Reading mode: Light Dark

Longer Primes- what would entice you to buy?

Longer Primes- what would entice you to buy?

  • Total voters
    0
Go to last post
cerich

cerich

Leading Member
Messages
631
Reaction score
837
Would you be interested in longer primes for the MFT system?

While I understand the appeal of zooms, it seems to me that esp for MFT many of us are prime shooters. There are some great MFT primes on the market for us between Oly, Pan and Sigma. The longer end however is pretty wide open. We have almost too many choices in the 20-45mm range, but only one in 75 and none above.

What would entice you to buy?
 
Today, I make do with adapters, a Nikon 100/f2.8 AIS and Olympus 135/f2.8 OM-mount. Both MF of course. Also mostly on my PEN-F in Mono-2 and Color-3 modes for obvious reasons :)

Would consider similar FL.
 
I've been dreaming of a Pan-Leica 90mm f2 Summicron, but I would be just as happy with a 100mm f2.

Tom
 
A 400mm Prime I would interested in. Around F/4 - F/4.5 and maybe F/5.6 to keep it reasonable in size and cost. I can work with F/5.6 at a push, but would prefer it faster.

It has to be sharp wide open and it also has to have the ability to manual focus normally as with an internal focus old lens. Smooth as silk MF mode for sure. AF, fast and accurate as we have now with the 300 F/4 that we are seeing. Comes down more to the body I guess.

All the best and can't really think of anything else.

Danny.

--
Worry about the image that comes out of the box rather than the box itself
-----------
Birds and BIF's ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/124733969@N06/sets/
The need for speed ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/130646821@N03/
 
Last edited:
I would love to see a 9 mm f1.7 prime by Panasonic. In line IQ wise and size wise (if possible) to their 15, 20 and 42,5 mm f1.7.
 
Gets you 420 mm F5.6. Is it not sharp enough or anything else bothering you?
 
Jorginho said:
Gets you 420 mm F5.6. Is it not sharp enough or anything else bothering you?
Click to expand...
I already get that at F/4 with the 300 F/2.8 + 1.4x TC.

The thread is about a prime lens ;-) Not a prime lens + a TC.

400mm would be excellent with no added optics to a lens needed or wanted.

All the best.

Danny.

--
Worry about the image that comes out of the box rather than the box itself
-----------
Birds and BIF's ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/124733969@N06/sets/
The need for speed ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/130646821@N03/
 
Last edited:
I can see a 50 F1.2 coming. They have a patent for it and they are talking about fast f1.2 primes. I have been shooting some outdoor concerts and once the sun sets I will change from the 12-100 F4.0 to the 75 F1.8. It works good but at times I would like more length. So I would go for a 100 F1.8. With a 100 F2.0 I just as well be using my 40-150 F2.8.

I would really like a 9mm or 10mm f1.8 for astro-landscapes, and a 400 f4.0 or at least 5.6 or faster for birding and to use with the 1.4x TC.

Dave
 
Yup, I'd consider a 400 or perhaps 450 prime as big brother to the 300. Down the scale a bit I have the 150/2.0 so am dialed there (although the Pro zoom gets more use).

Cheers,

Rick
 
Skeeterbytes said:
Yup, I'd consider a 400 or perhaps 450 prime as big brother to the 300. Down the scale a bit I have the 150/2.0 so am dialed there (although the Pro zoom gets more use).

Cheers,

Rick
Click to expand...
 
150mm f/2.0 macro or 200mm f/2.8 macro

500mm f/5.6
 
nzmacro said:
Jorginho said:
Gets you 420 mm F5.6. Is it not sharp enough or anything else bothering you?
Click to expand...
I already get that at F/4 with the 300 F/2.8 + 1.4x TC.

The thread is about a prime lens ;-) Not a prime lens + a TC.
Click to expand...
nzmacro said:
400mm would be excellent with no added optics to a lens needed or wanted.

All the best.

Danny.
Click to expand...
So what is what is wrong with the 300 mm F4 + TC? it would het people 420 mm F5.6. Any thoughts?
 
nzmacro said:
That would be interesting as well. Between a 400 and 500mm. Not bad at all, I like it. 500mm is a bit of a shock when it comes to the m4/3 sensor to start with. Wondered what the heck I had struck the first time out with it. 400-450mm, nice.

All the best Rick.

Danny.

--
Click to expand...
Given you're out there at the pointy end of the telephoto spear I take your insight with all due consideration, Danny. :-) My "very long" experience is with a 500/8 mirror, more toy than test, but wow are framing and focus ever a challenge sans tripod (even with, frankly). New viewfinders, dual IS, etc. things that once seemed absurd now are within grasp.

Cheers,

Rick
 
200mm f2. 8 would be nice. A 250mm f2 would be very, very interesting.

Anthony
 
Jorginho said:
nzmacro said:
Jorginho said:
Gets you 420 mm F5.6. Is it not sharp enough or anything else bothering you?
Click to expand...
I already get that at F/4 with the 300 F/2.8 + 1.4x TC.

The thread is about a prime lens ;-) Not a prime lens + a TC.

400mm would be excellent with no added optics to a lens needed or wanted.

All the best.

Danny.
Click to expand...
So what is what is wrong with the 300 mm F4 + TC? it would het people 420 mm F5.6. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Well I just got back from shooting the 300 F/2.8 and the 500 F/4.5 on m4/3. Is there something missing there. Yes there is, a 400mm. You could throw a 1.4x TC on a new 400 as well. Not something I would want to do though.

So why was I shooting with a 300mm without a 1.4x TC on it, because I don't want added optics in the optical path. I can already do that if needed. A 400 F/4 or F/4.5 would be excellent.

Probably nothing wrong with the Oly 300 F/4 + 1.4x TC. Not something I want though, I'm already better covered in that area with the 300 F/2.8 and a 1.4x TC. There's no point to it for me personally :-)

I wouldn't want to go to a 300 F/4 when I already have a 300 F/2.8. What I am missing is a 400mm.

My post was more than just the focal length don't forget. Focal length is only one part of it.

So I'm looking at what I don't have already, certainly not what I do have ;-)

All the best.

Danny.

--
Worry about the image that comes out of the box rather than the box itself
-----------
Birds and BIF's ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/124733969@N06/sets/
The need for speed ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/130646821@N03/
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I'd love to see:

New 300 f/2.8

New 150 f/2.0

400 f/4.0

I doubt I'll see any of those, but if this thread is about wishing, I'll wish.
 
hi Danny

hope you got some good shots today.

Just curious about where you draw the "too slow" line for long tele primes for wildlife work.

300mm f/x, 400mm f/y, 500mm f/z etc ?

I think that the M.43 makers are self constrained by their 'smallness' philosophy and cannot bring themselves to even cocontemplate a lens larger than a certain physical diameter, around 75mm, limiting the usefulness of anything much above 300mm. so I don't think either maker will build anything longer in a prime

Peter
 
Messier Object said:
hi Danny

hope you got some good shots today.

Just curious about where you draw the "too slow" line for long tele primes for wildlife work.

300mm f/x, 400mm f/y, 500mm f/z etc ?

I think that the M.43 makers are self constrained by their 'smallness' philosophy and cannot bring themselves to even cocontemplate a lens larger than a certain physical diameter, around 75mm, limiting the usefulness of anything much above 300mm. so I don't think either maker will build anything longer in a prime

Peter
Click to expand...
Howdy Pete :-)

F/5.6 is my lowest and i wouldn't like to go below that without having to raise the ISO. Personally and only personally, don't like shooting over ISO 400-500. The Panasonic 100-400 I could still use at a push. I shoot with the sun at my back, but today there was no sun most of the day, so on goes the 300 F/2.8. When the sun was out (not long enough) the 500 f/4.5 goes on.

On a BIF or waiting for a bird to take off the lenses are always used wide open mate. The 300 at F/2.8, the 500 at F/4.5 and the 800 at F/5.6. the only time they might get stopped down is if the ISO is dropped to 200 on a perched bird, then the shutter speed drops as well. On power boat racing and jet-ski racing, they are always left wide open.

As you know already Pete, it's a compromise between ISO and shutter speed for action shots. The ISO is locked on ISO 400, the lenses stay wide open and the shutter speed is changed slightly to suit.

There is a market for sure, but it's a small one. M4/3 has the benefit of that crop factor and in some cases that's where FF loses out when they need to crop heavily and often they do. The file size has to drop too much to catch up and they end up with a tiny image while ours are still at full size and 16 - 20 mp. That's why we are here Pete as you know.

A lot depends on what people take and how they go about it. Some can use ISO's, shutter speeds and focal lengths I simply can't and vice versa of course.

All the best next door Pete and yeah, F/5.6 and it has to be sharp wide open personally.

Danny.

Awww hang on, a fresh one from today. Nasty conditions with the 300 F/2.8L and no cropping. They are darn fast at this speed and distance.

Full frame from m4/3 with the 300 F/2.8
Full frame from m4/3 with the 300 F/2.8

Just caught the back tail in, so it would end up a crop like this mate.
Just caught the back tail in, so it would end up a crop like this mate.

--
Worry about the image that comes out of the box rather than the box itself
-----------
Birds and BIF's ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/124733969@N06/sets/
The need for speed ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/130646821@N03/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top