Portrait zoom?

I do most of my shooting as candid portraits. This is for both the opportunity to show more personality than posed shots, and because of having some very camera phobic subjects. (the last complaint has slowly been going away, as family is finally starting to get the idea)

What I would really like is a brighter, smaller range zoom for this work. A 25 to 70 or even 25-60 1.8?

Or is this something just too odd to be attractive to many users?

Hi

I think the Pana 35-100 F2.8 is the consumate portrait zoom. The new Oly 40-150 F2.8 may be even better if the size is not an issue. For me the GM1 and Pana 35-100 F2.8 are made for each other and ideal for candid street portraits. If I did not have the 45mm F1.8 I would use it for family shots also.

Berni

--
Berni29
EM-5, GM1 + Pana 12-32mm, 35-100mm f2.8, 20mm f1.7, Oly 45mm, 50mm F2 macro, (prev GH1, E30, E510, E1, E300, LX3)

In good light, even the slow zooms are good for portraits!

I don't agree.

25 (the equivalent of a 50, of course) has long been considered a "normal" lens, corresponding to human vision. It also happens to work very well for small groups.

100, being a 200 equivalent, is too long for indoor work, and is beyond the traditional portrait lengths of 80 to 130. Those lengths were used because they are most flattering to faces, minimizing distortion.

I was also considering that by making the range smaller, the lens could be smaller, brighter and cheaper. The brighter remains important, I've found that indoor work without a flash, especially in the dark northern winters, often requires me to pull out the 1.8 primes, even 2.8 just isn't quite bright enough. It's been especially bothersome with the olympus 60, which is often just the right length, but just leaves me dealing with underexposure or using an ISO that leaves something to be desired. Focusing is better under these conditions with the EM-1, but my older G3 was constantly hunting or blurring.

When doing casual family work, the last thing I want to do is carry around 2 cameras or constantly be switching lenses. I'm trying to relax and be part of the experience too. The current range of zooms means I am constantly having to switch lenses. I've long felt that a zoom that bridged the current breakpoint would be very useful. This problem goes back decades. That's the major reason why I'm questioning why I'm seeing a problem that most people don't.

Any zoom which covers the 35mm focal length equivalent of 80 - 90 mm will work. The 35 to 100 seems to be a good fit.

The 35-100mm f/2.8 is a classic portrait zoom lens, and very good too. On the negative side, it is expensive, and a bit large and heavy, even if it is much smaller than similar lenses for other systems, see my review comparison here:


In good light, another option could be the Lumix X 45-175mm lens, which is very compact and light, and performs very well. It has a non-extending zoom design, which makes it very compact and solid. I would recommend this lens:

DMikey said:

I do most of my shooting as candid portraits. This is for both the opportunity to show more personality than posed shots, and because of having some very camera phobic subjects. (the last complaint has slowly been going away, as family is finally starting to get the idea)

What I would really like is a brighter, smaller range zoom for this work. A 25 to 70 or even 25-60 1.8?

Or is this something just too odd to be attractive to many users?

Click to expand...

The 40-150, either or the Panasonic version, also the 35-100 and any other standard kit lens.

Be realistic. A constant F1. 8 would be massive and defeat the whole point of mft. Use the 17mm 1.8 and set your video button to 2 X digital zoom for 70 mm equivalent. If the results don't meet your standards, get a full frame outfit and use a higher ISO.

Fredrik Glckner said:

The 35-100mm f/2.8 is a classic portrait zoom lens, and very good too. On the negative side, it is expensive, and a bit large and heavy, even if it is much smaller than similar lenses for other systems, see my review comparison here:

http://m43photo.blogspot.de/2014/09/lumix-x-35-100mm-f28-expensive-but.html

Click to expand...

Well done - thanks!

Amazing how many people can miss the point altogether. I give up. I guess I must be doing things much differently than most.

Everyone has a solution but has missed the problem altogether.

Hi

What you actually need is the LX 100 then.

Berni

DMikey said:

Amazing how many people can miss the point altogether. I give up. I guess I must be doing things much differently than most.

Everyone has a solution but has missed the problem altogether.

Click to expand...

Very true. Since your request was a bit outside the box, I think everyone tried to help by mapping it to various things that already exist. Even there I think there was some misunderstanding of what you wanted.

In the end though, I'd guess that your requested lens would have to be enormous. You want a large aperture zoom with (presumably) prime-like quality. The 12-40 f2.8 is probably the best example of the size needed for that. To go even one more stop (f2) would make quite a bulky, hefty lens.

For what it's worth, I'd like to see something similar to what you're looking for, except only for outside candid portraits. I'd love to have a really sharp 40-90 f4 with internal zoom. Imagine the current 35-100 f2.8 shrunk down just a bit, say to the size of the Oly 75 f1.8 (or better yet to the Sigma 60 f2.8). Like your wish lens, mine too is probably too unusual to ever see the light of day (no pun intended).

DMikey said:

I do most of my shooting as candid portraits. This is for both the opportunity to show more personality than posed shots, and because of having some very camera phobic subjects. (the last complaint has slowly been going away, as family is finally starting to get the idea)

What I would really like is a brighter, smaller range zoom for this work. A 25 to 70 or even 25-60 1.8?

Click to expand...

There used to be 50-135/3.5 zooms in the film days. That's almost exactly what you are wishing for here.

DMikey said:

Or is this something just too odd to be attractive to many users?

Click to expand...

Yes. None of the 50-135 zooms sold well, and companies learn.

DMikey said:

Amazing how many people can miss the point altogether. I give up. I guess I must be doing things much differently than most.

Everyone has a solution but has missed the problem altogether.

Click to expand...

I understand your point. I also do lots of candid portraits and a zoom like you describe could be very nice but unfortunately it doesn't exist, so I've chosen the other way. Instead of ranting and dreaming about imaginary lenses, I learned to get the best out of the existing lenses and my candid portraita look very good.

Moti

--
http://www.pixpix.net
http://www.musicalpix.com (under construction)

I have been much troubled by this. My solution was to move to m4/3 and small primes. Also use the rear screen and not a viewfinder. Lenses like the Olympus 17, 25 and 45 produce excellent results while having minimal impact on the subject (especially on a body like my GX1). The sort of zoom you are asking for would be a visually impressive lens - just what you don't want for candid portraits. Just look at the super high grade 14-35 and 35-100 f2 lenses for an idea of what to expect.

Mark

Mark Thornton said:

I have been much troubled by this. My solution was to move to m4/3 and small primes. Also use the rear screen and not a viewfinder. Lenses like the Olympus 17, 25 and 45 produce excellent results while having minimal impact on the subject (especially on a body like my GX1). The sort of zoom you are asking for would be a visually impressive lens - just what you don't want for candid portraits. Just look at the super high grade 14-35 and 35-100 f2 lenses for an idea of what to expect.

Mark

Click to expand...

Indeed. The four-third 35-100/f2 is twice as heavy as the new Olympus 40-150/f2.8.

The lens that OP alludes to, a 25-70/f1.8 is never going to be smaller than ANY of the current f2.8 zooms. That is 1.3 stop faster, and giving up some on the tele end (compared to 35-100/f2.8) is not going to offset the weight demand of f1.8.

There is a reason the world's first (and only?) f1.8 zoom came out in 2013. (Sigma 18-35 ART for APS-C sensor) It is very difficult to make one. FWIW, the Sigma weights 810g.

DMikey said:

I do most of my shooting as candid portraits. This is for both the opportunity to show more personality than posed shots, and because of having some very camera phobic subjects. (the last complaint has slowly been going away, as family is finally starting to get the idea)

What I would really like is a brighter, smaller range zoom for this work. A 25 to 70 or even 25-60 1.8?

Or is this something just too odd to be attractive to many users?

Click to expand...

It would be an interesting. It would be a big diameter lens. Most likely a low volume seller.

The Panasonic 35-100/2.8 and the f1.8 and 1.4 primes currently fill this niche.

I just might like a 20-60/f2.0 for this use.

For low light and shallow DOF some f1.2 or 1.4 primes. The f1.8 primes are just not mast enough for low light and shallow DOF.

DLBlack said:

For low light and shallow DOF some f1.2 or 1.4 primes. The f1.8 primes are just not mast enough for low light and shallow DOF.

Click to expand...

I think that most people find the DOF with f1.8 to be narrow enough for a head and shoulders shot.

I guess I'm not understanding why it would have to be huge. The 75 1.8 isn't, and asking only for a 60 would mean that the front lens would be even smaller. I also deliberately limited the zoom range, with only a little more than a 2x range needed. That just wouldn't seem to necessitate a huge lens. Am I missing something?

It wasn't a rant about the lens, only the response, and a pretty mild rant at that. And the point of the post was exactly what you are pointing out, it doesn't exist, and frankly, with how convenient the lens would be, I would think someone would have thought of it before and tried it. That's what I was trying to get at. I also tried to address the objections I knew would be coming, like size or practicality. I just don't see any real barrier for the existence of the lens, other than the fact that it would substitute nicely for 2 or 3 primes.