Equivalence (hypothesis): Could future FF mirrorless F/8 and F/5.6 lenses (ever so slightly press upon) the m43 pro system?

[RS86]

That Nikon kit is every bit as “pro” as the Olympus!
Cicala at lens rentals has done tear downs and finds the Nikon Z gear to be outstanding build quality.
The adapter is like getting a 43 adapter thrown in.

Well, others say that f/4.0 zooms are not professional grade made. And this is seen in their pricing, naturally.

Price of a lens is made of several different factors, not only the aperture.

"Call it the Happy Median. The constant-aperture f/4 zoom represents a perfect balance between big, heavy, and expensive f/2.8 glass designed for professional photographers and lighter, more compact, and affordable variable-aperture lenses for casual shooters. So it’s no surprise that the just-right f/4 is winning a steady stream of converts from both camps."

https://www.popphoto.com/gear/2013/08/rise-f4-zoom-lens/

"Most f4 zoom lenses, like a 24-70mm f4, can offer a lightweight experience for the photographer casually photo walking while giving them solid image quality at an affordable price. On the other hand, f2.8 zoom lenses can give photographers better image quality, build quality, and the much needed ability to shoot in less light with a faster shutter speed."

https://www.thephoblographer.com/2019/03/26/do-i-need-an-f2-8-or-an-f4-zoom-lens-an-analysis/

And also from the DPR video about the Canon f/11 lenses:

Jordan and Chris:

"Professional full frame lenses are usually large and fast, but there’s a need for slow professional lenses. We tell you which Micro Four Thirds lenses we want for full frame."

 

[PakkyT]

"Call it the Happy Median. The constant-aperture f/4 zoom represents a perfect balance between big, heavy, and expensive f/2.8 glass designed for professional photographers and lighter, more compact, and affordable variable-aperture lenses for casual shooters. So it’s no surprise that the just-right f/4 is winning a steady stream of converts from both camps."

https://www.popphoto.com/gear/2013/08/rise-f4-zoom-lens/

"Most f4 zoom lenses, like a 24-70mm f4, can offer a lightweight experience for the photographer casually photo walking while giving them solid image quality at an affordable price. On the other hand, f2.8 zoom lenses can give photographers better image quality, build quality, and the much needed ability to shoot in less light with a faster shutter speed."

https://www.thephoblographer.com/2019/03/26/do-i-need-an-f2-8-or-an-f4-zoom-lens-an-analysis/

Ya but (there is always a "Ya but" right?), it is starting to seem like the constant aperture thing is beginning to be more of a marketing fad rather than useful.

I thought constant aperture lenses were desired because you would start at a fast (for that focal length of the lens) and keep it that fast through the zoom range. For a wider zoom this was typically f2.8 (or f2 for some of the great Oly SHQ lenses) and f4 was also good when you were talking about big lenses (hundreds of mm) that would normally start at f4 and close down to 5.6 or 6.3 or 7.1 or whatever, so again maintaining f4 was fantastic.

But now it seems like some lenses are being made "constant aperture" just for the sake of being "constant aperture" without any of the benefits. For example the mentioned 24-70/4 lens, wouldn't you rather have a 24-70/2.8-4 or f3.2-4 or even f3.5-4? I won't complain about a third stop extra on the wide end, I promise. And if you really had your heart set on a constant f4 aperture then shoot in "A" mode and set it for "4" and you now have constant aperture through the whole zoom range. When you are talking about wider zoom ranges and 3x or less optical zoom, what is the advantage of an f4 constant aperture over a variable aperture so long as the top number stops at 4? Olympus made the 50-200/2.8-4 lenses and ya they are big but not stupid big and that was with a 4x optical range.

This is what I kind of find the 12-45 PRO a little bit of a trick on consumers. They market the constant aperture but I see this as an advantage only to Olympus to make the lens small with no performance benefit to the consumer other than that small size. And I am not knocking this lens. It is perfect for what a lot of people want with Pro but keeping things as small as they could, but I guess honesty in marketing wouldn't work if their literature actually said "We limited this lens to f4 through the range in order to keep the lens small". Although I think they could have included a L-Fn button on it without effecting size too much.

 

[ac12]

Ya but (there is always a "Ya but" right?), it is starting to seem like the constant aperture thing is beginning to be more of a marketing fad rather than useful.

I thought constant aperture lenses were desired because you would start at a fast (for that focal length of the lens) and keep it that fast through the zoom range. For a wider zoom this was typically f2.8 (or f2 for some of the great Oly SHQ lenses) and f4 was also good when you were talking about big lenses (hundreds of mm) that would normally start at f4 and close down to 5.6 or 6.3 or 7.1 or whatever, so again maintaining f4 was fantastic.

But now it seems like some lenses are being made "constant aperture" just for the sake of being "constant aperture" without any of the benefits. For example the mentioned 24-70/4 lens, wouldn't you rather have a 24-70/2.8-4 or f3.2-4 or even f3.5-4? I won't complain about a third stop extra on the wide end, I promise. And if you really had your heart set on a constant f4 aperture then shoot in "A" mode and set it for "4" and you now have constant aperture through the whole zoom range. When you are talking about wider zoom ranges and 3x or less optical zoom, what is the advantage of an f4 constant aperture over a variable aperture so long as the top number stops at 4? Olympus made the 50-200/2.8-4 lenses and ya they are big but not stupid big and that was with a 4x optical range.

This is what I kind of find the 12-45 PRO a little bit of a trick on consumers. They market the constant aperture but I see this as an advantage only to Olympus to make the lens small with no performance benefit to the consumer other than that small size. And I am not knocking this lens. It is perfect for what a lot of people want with Pro but keeping things as small as they could, but I guess honesty in marketing wouldn't work if their literature actually said "We limited this lens to f4 through the range in order to keep the lens small". Although I think they could have included a L-Fn button on it without effecting size too much.

Marketing
A variable aperture zoom would not be looked on as a PRO lens.
Everyone KNOWS that the PRO lens is a constant f/2.8 zoom.

For us old fogies, who used a hand held light meter. That was when the constant aperture was valuable.
If the lens was a variable aperture, what aperture was it at any point other than either end? We could not set the aperture of a variable aperture lens with any precision.
Whereas the constant aperture was at f/x any place within the zoom range, so it was easy to set the aperture.

The other was for flash photography, with a manual flash.
Even with a flash meter, you could not set the aperture correctly if you did not know what the exact aperture was at the chosen focal length.
Again, this was helped with a constant aperture lens.

Today with TTL exposure, for both ambient and flash, there isn't that similar need for a constant aperture zoom.

Agree the 12-45/4 would have been cool as a 12-45/2.8-4 lens.

But having used a variable aperture zoom.
It can be confusing to set the aperture properly, to get a constant aperture wide open.

• You have to zoom to the long end, set the aperture to max., it is constant at the smaller aperture.
• If you forget and zoom to the short end, and set the aperture to max, it will vary from largest to smaller as you zoom.
  • Been there, done that, MANY times. So I know this mistake is easy to make.

So in the spirit of KISS, for some applications and people, you want the constant aperture.
For others, variable will work just fine.

 

[John King]

@ac12 You seem to make jolly hard work out of this!

For over 8 years, my 2 principal lenses were the f/2.8~3.5 14-54 MkII and the f/2.8~3.5 50-200 MkI (FTs 'pro' weather/dust sealed lenses).

I have never encountered any of the problems you wax lyrical about ... .

 

[Jeroen81]

Now the Canon 600mm and 800mm f/11 primes are known it is pritty clear to me that Canon isn't going to take slower lenses seriously. MFT has few to fear from that direction.

 

[Aristophanes]

Now the Canon 600mm and 800mm f/11 primes are known it is pritty clear to me that Canon isn't going to take slower lenses seriously. MFT has few to fear from that direction.

f/11 is very serious. They are looking like very affordable lenses for occasional long glass shooting. Their price point + new FF camera, perhaps with dual IS, high-ISO, is specifically an m4e problem. It hits both size and price.

 

[ac12]

@ac12 You seem to make jolly hard work out of this!

For over 8 years, my 2 principal lenses were the f/2.8~3.5 14-54 MkII and the f/2.8~3.5 50-200 MkI (FTs 'pro' weather/dust sealed lenses).

I have never encountered any of the problems you wax lyrical about ... .

Ha ha.
You are right. I shot with an 18-140/3.5-5.6 on my D7200, and never hassled with that. Mostly I shot in P mode.

BUT, when I started shooting sports at the local high school, the screwy lighting conditions at night on the football field and in the gym, forced me to switch to manual exposure. And when trying to set the lens for max aperture, because of the low light level, was when I ran into that "problem" with my variable aperture lens.

 

[mike3996]

The Olympus 12-100 is $1299 and $1199 on sale.

I don't particularly care for Olympus lens designs that much but the 12-100 Pro is a stellar lens. These equivalent superzooms for FF may get there at one time but versatility and quality make the Olympus a pretty good deal. Close focus capabilities alone!

A dust-free one-body-one-lens package is an outstanding idea for a landscape shooter. No matter what weather.

 

[John King]

Ha ha.
You are right. I shot with an 18-140/3.5-5.6 on my D7200, and never hassled with that. Mostly I shot in P mode.

BUT, when I started shooting sports at the local high school, the screwy lighting conditions at night on the football field and in the gym, forced me to switch to manual exposure. And when trying to set the lens for max aperture, because of the low light level, was when I ran into that "problem" with my variable aperture lens.

If I started shooting sports at any local school, I would get arrested. It's illegal to use cameras in the vicinity of schools here.

 

[ac12]

If I started shooting sports at any local school, I would get arrested. It's illegal to use cameras in the vicinity of schools here.

oooo wow.

Things have changed here as well.
Student privacy is an issue that it wasn't when I was in high school.
That is the reason that I cannot post any of my HS sport pics.
My pics goes to the school yearbook, the athletic director and/or the coaches.

 

[Jeroen81]

f/11 is very serious. They are looking like very affordable lenses for occasional long glass shooting. Their price point + new FF camera, perhaps with dual IS, high-ISO, is specifically an m4e problem. It hits both size and price.

F11 for 600 or 800mm isn't the problem. The problem is that it's going to be plastic fantastic lenses. Probably with cheap glass. And it needs to retract before you can shoot with it and you need to hold it by the end. Will be very oncomfortabele.

We don't know anything about the prices of the body's and lenses. Also we don't know anything about the effectiveness of the Canon implementation of IBIS.

 

[RS86]

I don't particularly care for Olympus lens designs that much but the 12-100 Pro is a stellar lens. These equivalent superzooms for FF may get there at one time but versatility and quality make the Olympus a pretty good deal. Close focus capabilities alone!

A dust-free one-body-one-lens package is an outstanding idea for a landscape shooter. No matter what weather.

This is one of the factors people miss when comparing lenses, along with comparing Pro-lenses to any other lens etc. Doesn't matter for all types of shooting, but with such a one-lens solution I would think it is very important to have this ability too. And of course it affects the lens size. That 15 cm MFD is quite something.

 

[John King]

This is one of the factors people miss when comparing lenses, along with comparing Pro-lenses to any other lens etc. Doesn't matter for all types of shooting, but with such a one-lens solution I would think it is very important to have this ability too. And of course it affects the lens size. That 15 cm MFD is quite something.

My widest lens for my 35mm film cameras was 28mm. Longest (without TC) was 200. I used to cover that with 3 primes and 2 zooms. No close up lens.

Now I can cover (effective FLs) 24-200mm with an excellent closeup facility with just one weather/dust sealed lens, with sync-IS to boot. That lens is simply superb in every respect optically, at all FLs and apertures.

There is nothing that even comes close in any other system.

 

[John King]

My widest lens for my 35mm film cameras was 28mm. Longest (without TC) was 200. I used to cover that with 3 primes and 2 zooms. No close up lens.

Now I can cover (effective FLs) 24-200mm with an excellent closeup facility with just one weather/dust sealed lens, with sync-IS to boot. That lens is simply superb in every respect optically, at all FLs and apertures.

There is nothing that even comes close in any other system.

e.g. this lens is apparently a highly regarded 24-105 and appears to have worse corners than even my 14-42 EZ!!

Look at the samples in this review:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx

Absolutely not in the same ballpark as my 12-100 ...

Imaging Resource tests of v.1 of the lens appears to give somewhat better results, but still nothing like the 12-100.

 

[Reflector]

Look at the samples in this review:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx

Absolutely not in the same ballpark as my 12-100 ...

The pixel level sharpness of the 24-105mm L II definitely isn't as good as the 12-100. I was able to play around with an RP that had one with an adapter.
Some old test photo crops I took from when I had those, which has the 12-100 at f/4 and the 24-105 at at f/4 and f/8 respectively:

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

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

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

 

[Pluttis]

f/11 is very serious. They are looking like very affordable lenses for occasional long glass shooting. Their price point + new FF camera, perhaps with dual IS, high-ISO, is specifically an m4e problem. It hits both size and price.

Think they hit the pricing and weight...and the retractable construction is quite neat as its the lenses takes up less space when in the bag

But still camera(R6) + lens is around 3000-3500 usd

F11 is to slow even for FF, will work fine on a sunny day/good light but as soon as the light fall or you walk in a woods you will have to push the iso verry high early to get a acceptable shutter speed to be able to freeze movement/action.

Still same long closes focus distance as other 600mm and 800mm lenses...which means they are far from versatile as for example Oly 300mm + tc with is short close focus distance.

Size wise when shooting with the 800mm and with its 95mm filter thread it looks be quite close to the Sony 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 in sizes, its small for being a 800mm but at the same time not a small lens.

 

[Aristophanes]

Think they hit the pricing and weight...and the retractable construction is quite neat as its the lenses takes up less space when in the bag

But still camera(R6) + lens is around 3000-3500 usd

F11 is to slow even for FF, will work fine on a sunny day/good light but as soon as the light fall or you walk in a wood you will have to push the iso verry high early to get a acceptable shutter speed to be able to freeze movement/action.

Still same long closes focus distance as other 600mm and 800mm lenses...which means they are far from versatile as for example Oly 300mm + tc with is short close focus distance.

Size wise when shooting the 800mm with its 95mm filter thread looks be quite close to the Sony 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 so its small for being a 800mm but at the same time not a small lens.

It will come down to price and value. If they are 30% the price of a 300/4, they‘ll offer the same FLs at lower cost, especially if the R5 and R models are lower priced as well. Canon’s perhaps debuting an ISO invariant sensor up to 6400. A lot will depend on IQ, compared to the Oly and Panny 100-400s if in that price tier. Will know more July 9th.

 

[Reflector]

Here I was hoping the R6+f/11s would be more promising of a release as a side option for me to look into.
https://www.canonrumors.com/here-are-the-rf-600mm-f-11-rf-800mm-f-11-super-telephoto-lenses/

Canon RF 600mm f/11 IS STM Specifications:
10 elements in 7 groups
Minimum focusing distance 4.5m
Maximum magnification 0.14x
82mm filter size
Size: 93mm x 199.5mm (When retracted) 269.5mm when shooting
Weight: 930g

Canon RF 800mm f/11 IS STM Specifications:
11 elements in 8 groups
Minimum focusing distance 6.0m
Maximum magnification 0.14x
95mm filter size
Size: 101.6mm x 281mm (When retracted) 351.8mm when shooting
Weight: 1260g

So much for frame fill. That's 3x+ of the MFD on my Sigma 120-300 and around 3-4x of the 300mm f/4, which gets even more magnification with the MC-14 (.48x mag to .672x).

These are more like telescopes than telephotos, at least they're likely to be a bit better with the TCs on them but that'll be pushing them deep into the beginnings of diffraction territory even on the R5 given f/16 and f/22 apertures. The R6 will be already deep, deep into diffraction territory so these lenses have to the optically excellent designs out the gate.

And I am actually feeling a bit suspect from the optical excellence part given the 10/7 and 11/8 formulas. For reference the Olympus 300mm f/4 is 17/10 lens and the PanLeica 200mm f/2.8 is a 15/13 lens. The DO element can only do so much for the rest of the lens so at a minimum these have to be tested to see how well they perform as a system.

 

[Sleepy Capybara]

If Tech-Art ever comes with RF to M43 adapter I can’t wait to handhold 1600mm at f22 goodness mounted on my EM1.2.

 

[pake]

The pixel level sharpness of the 24-105mm L II definitely isn't as good as the 12-100. I was able to play around with an RP that had one with an adapter.
Some old test photo crops I took from when I had those, which has the 12-100 at f/4 and the 24-105 at at f/4 and f/8 respectively:
View attachment 834137 View attachment 834138 View attachment 834139

Hmmm... Your photos are contradicting the internet talks that FF is far superior to m4/3. I mean.... It IS all about the sensor size, right?