NikonScavenger
Well-known member
What is with all of the 3.5-5.8/6.3 zoom lenses? There's only one 2.8, the 12-35...
I guess I'm sticking to primes...
I guess I'm sticking to primes...
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Lack of good zoom lenses
- Thread starter NikonScavenger
- Start date
Chris R-UK
Veteran Member
The Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 will be available soon.
--
Chris R
--
Chris R
35-100 f2.8 is coming
7-14 is f4.0, that is pretty good for a landscape lens.
So the 35mm equiv range that will be covered within a few months is 14-200 mm.
The 200-600 f4 to f5.6 is a good lens, but it is not fast. If they make it f2.8 it will be very big and heavy. I hope they'll come out with an 200-450 mm f2.8 (or f2.8 to f4.0) one day.
7-14 is f4.0, that is pretty good for a landscape lens.
So the 35mm equiv range that will be covered within a few months is 14-200 mm.
The 200-600 f4 to f5.6 is a good lens, but it is not fast. If they make it f2.8 it will be very big and heavy. I hope they'll come out with an 200-450 mm f2.8 (or f2.8 to f4.0) one day.
jim stirling
Veteran Member
With the DOF "equiv" of a 14-28 f8, 24-70 f5.6 and 70-200 F5.6
. Joking aside I have just got my 12-35 and I am very pleased with both its performance and I think the price { I got mine for £770 from onestop } is pretty reasonable for what is a well built and excellent performing lens. Jim
Edward Rauschkolb
Veteran Member
Hi,
The 90-250 2.8 exists for Oly 4/3. It is a 2Kg+ lens costing (even now) 4-5K.
There is little to no size advantage to m4/3 for tells (which is why all currently are slow and at best mediocre). The physics of designing teles offers nio advantage to mirrorless cameras. The only size advantage will come from 1) slower lenses; 2) computer aided correction of distortion, vignetting, ca, etc.
Look to the Oly tele primes and zooms to see what will be possible ion long lenses (150 f2, 50-200m 300, 90-250) and then add the coverter to add the air space needed.
I am looking for better quality rather than faster glass in native m4/3 designs. say a 50-200 f4, the size of the upcoming 35-100 f 2.8 to come fromm Oly. If you wasnt faster glass, hope for better AF performance on m4/3 with lenses requiring PD AF.
A 100-300 f2.8 would be huge and I doubt you would want to pay the bill.
Ed Rauschkolb
The 90-250 2.8 exists for Oly 4/3. It is a 2Kg+ lens costing (even now) 4-5K.
There is little to no size advantage to m4/3 for tells (which is why all currently are slow and at best mediocre). The physics of designing teles offers nio advantage to mirrorless cameras. The only size advantage will come from 1) slower lenses; 2) computer aided correction of distortion, vignetting, ca, etc.
Look to the Oly tele primes and zooms to see what will be possible ion long lenses (150 f2, 50-200m 300, 90-250) and then add the coverter to add the air space needed.
I am looking for better quality rather than faster glass in native m4/3 designs. say a 50-200 f4, the size of the upcoming 35-100 f 2.8 to come fromm Oly. If you wasnt faster glass, hope for better AF performance on m4/3 with lenses requiring PD AF.
A 100-300 f2.8 would be huge and I doubt you would want to pay the bill.
Ed Rauschkolb
Emphasis in µ4/3 is for small size and low weight, two things that are hard to do with fast lenses.
Also the system is relatively new.
If you don't like what's available you can always choose another system.
--
Dave
Also the system is relatively new.
If you don't like what's available you can always choose another system.
--
Dave
You have my blessing
--
I’m surprised how much Wikipedia contributes to the forum.
Chris R-UK
Veteran Member
Edward Rauschkolb wrote:
[snip]
Is there any other f2.8 zoom over 70-200mm on any camera?
--
Chris R
[snip]
Well the Sigma 200-500 f2.8 only weighs 15.7 kg!
Is there any other f2.8 zoom over 70-200mm on any camera?
--
Chris R
azazel1024
Veteran Member
It's called a system that only really started being taken seriously a little over a year ago by most and has only existed for 4 total years. It wasn't introduced as a pro system, but has slowly evolved in to being able to be a pro system with the right gear.
The Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 should be out in a few weeks and it is reasonably expected now that third party lens makers have started supporting the system (really only on the last 6 months from any of the. Big third parties) that 3rd party f2.8 zooms will likely be along in the next year or two with Sigma rumored to release one at photokina.
--
Many things dealing with Olympus and their OM and Pen cameras, plus my general photography and musings http://omexperience.wordpress.com/
The Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 should be out in a few weeks and it is reasonably expected now that third party lens makers have started supporting the system (really only on the last 6 months from any of the. Big third parties) that 3rd party f2.8 zooms will likely be along in the next year or two with Sigma rumored to release one at photokina.
--
Many things dealing with Olympus and their OM and Pen cameras, plus my general photography and musings http://omexperience.wordpress.com/
Zooms are not really suited to m4/3 I believe. In the beginning slow zooms were used as decoys, to bring in customers. When fast zooms appear you can see that they are
- frightfully expensive
- not really sharper than primes
- have a reduced focal range to guarantee constant aperture.
Obstacle might be short register, closeness to sensor making difficult to avoid issues like CA, resolution drop at the edges, etc... across a range of focals.
Large lenses are also heavy and so go against the ethos of m4/3. In zooms the problem is compounded.
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
As others have noted, bright zooms are probably the last priority in the m4/3 lens line up. Not only does the size of it go against many people's view of m4/3's primary area of value, but from a dof perspective, bright zooms really don't add significant capability over and above the already shallow dof that anyone could get with a regular f/5.6 shot. So, arguably, bright zooms'll will primarily add value in the area of exposure latitude..While I find that pretty attractive, I'm pretty sure the "message" of that is lost to the overwhelming audience. Last place on the priority list.
That being said, I can't wait till they roll out some bright zooms.
--
'I have no responsibilities here whatsoever'
To some extent I agree that it's a system on which primes work very well. Good primes will generally beat even the best zooms in terms of sharpness and speed. That's true in all of the systems. Most constant aperture zooms have somewhat limited focal length ranges. Look at the Canon and Nikon lineups and most of the f2.8 zooms have limited focal length ranges, 24-70, 16-35, etc. The 70-200 f2.8s kind of being the exception. So the Panny 12-35 f2.8 is not especially limited in terms of focal length range and the price is lower than most of those Canon or Nikon f2.8 lenses. I think we'll see more higher quality zooms released in the not too distant future.
Narcosynthesis
Veteran Member
The biggest reason is purely down to the age and direction of m43 - With only four years worth of developing and releasesI would have to say we already have a fairly well established and encompassing lineup - barring the fast tele, all the main bases seem to be covered at the moment (not to mention all the options available as manual focus legacy lenses).
That four year has also been spent establishing m43 as a format, which this time has meant noting the failure of 43 as a high end system and instead targeting m43 very much at consumers - get the cameras out there, get the marketing and slowly move up the scale when you have the users to demand it, not the other way round. With new cameras like the OM-D it hopefully shows that they are getting more serious about m43 as a quality system too, so hopefully a lot more higher end lenses will be appearing we are closer to a full system matching the quality.
As has been mentioned too, telephotos in general aren't the strong point of m43 - the smaller cameras and setup allow the designers to do great things with lenses like the short primes, the 14-42x and so on, but telephotos lose all that benefit and end up being just as bulky and heavy, so haven't been focussed on to the same degree yet (ie they have been playing their strengths so far)
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/narcosynthesis
http://www.illaname.deviantart.com
That four year has also been spent establishing m43 as a format, which this time has meant noting the failure of 43 as a high end system and instead targeting m43 very much at consumers - get the cameras out there, get the marketing and slowly move up the scale when you have the users to demand it, not the other way round. With new cameras like the OM-D it hopefully shows that they are getting more serious about m43 as a quality system too, so hopefully a lot more higher end lenses will be appearing we are closer to a full system matching the quality.
As has been mentioned too, telephotos in general aren't the strong point of m43 - the smaller cameras and setup allow the designers to do great things with lenses like the short primes, the 14-42x and so on, but telephotos lose all that benefit and end up being just as bulky and heavy, so haven't been focussed on to the same degree yet (ie they have been playing their strengths so far)
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/narcosynthesis
http://www.illaname.deviantart.com
azazel1024
Veteran Member
Except that isn't true. Check out the 12-35/2.8 it is a fraction of the side of a full frame 24-70/2.8. Roughly 2/3rds of the size and half the weight. Oh sure, it isn't tiny still, but even fast zooms are a lot smaller on m4/3 than their full frame, brethren.
It is just as apocryphal as people who claim long and fast telephotos will never be done on m4/3 because they cant be any smalle than full frame. Sure a 300mm f/4 on full frame and m4/3 are going to be very close to the same size...but to replicate the focal length and brightness of a 300mm f/4 lens on m4/3 all you need is a 150mm f/4, or even one up it with a 150mm f/2.8 and the lens is still going to be significantly smaller and lighter.
A massive 600mm f/4 in full frame can be replicated with a "little" 300mm f/4. I'll grant you don't have the same DoF minimization with the FF camera/lens combo, but especially once you get to focal lengths that long. Most of the time, a but deeper DoF is going to be a good thing.
--
Many things dealing with Olympus and their OM and Pen cameras, plus my general photography and musings http://omexperience.wordpress.com/
It is just as apocryphal as people who claim long and fast telephotos will never be done on m4/3 because they cant be any smalle than full frame. Sure a 300mm f/4 on full frame and m4/3 are going to be very close to the same size...but to replicate the focal length and brightness of a 300mm f/4 lens on m4/3 all you need is a 150mm f/4, or even one up it with a 150mm f/2.8 and the lens is still going to be significantly smaller and lighter.
A massive 600mm f/4 in full frame can be replicated with a "little" 300mm f/4. I'll grant you don't have the same DoF minimization with the FF camera/lens combo, but especially once you get to focal lengths that long. Most of the time, a but deeper DoF is going to be a good thing.
--
Many things dealing with Olympus and their OM and Pen cameras, plus my general photography and musings http://omexperience.wordpress.com/
- This is what M43 Zoom lenses are for;
You get the shot. Don't have to be a weightlifter to track something in motion.
Otherwise, go Big SLR;
expensive, cumbersome, all for almost identical IQ ;
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/680103-GREY/Canon_2751B002_EF_70_200mm_f_2_8L_IS.html
& really, how often do you need very fast?
Jim4496
Leading Member
Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS etc....
kenw
Veteran Member
Short register makes lenses easier to design for digital and allows for better aberration correction as well. It is an advantage of mirrorless, not a disadvantage.
You are confusing short register with symmetric lens designs from rangefinders meant for film which do have problems on digital sensors, but that has nothing to do with the short register distance other than it allowed them to use symmetric designs at focal lengths you couldn't on an SLR. Short focal symmetric designs on digital are bad because they have a close exit pupil. For modern lens designs meant for digital sensors a short register actually makes it easier to control the angle of incidence at the sensor edge by creating a very distant exit pupil (very asymmetric design). Look at the exit pupil of the 7-14 as an example. This is also why fixed lens compacts have very impressive zoom lenses - the register distance is essentially zero and if you look at the lens designs you see the last element is almost touching the sensor glass.
So basically you've got it backwards (and it is a very wide spread misunderstanding). Short or long register doesn't directly matter, what does matter is exit pupil distance (you want it far away). Somewhat counter intuitively a short register actually makes designing a distant exit pupil easier, not harder.
--
Ken W
See profile for equipment list
the 12-35 and 35-100 are all that are needed for general photography. there are already two good wide angle zooms, but i guess a fixed large aperture one would be nice provided it could keep the distortion to a minimum.
after the 35-100 a 150/2, 200/2 and 300/2.8(4) would complete the system for general lenses.
after the 35-100 a 150/2, 200/2 and 300/2.8(4) would complete the system for general lenses.
ginsbu
Veteran Member
That "etc" only adds one more: According to B&H, there aren't any other f/2.8 zooms reaching over 200mm, just the two Sigmas (in various mounts) and the Oly 90–250mm.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum