18-200 full frame equivalent lens

zzffnn

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Nov 19, 2017
Messages
382
Location
Massachusetts
I have been wanting a 18-200mm full frame equivalent wide/tele zoom lens (9-100mm for m4/3) for travel and general landscape use, that accepts front filters, but haven't seen / heard one from m4/3 or Nikon (which I also own). Don't need it to be fast.

Am I dreaming?

There are some Nikon DX (APSC) format wide/normal zoom lenses that starts at around 24-127mm full frame equivalent (16-85mm on DX), and lots of options at 28-300mm. But nothing down to 18mm and up to 200mm. Heck, even an 18-120mm full frame equivalent lens would work for me.

Maybe that is what superzoom bridge camera is for? But I want good dynamic range and ISO performance, (for example, I like how Olympus ' HDR works great handheld in capturing sunset colors), which is not offered by superzoom cameras.

I do have wide zoom + normal-tele zoom two lens options on both m4/3 and Nikon, but I would prefer to carry an one-lens solution for travel if it exists.
 

greensteves

Mu-43 Rookie
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
10
I have been wanting a 18-200mm full frame equivalent wide/tele zoom lens (9-100mm for m4/3) for travel and general landscape use, that accepts front filters, but haven't seen / heard one from m4/3 or Nikon (which I also own). Don't need it to be fast.

Am I dreaming?

There are some Nikon DX (APSC) format wide/normal zoom lenses that starts at around 24-127mm full frame equivalent (16-85mm on DX), and lots of options at 28-300mm. But nothing down to 18mm and up to 200mm. Heck, even an 18-120mm full frame equivalent lens would work for me.

Maybe that is what superzoom bridge camera is for? But I want good dynamic range and ISO performance, (for example, I like how Olympus ' HDR works great handheld in capturing sunset colors), which is not offered by superzoom cameras.

I do have wide zoom + normal-tele zoom two lens options on both m4/3 and Nikon, but I would prefer to carry an one-lens solution for travel if it exists.
There's a 12-100mm f/4 pro lens from Olympus. It's pretty heavy already, and would be even heavier if it went down to 9mm. Conceivably a non-pro f/3.5-5.6 option might work, but I haven't seen anything in the cards for such an option. 12mm seems to be the widest that these longer zooms go.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
4,178
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
I have been wanting a 18-200mm full frame equivalent wide/tele zoom lens (9-100mm for m4/3) for travel and general landscape use, that accepts front filters, but haven't seen / heard one from m4/3 or Nikon (which I also own). Don't need it to be fast.

Am I dreaming?

There are some Nikon DX (APSC) format wide/normal zoom lenses that starts at around 24-127mm full frame equivalent (16-85mm on DX), and lots of options at 28-300mm. But nothing down to 18mm and up to 200mm. Heck, even an 18-120mm full frame equivalent lens would work for me.

Maybe that is what superzoom bridge camera is for? But I want good dynamic range and ISO performance, (for example, I like how Olympus ' HDR works great handheld in capturing sunset colors), which is not offered by superzoom cameras.

I do have wide zoom + normal-tele zoom two lens options on both m4/3 and Nikon, but I would prefer to carry an one-lens solution for travel if it exists.

That would be 9-100 in MFT terms. You're definitely dreaming. I think such a lens would have too many compromises. It'd be tantamount to putting a P&S lens on your OMD. I saw a review for a Canon RF 24-240 f4-6.3 lens (m43 FOV 12-120) which kinda sounded like it had meh IQ. https://www.thephoblographer.com/2021/06/10/canon-rf-24-240mm-f4-6-3-is-usm-review/

There are 18-200 (eFOV 28-300 for FF) lenses for APS-C cameras, but I have never heard of anything in that range for FF. Nikon and Sigma have 18-200s, but only for APS-C. Canon does not have any.

The Olympus 12-100 definitely does not have meh IQ. The 12-200 has even more range, but no match for the 12-100 in IQ. Nothing wider. The new 8-25 f4 Pro comes the closest.
 
Last edited:

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
3,508
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
The long end is not a problem.
The problem is the short end.

The shortest m4/3 that I think you can get on a super zoom is 12mm m4/3 (24mm FF)
The shortest DX that I think you can get on a super zoom is 18mm (28mm FF)

So, yes you are dreaming.
 

zzffnn

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Nov 19, 2017
Messages
382
Location
Massachusetts
The long end is not a problem.
The problem is the short end.

The shortest m4/3 that I think you can get on a super zoom is 12mm m4/3 (24mm FF)
The shortest DX that I think you can get on a super zoom is 18mm (28mm FF)

So, yes you are dreaming.
So that is the physical limit of modern technology / economics? As a scientist, I am curious about this.

I would happily take 35lbs of prime lenses and gears locally in my big hiking bag. But on extended out-of-state flight tours, I prefer simple compromises.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
4,178
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
So that is the physical limit of modern technology / economics? As a scientist, I am curious about this.

I would happily take 35lbs of prime lenses and gears locally in my big hiking bag. But on extended out-of-state flight tours, I prefer simple compromises.
Well, the good news is that you have some very good choices in M43. Oly 12-100 Pro, 12-200, 14-150 II, Pana 14-140 II, or Tamron 14-150. The first three are even weather-sealed, making them a good match for a weather sealed body of the same make.
 

doady

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
471
Location
Canada
18mm to 200mm EFL is exactly my range, and I have the 12-100mm F4 and I will likely get the 8-25mm F4 too. 12-100mm F4 will be for natural environments and 8-25mm F4 for urban environments. I think it will be a simple enough arrangement. One lens will be good enough for a whole day, so no need carry two lenses at once and change lenses in the field. But of course your needs might be different.
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
3,508
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
So that is the physical limit of modern technology / economics? As a scientist, I am curious about this.

I would happily take 35lbs of prime lenses and gears locally in my big hiking bag. But on extended out-of-state flight tours, I prefer simple compromises.

The technology to go from tele to wide has moved SLOWLY.

When I started shooting, there was no wide zoom, that I can remember. I think the shortest was the Nikon 43-86.
Then 35 became the lower end, like the 35-70 and 35-105.
Then the 28, like the 28-85.
Now the 24, like the 24-105 and 24-120
From a practical PoV, this made sense. In the past many people could only handle a 35, they had trouble with a 28.
Then it moved down to where a 28 was a more common wide lens, and the zooms moved down also.
The 24 was always a hard lens for many to shoot. Tilt it just a bit and vertical lines converge. So I was somewhat surprised to see a 24-x zoom. Although having been a 24 shooter, I could handle it, and liked it.

I don't know the APS-C history, but I've only seen wide-tele zooms dating back to my D70 starting at 18mm (28mm FF equiv), 18-70 and 18-200. But being less of a pro format, I can see why they did not push the super zoom down wider. Same problem as FF, converging vertical lines for the less experienced, then people complaining about that.

For m4/3 12mm matches up with the 24mm of FF.

In all three formats, FF, APS-C and m4/3, to go wider requires a separate ultra-wide zoom.

As time and technology moves on, I have no doubt that the short end of the superzooms will get shorter.

For travel I looked at the Olympus 14-150 and the Pansonic-Lumix 12-60.
I wanted the little bit extra on the wide end, and was willing to sacrifice the long end, so I went with the P-Lumix 12-60.
 

jimr.pdx

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
749
Location
~1hr north of Portland OR
Real Name
Jim R
So that is the physical limit of modern technology / economics? As a scientist, I am curious about this.

I would happily take 35lbs of prime lenses and gears locally in my big hiking bag. But on extended out-of-state flight tours, I prefer simple compromises.
You ended at the right word: compromises. Not a physical limit, quite likely an economic one!

To design a decent zoom one must accept those compromises - size, cost, light capture and IQ interfere the more range you add to a zoom. A good 2x-3x zoom isn't too difficult though even those get hard at really wide angles. To me the 12-100mm is a shock for its ability to work well through such a long range, and the 12-200 shows the compromises for its price. Very few 18-200 apsC zooms do that well, and they are f/6.3 not f/4 at the long end. That's their compromise.

I don't know of any 18-xx full-frame models, they are apsC types; most FF systems do a 17-35 plus 28-200 for a two-lens solution, and again not f/4. I had thought Tamron's FF 35-150mm f/2.8-4 was a happy medium but reviews aren't great.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
4,178
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
The technology to go from tele to wide has moved SLOWLY.

When I started shooting, there was no wide zoom, that I can remember. I think the shortest was the Nikon 43-86.
Then 35 became the lower end, like the 35-70 and 35-105.
Then the 28, like the 28-85.
Now the 24, like the 24-105 and 24-120
From a practical PoV, this made sense. In the past many people could only handle a 35, they had trouble with a 28.
Then it moved down to where a 28 was a more common wide lens, and the zooms moved down also.
The 24 was always a hard lens for many to shoot. Tilt it just a bit and vertical lines converge. So I was somewhat surprised to see a 24-x zoom. Although having been a 24 shooter, I could handle it, and liked it.

I don't know the APS-C history, but I've only seen wide-tele zooms dating back to my D70 starting at 18mm (28mm FF equiv), 18-70 and 18-200. But being less of a pro format, I can see why they did not push the super zoom down wider. Same problem as FF, converging vertical lines for the less experienced, then people complaining about that.

For m4/3 12mm matches up with the 24mm of FF.

In all three formats, FF, APS-C and m4/3, to go wider requires a separate ultra-wide zoom.

As time and technology moves on, I have no doubt that the short end of the superzooms will get shorter.

For travel I looked at the Olympus 14-150 and the Pansonic-Lumix 12-60.
I wanted the little bit extra on the wide end, and was willing to sacrifice the long end, so I went with the P-Lumix 12-60.

My feeling is that if a lens maker thought it was feasible (for a number of reasons) to design and build an 8 mm to 100 mm lens, they would have done it. Maybe the technology is already here to do it, but for reasons of size, cost, production, and design and operational tradeoffs that have to be made, it just hasn't made sense to do so.
 

wimg

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
681
Location
Netherlands
That would be 9-100 in MFT terms. You're definitely dreaming. I think such a lens would have too many compromises. It'd be tantamount to putting a P&S lens on your OMD. I saw a review for a Canon RF 24-240 f4-6.3 lens (m43 FOV 12-120) which kinda sounded like it had meh IQ. https://www.thephoblographer.com/2021/06/10/canon-rf-24-240mm-f4-6-3-is-usm-review/

There are 18-200 (eFOV 28-300 for FF) lenses for APS-C cameras, but I have never heard of anything in that range for FF. Nikon and Sigma have 18-200s, but only for APS-C. Canon does not have any.

The Olympus 12-100 definitely does not have meh IQ. The 12-200 has even more range, but no match for the 12-100 in IQ. Nothing wider. The new 8-25 f4 Pro comes the closest.
Actually, as a travel lens the Canon RF 24-240 is not bad at all, despite the reviews. I happen to own one, besides the RF 24-105L. All RF lenses so far appear to be a class better than the older EF lenses, IME.

Even so, it is a consumer lens, and that is generally true for any lens with a 10x or more zoom factor for stills use, at least currently.
 
Last edited:

John King

Member of SOFA
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
3,094
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
That would be 9-100 in MFT terms. You're definitely dreaming. I think such a lens would have too many compromises. It'd be tantamount to putting a P&S lens on your OMD. I saw a review for a Canon RF 24-240 f4-6.3 lens (m43 FOV 12-120) which kinda sounded like it had meh IQ. https://www.thephoblographer.com/2021/06/10/canon-rf-24-240mm-f4-6-3-is-usm-review/

There are 18-200 (eFOV 28-300 for FF) lenses for APS-C cameras, but I have never heard of anything in that range for FF. Nikon and Sigma have 18-200s, but only for APS-C. Canon does not have any.

The Olympus 12-100 definitely does not have meh IQ. The 12-200 has even more range, but no match for the 12-100 in IQ. Nothing wider. The new 8-25 f4 Pro comes the closest.
Geez, Walter. The shots in that review were truly awful technically. I've never owned any kit lens as bad as that!

They must have had a really dud copy!
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
4,178
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
Geez, Walter. The shots in that review were truly awful technically. I've never owned any kit lens as bad as that!

They must have had a really dud copy!
To tell you the truth, I never looked at the sample shots that closely. I just read some of the text. :)

I think one has to take thephoblographer's reviews with a bit of salt.
 

Stanga

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Oct 16, 2016
Messages
1,493
The Oly 12-200mm is the closest to the required 18-200mm. I did try that Oly, and was so embarrassed by the struggles and performance, I ended up getting the Panasonic FZ1000M2 bridge camera after sending back the Oly. They were both around the same price at the time. The problem I had with the 12-200mm is that at the longer end of the zoom range I got a smaller aperture, but to get sharp shots I needed higher shutter speeds. Those two things were just incompatible with each other.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
1,980
Location
Salt Spring Island, British Columbia, Canada
Real Name
Jan Steinman
When I started shooting, there was no wide zoom, that I can remember. I think the shortest was the Nikon 43-86.
Oh, they existed! But they were atrocious.

I had an off-brand 24-70 zoom in the late 1970s or early 1980s. My first clue that it wasn't going to be any good was that it was cheap. I think it was branded "Quantaray," or maybe "Spiratone." It was sold by a retail chain that only sold things of that brand.

It pretty much sucked. I would not go so far as to say the 24 end "vignetted." You could almost count the inside of the filter threads, if you set it to closest focus and stopped down! The damn thing was designed to be looking inside its own barrel at widest zoom!

781933.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

782233.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


On the long end, you could sometimes make out features on peoples' faces amid the blur, and I think it was well smaller than ƒ/5.6.

Only around ~40mm or so could you get anything useful out of it.

I thought it would be a nice complement to the OM Zuiko 75-150, which was not a particularly good lens. Boy, was I wrong! I tried to sell it. After dropping the price a couple times, I think I threw it in the ocean. :-(

On the plus side, I got to learn how to see in wide angle, if I imagined what was blocked by the inside of the barrel. After I got rid of it, I saved my money up for a real wide angle, and got the OM Zuiko 24mm ƒ/2.8.
 
Last edited:

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
3,508
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
The Oly 12-200mm is the closest to the required 18-200mm. I did try that Oly, and was so embarrassed by the struggles and performance, I ended up getting the Panasonic FZ1000M2 bridge camera after sending back the Oly. They were both around the same price at the time. The problem I had with the 12-200mm is that at the longer end of the zoom range I got a smaller aperture, but to get sharp shots I needed higher shutter speeds. Those two things were just incompatible with each other.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

What you are complaining about is standard for all the consumer grade super zooms that I know of, and is a standard rule of thumb.
  • The non-pro super zooms are all variable aperture, where the aperture gets smaller at the long end.
  • Standard rule of thumb for decades (at least since the 1960s and probably earlier) is, min shutter speed = 1/FL (reference 35mm film/FF digital).
    • So shutter speed has to go up as the FL goes up.
    • And on a crop sensor camera you have to multiply it. So on the 12-200, at 200mm you should be shooting at min of 1/400 sec (ignoring IS).
The only way to change this are:
  • Fixed aperture pro lenses. $$$$
    • None of which give you the super zoom range of FL.
  • IS of some sort that is capable enough at the FL you are working at.
    • IS will NOT compensate for you being blown around by the wind. Been there, done that.
    • And you still need to use good long lens technique.
    • And IS will NOT compensate for subject movement.
  • Raise the ISO level to let you shoot at a higher shutter speed.
 
Last edited:

L0n3Gr3yW0lf

Dad Pun Joke Master Over Nine Thousand Meme Lord
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
1,275
Location
UK
Real Name
Ovidiu
I have been wanting a 18-200mm full frame equivalent wide/tele zoom lens (9-100mm for m4/3) for travel and general landscape use, that accepts front filters, but haven't seen / heard one from m4/3 or Nikon (which I also own). Don't need it to be fast.

Am I dreaming?

There are some Nikon DX (APSC) format wide/normal zoom lenses that starts at around 24-127mm full frame equivalent (16-85mm on DX), and lots of options at 28-300mm. But nothing down to 18mm and up to 200mm. Heck, even an 18-120mm full frame equivalent lens would work for me.

Maybe that is what superzoom bridge camera is for? But I want good dynamic range and ISO performance, (for example, I like how Olympus ' HDR works great handheld in capturing sunset colors), which is not offered by superzoom cameras.

I do have wide zoom + normal-tele zoom two lens options on both m4/3 and Nikon, but I would prefer to carry an one-lens solution for travel if it exists.

So that is the physical limit of modern technology / economics? As a scientist, I am curious about this.

I would happily take 35lbs of prime lenses and gears locally in my big hiking bag. But on extended out-of-state flight tours, I prefer simple compromises.

I do believe what you wish for is not technological and very economically possible. Going from ultra-wide to telephoto changes the path of light significantly, making IQ very invariable and difficult to control, from aberrations and defects to vignetting. Wide-angle lenses need different types of glass elements, especially the front element when you go down as wide as 9mm as you would like. As far as I know (and I can very incorrect about this) but, outside of cinema lenses) Olympus's brand new 8-25mm f 4 Pro is the longest ultra-wide zoom ever made.
There are many reasons why cinema lenses are huge and heavy and extremely expensive, very difficult to make, and out of everyday scope of usage for consumers.

If you want to see what a lens like what you would like looks like here's a few APPROXIMATIONS:
1623617309736.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Canon Cinema Zoom CN10x25 25-250mm T 2.95-3.95 PL with 1.5x TC for Super 35mm: 3.06 KGs

1623617482450.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Canon 8-64mmT 2.4 for Super 16mm and Super 35mm: 2.26 KGs

Here's an example of something "smaller":
https://www.myutron.com/en/lens/cctv/jb25/
1623618636913.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

9.6-240mm f 1.9 for 2/3" size sensor and still at 1.6 KGs heavy (does the Oly 12-100mm f 4 Pro feel too heavy still?)

Of course, all of these are designed for different types of needs, features, and capabilities ... but it still shows that there has to be a compromise when designing and manufacturing a lens.
BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT ... there's still a way to "cheat" IF you are willing to sacrifice some image quality: add an ultra-wide adapter on a super zoom lens like Olympus 12-100mm f 4 Pro or 12-200mm f 3.5-6.3 ... something like this: https://www.proav.co.uk/wd-h72 ... it will get you down to 9.6mm but it will not be cheap and IQ will degrade ... funnily enough even at the cost of Olympus 12-100mm f 4 Pro + a similar adapter will be cheaper then any cinema/broadcast zoom even in the budget department.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
1,980
Location
Salt Spring Island, British Columbia, Canada
Real Name
Jan Steinman
Going from ultra-wide to telephoto changes the path of light significantly, making IQ very invariable and difficult to control, from aberrations and defects to vignetting. Wide-angle lenses need different types of glass elements, especially the front element
Pshaw!

I'm sure that, with some clever engineering, it could be done. Taking the lead from the new Olympus 150-400, you could have optical elements operated by levers to move them in and out of the light path as needed.

But even that might be cumbersome, if you had to move multiple elements at the same time. So you would probably wind up with something like this (scroll down):



































multiturret-1.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom