Do you still prefer quality primes for 4/ 3rds...?

Ehrik · Feb 10, 2010

To a first approximation, every dimension would be halved, which means 1/8th as much glass and about 1/8th as much cost to manufacture a certain number of lenses. Even accounting for different relative backfocus and much smaller production volume, I think they could sell a 12/1.4 for well under €1000. That's assuming that an equal proportion (not number) of 4/3" users as Nikon users would buy such a lens.

But slower primes would make more sense. More compact, more affordable, less risk. A portrait prime could well be f/1.4 though.

rovingtim · Feb 10, 2010

I meant 'for more than just macro'.

I agree it's a bit long for all purpose.

Rriley · Feb 10, 2010

jim stirling said:
Winder said:

I think Olympus can build very high quality primes for a lot less money. The 50mm f/2.0 is one of the sharpest pieces of glass made for any system and it only costs 1/4 as much as the new Nikon glass.

Click to expand...

The new Nikon is a 24mm f/1.4 lens how much do you think a 12mm f/1.4 Olympus prime would be. There are a number of macro lenses for FF around the 90-105mm focal length that can be had for much the same price though the Nikon 105VR is around the $800 mark and they all deliver pretty good results.

thats not much good for Nikon APSC though is it
where 24/14 becomes 36/1.8, $2199.95/£1949.99 is pretty serious dosh for F1.8

But i can reason this lens is intended for FF, APSC seems as unattended for fast wides as 4/3rds is.

The message being, if Nikon dont field a specific fast wide for APSC, why should Olympus ?

and further, its kinda interesting that Olympus be the focus of this sort of discussion, among users that appear relatively uninterested in the extremes of shallow DoF shooting.

--
ʎǝlıɹ

plɹoʍ ǝɥʇ ɟo doʇ uo ǝɹɐ ǝʍ 'ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ uı

FlipinUS · Feb 10, 2010

DragosJianu said:
FlipinUS said:

They need a set of fast, as in sub 2.0 aperture 12mm, 17mm, 25mm and 40mm which are great wide open. Not this usable wide open and great at 4.0 or 5.6 stuff, which I seem to see with the Canon L and Nikon lenses.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ, their 300-400$ moderately fast lenses might not be "great" wide open (though there are many exceptions), but the premium speed primes ARE mind blowing wide open. You don't pay 1-2k for f/1.2-f/1.4 only to get "usable" results. So forget that misconception and stop extrapolating the 50 1.4's performance across the entire range.

Thanks for your reply, but, what's the point of having a 1.4 aperture lens that is usable wide open and great at 4.0? and no i'm not just talking about the 50mm Canon. Have you looked at what SLRgear had to say about the 24/1.4? There is as much as 2 stops loss in the corners on a FF camera!!! So there is no extrapolation there. What about the 85/1.2, they said that the softness at the edges is noticeable wide open. We don't even have to talk about the 50/1.4. So, if you want built in vignetting in your images, then use a Canon FF with these lenses. If you are familiar with the 16-9 website, this is their main gripe with Canon lenses. This may also be the main reason that OMZ wides esp 18/3.5,, 21/2.0 and 3.5 and 24/2.8 tend to hold thier value on ebay. Because Canon users know how well they work on their FF cameras. In this regard, Olympus optical quality has held up. No one can fault the optical quality of the SHG zooms. It is the size and weight that are at issue.

DragosJianu said:
DragosJianu said:

3. Canon lenses tend to suffer the same fate of Olympus, maybe worse for their cropped lenses. Their lenses are really geared for the FF system, with a price to match. Nikon seems to be going down the same road.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ, you can get a mint SH 5D for just under 1000euros, or a new 5D Mk2 for about 2000euro. That might not be the cheapest, but compared to the price of the L primes, that's not much more then lunch money. IF you can afford to shell 3000-5000euro on such a lens kit, you should have no problem affording a FF. They're not in the upper 3k anymore really and going down, so that's slowly becoming a moot point...

I agree with you, but if you look at my statement, what I am trying to say is that Canon, at least up to this point, is really geared towards their FF cameras. My problem is that I DON"T want to afford FF and I DON'T want to carry a huge honking camera. And thus, the call for Olympus to come to their senses and produce excellent primes to match smaller cameras with their improving imaging systems.

Sam610 · Feb 10, 2010

43photo said:
Nikon just released a fantastic prime 24mm 1.4.
2200 usd
2150 euros
This is serious money.

Fast wide angle prime is very expensive. They only sold in a handful quantity. A couple years ago Nikon had 28mm 1.4 and even at the price around 1600.00 USD, they were very slow sales and eventually discontinued and became the collectors' items. Making fast wide angle prime in 4/3 is even harder and the cost will be prohibittedly high.

43photo said:
Many on this forum asked olympus to built quality primes for 4/ 3rds. Many people are saying 4/ 3rds lacks primes.

Do you still prefer olympus to built high quality primes when you know they would cost around 2000,=? Would you still buy one?

Depends on what lens, but at 2000 USD, no. But I don't know why Oly could not make 50-100mm prime range at an affordable price. I don't need equal DOF but at least equal F ratio to 35mm lens format.

43photo said:
Or do you prefer a SHG zoom at f2.0 that gives you a handful of primes at the same price?

Yes, zoom at F2 is more versatile, I will always buy a zoom first before I consider a prime, but prime is also preferable in certain situations beside IQ, I consider more about weight and cost.

Sam H.

Harold66 · Feb 10, 2010

Rriley said:
But i can reason this lens is intended for FF, APSC seems as unattended for fast wides as 4/3rds is.

The message being, if Nikon dont field a specific fast wide for APSC, why should Olympus ?

that is not completely accurate. for Nikon , you have a option with a zeiss lens and Both Pentax and Canon have one or several single focal lenghts at or close to a 24mm equivalent

Rriley said:
and further, its kinda interesting that Olympus be the focus of this sort of discussion, among users that appear relatively uninterested in the extremes of shallow DoF shooting.

and why is that ? part of the thread was about the shameful lack of single focal lengths in the Olympus lens line up , not just about extreme max apertures
Harold
--
http://www.harold-glit.com
http://www.modelmayhem.com/haroldglit

Rriley · Feb 10, 2010

Harold66 said:
Rriley said:

But i can reason this lens is intended for FF, APSC seems as unattended for fast wides as 4/3rds is.

The message being, if Nikon dont field a specific fast wide for APSC, why should Olympus ?

Click to expand...

that is not completely accurate. for Nikon , you have a option with a zeiss lens and Both Pentax and Canon have one or several single focal lenghts at or close to a 24mm equivalent

that are not particularly fast in equivalence to FF right ?

Harold66 said:
Harold66 said:

and further, its kinda interesting that Olympus be the focus of this sort of discussion, among users that appear relatively uninterested in the extremes of shallow DoF shooting.

Click to expand...

and why is that ? part of the thread was about the shameful lack of single focal lengths in the Olympus lens line up , not just about extreme max apertures
Harold

and i agree with that

--
ʎǝlıɹ

plɹoʍ ǝɥʇ ɟo doʇ uo ǝɹɐ ǝʍ 'ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ uı

marf · Feb 10, 2010

The 100mm F/2 is the only prime I really miss.
And Oly promised to make a 100mm Prime.
And a 100mm F/2 prime should be at least cheaper than a 35-100 F/2 zoom.

If the 100mm F/2 prime has contrast dectection ability, I think, the 4/3 lens system is absolutely complete.
It could also be a 70mm F1.4 instead of a 100mm F/2.
More than perfect would be a 100mm F/1.4 Prime with contrast detection ability.

regards
Martin

My Gear is in my Profile

Harold66 · Feb 10, 2010

Yes Dragosjianu
That's exactly what I meant

you may be pleased with what you get at those max apertures for low res postings on a 72dpi computer screen but most-if not all -these 1.2 max aperture lenses provide low resolution and / or low contrast at max apertures

despite what one may say hear or there , such lenses do not make much sense in terms of economics or size and weight in today's digital world
Harold
--
http://www.harold-glit.com
http://www.modelmayhem.com/haroldglit

Harold66 · Feb 10, 2010

marf said:
The 100mm F/2 is the only prime I really miss.

Good for you . but lots of people need wider lenses

marf said:
And Oly promised to make a 100mm Prime.

As they say : " A promise is only binding on the ones who are fool enough to believe them "

marf said:
And a 100mm F/2 prime should be at least cheaper than a 35-100 F/2 zoom.

Let's see
it would be CHEAPER
it would be LIGHTER
It would be SMALLER
it would be BETTER
Gee only 4 reasons to prefer it over a zoom : )

Harold

--
http://www.harold-glit.com
http://www.modelmayhem.com/haroldglit

crnigjuro · Feb 10, 2010

...and I see no particular reason why they should be so expensive. You need smaller lenses (smaller manufacturing costs), and you kinda designed the mount for having compact lenses - if you just use those 40y.o. optical forumulas for OM glass, you can build cheap small compact high quality primes in buckets.

It must be the marketing departments' bright idea about zooms that is the driving force behind oly R&D in lens divison.

jim stirling · Feb 10, 2010

Rriley said:
jim stirling said:

Winder said:

I think Olympus can build very high quality primes for a lot less money. The 50mm f/2.0 is one of the sharpest pieces of glass made for any system and it only costs 1/4 as much as the new Nikon glass.

Click to expand...

The new Nikon is a 24mm f/1.4 lens how much do you think a 12mm f/1.4 Olympus prime would be. There are a number of macro lenses for FF around the 90-105mm focal length that can be had for much the same price though the Nikon 105VR is around the $800 mark and they all deliver pretty good results.

Click to expand...

where 24/14 becomes 36/1.8, $2199.95/£1949.99 is pretty serious dosh for F1.8

Agreed, but i would suggest that this lens is firmly aimed at FF so this is not really an issue and the Canon model after being out for 6 months is only slightly cheaper.

Rriley said:
The message being, if Nikon dont field a specific fast wide for APSC, why should Olympus ?

Indeed though Nikon and Canon users have alternative cameras within their systems that can take advantage of these lenses if they wish.The question is raised on the forum quite often so I suppose there is some demand , though I would say very fast wides are a bit of a niche and of little interest to me , i would prefer a selection of smaller f/2 primes to go with the 50mm .

Rriley said:
and further, its kinda interesting that Olympus be the focus of this sort of discussion, among users that appear relatively uninterested in the extremes of shallow DoF shooting.

And yet the topic appears often , for me a series of small light high performing primes would be of more interest than the large sized f2 zooms. But each to their own
Jim

Harold66 · Feb 10, 2010

Ehrik said:
But slower primes would make more sense. More compact, more affordable, less risk. A portrait prime could well be f/1.4 though.

Ehrik

yes it would , I think a 2.8 12mm ( maybe with some aspherical glass) would be best

and for portrait lens even if I would be fine with a 2.0 ( with great quality at full aperture) I agree with you that Olympus would sell more if the max aperture is under 2.0 ( maybe 1.7 if not 1.4)
Harold
--
http://www.harold-glit.com
http://www.modelmayhem.com/haroldglit

jim stirling · Feb 10, 2010

FlipinUS said:
. What about the 85/1.2, they said that the softness at the edges is noticeable wide open.

The edge performance of these lenses is absolutely irrelevant , the central objective of these lenses is to isolate the subject , and huge depth of field and edge to edge sharpness would actually be a major disadvantage for their intended use ,most of these lenses are fully usable from wide open.
Jim

jim stirling · Feb 10, 2010

crnigjuro said:
...and I see no particular reason why they should be so expensive. You need smaller lenses (smaller manufacturing costs), and you kinda designed the mount for having compact lenses - if you just use those 40y.o. optical forumulas for OM glass, you can build cheap small compact high quality primes in buckets.

That only works at longer focal lengths , and I think a 12mm f/1.4 would be an incredibly difficult to design and manufacture
Jim

DragosJianu · Feb 10, 2010

Harold66 said:
you may be pleased with what you get at those max apertures for low res postings on a 72dpi computer screen but most-if not all -these 1.2 max aperture lenses provide low resolution and / or low contrast at max apertures

ahem, those are 100% crops, not downsized.

Harold66 · Feb 10, 2010

well then my point is still even stronger
Harold
--
http://www.harold-glit.com
http://www.modelmayhem.com/haroldglit

forceofnature · Feb 10, 2010

For me I prefer the high quality zoom lens. I am not a professional and do not have an unlimited budget. A good 50mm prime and 17mm prime is fine for me.
--
E-30, HDL-4, 12-60mm SWD, EC-14, FL-50R

DragosJianu · Feb 10, 2010

FlipinUS said:
Thanks for your reply, but, what's the point of having a 1.4 aperture lens that is usable wide open and great at 4.0?

Go to the end of page two of this thread, and you'll see 100% samples of both the 35L and 85L wide open. Now do they fit into your notion of "great" or "just usable" ?

FlipinUS said:
What about the 85/1.2, they said that the softness at the edges is noticeable wide open.

Seriously, do you realize what 85mm @ f/1.2 means in terms of practical results, DoF wise ? 85mm @ f/1.2 @ FF is the combination with the most shallow plane of focus (not tele effect) in the whole photographic industry, on any format, available on the market.

Now comprehend a paper thin plane of focus with everything on either side of it blurred away to oblivion and then we can talk the academics of extreme corner sharpness. I've never seen such a thing so I can't tell if they are sharp or not.

Hint:

crnigjuro · Feb 10, 2010

longer focal lengths still work fine for me

also, if oly managed to make pretty good 12-60 f2.8 zoom for about 900$, I guess that 12mm f2-2.8 prime can only be simpler and easier to design and manufacture.

not to mention that I would much prefer 14 and 17mm primes, which are again much simpler to design and manufacture then for example 14-54 f2.8 zoom.

Do you still prefer quality primes for 4/ 3rds...?

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Active member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Keyboard shortcuts