MFT + ... what?

GodSpeaks · Aug 21, 2024

Some years ago I stopped using my Nikon FF and moved into MF (Medium Format). I bought a Fuji GFX100s. Today I own 4 GFX lenses, all zooms, that give me coverage from 20mm out to 200mm.

Outstanding system. I still use my Panasonic MFT cameras a lot. They are my travel/fun camera and of course, the cameras I turn to for shooting video.

mmartel · Aug 21, 2024

dgrogers said:
Every time I look outside of M/43, I have a hard time finding lenses that I want. Does anybody else have a lens like the 12-100 f/4 Pro (being able to walk around with a single lens of excellent quality that can give me a 24-200mm equivalent is super convenient)? What about a somewhat affordable super tele that can give me 200-800mm?

In full frame mirrorless, the best known walkabouts I've heard of are:

Nikon Z 24-200 f4-6.3

Nikon Z 28-400 f4-8

Lumix 28-200 f4-7.1

Tamron 28-200 f2.8-5.6 (!) and 28-300 f4-7.1

Canon RF 24-240 f4-6.3

Super tele: outside of my interest but I've heard the Canon 100-400 f something to something is super affordable and surprisingly good for entry level, if not super bright. Sony 200-600 I think is also well regarded and I think Nikon has a 200-500 and 180-600. But again not my specialty so encourage you to ask those actually know what they're talking about in this segment

Ribbit74 · Aug 21, 2024

When I’m not using my phone or MFT, it’s either my TG-7 or my old XZ-1 when I feel nostalgic.

dgrogers · Aug 21, 2024

OSPhoto said:
dgrogers said:

Every time I look outside of M/43, I have a hard time finding lenses that I want. Does anybody else have a lens like the 12-100 f/4 Pro (being able to walk around with a single lens of excellent quality that can give me a 24-200mm equivalent is super convenient)? What about a somewhat affordable super tele that can give me 200-800mm?

Click to expand...

I believe I've read people say that the Nikon superzoom lens (24-200) is quite good and similar quality on those sensors to the 12-100, and both are similar size, but if you already like things about m43, then you're not going to switch to Nikon just because of that.

People also seem to like the L-Mount 28-200, you lose on the wide end, but it is a smaller lens than these other ones.

Sony also has some unique focal lengths that in terms of light gathering, one wouldn't find a similar range and size elsewhere, just for example, the 20-70 f/4.

...but it really all depends on what people need / want / are looking for.

I've read the 24-200 is OK, but not great. One of the least sharp Z lenses sold. Definitely not in the same league as the 12-100. The Nikon 24-120 Z would be a better comparison. The 12-100 is an amazing lens. Super sharp and what bokeh it has is excellent. I prefer it to my 12-40.

NowHearThis · Aug 21, 2024

Great memories. And that’s all I need.

NowHearThis · Aug 21, 2024

dgrogers said:
OSPhoto said:

dgrogers said:

Every time I look outside of M/43, I have a hard time finding lenses that I want. Does anybody else have a lens like the 12-100 f/4 Pro (being able to walk around with a single lens of excellent quality that can give me a 24-200mm equivalent is super convenient)? What about a somewhat affordable super tele that can give me 200-800mm?

Click to expand...

I believe I've read people say that the Nikon superzoom lens (24-200) is quite good and similar quality on those sensors to the 12-100, and both are similar size, but if you already like things about m43, then you're not going to switch to Nikon just because of that.

People also seem to like the L-Mount 28-200, you lose on the wide end, but it is a smaller lens than these other ones.

Sony also has some unique focal lengths that in terms of light gathering, one wouldn't find a similar range and size elsewhere, just for example, the 20-70 f/4.

...but it really all depends on what people need / want / are looking for.

Click to expand...

I've read the 24-200 is OK, but not great.

Especially at the outer edges of the frame. Centers are great, I don’t pay for a lens to have 91% of the image sharp. Others mileage many vary and people can buy lenses for whatever reasons they want, and I can do the same.

dgrogers said:
One of the least sharp Z lenses sold. Definitely not in the same league as the 12-100. The Nikon 24-120 Z would be a better comparison.

The Z24-120/4 is outstanding and the only lens I would use as my main lens (I know many need an F2.8, I don’t, hence my previous statement). if… I were to run two systems, which I’m not interested in doing, I’d use a Z7II with the 24-120/4 and crop when needed. All the 28-xxx FF lenses are of no interest to me, wide angle matters most and if I can get it paired with some decent reach with outstanding optics… well, that company can have my money; And OM System did.

dgrogers said:
The 12-100 is an amazing lens. Super sharp and what bokeh it has is excellent. I prefer it to my 12-40.

NowHearThis · Aug 21, 2024

dgrogers said:
Every time I look outside of M/43, I have a hard time finding lenses that I want. Does anybody else have a lens like the 12-100 f/4 Pro (being able to walk around with a single lens of excellent quality that can give me a 24-200mm equivalent is super convenient)? What about a somewhat affordable super tele that can give me 200-800mm?

I’m with you on the 12-100. After 7+ long years of wishing for that lens, I finally own it. Simply put, it’s the most amazing lens I’ve ever owned.

For me there are 2 other lenses from other manufacturers that could well for my photography, those are:

Nikon 24-120/4 - especially when used on something like the Z7II or Z8. That lens is just God-Awesome. And I’ve only used that phrase to describe a couple of lenses.
Sony 20-70/4 - and on the A7CR, you’ve got a tiny package with some flexibility for cropping too. Pair it with the 70-200/4 II and a 1.4x TC and you’ve got an impressive kit, even if it will cost more than my truck.

I am hooked on my 8-25 and 12-100, but there’s a couple other good options that interest me. Even if I don’t plan to buy them.

eques · Aug 21, 2024

mmartel said:
dgrogers said:

Every time I look outside of M/43, I have a hard time finding lenses that I want. Does anybody else have a lens like the 12-100 f/4 Pro (being able to walk around with a single lens of excellent quality that can give me a 24-200mm equivalent is super convenient)? What about a somewhat affordable super tele that can give me 200-800mm?

Click to expand...

In full frame mirrorless, the best known walkabouts I've heard of are:

Nikon Z 24-200 f4-6.3

I wouldn't mind slightly softer edges, but have reservations about BQ: the double inner tube is suspicious, and https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67435513

mmartel said:
Nikon Z 28-400 f4-8

Missing wide end (? see below) and soft at longer FLs, big

mmartel said:
Lumix 28-200 f4-7.1

Missing wide end (?see below) and soft beyond 135mm, but light weight and small

mmartel said:
Tamron 28-200 f2.8-5.6 (!) (and 28-300 f4-7.1)

Missing wide end - perhaps not so much, as 28mm in 3:2 ratio is closer to 24mm in 4:3 ratio than FLs look. Otherwise I only read good reports about that lens, and it is truely light and small.

mmartel said:
Canon RF 24-240 f4-6.3

IQ and BQ not in the same league as the 12-100.

Peter

chrishurley · Aug 22, 2024

NowHearThis said:
NowHearThis said:

I've read the 24-200 is OK, but not great.

Click to expand...

Especially at the outer edges of the frame. Centers are great, I don’t pay for a lens to have 91% of the image sharp. Others mileage many vary and people can buy lenses for whatever reasons they want, and I can do the same.

It is often difficult to find people who have used both. Thom Hogan has reviews of both on his site and he seems to say similar things about the corners on the 24-200 Z as the 12-100 olympus. I wonder if the Olympus 12-100 doesn't have a fair bit of mythology baked in among us m43 users who hold it in such high regard. It clearly is a nice lens but is it uniquely nice across systems with modern lenses? I'm not sure.

dgrogers · Aug 22, 2024

chrishurley said:
NowHearThis said:

chrishurley said:

I've read the 24-200 is OK, but not great.

Click to expand...

Especially at the outer edges of the frame. Centers are great, I don’t pay for a lens to have 91% of the image sharp. Others mileage many vary and people can buy lenses for whatever reasons they want, and I can do the same.

Click to expand...

It is often difficult to find people who have used both. Thom Hogan has reviews of both on his site and he seems to say similar things about the corners on the 24-200 Z as the 12-100 olympus. I wonder if the Olympus 12-100 doesn't have a fair bit of mythology baked in among us m43 users who hold it in such high regard. It clearly is a nice lens but is it uniquely nice across systems with modern lenses? I'm not sure.

I own the 12-100 and I'm making my statements based on the results I see. The lens is phenomenal. The image quality from it is better than my 12-40 f/2.8. The number of keepers I get from it and the number of shots from it that makes me think "wow" is insanely high.

dgrogers · Aug 22, 2024

NowHearThis said:
dgrogers said:

OSPhoto said:

dgrogers said:

Every time I look outside of M/43, I have a hard time finding lenses that I want. Does anybody else have a lens like the 12-100 f/4 Pro (being able to walk around with a single lens of excellent quality that can give me a 24-200mm equivalent is super convenient)? What about a somewhat affordable super tele that can give me 200-800mm?

Click to expand...

I believe I've read people say that the Nikon superzoom lens (24-200) is quite good and similar quality on those sensors to the 12-100, and both are similar size, but if you already like things about m43, then you're not going to switch to Nikon just because of that.

People also seem to like the L-Mount 28-200, you lose on the wide end, but it is a smaller lens than these other ones.

Sony also has some unique focal lengths that in terms of light gathering, one wouldn't find a similar range and size elsewhere, just for example, the 20-70 f/4.

...but it really all depends on what people need / want / are looking for.

Click to expand...

I've read the 24-200 is OK, but not great.

Click to expand...

Especially at the outer edges of the frame. Centers are great, I don’t pay for a lens to have 91% of the image sharp. Others mileage many vary and people can buy lenses for whatever reasons they want, and I can do the same.

NowHearThis said:

One of the least sharp Z lenses sold. Definitely not in the same league as the 12-100. The Nikon 24-120 Z would be a better comparison.

Click to expand...

The Z24-120/4 is outstanding and the only lens I would use as my main lens (I know many need an F2.8, I don’t, hence my previous statement). if… I were to run two systems, which I’m not interested in doing, I’d use a Z7II with the 24-120/4 and crop when needed. All the 28-xxx FF lenses are of no interest to me, wide angle matters most and if I can get it paired with some decent reach with outstanding optics… well, that company can have my money; And OM System did.

NowHearThis said:

The 12-100 is an amazing lens. Super sharp and what bokeh it has is excellent. I prefer it to my 12-40.

Click to expand...

If I were going to get into another system, it would probably be Nikon FX with that 24-120 to start too. Does Canon have anything comparable?

SterlingBjorndahl · Aug 22, 2024

[No message]

Barry Twycross · Aug 22, 2024

chrishurley said:
Barry Twycross said:

I do have compacts, I used one today.

Click to expand...

I'd like to find a couple for those reasons. It would be nice to find something that isn't miserable to shoot. What are you shooting for compacts?

I'm still using my old Panasonic LF-1 (or Leica C). They gave up making compact compacts after the LF1, so I went to M4/3 instead.

Michael Benveniste · Aug 22, 2024

I can’t explain myself, but I own gear in the following formats:

Nikon 1 series
110 Film
MFT
APS-C ( 720nm IR )
APS film
”Full Frame” digital (SLR and mirrorless)
35mm film
645 film
4x5” film

Owlsfan · Aug 22, 2024

I always take my FZ330 when I go on holiday abroad.

It fits in my smallest camera bag that I can also fit in my phone, wallet, passport etc. I don't like taking expensive gear and especially leaving it in a hotel.

It's not too heavy and ofc I've got that nice range. I only go to sunny places , so the light is usually good and I'm always happy with my photos.

Jorginho · Aug 22, 2024

I love the LX100II, nicest cam to use I have ever had. But it can't do sport, good landscapes, any action, no hires, not that good for macro etc.

But for me ideal for citytrips, going to family, parties etc. It is a joy to use, I love the dials, the small size and weight and the still pretty versatile and fast lens. It was secondhand last year still pretty expensive. I cam across it in London (UK) on a short trip and it was in as new condition. 700 pound. Yeah...no regrets though.

Bobapingu · Aug 22, 2024

dgrogers said:
chrishurley said:

NowHearThis said:

dgrogers said:

I've read the 24-200 is OK, but not great.

Click to expand...

Especially at the outer edges of the frame. Centers are great, I don’t pay for a lens to have 91% of the image sharp. Others mileage many vary and people can buy lenses for whatever reasons they want, and I can do the same.

Click to expand...

It is often difficult to find people who have used both. Thom Hogan has reviews of both on his site and he seems to say similar things about the corners on the 24-200 Z as the 12-100 olympus. I wonder if the Olympus 12-100 doesn't have a fair bit of mythology baked in among us m43 users who hold it in such high regard. It clearly is a nice lens but is it uniquely nice across systems with modern lenses? I'm not sure.

Click to expand...

I own the 12-100 and I'm making my statements based on the results I see. The lens is phenomenal. The image quality from it is better than my 12-40 f/2.8. The number of keepers I get from it and the number of shots from it that makes me think "wow" is insanely high.

Now that's a big call. I have the 12-40/2.8.

ahaslett · Aug 22, 2024

Bobapingu said:
dgrogers said:

chrishurley said:

NowHearThis said:

Bobapingu said:

I've read the 24-200 is OK, but not great.

Click to expand...

Especially at the outer edges of the frame. Centers are great, I don’t pay for a lens to have 91% of the image sharp. Others mileage many vary and people can buy lenses for whatever reasons they want, and I can do the same.

Click to expand...

It is often difficult to find people who have used both. Thom Hogan has reviews of both on his site and he seems to say similar things about the corners on the 24-200 Z as the 12-100 olympus. I wonder if the Olympus 12-100 doesn't have a fair bit of mythology baked in among us m43 users who hold it in such high regard. It clearly is a nice lens but is it uniquely nice across systems with modern lenses? I'm not sure.

Click to expand...

I own the 12-100 and I'm making my statements based on the results I see. The lens is phenomenal. The image quality from it is better than my 12-40 f/2.8. The number of keepers I get from it and the number of shots from it that makes me think "wow" is insanely high.

Click to expand...

Now that's a big call. I have the 12-40/2.8.

https://www.lenstip.com/497.4-Lens_...ED_12-100_mm_f_4_IS_PRO_Image_resolution.html

https://www.lenstip.com/584.4-Lens_...l_ED_12-45_mm_f_4.0_PRO_Image_resolution.html

https://www.lenstip.com/392.4-Lens_...l_12-40_mm_f_2.8_ED_PRO_Image_resolution.html

A

Satyaa · Aug 22, 2024

ahaslett said:
https://www.lenstip.com/497.4-Lens_...ED_12-100_mm_f_4_IS_PRO_Image_resolution.html

https://www.lenstip.com/584.4-Lens_...l_ED_12-45_mm_f_4.0_PRO_Image_resolution.html

https://www.lenstip.com/392.4-Lens_...l_12-40_mm_f_2.8_ED_PRO_Image_resolution.html

A

I generally have difficulty understanding these charts.

If my interpretation is correct, especially the first chart for center sharpness, the 12-45/F4 seems to have top performance, followed by 12-100/F4, followed by 12-40/F2.8. Is this right?

Thanks.

Tom Caldwell · Aug 22, 2024

As a percentage M4/3 90+% L-Mount 10-% Canon EF (which most of my FF lens capablilty lies) almost never. Lens collections - M4/3 (limited to use on M4/3) - EF (versatile across most modern ML mount systems) - Legacy MF lenses (also versatile across most modern ML mount systems)

I am replete: the lens collection can all be used directly by M4/3 or adapted. When the notice strikes me I am not boxed into M4/3 and the FF capable lenses are only an adapter or so away from any of the new ML mount systems. Easier to buy adapters than to re-buy lenses if the mount platform is changed or even simply experimented with.

I can put up with any disadvantages (real or imaginary) as a trade off for versatility.

MFT + ... what?

MFT + ... what?

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Community Leader

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts