Zoom ranges we wish we had

yardcoyote

Forum Pro
Messages
18,132
Solutions
14
Reaction score
18,310
Does anyone else feel that the focal length ranges of existing zoom lenses don't quite fit the way you shoot? What's your dream zoom?

Mine would be a normal to short or mid tele, 40-110mm or so. 135 would be fine too.
 
I have too many zooms already, although the latest - 20-70/4 G - is almost my dream lens.

The MFT 12-45/4, 12-40/2.8 and 40-150/2.8 are pretty handy too.

A
 
Something like 20-70 on full frame would be useful but 20-50 could be adequate. A maximum aperture at around f/3.5 or, if practical f/2.8 being ideal.

I suspect 20-120 might be a step too far, especially at f/4
 
The 20-70mm f4 is a very popular Sony FE lens, but there's no equivalent for APS-C. It'd be something like 13-45 or 13-50mm, give or take. It might be too difficult or maybe it'd be just too bit. With APS-C we're pretty much limited to 24mm to 27mm FF equivalent at the widest for any of the "standard" zooms, and for my purposes I need to go wider. I have the Sigma 10-18mm (15-27mm equivalent), but then I'd have to swap to a different lens for "standard" lengths. I'd be happy, maybe even happier, with wider/shorter like 18-50mm equivalent.
 
For me, it's not so much the range as the combination of compromises that bother me about current zooms. My ideal zoom would have the weight and IQ of the Nikon 500 PF while having the zoom range of the Nikon 200-500. As long as I'm dreaming, let's throw in a max aperture of f/4.
 
I will be happy to have 20-200 (FF). I have a 20-70 and 28-200. One is not long enough and one is not wide enough. I know there are 24-240 and 24-200 out there for some mounts, but 20-200 is no where to be found.

--
~George
 
Last edited:
I think we are all replying with lenses we would like in our mount of choice. Some might already be available in other mounts but, as far as I'm concerned, if it's not in my mount it doesn't exist for me.
 
I think we are all replying with lenses we would like in our mount of choice. Some might already be available in other mounts but, as far as I'm concerned, if it's not in my mount it doesn't exist for me.
Lens availability is what led me to both FE and MFT.

A
 
Honestly, if I could find the perfect "streetable" zoom of my dreams, I might very well buy it its own camera. Mount would not be a limitation, as long as I could find a camera I actually liked.
 
Honestly, if I could find the perfect "streetable" zoom of my dreams, I might very well buy it its own camera. Mount would not be a limitation, as long as I could find a camera I actually liked.
Tamron 35-150/2-2.8, E and Z mounts?

A

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post
 
Last edited:
Ideal, no (slightly too wide, a bit more too long, probably also too heavy for a perfect world). But, that said, interesting. I won't say I'm actively looking at it (in theory, I'm done buying for the year), but I am also currently having a lot of fun with the Tamron 70-300 variable on my Zf, so I'm definitely open to thinking about it.
 
I am only an amateur. The question is what your dream zoom range is.

I see people answering 20-70, 20-50, 40-110?

Why not choose a very long zoom range like 20-800? In the question there were no restrictions mentioned, so if it would be technically possible without quality loss and in a very compact form, I would go for a 20-800 so I could capture everything close up and at a long distance. :-)
 
Moderate telephoto with decent "macro" (or close up as I call it).
 
I am only an amateur. The question is what your dream zoom range is.

I see people answering 20-70, 20-50, 40-110?

Why not choose a very long zoom range like 20-800? In the question there were no restrictions mentioned, so if it would be technically possible without quality loss and in a very compact form, I would go for a 20-800 so I could capture everything close up and at a long distance. :-)
If you suspend the laws of physics then yes, such a lens might have some appeal. Unfortunately we can't suspend those laws and a 20-800 lens isn't practical. As one who asked for a 20-70 or 20-120 I was asking for something reasonable and potentially achievable. As an example, I'd actually like to be able to lift the lens and hand hold it. I'd like a reasonably fast aperture, f/4 or f/2.8 and some fine control of focal length.

A 20-800 f/4 might be your dream but I would find it a nightmare, unless it could be under 2Kg and about 20cm long with a diameter around 100mm. Let me know when you can manage that please.
 
I am only an amateur. The question is what your dream zoom range is.

I see people answering 20-70, 20-50, 40-110?

Why not choose a very long zoom range like 20-800? In the question there were no restrictions mentioned, so if it would be technically possible without quality loss and in a very compact form, I would go for a 20-800 so I could capture everything close up and at a long distance. :-)
If you suspend the laws of physics then yes, such a lens might have some appeal. Unfortunately we can't suspend those laws and a 20-800 lens isn't practical. As one who asked for a 20-70 or 20-120 I was asking for something reasonable and potentially achievable. As an example, I'd actually like to be able to lift the lens and hand hold it. I'd like a reasonably fast aperture, f/4 or f/2.8 and some fine control of focal length.
I get it ... I was talking about a dream zoom range without any restrictions.
A 20-800 f/4 might be your dream but I would find it a nightmare, unless it could be under 2Kg and about 20cm long with a diameter around 100mm. Let me know when you can manage that please.
Of course the one I had in mind would only be 5 cm long and 250 g weight. Hey, but I was dreaming right!
 
I am only an amateur. The question is what your dream zoom range is.

I see people answering 20-70, 20-50, 40-110?

Why not choose a very long zoom range like 20-800? In the question there were no restrictions mentioned, so if it would be technically possible without quality loss and in a very compact form, I would go for a 20-800 so I could capture everything close up and at a long distance. :-)
If you suspend the laws of physics then yes, such a lens might have some appeal. Unfortunately we can't suspend those laws and a 20-800 lens isn't practical. As one who asked for a 20-70 or 20-120 I was asking for something reasonable and potentially achievable. As an example, I'd actually like to be able to lift the lens and hand hold it. I'd like a reasonably fast aperture, f/4 or f/2.8 and some fine control of focal length.

A 20-800 f/4 might be your dream but I would find it a nightmare, unless it could be under 2Kg and about 20cm long with a diameter around 100mm. Let me know when you can manage that please.
Well, 20mm you can find them all around, all day long, but let's say, a 100- 500 ( 150- 750 mm APS-C) under a kilo, it could start at 4.5 or even 5.6, with a minimum focal distance under a meter, and/or with a magnification above 0.30 or even closer to 0,40
 
Last edited:
Does anyone else feel that the focal length ranges of existing zoom lenses don't quite fit the way you shoot? What's your dream zoom?

Mine would be a normal to short or mid tele, 40-110mm or so. 135 would be fine too.
Why constrain yourself? Use the right tool for the task at hand rather than restricting yourself. I'd never try to use a Philips that needs a Flathead ...lol

-M
 
Well, considering that I currently use one prime at a time, a zoom like that would hardly be limiting.
 
Well, considering that I currently use one prime at a time, a zoom like that would hardly be limiting.
It depends on ones concept of limiting. It could also be financial for some as well as convenience and weight. Many factors are involved depending on subject matter.

-M
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top