Thom Hogan: Impact of mFT on Nikon DX line

Started Sep 20, 2013 | Discussions thread
technic Veteran Member • Posts: 8,932
Re: Missing the mark, somewhat

jim stirling wrote:

How about some wide primes? The one point I disagree with on your post is that the "design has been pushed about as far as it can go". m43 has many short end primes ...Nikon/Canon have none, zip, nadda, zero. Nothing under a 36mm equivalent.

We have the 12mm F2 ,which does the same job as a 16mm F2.8mm on Nikon APS, regards wide primes you have the 10.5mm F2.8 fish eye , the wider 14mm F2.8 and 16mm f2.8 all from Nikon, then you have the independents , including the rather cheap Samyang 14mmF2.8. The problem is not that the lenses don't exist they clearly do the problem is they are typically FF designs and therefore much larger than they need to be.

Agree, and some of this is related to price as well. For a company like Canon, a 3.5/10-22 zoom is probably just as expensive to manufacture as e.g. a good 3.5/15mm, but they can sell many more copies of the zoom. Keep in mind that a good WA zoom on APS-C is often cheaper than a good WA prime on m43 ...

Unfortunately, it seems the market for compact (super)wide primes on APS-C is too small for the lens companies. On the other side, on m43 there are hardly any equivalents to the many bright and often very high quality WA primes on FF (1.4/24, 1.8/28, 1.4/35 etc.).
The DSLR mirrorbox makes it impossible to make a really compact SWA prime (relatively bulky retrofocus design required). However, the pancake (S)WA primes on mirrorless are usually not the best quality (in the corners).

Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow