Michael Reichmann's take on smaller full frame Sony FE mount lenses

Started Dec 18, 2013 | Discussions thread
Clayton1985 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,121
Re: Reichmann talks nonsense

Anders W wrote:

Apparently, you misunderstood me here. My intention was not claim that you were wrong. I merely wanted to spell out some additional implications of your truth.

The implications of 2.5 ounces?  Not much to me, maybe something to you but either way more informative than 50%.   I'd prefer to provide the information in a way that others can use to decide for themselves instead of twisting it around to feel better about my brand or format.

and it is a better lens than the 9-18 IMO.

Got any evidence you'd like to point to in support of that opinion.

I already gave my reasons in the below paragraph plus the 10-18 accepts filters where the 7-14 does not.

Oh. I thought you might be referring to the optical properties (other than those we can get from the specs) of the lenses at issue. But I now realize that you wouldn't want to speak about those.

No, I was making an effort to take the high road and give credit to the optical properties of all of the lenses discussed since I made it clear that I prefer the 10-18 for other reasons.  But if you want to point me to the comparisons you've done or DXOMark or any other meaningful information to back up your winky winky then I'm willing to learn.

It does use a 62mm filter but it's light, faster than the 9-18 and you gain the extra range on the wide end. It sounds like the A7r with the 10-18 and a 2nd A7r with the 24-70 would produce outstanding results for you. Wide/ultra wide is a weakness for m4/3 not a strength.


MFT has two fisheyes (Samyang 7.5/3.5 and Panasonic 8/3.5), two UWA zooms (9-18/4-5.6, 7-14/4), four pretty fast AF primes (12/2, 14/2.5, 17/1.8, 20/1.7) with a fifth on its way (15/1.7), some fast MF primes from CV (17.5/0.95) and Noktor (12/1.6) on top of that, two fast zooms going down to 12 mm (12-35/2.8 and 12-40/2.8) and two slower ones as well (12-32/3.5-5.6, 12-50/3.5-6.3).

You listed exactly two UWA zoom lenses other than the fisheyes

Sure. So what? You said that "wide/ultra wide is a weakness for m4/3" so I thought it appropriate to include WAs as well as UWAs in my list.

Yes, you just conveniently left out the UWA primes because they don't exist.

and both have limitations as compared to similar and better lenses available for any APS-C or FF system. The 9-18 is not as wide as other UWA zooms and the 7-14 doesn't accept filters.

My 7-14 certainly accepts filters.

Yes and my A7 has a more extensive AF lens selection than your m4/3 camera.  Should we leave out any other details in either scenario?

There are exactly zero UWA primes except for fisheyes (unless you consider the 12mm to be ultra wide).

If you are happy to include adapted lenses, as you apparently are, then you can of course put the Samyang 14/2.8, the Nikon 14/2.8D or the Canon FD 14/2.8L on a speed booster and get yourself a 10/2. You can of course do the same with the Samyang 10/2.8 for APS-C, and get yourself a 7/2. I personally see no need to do either since I am rarely pressed for speed when shooting in the UWA range. But it is certainly possible.

I don't see anything that you are saying that changes the obvious(at least to me) that 4/3 is weaker than other formats when it comes to wide and ultra wide angle options.  Just because you can find an example to prove that there are options won't change that fact.  No one is saying that you can't find acceptable options in most cases and no one is criticizing the m4/3 lenses that are available -- I am just pointing out the facts as I see them.

Wide angle is better but can't compare to FF. It is absolutely a weakness when compared to other formats especially FF. I'm not sure why anyone would argue otherwise?

In what sense can it not compare to FF. Please keep in mind here that the exchange between us, as well as the entire thread, revolves around the issue of bulk and size. So how does the various FF systems (you need to remember that FF, unlike MFT is not a system, just a sensor format) stack up compared to MFT in that regard?

You're beating this thing to death.  I've already given you plenty of examples of lenses (many of them are the best that you can find for any format).  And size starts to become irrelevant if you don't have an equivalent lens in any size....    what size is the 9mm prime for m4/3?   Again, so that I'm not misunderstood..  I know that not everyone wants a 9mm prime but some do.

The Sony A7/r with only a few "native FE" lenses produces excellent results with the below (and this is just a sample - I didn't include any of the fisheye lenses, Canon lenses, Pentax lenses, etc):

Excellent results with all of the below? In what sense do you consider the results excellent and on the basis of what evidence do you make that claim? I see quite a few older lenses in that list and I am anything but certain that they produce excellent results by current standards. On top of that, you have to worry about getting adapters that are perfect in every regard (not least if you shoot WAs and worry about corner sharpness). See here for further info on what I have in mind:


And the same challenges would apply to your speedbooster solution to get a 20mm equivalent prime.   You can search and find plenty of examples right now with the lenses I've listed and many others to show you the IQ that you can get and you can judge for yourself.

UWA: Zeiss 12mm, Olympus 18mm f3.5, Sigma 19mm f2.8, Olympus 21 f3.5, Nikon 20mm f3.5 AIS, Nikon 20mm f2.8D, Zeiss 21mm, Sony 20mm f2.8, Sigma 8-16, Sony 10-18 f4, Sony 11-18, Tokina 11-16, Sony 16-35, Tokina 17-35, Tokina 16-28

WA: Sony 24mmf2, Minolta 24f2.8, Nikon 24mm f1.4, Sigma 24 f1.8, Samyang 24 f1.4, Zeiss 32mm f1.8, Sony 35mm f1.8, Sony 35 f2.8, Sigma 30mm f2.8, Voigtlander 35 f1.4, Nikon 35 f2.

It seems you overlooked a few things here.

First, the Sigma E-mount 19/2.8 (29 mm EFL on APS-C) certainly does not qualify as an UWA and the Sigma 30/2.8 (46 mm EFL on APS-C) as well as the Zeiss 32/1.8 (49 mm EFL on APS-C) do not qualify as WAs.

I'm aware of the lenses I listed that are APS-C and the ones that are FF.   The majority of the APS-C lenses listed including the Sigma 19, 30 and the Zeiss 32 cover significantly more than the APS-C image area and when cropped will give you UWA or WA coverage and more resolution than any m4/3 sensor.  The only one that I probably shouldn't have listed is the Sony 35 f1.8 which will likely end up being in the normal range when cropped.

Second, a number of the other lenses you list are DSLR APS-C lenses and can of course be used as UWAs on MFT too. For example, putting the Sigma 8-16/4.5-5.6 on an MFT speed booster gives you a 5.6-11.2/3.2-4.0. That's wider than any rectilinear FF UWA can manage.

Third, you chose to compare FF, and the A7/A7R specifically, with MFT. What's the point of bringing in APS-C lenses given that starting point. Sure, you can put APS-C lenses on an A7/A7R and reduce the sensor resolution to some 10 or 16 MP, respectively. What's the point of doing that? If you want to shoot such lenses, you'd be better off with a NEX-7.

This is a generalization that can be true but can just as easily be wrong.   There certainly are times that the NEX 7 would be better but there are plenty of scenarios where it wouldn't.   I can use a 35mm f2.8 and/or 55mm f1.8 FF lens as my normal lenses and when needed use a lens designed for APS-C that gives me a larger sensor and more resolution than m4/3.  How exactly is this a negative or a problem as it relates to m4/3?

Finally, but most importantly, how do the FF lenses you list, including the required adapter, stack up compared to native MFT lenses from the bulk/weight point of view that our exchange as well as the entire thread is about? What FF counterparts to the two MFT fisheyes, the two MFT UWA zooms, the series of MFT WA primes, and the four MFT standard-range zooms that go down to 12 mm can you point to that manage to match them from a bulk-and-weight point of view?

It's simple enough for me.   The 20mm prime that I have mounted on the A7 right now is not big, heavy or bulky and that includes the adapter.   I could have chosen from a number of other lenses that are of similar size and weight.   If you're telling me that you have better options for m4/3 in terms of size, weight, cost and performance then I'm all ears.   I don't see how the examples you've provided compare in any way but you may feel otherwise.

But if you want to forget about all of this and just focus on what you do have with m4/3 then fine -- what I want (and can get with virtually any other system) is a zoom lens that covers at least the 16-28mm range and accepts filters. A 2nd request would be a prime lens that is around 20 or 21mm. That isn't asking too much and as far as I know you can't get it with m4/3. I fully realize that you and others are fine with the 9-18 or the 7-14 and may not need a prime lens wider than 24mm but there are some people that do.

As already pointed out, you can certainly get a 16-28 mm (actually a 14-28) EFL that accepts filters as well as a 14 or 20 mm EFL prime for use with MFT.

I hope that the upcoming Olympus UWA zoom covers the zoom lens gap but I don't see ultra wide and wider primes catching up any time soon.

As far as I can see, the gap and catching-up you are talking about are largely illusory. Of course, it would be nice to have a native rectilinear UWA prime too, although I am personally not in the market for that. On the UWA and WA side of things, I am perfectly fine with what I am currently using (7-14/4 and 7.5/3.5 FE, 12/2, 20/1.7).

Because you can find lenses you are happy with is not and never was the point and I said as much in my previous post.

And I hope you don't get the wrong impression.  I love my E-M1 and the lenses I have with it.  Every system has compromises and in my opinion wide and especially ultra wide is a weakspot for m4/3.  If you don't see it that way then I'm happy to just agree that we have different perspectives about this.

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