Please create G-Master f 1.2 70mm and 43mm f/1.2

[Niala2]

../. There are good arguments to have primes at the 70mm focal length you mention, the range from 50 to 85mm is thinly covered ./.."

..So good to read sound, serious contribution, not polluted with devaluate people (and upon speculations).. Sorry I granted myself to say that.

../. The Sigma 70mm 2.8 macro is a very good lens, big and aged now, I may still end with that one. The Leitz 70mm is an M mount rangefinder lens. Little else exists in 70mm ./.."

I have and liked very much the rendering of the Sigma Macro 70mm (if You desire me to provide specific photos..) however the absence of FTM ability (as it is called by Canon : Full Time Manual focusing-along-with AF) and its MF-thread quality rather contrary to what is generally likable handling of it. But I had gotten to like it on 5D III I had. Now on A7R-II I arbitrarily just use the good EF24-70 II for it's better handling. It probable it still deserves I should use it though its sharpness (it was over my old 24-105 and comparable EF 1.2 85mm) could probably not be the argument compared to the 85gm..and f1.8 55 (and will never be "kind of always on" as I imagine an ..70 /65 mm EYE-AF capable lens could be for me many times with f1.2 or 1.4).

../ Whether 70mm is an odd focal length is subjective. I see many APS size users praise their adapted 50mm lenses, the angle of view corresponds with a 75mm lens on FF. 40mm pancakes are adapted on APS for their size, I do not see complaints about the resulting 60mm perspective ./.."

../. Popular usually means static; supply and demand are chained to one another for no other reason than tradition. Let us hype the 65 mm focal length to break that chain ./.."

Regarding 4..mm pancakes unfortunately they are not 1.2 or 1.4 - (it's maybe "impossible" with that formula?) -small size would have been the bonus. Not sure about possible near-focus drawbacks. True; the Zony f1.4 35mm scares me of for it's size (and inconstant quality-check - and I just don't feel ready to concede yet for such spending)(I have the just as big ZE 1.4 manual 35mm but would gladly replace with AF capable 43 f1.4, not for street (...) but for people and some object-photography)

I join You on that : 65 instead of 70 i'd perfectly adopt and favor too. It's less than 65 and above 70 that I would start again complaining..

 

[tommiejeep]

I have two Voigt 75mm f2.5 Color Heliars that I really enjoy. So much so that I bought the Leica Summarit M 75 f2.5 instead of the 90mm. I really enjoy the FL for some types of walkabout. I have a Voigt 40 f1.4 and Konica 40 f1.8 enroute to me but then again, 50mm has never been a favourite. All 75mms work extremely well on the Techart Pro.

For a while Voigt made the 75 f2.5 Sl for Canon and Nikon (Ais), maybe other mounts.

Back to the OP.... not sure it is a serious post . Maybe just pushing for reactions. No mainstream manufacturer is going to make the lenses. If he has some loose change hanging around he could get a lens designer to design and manufacture them for him . I do not think he would get too many takers on a Kickstart campaign .

Oh, I did have a Nikon 43-86 in the late 70's, not my favourite lens and certainly not f1.2.

Cheers,

--
Anticipate the Light and wing it when you get it wrong but always have fun
http://taja.smugmug.com/
http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/165169

 

[Bobo Hodls]

No doubt I was arrogant to start my OP with

"Please don't tel me that they are not necessary :-("

I really do have so much to learn still, also in matters of philosophy, good serious photography (heck; some are so good at both of it here!) and surly, just plain humanly; I am not grateful enough - to admit the least.

Also I should have stressed that I did indeed suspected fast lenses might be bigger, perhaps even heavier, and "always" less performing at f.8 than "other lenses" (but truth is I wasn't' totally sure) - But that they might be more expensive - no I didn't think of such consequences!

I also should have admitted how really happy I am with the quality of the existing good zooms (I didn't know them, really, though I still find it quite cumbersome to find the 43mm and 70mm settings), and whats more : especially at their stepped-down aperture. Yes!

And at least but not last; I really should have explained myself much better on why these martian focal-lengths are strikingly missing on earth, making obvious why popular focal lengths lenses might be good enough for You but not for me. I'm sorry about that.
Still; I'm a bit offended that I should have said I meant them mainly to be used in the wider-open range.
But would it have mattered ?

If you explained you were from Mars in the first place, it would played a bit differently.

 

[No account anymore]

Hear hear. You move you feet. You didnt see Don McCullin asking the war to stop so he could change to a (specifically) 43mm F1.2 lens...

Sure! Camera placement is one of the most important decisions we take as photographers! Higher, lower, straight on, a bit to the left or right, a few steps closer or further away. Being aware of this can make a tremendous improvement on our photographic work! Often camera placement determine which kind of lens that should be used for a certain situation or scene (wide angle, normal, telephoto lens) - more often than the other way around. ;-)

 

[biza43]

But between 50 and 85 mm it is a thin coverage. The ratio 85/50 is 1.7x, so a big step in area coverage. One modern 65mm prime would already cover that gap perfectly.

There are a few 60mm lenses for FF.

 

[E Dinkla]

But between 50 and 85 mm it is a thin coverage. The ratio 85/50 is 1.7x, so a big step in area coverage. One modern 65mm prime would already cover that gap perfectly.

There are a few 60mm lenses for FF.

 

[SilvanBromide]

If you can't do such cropping in post, nothing will help, I assume.

It's not about cropping in post, it's about visualizing in the viewfinder.

Yes, but such visualising is a central and essential skill for the photographer to acquire.

With respect, abandoning any hope of acquiring this fundamental skill and instead looking to have primes at every conceivable FL seems a crutch to avoid the real issue, no?

--
Former Canon, Nikon and Pentax user.
Online Gallery: https://500px.com/raycologon

 

[SilvanBromide]

Personally I am waiting for a 35mm Batis or 35mm G-Master with f2 or faster.

Your comment set me to wondering whether Sony could produce a 35mm G Master lens that I would like any better than the FE 35mm f1.4 ZA.

I'm not entirely sure they could. But then I was surprised how much better the FE 50mm f1.4 ZA is than the long prized FE 55mm f1.8 ZA. So I guess I should reserve judgement. ; )

 

[Niala2]

"../.

Your comment set me to wondering whether Sony could produce a 35mm G Master lens that I would like any better than the FE 35mm f1.4 ZA.

I'm not entirely sure they could. But then I was surprised how much better the FE 50mm f1.4 ZA is than the long prized FE 55mm f1.8 ZA. So I guess I should reserve judgement. ; )
../.">

( Well I id not find jet(!) compelling evidence that the new Zony FE 50mm f1.4 is objectivally worthwile in Af-speed, sharpness, bokhee over the 1.8 55.. not "enough" evidence of relevance to me. That's why I feel it's such a energy-waste (development, branding, abundant choices) to have made that lens - and why not as a g-master version?
So yet the risk of a new 35mm g-master knowing that Sony have already their 2 own excellent ones + excellent Loxia - also native e-mount - just lets hope they don't do that same "mistake" again (I know it's only me). That's one of my reasons more for me to voice my hope for a 43mm 1.2 or 4, now before a dreaded gM (GM for exquisite ;-) ) 35 announcement ;-) ( that's my life threatening phobia) )

 

[biza43]

But between 50 and 85 mm it is a thin coverage. The ratio 85/50 is 1.7x, so a big step in area coverage. One modern 65mm prime would already cover that gap perfectly.

There are a few 60mm lenses for FF.

 

[biza43]

"../.

Your comment set me to wondering whether Sony could produce a 35mm G Master lens that I would like any better than the FE 35mm f1.4 ZA.

I'm not entirely sure they could. But then I was surprised how much better the FE 50mm f1.4 ZA is than the long prized FE 55mm f1.8 ZA. So I guess I should reserve judgement. ; )
../.">

( Well I id not find jet(!) compelling evidence that the new Zony FE 50mm f1.4 is objectivally worthwile in Af-speed, sharpness, bokhee over the 1.8 55.. not "enough" evidence of relevance to me. That's why I feel it's such a energy-waste (development, branding, abundant choices) to have made that lens - and why not as a g-master version?
So yet the risk of a new 35mm g-master knowing that Sony have already their 2 own excellent ones + excellent Loxia - also native e-mount - just lets hope they don't do that same "mistake" again (I know it's only me). That's one of my reasons more for me to voice my hope for a 43mm 1.2 or 4, now before a dreaded gM (GM for exquisite ;-) ) 35 announcement ;-) ( that's my life threatening phobia) )

GM does not necessarily mean f1.4, could be f2. This is what the system needs, a AF 35 f2 lens. The other f1.4 lenses (35 and 50) are ZA, meaning Sony with Zeiss as partner.

 

[SilvanBromide]

GM does not necessarily mean f1.4, could be f2. This is what the system needs, a AF 35 f2 lens. The other f1.4 lenses (35 and 50) are ZA, meaning Sony with Zeiss as partner.

True. I'm not presently sure what criteria Sony are using to decide which lenses should go out with the ZA or GM designations.

I have noticed, however that the FE 50mm f1.4 ZA seems optically comparable to the FE 85mm f1.4 GM. And interestingly, meanwhile, it also has something of the rendering 'look' of the FE 35mm f1.4 ZA.

At a guess, the ZA vs GM designations are not to do with speed or IQ so much as the optical elements and design (e.g. whether they are taken from or based on established Zeiss designs such as the Planar or Distagon). Over time the reasoning may become more clear.

 

[Niala2]

( Well I id not find jet(!) compelling evidence that the new Zony FE 50mm f1.4 is objectivally worthwile in Af-speed, sharpness, bokhee over the 1.8 55.. not "enough" evidence of relevance to me. That's why I feel it's such a energy-waste (development, branding, abundant choices) to have made that lens - and why not as a g-master version?
So yet the risk of a new 35mm g-master knowing that Sony have already their 2 own excellent ones + excellent Loxia - also native e-mount - just lets hope they don't do that same "mistake" again (I know it's only me). That's one of my reasons more for me to voice my hope for a 43mm 1.2 or 4, now before a dreaded gM (GM for exquisite ;-) ) 35 announcement ;-) ( that's my life threatening phobia) )

GM does not necessarily mean f1.4, could be f2. This is what the system needs, a AF 35 f2 lens. The other f1.4 lenses (35 and 50) are ZA, meaning Sony with Zeiss as partner.

Why ? Their "system" needs another excellent 35mm ? The system ?
You really meant to say that ?
You want a forth excellent 35mm, expensive GM f2 to compete among their already three 35mm lenses excellent at those very same apertures ..that really beets me (not counting Batis could have this in line as well, and Samyang, then there is the Sigma Art too, ...)
(Meanwhile I get bashed for suggesting an AF 43mm lens at 1.2 or 1.4 (GM claims delivering special attention to Bokeh), without competition, not hurting their existing products (by Sony) with the same developing resources (that such a 35mm would need) and that would make Sony even more attractive and known for its diversity within excellence.)

 

[biza43]

( Well I id not find jet(!) compelling evidence that the new Zony FE 50mm f1.4 is objectivally worthwile in Af-speed, sharpness, bokhee over the 1.8 55.. not "enough" evidence of relevance to me. That's why I feel it's such a energy-waste (development, branding, abundant choices) to have made that lens - and why not as a g-master version?
So yet the risk of a new 35mm g-master knowing that Sony have already their 2 own excellent ones + excellent Loxia - also native e-mount - just lets hope they don't do that same "mistake" again (I know it's only me). That's one of my reasons more for me to voice my hope for a 43mm 1.2 or 4, now before a dreaded gM (GM for exquisite ;-) ) 35 announcement ;-) ( that's my life threatening phobia) )

GM does not necessarily mean f1.4, could be f2. This is what the system needs, a AF 35 f2 lens. The other f1.4 lenses (35 and 50) are ZA, meaning Sony with Zeiss as partner.

Why ? Their "system" needs another excellent 35mm ? The system ?
You really meant to say that ?

Yes. 35 f2 or 35 f1.8 is a very common lens for any system. Right now, the only one that exists is MF. The 35 1.4 is too big for me, and the 35 f2.8 is too slow.

You want a forth excellent 35mm, expensive GM f2 to compete among their already three 35mm lenses excellent at those very same apertures ..that really beets me (not counting Batis could have this in line as well, and Samyang, then there is the Sigma Art too, ...)

Where did I mention expensive or that it needs to be GM? It it comes from Zeiss Batis, fine by me, but I doubt it. Again, Sigma Art is too big, plus the adapter, and Samyang, who knows? Tokina has already introduced its Firin range for E mount (20 mm lens), Sigma confirmed that they will enter E mount too.

(Meanwhile I get bashed for suggesting an AF 43mm lens at 1.2 or 1.4 (GM claims delivering special attention to Bokeh), without competition, not hurting their existing products (by Sony) with the same developing resources (that such a 35mm would need) and that would make Sony even more attractive and known for its diversity within excellence.)

Where did I bashed you? Honestly, 43 1.2 (you did not suggest 1.4)? Does a 43mm lens requires special attention to bokeh? Whatever, email Sony and ask them for your requirements. Plus, I suspect the developing resources for a 43 1.2 lens would be quite different from developing a well established already 35 f2 lens, which has been a staple from many systems for decades.

 

[antoineb]

it's easy:

- the market is collapsing

- so manufacturers are more and more nervous

- so if you want exotic lenses, this is what should happen. The manufacturers should gather votes. And then they should launch a crowd funding exercice. If enough people are happy to pay $3k or $4k for a specific exotic lens, then they will produce it. If not enough, then not. Words are cheap.

Please don't tel me that they are not necessary :-(

Leica made several such bright lenses
(http://overgaard.dk/Leica-75mm-Summilux-M-f-14.html )

With 85mm I often feel I need to part to much from "model" for "intimate" portrait wile still intruding much. With 55mm I feel like disrespectfully close wile disrespecting proportions.

And although there are "many good 35mm" on the market,
and suddenly also "many good 50mm", I just sens to feel best with what aprox. 43mm provides (but f.2.8 is different to 1.2)

Wile I would not want to part from excellent G-master 85 f1.4 ("for commercial non-tight portraits), I long for such two specialty lenses
( Mitakon and voighlander might remain excellent artistic options in their own right with their extreme wide aperture models, however, G-Masters with Eye-AF would be really additionally different.)

When/if paired with an excellent AF 24-70 and an EF 16-35mm mark III on Metabones, I consider prime-lenses really need to be truly totally different in rendering for them to be worthwhile (to drag along, and too many of them..) - or be shift lenses. But I don't find any to be standing out for me.

G-Master 70mm f.1.2 and 43mm f/1.2 would at worst at least have a "psychologically" strong commercial impact for exquisiteness - witch the new Zony 50mm, for instance, does not achieve. For me that one is a sample of missed opportunity, almost a waste - considering the 55mm f1.7 exists..
Anyway...

 

[E Dinkla]

Hear hear. You move you feet. You didnt see Don McCullin asking the war to stop so he could change to a (specifically) 43mm F1.2 lens...

Sure! Camera placement is one of the most important decisions we take as photographers! Higher, lower, straight on, a bit to the left or right, a few steps closer or further away. Being aware of this can make a tremendous improvement on our photographic work! Often camera placement determine which kind of lens that should be used for a certain situation or scene (wide angle, normal, telephoto lens) - more often than the other way around. ;-)

Not fighting a war here ..... Some scenes dictate one combination of camera placement + lens, another lens and by that another camera spot just doesn't do it. More obvious when the scene closely surrounds us, less obvious with a 3D object in front of us. I always wonder about the usual comment that the photographer should take some steps backwards if the subject is not covered by the lens. Sure that works for brick wall photography, it could work for telephoto lenses but requires more than a few steps then. For any lens with a focal length shorter than 100mm on an FF camera the step backwards changes the scene or it has to be that brick wall and the camera perpendicular in front of it.


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
700+ inkjet paper white spectral plots: OBA content etc.

spectrumviz_1

 

[No account anymore]

I always wonder about the usual comment that the photographer should take some steps backwards if the subject is not covered by the lens.

As with all creative disiplines, there has to be some improvisations. You might be lucky, getting the intended result, or you have to chose a different strategy since your widest lens is not wide enough. You might:

• Buy/rent/borrow the lens you need, and then return to the scene (a bad one)
• Use panorama technique and stitch several frames ( good one)
• Adjust the camera placement, accepting a different result than expected (a good one)
• Try to come up with something else (a good one - giving ut is not an option! )

This will apply for most photographic problems related to camera technique. What do you do if your lens is not bright enough and you don't have a flash or tripod at hand? Improvise! Something else? improvise!

Use what you do have at hand! "Oh, I should have brought with me a wider lens!" or "I have to buy another lens" doesn't help much, at least not at the moment. Learn to look at any subject from different angles, and also think about a tight crop instead of showing the whole subject if there is not that much space ... there are som many possibilities! ;-)

I always wonder when people have to cover a subject just as they thought or wanted, instead of working with creative solutions and trying different camera placement and maybe also test out different focal lengths when the first idea or concept could not be realized. Seems a bit rigid and less productive to me. ;-)


My widest lens did not cover the subject very well, so I took five frames and stitched them with a panorama software. I even adjusted the exposure between the frames to keep the sky petty even, and also not having to burn out the midnight sun.

 

[PPierre]

The reply was pretty good, the final picture makes it perfect ! I can only aprove, and admire

 

[tommiejeep]

All well and good, but.... if you are covering one-off events you do not always have the luxury of moving for the more creative/ better shot . That is why the Pro midrange zooms and medium tele zooms are so popular. It is often not the perfect image that counts but getting the image.

 

[No account anymore]

All well and good, but.... if you are covering one-off events you do not always have the luxury of moving for the more creative/ better shot . That is why the Pro midrange zooms and medium tele zooms are so popular. It is often not the perfect image that counts but getting the image.

Sure! But with experience and using your creativity, you can do just as good work with a few primes (since this discussion is about extremely bright primes ).