Zoom ranges we wish we had

yardcoyote said:

Mine would be a normal to short or mid tele, 40-110mm or so. 135 would be fine too.

Click to expand...

Here, a 40-120mm: https://lens-db.com/carl-zeiss-vario-sonnar-40-120mm-f28-1966/

I have a feeling you're going to say it's not what you want.

If there would be such a lens, I could reduce lens swapping which is very frequent to minimal .

Sadly, it doesn't exist in my system yet :-( .

Currently, the M43 I am using, has a 14-140 f/3.5-5.6 (eq FoV of 28-280). Great IQ, good contrast and AF speed, relatively small but too narrow for me. There is a 12-200 f/3.5-6.3 (eq FoV of 24-400). Perfect zoom range, not big in its class, but IQ could be a problem beyond 100 :-( .

There is also a Pro 12-100 f/4 (eq FoV of 24-200). However it is very big, cost a lot more for marginally IQ improvement over 14-140. It is also not long enough for me :-( .

A 12-140/150 f/3.5-5.6 of around <300g having IQ of 14-140 could replace my current setup: 12-32 & 45-150 (total 280g).

In my dreams, I’d like a Z mount 12-140 f/2.8. Of course, I wouldn’t be able to pick it up but it’s a dream, right?

Marie

Ozzie SD said:

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.

Click to expand...

What F-number would you like for that 20-800mm at 800mm ?

Answering that question will have you thinking about what you mean by “in a very compact form”

jj

I could probably use a 35-135 rather well. A 30-140 would be nice.

and my feet won't zoom that accurately.

--
Ron.
Volunteer, what could possibly go wrong ?

yardcoyote said:

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.

Click to expand...

We've got 24-105 and 24-120s now. Not sure there's much demand for a 40-xx or xxx mid-range-ish lens. The 24-xx/xxx and even more so 28-xx/xxx lens were grudgingly, at best used on aps-c dslrs, starting at 36mm or 42mm angles of view.. "Not wide enough" was a common plaint. The Tamron 35-150/2-2.8 is a different critter at f2-2.8 compared to the typically budget driven users of many early aps-c dslrs.

Sony has Tamron's 17-50/4 and 20-70/4. Nikon (only ?) has a 14-30/4. Not sure any of these are universally dreamed of nor enough to drive a system switch, but would think they are at least getting glances from other mount users. I went for the 20-70/4 . Although there are numerous offerings 16-28, 17-28, to 16-35 range, the 14-30 goes nicely wider and the 17-50 and 20-70 have useful wide and overlap with the typical mid-ranges.

The Fuji 70-300 goes some way towards what I want but to get closest you need to be zoomed in. On the whole it does what I want but not quiet as much.

Nikon 70-180 goes some way too but only gets really close at 70mm.

Full frame 16-30/F2 but very light.

It's never going to happen though. Physics are physics but it would be nice.

In reality, I shoot much more on the wide side. In the past I had several 70-300 for aps-c but I hardly ever used it.

Nowadays, I don't like dragging too much around. I have the Sony FE16-35/f4 and the FE 24-105/f4 and although I would like it to be a big longer, I'm not going to buy another telezoom. The past taught me that I don't use it that often.

--
No life without a camera.

yardcoyote said:

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?

Click to expand...

Yes, that's why I have a Panasonic TZ70 that has a 4.3-129mm lens (24-720mm full-frame equivalent), an amazing actually pocketable camera with a 1/2.3 inch 12mp sensor. For such a crazy "superzoom" range the quality is great, Leica did an amazing job, I didn't think it would actually be this effective.

In MFT I have the 8-25mm (16-50mm equivalent) which covers the range I use over 90% of the time. Of course I get much better dynamic range and overall quality with an E-M1X, than the TZ70, but both are useful for different things.

I also have prime lenses and I use them to take pictures mostly of myself and some stuff mainly in controlled settings, but for general photography I stopped using primes, it's just not worth it to me when I can get quality that's way more than good enough with a zoom lens.

yardcoyote said:

Mine would be a normal to short or mid tele, 40-110mm or so. 135 would be fine too.

Click to expand...

If you don't mind the weight (~1.2kg is not bad at all for such a lens), I highly recommend the Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD. Such amazing quality at such a zoom range, I've never seen.

Ozzie SD said:

GeoffRG said:

Ozzie SD said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

I get it ... I was talking about a dream zoom range without any restrictions.

Ozzie SD said:

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.

Click to expand...

Of course the one I had in mind would only be 5 cm long and 250 g weight. Hey, but I was dreaming right!

Click to expand...

You forgot "and they will be given away free when you buy a roll of film".

It still kills me that Sony has no answer to the RF 14-35. I would love a 14-40/4 G, even at the extortionate price Im sure it would cost.

Tamron 35-150 was a gamechanger but I have no interest in a 1200g lens. Nor do I need big reach on such a lens. A 35-85/2-2.8 with nice bokeh, low natural vignetting/distortion, relatively high transmission and let's say a sub 700g weight would be one of the last lenses I ever buy.

The 28-200 equivalent on my Nikon P Series cameras (P7700, P7800) was perfect, as was the 28-200 on the Panasonic RX10 I and II. The 18-135 does replace it in APS-C, but size and weight have become a bit beyond what I enjoy carrying. That challenge is answered with the three cameras in my iPhone, but there’s now a new set of challenges for getting IQ where I want it.

My search for what I'd really like to have ended for the present when Nikon came out with the 28-400. I could glue it on one of my Z bodies and be fine except for when I want something lighter, smaller and less conspicuous.

There is no demand (except for me, of course) which is why we don't have one.

My point was that everyone is constantly talking about how zooms are so good now and they can (and according to some people, should) replace primes, and then every zoom that is offered for general use is strongly biased toward the wide end, leaving zero options for the shooter who is not interested in wide angle. To use a zoom at all, we are forced to buy and carry a wide angle zoom that we would never use in order to get the focal lengths we do want.

The lens we do not want to use but are forced to buy is automatically the heaviest and most expensive.

Whether I would actually choose to buy a normal to tele zoom if one were offered is another question that would involve the usual song and dance between price, size and weight, quality, personal needs and interests and so on. This process is well understood already and sort of off topic.

It would be a nightmare for me regardless, since I have no interest in wide angle or extreme telephoto. My bog standard 70-300 variable aperture Tamron does fine for me for my occasional venture into the longer ranges for fun and games.

This has been really interesting for me, mostly because I showed me rather graphically how different my photographic interests are from the majority here. I raised the question because I am having so much fun playing around with my 70-300 Tamron that I was wondering what it would be like to have a similar lens to play around with in a similar way in the street at walkaround focal lengths. When I looked around for one, I found ... nothing.

I have no interest whatsoever in angles wider than 40 or so. (My rare impulse in that direction can easily be satisfied by using my phone.) A "superzoom" that goes from wide to telephoto sounds like a nightmare to me, even if it was magically smaller and lighter than physics allows.

It seems like the zoom revolution, where modern zooms are as good photographically as "a bag of primes" and can, and perhaps should, replace them, only applies to photographers who shoot wide angle at least some of the time. Those of us who don't have the choice of sticking to our primes until we get to 70mm or so (when the standard 70-200 or 70--300 kicks in) or paying the price and carrying the weight of all the equipment necessary to shoot wide angle even though we will never use it and then cranking our way through endless wasted space to get tho the focal lengths we want to use every time we lift the camera.

I have no real serious interest in replacing my everyday primes with a zoom so I am not particularly disappointed in this. The fact that there's zero option for me to do so and nobody seems to notice that is interesting to me. I was also expecting to hear about some other cool, impractical specialized zooms that people secretly dream about, but a lot of people just suggested superzooms that were more super than the present offerings.

--
Instagram: @yardcoyote

yardcoyote said:

This has been really interesting for me, mostly because I showed me rather graphically how different my photographic interests are from the majority here. I raised the question because I am having so much fun playing around with my 70-300 Tamron that I was wondering what it would be like to have a similar lens to play around with in a similar way in the street at walkaround focal lengths. When I looked around for one, I found ... nothing.

I have no interest whatsoever in angles wider than 40 or so. (My rare impulse in that direction can easily be satisfied by using my phone.) A "superzoom" that goes from wide to telephoto sounds like a nightmare to me, even if it was magically smaller and lighter than physics allows.

It seems like the zoom revolution, where modern zooms are as good photographically as "a bag of primes" and can, and perhaps should, replace them, only applies to photographers who shoot wide angle at least some of the time. Those of us who don't have the choice of sticking to our primes until we get to 70mm or so (when the standard 70-200 or 70--300 kicks in) or paying the price and carrying the weight of all the equipment necessary to shoot wide angle even though we will never use it and then cranking our way through endless wasted space to get to the focal lengths we want to use every time we lift the camera.

I have no real serious interest in replacing my everyday primes with a zoom so I am not particularly disappointed in this. The fact that there's zero option for me to do so and nobody seems to notice that is interesting to me. I was also expecting to hear about some other cool, impractical specialized zooms that people secretly dream about, but a lot of people just suggested super zooms that were more super than the present offerings.

Click to expand...

Clearly you are outside the "normal" range of photographers. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, if you want lenses from 40-XXX there's nothing inherently wrong with that.However, lens manufacturers are in business to make money and the demand for "40- something" lenses would appear to be small. Hence there aren't any, Tamron's 35-150 being the closest fit.

Personally, I wouldn't call a 24-70 or 24-120 a "super zoom", the former offering a zoom ratio of 1:2.92 and the latter 1:5. I consider the, so called, super zoom to carry too many compromises for my liking (28-200 for example).

Your comments do make me wonder what subjects you specialise in, I find 24 is generally as wide as I need but some subjects can benefit from a wider lens. Somewhere I have a photograph of Concorde taken with a Sigma 12-24. I was displayed in one of our conference rooms for many years.

Hike Pics said:

I could probably use a 35-135 rather well. A 30-140 would be nice.

Click to expand...

Nikon has one, 18-140 mm for APSC