A7C new line of lenses

Started Sep 15, 2020 | Discussions thread
morinor Senior Member • Posts: 1,073
Re: A7C new line of lenses

Impulses wrote:

morinor wrote:

Impulses wrote:

morinor wrote:

Impulses wrote:

cyberpi1 wrote:

morinor wrote:

For me, MFT is the true pocketable option with a zoom lens, while a rangefinder Nikon Z DX would be a greater compromise to something larger or a Sony APS-C camera if Sony improves its old not and so good 16-50 kit lens.

Quit reading from this point.

The MFT is limited with it's "pocketable" lens. Put some good lens on it and here we are - no difference.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#840.412,858.741,777.741,ha,t

https://camerasize.com/compact/#840.917,777.660,ha,t

Yes, I know 100-400 on MTF give you different equivalent FOV. But A7Rx you can crop from 42-60mpx and there you have it - 800mm equivalent.

Back to the topic - I'd like to have small decent zoom like 60-150 even a dark one. But I don't this Sony is going to release something like that in the nearest future.

Yeah, small teles (be they primes or zooms) are still the one highlight of M4/3 gear for me... My Oly 75/1.8 is still an order of magnitude smaller than any FF 135mm w/AF, even an f2.8, ditto my Pana 35-100. I'd like to see something like the Tamron 70-180 but slower and smaller, seems like anything slower is xx-300 or longer and if not then it's internal zoom and larger. It's kinda odd that the smallest FF teles end up being the xx-200 superzooms.

That depends. If you are ok with a zoom lens having a f/5.6-10 maximum aperture at one end and f/5.6-13.4 at the other end (FF equivalents). For me those values are too limiting for daily usage.

I'm fine with f5.6 equivalent at 70-200mm tbh, particularly for daylight shooting where even an (internal zooming) FF 70-200 f4 would be massively larger... I mostly use the long end of that zoom tho, f5.6 at 70mm is pretty limiting for subject isolation, that I'd agree with.

That can be of personal taste. I have a FF 70-200mm f/2.8 in order to work even on situations with not so much light. Subject separation is also something that interests me that I want to have the option to use lower F-number.

On a FF you can get an not so much expensive kit lens reaching f/3.5-6.3 across the whole available focal lengths, without having a large penalty on size and weight.

I was talking about teles tho, not kit lenses, what f3.5-5.6 FF tele zoom has a small size penalty vs the 35-100 I mentioned? That lens is barely 4" and 300-some grams btw. FF tele zooms outside of a couple superzooms start at roughly double the weight and a much larger volume (5.5" w/67mm threads vs the 58mm of the 4" 35-100).

Of course FF f/3.5-5.6 is able to gather more light than the mentioned Lens. It is natural to have more weight and size. There isn't something equivalent on FF cameras at the moment. Still even those f/3.5-5.6 are enough light and small to be inside a small bag.

Panasonic 35-100 you still need a bag which just being smaller. You carry something at the end on your shoulder or neck. Weight and size differences are mostly on numbers than issue on real life.

That's just as subjective as your preference for more isolation on the tele end, and you still haven't pointed out what's this mystical f3.5-5.6 FF tele that has only a "small penalty" against the 35-100 in size and weight. Something like the 70-300 requires a bigger bag than the 35-100 so I don't really know what you're arguing here.

If lens makes also would want to close that debate with MFT could have released much slower, smaller and lighter FF lenses. For having a similar price something like that could have done on APS-C cameras.

The teles I'd want don't seem to exist for APS-C either tho, that was kinda my point. Why does every FF tele have to be either f4 and internal zoom, or xx-300mm+, or longer? Why can't we have an external zooming 70-200 f4 a la Tamron's 70-180 f2.8? Such a lens would get much closer to M4/3 teles. If they can make a ~4.5" 600g 28-200 then they can surely make a 70-200 that's no slower, possibly smaller, and optically better. Nobody has chosen to do so tho.

As I have stated if you find enough to use higher F-numbers, then of course at the moment you have no other option than MFT in order to gain weight and size advantage. Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 it is a quite good lens for that specifications. There is a lot of marketing even behind the design of lenses. Why almost all lenses use f/3.5-6.3 ranges, regardless the size of the sensor? There are a lot of focal lengths that are always the same 24-70mm, 70-200mm, 70-300mm, 24-105mm, 24-200mm, 100-400mm, 150-600mm. There are some exceptions only, like the Tamron 35mm-150mm f/2.8-4, which maybe are not always so much successful. Also the variable aperture zoom lenses have this characteristics because actually they move their elements further while keeping the same opening. I do not know if it is so much easy to design a constant aperture zoom lens which extends.

If anything it could be easier, mechanically it'll be a little more complex but the BoM probably goes down because you're then dealing with a smaller/lighter lens. There's plenty of examples of expanding lenses with a constant aperture beyond Tamron's 70-180, look at Canon's own f2.8 tele for RF, look at Nikon's various f4 zooms for Z mount. The only thing that has kept them from building those lenses sooner is a lack of initiative, "because we've always done it this other way" is one of the surest ways of stiffling innovation.

Those f/2.8 are yet to be seen how trustworthy can been in the future. You can have your own experience yourself actually. I had a Nikon DX 18-105mm lens which although it is working it has some issues that itself expanding. Not same class as the lenses above, but if you have as much less openings the better.

I really appreciate those f/4 zoom lenses from Nikon with very good optical quality, size and weight. I think they are on the write spot as consumer lenses, not being big and pricy together with a camera with small enough body.

those designs that you do not like although you pay it with size, they are more weather proof. Dust and moisture can pass into the lens that the lens maker must have a really good design to not let them pass through.

Agreed, that's part of why I bought the Tamron 17-28 over either Sony 16-35, but manufacturers seem to have found ways to mitigate those issues... Roger over at LensRentals has said he often sees more dust inside primes than anything else, even non extending lenses aren't a vacuum.

Agreed of course not a vacuum, but also do not forget that there are a lot of primes not being weather or dust proof. For some reason I think that especially in the past, especially with the "holy trinity" zoom lenses where tending to have more those types of hardenings. Nowadays most of the lenses tend to have some those aspects.

Your Olympus 75mm f/1.8 lens must is more near an 150mm f/4 than a 135mm f/2.8 FF lens. There is no similar modern FF lens to compare with and that is the real issue. If that aperture range is enough for you then that it is ok. Still this lens is slightly larger than the collapsible zoom lens offered with Sony A7C.

Why would you compare a kit zoom with a 150mm equivalent prime tho? Technically the Oly is an f3.6 equivalent too, not sure why you fell the need to round up there. The shooting envelope is not gonna transform drastically by having a 2/3rds of a stop advantage, but the 2.75" 300g lens will be a lot easier to take to a variety of events than a ~4.5"+ 600g lens. I've never been stopped at a concert when bringing that Oly in.

I mention it as an advantage against the compactness of a FF camera and lens. Although it is a 150mm FF equivalent lens which is not collapsible or pancake. Similar lenses must be designed for Sony A7C as an example to support why you promote compactness.

Actually on primes and collapsable zoom lenses you can see some more usage on MFT system. Primes can be around f/2.8-3.6 FF equivalent range that can be a lot more useful while the camera and lens can be around as small or smaller than a FF with a pancake lens. I have the Panasonic 12-32 mm f/3.5-5.6 lens (24-64mm f/7-11 FF equivalent) on a Panasonic GX80 camera and this combo can fit into a large pocket.

I like my 12-32, but it's really one of the few examples < 75mm where M4/3 has a size advantage anymore. Those f1.4-1.8 M4/3 primes are often not any smaller than FF options anymore. The Samyang 45/1.8 is virtually the same size as the Pana 25/1.7 or PL25/1.4. The 35/2.8 isn't much larger than the Pana 20/1.7. The Samyang and Sony 35/1.8 might not be quite as small as the Oly 17/1.8 but they're far smaller than the Oly 17/1.2 or Sigma 16/1.4. The Sony 28/2 isn't far off from the far pricier Oly 12/2.

The f/1.4-1.8 MFT are still much smaller than FF equivalents. Of course there are some exceptions. The PL 25/1.4 is more than 1 cm smaller than the Samyang. The Samyang 35/2.8 is similar with Panasonic 20/1.7 because there are close to be equivalent. Samyang options remain the few options to attach on Sony A7C and be compact. But how much you pay for something similar? Compare Sony A7C+any Samyang lens against a GX9 + f/1.4 lens and you will see what I want to say where is the issue to try to have a compact FF body.

A7C + a Samyang 45/1.8 would be like $2,100, the GX9 + PL25 would be like $1,500, that price gap is getting narrower all the time tbh and even in that instance you're comparing a brand new (and somewhat overpriced) FF body against a 2+ year old M4/3 body that has already dropped in price by a few hundred, if it weren't for that the price gap would be no more than $400.

To be precisely:

A7C ($1799) + Samyang 45mm f/1.8 ($329) = $2129 (you have the only combo at the moment to have actually access to that 1 stop of difference)

GX9 ($699 an older price I remember body only) + PL 25 ($699) = $1400

GX9 ($799 with an included zoom lens) + PL 25 ($699) = $1500 (plus the additional lens)

The GX9 still keeps the same price now as when released. This could be mean a price drop in near future. But now I see that there is a price drop here in Greece for the body only:

Α7C (1900€ expected price) + Samyang 45mm f/1.8 (410€) = 2310€

GX9 (500€ body only) + PL 25 (549€) = 1050€

GX9 (790-869€ with an included zoom lens + PL 25 (549€) =  1340-1460 €

So there is a price difference of $700-800 or €830-1260. In one option you have also an additional lens and you can get more MFT lenses with the price difference. This Samyang is actually the only way to see also something to go for the extra money. But for all other compact option you gain at the end very similar quality.

If you were trying to make the case M4/3 on price and size there's honestly better examples you could've picked. If you're gonna go with an older body you might as well save a couple hundred more with the GX85, it's not like C-AF improved much in between, it's still a far cry from Sony's. ;/ The closest match in that regard would be the E-M5 III but then the price gap narrows again...

Yes I know I didn't chosen the best value for money option. GX80/85 are really good priced with even that 12-32mm comes together with not so much specifications to lack against GX9. That is why I selected it last Christmas.

I'm not even arguing the A7C is this great value btw, I think it should've been priced closer to the Z5 and it doesn't make FF that much more portable IMO (you save like 20% less weight and an EVF hump, yay?).

Those are the main things to argue with the Sony decision to release this camera. But the lens options matter to even sell a "smaller camera" which actually has taken some major hit on ergonomics to do that (grip size, missing front dial, missing AF joystick, EVF size and general quality. That EVF hump will be an issue only for a pocket. That is why I selected a rangefinder type MFT than a Olympus OM-D 10 which although very small camera, it still has that hump making it much less possible to fit into a pocket.

About f/1.2 lens in my opinion are not worthy options on MFT. They need a larger body to be handled, similar with a FF ML camera. This PL 10-25 f/1.7 is a mistake at that size, weight and price in my opinion. Your MFT camera needs again to be the same size as a FF ML camera to support it and those cameras are not even cheaper than some FF cameras.

That's totally subjective, I can handle the 17/1.2 just fine in an E-M5 III without any add on grips, tho I'd agreed it's not a strong value because of the price, but not the size. You seem to think each format has some sorta nebulous size sweet spot, I'd argue all systems benefit greatly from being able to scale up and down with different lens/body options and it's up to the consumer to decide which they favor.

It comes for me on what is your target. Compactness or be able to retain IQ at higher levels. Based on the purpose you sacrifice one thing or the other. There is no jack of all trades on some matters as you have to deal with physics. That is why I have made a combination of DSLR FF and a rangefinder MFT.

So on and so forth, there really isn't much of a size advantage to M4/3 (or APS-C) primes from UWA thru normal anymore. That size advantage starts being more relevant again at 75mm+ (actual) tho. Slower super zooms and that pancake are the only other bastion left for smaller formats.

There are still at tele primes even at 85mm FF equiv. and beyond.

That's what I said...

Yes sorry I lost the "anymore".

a system MFT using slower zooms and pancakes is the advantage regarding size and price, because the camera body can also get smaller and cheaper. Pancakes find their natural reason to exist here and not on a FF camera body that it is expensive and usually large enough to be pocketable.

A couple pancakes and one superzoom can't be the system's sole reason to exist tho, it won't move anywhere near enough volume... Even within the M4/3 boards most people look down on the slower 12-60 & 14-140 zooms while going gaga over the 12-100, frankly I think that's backwards but it does speak to market trends. Without the teles (where there is still a size advantage, even tho you keep trying to minimize it) there's really not much reason to favor a smaller format.

Trends actually have raised MFT, and now do the opposite. The reality is somewhere in the middle. You gain something while loosing something else. With MFT it is easier to get smaller, but you sacrifice how much light you can have available aka you can impact you IQ. The reverse is happening with FF. FF ML just has tighten the gap, still it can be barely pocketable. APS-C just sit somewhere in the middle, making for me the best option for one camera option without spending a lot of money for serving both cases of having something near compact while you can attach a little larger lens.

Slower zooms are just not design with the same characteristics for FF bodies. Still in my opinion the faster FF kit lenses are small and light enough.

An APS-C camera could be near to do that , but still even their most collapsable zoom lenses are not small enough and the selection of pancake lenses are even smaller than on MFT. A FF camera is not even near to that.

To be clear, M4/3 has 2 or 3 worthwhile pancakes... The 12-32, the 20/1.7, and the 14/2.5 (and a lot of people end up picking either that or the zoom, so really 2 for most), it's not like there's a bonanza of them. The Oly pancake zoom is weaker than the Pana and the 17/2.8 is discontinued (for good reason). I guess there's the body caps if you wanna count those, tho only the fisheye is worth a damn.

I think flange distance plays a large role in what fast-ish pancake primes work well on certain formats, which is why you only tend to get 1 or 2 decent ones per system.

I agree that there are not a lot of pancake lens generally not only MFT. 14/2.5 is not an option for me as near f/2.8 MFT prime lenses are too dark for me. The 12-32 and 20/1.7 are options though that made me to select MFT over a Fuji APS-C camera. The only other option of having something so much compact with at 24mm FF equivalent focal length is that provided by Samyang and the Nikon Z DX 16-50mm. Fuji or Canon APS-C collapsible lenses are still large enough.

The PL 15 f/1.7 is also another compact design to consider.

There are also some cheap and small enough designs from Chinese companies that can support further the MFT compactness. The 7artisan 35mm f/1.2 or the MEIKE 35mm f/1.4 (which I have ordered now) although not optical marvels, they can be used while still being compact. The produced images is still a subjective matter.

If I can have something in a bag and not a pocket, even for me a FF DSLR is what I use. I can see for some wanting to have the same results with a smaller FF ML body. Still with large lenses the difference become really small, if not an issue.

E mount has already got plenty of small lens options from UWA thru 75mm, and relatively small but high quality super zooms and UWA zooms, there's not much of a size advantage for smaller formats in those instances. Longer teles are another story tho...

 morinor's gear list:morinor's gear list
Nikon D750 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Nikon 85mm F1.8G Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Nikon AF-S Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED +5 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
T3
T3
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow