in the evolution of our gear?

No reason to go back if we are already there. I tried to answer the original question. You didn't.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tt321
Senior MemberPosts: 3,794Gear list
Like?
Re: Conservatism
In reply to Fredrik Glckner, 6 months ago

Fredrik Glckner wrote:

I think it comes down to conservatism. People who buy the high end zoom lenses expect that they have a constant aperture.

While I am certainly not an expert in lens design, I think that making the lens so that it had an aperture of f/2 in the wide end would not make it a lot more expensive or heavy. But the market for lenses like this expects a constant aperture. A variable max aperture is often viewed as a poor solution.

There is a more or less standard method of designing constant max aperture zooms. It's kind of formulaic - use that method and one of the consequences is constant max aperture.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Andy Crowe
Senior MemberPosts: 1,563Gear list
Like?
Video users?
In reply to superstar905, 6 months ago

A true constant aperture zoom is useful to video shooters as you can zoom in and out without the exposure changing (lagging behind) as the camera adjusts the aperture to keep it constant.

Now arguably anyone serious enough to need this will probably be using a cine lens on a rig with with motorized zoom gears anyway, but there might be some area in the middle where it's still useful.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MAubrey
Senior MemberPosts: 1,518Gear list
Like?
Re: Why not a 12-35 F1.8 - F2.8?
In reply to JeanPierre Martel, 6 months ago

JeanPierre Martel wrote:

Anders W wrote:

superstar905 wrote:

You are probably right. Can you explain in simple terms, or perhaps point me to a resource?

The fact that a 12-35/1.8-2.8 for MFT is equivalent to a 24-70/3.5-5.6 on FF with regard to total light on the sensor, DoF, and diffraction

In other words, it will be the same photo except for the depth of field, bigger with a m4/3 lens. For FF users, that's an handicap: for me that's a huge advantage, especially in close-up photography.

...except depth of field and noise. Noise is dictated by total light, not density of light.

Beyond that, it isn't really a handicap. The vast majority of shooting conditions there's sufficient light to use a smaller aperture. What's a handicap is being force to stop down a μ43 lens when f/1.4 is the DOF you want but you can't use it because the mid-day sun is too bright...conditions where f/2.8 on FF would have been perfectly fine. Now...if μ43 actually started providing good low ISO, that'd be solved, but we're stuck with ISO200 and fake ISO100.

-- hide signature --

--Mike

 MAubrey's gear list:MAubrey's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Sony Alpha 7 Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 Nokton SL II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
s_grins
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,878Gear list
Like?
Re: Why not a 12-35 F1.8 - F2.8?
In reply to MAubrey, 6 months ago

MAubrey wrote:

JeanPierre Martel wrote:

Anders W wrote:

superstar905 wrote:

You are probably right. Can you explain in simple terms, or perhaps point me to a resource?

The fact that a 12-35/1.8-2.8 for MFT is equivalent to a 24-70/3.5-5.6 on FF with regard to total light on the sensor, DoF, and diffraction

In other words, it will be the same photo except for the depth of field, bigger with a m4/3 lens. For FF users, that's an handicap: for me that's a huge advantage, especially in close-up photography.

...except depth of field and noise. Noise is dictated by total light, not density of light.

Beyond that, it isn't really a handicap. The vast majority of shooting conditions there's sufficient light to use a smaller aperture. What's a handicap is being force to stop down a μ43 lens when f/1.4 is the DOF you want but you can't use it because the mid-day sun is too bright...conditions where f/2.8 on FF would have been perfectly fine. Now...if μ43 actually started providing good low ISO, that'd be solved, but we're stuck with ISO200 and fake ISO100.

-- hide signature --

--Mike

Your gallery does not confirm that you're stuck with ISO200. I saw lots of fine shots

Cheers

S.

-- hide signature --

Camera in bag tends to stay in bag...

 s_grins's gear list:s_grins's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Sigma 60mm F2.8 DN Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-200mm F4-5.6 OIS +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jennajenna
Senior MemberPosts: 1,170
Like?
Re: Why not a 12-35 F1.8 - F2.8?
In reply to Anders W, 6 months ago

Anders W wrote:

The fact that a 12-35/1.8-2.8 for MFT is equivalent to a 24-70/3.5-5.6 on FF with regard to total light on the sensor, DoF, and diffraction doesn't mean that the former can be constructed to be as small, light, and optically good as the latter. From a lens design point of view, the former is a more challenging task than the latter.

Hold on there Anders, What are you saying - that a 2.8 on a m43 is "equivalent" to 5.6 on full frame ON THE QUANTITY OF TOTAL LIGHT COMING IN?

Do you mean it's the "same" - first off the word equivalent is a lawyers word. It's either the "same" or "not the same".

But back to what you said - I was informed that 2.8 on m43 lets in the SAME amount of light as 2.8 on a full frame. The difference is in depth of field and difrraction; but mainly depth of field.

Now it seems you are suggesting total light comes into a m43 less at the same aperture as bigger sensors.

Can you clarify.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Klarno
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,534Gear list
Like?
How equivalency works.
In reply to JeanPierre Martel, 6 months ago

JeanPierre Martel wrote:

Anders W wrote:

superstar905 wrote:

You are probably right. Can you explain in simple terms, or perhaps point me to a resource?

The fact that a 12-35/1.8-2.8 for MFT is equivalent to a 24-70/3.5-5.6 on FF with regard to total light on the sensor, DoF, and diffraction

In the XIXth Century, big Daguerreotypes needed long exposure time in order to collect enough light.

Even taking account the influence of the total amount of light on the picture noise, most of m4/3 users couldn't care less that the big FF sensors need more light than m4/3 sensor because they are bigger. That's their problem.

What we care about is the amount of light per mm2 on our sensor: a 12-35mm F/1,8-2,8 m4/3 lens will take a picture exactly as bright as a 24-70mm F/1,8-2,8 FF lens (not F/3,3-5,6). The angle of view and the brightness of the picture will be the same.

If you want to capture a radio signal, a bigger antenna will capture that signal with less noise than a smaller antenna, right? Electrical engineers call this signal-to-noise ratio. The noise is always present, whether it's from background radiation or read noise or whatever. If you increase the system's capability to capture a signal, then that signal overwhelms the noise, and you have a higher signal-to-noise ratio.

An imaging sensor is an antenna. The only difference between an imaging sensor and a radio antenna is that the imaging sensor is designed to capture a two-dimensional set of signals in the nanometer band of the EM spectrum rather than a zero-dimensional signal in the meter band of the EM spectrum. Other than that, they work exactly the same.

What matters isn't the signal per area. If signal per area was the be-all and end-all, small antennas would be fine for all applications. A single radio telescope would be just as effective at imaging distant celestial objects as the entire VLBA spread out over the surface of the planet. But we know that's not true. What matters is the total amount of signal making up an image.

In other words, it will be the same photo except for the depth of field, bigger with a m4/3 lens. For FF users, that's an handicap: for me that's a huge advantage, especially in close-up photography.

Not really. Diffraction is always the same at the same DoF, and FF users can stop down their lenses too. FF users have the option that we don't have of lowering their ISO and getting an even higher signal-to-noise ratio.

MFT lenses do have the capability to stop down relatively farther than FF lenses-- most FF lenses stop down to f/22, where most users are loathe to go; the same DoF is achieved on MFT at f/11. Past that is, for most users, beyond the realm of usefulness because of diffraction softening.

Size of the equipment remains the primary advantage of MFT: Increasing the ISO of a FF camera and stopping down the lens doesn't make it smaller.

If we look at the evolution of m4/3 lens, it goes in two opposite directions: brighter and heavier pro lenses on one side (F/2,8 zooms and F/1,4 primes for examples), and smaller and sharper consumer lens on the other (Lumix 12-32mm zoom, for example).

So let's be back at the original question in this thread: Why not even brighter zooms as the next step in the evolution of our gear?

Probably size and cost concerns. The f/2.0 FT zooms were generally criticized for their being the same size as, and more expensive than, FF f/2.8 glass; enough so that, looking at the systems separately, you'd actually save money and gain capability going for an FF system with a 24-70 and 70-200 over an FT system with a 14-35 and 35-100. While they may have been marvelous pieces of glass, they didn't by any means play to the system's strengths.

-- hide signature --
 Klarno's gear list:Klarno's gear list
A3000 Olympus PEN E-PM2 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5 Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54mm 1:2.8-3.5 II +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads