It seems to me that much of the discussion about new lenses revolves around how much faster they should be. This would obviously result in bigger (and more expensive) lenses as well. The more I thought about it the more I remembered the main reason I went with m4/3 instead of another format was size and weight. So I am trying out a 300/6.3 Pentax Takumar to possibly replace the Nikon 300/4.5. It weights about 450g less and is much smaller overall. I would lose 1 f-stop but also about 1 lb of weight as well in my bag. Plus it can fit in my smaller bag where the Nikon can not. My hope is that Panasonic and Olympus will work hard on improving ISO performance more than making faster lenses. I believe that will benefit me more with ALL of my lenses than just getting a bigger, faster one.
Looking at the current lens lineup, it seems that Olympus and Panasonic are trying to do just as you say. The PL 45/2.8 could have been a larger, f/2 lens. Same for the Oly 17/2.8. I'd like to see a mix of smaller, lighter, slower lenses, along with some faster, heavier options. I agree with you that the emphasis should be on the former, since that is a primary strength of our system.
Hence my choice of the Voigtlander rangefinder lenses for use as legacy lenses on the :43: cameras, they seem to be made for the job in terms of size and are relatively light despite their metal construction. Modern :43: equivalents would of course be much lighter. Many people seem to choose large and visually unwieldy lenses for their cameras, they wouldn't suit me and seem to go some way to defeating the idea behind :43:. Then of course the bulk of my type of photography doesn't call for fast lenses, my thoughts might be different if my style was different. Barrie
I agree. What I would really like to see that would support this vision is a series of manual focus primes that support EXIF and auto-diaphams, designed for m4/3. Not just 35mm lenses with m4/3 mounts. I wonder how much smaller the Voigtlander lenses could be if they only covered m4/3 sensors, and they offered a "slower" series as decribed above. I would be very, very, very interested in those. Maybe the market is just too small ...
Hopefully Cosina will be inspired by the sales of the 25/0.95 Nokton and produce a variety of both fast and slow Micro 4/3 lenses as they have done for M39 and M mount.
Yes, their current first lens dedicated to :43: is not too much of a design change from what they have produced in the past, to have electrical feedback built in might be a step too far. It will be interesting to see if they make another dedicated lens, will it be a heavier fast lens or a lighter, slow one, for me personally the latter concept would be more encouraging. Barrie
The new Pentax 35 mm F2.4 is also very compact AND affordable - Just like most of their (more expensive) limited lenses I hope Pentax will also release an affordable and compact prime in 70-90 mm range (maybe with macro capability)
Would Cosina view a 25/1.4 or 25/2.0 as a possible cannibalizer of the 25/0.95? I suspect they will concentrate on ultra-fast lenses the next few years in the m4/3 arena. I hope I am wrong. They have some nice ultra-wides I would love to see corresponding m4/3 lenses made. Just imagine a 6mm m4/3 equivalent of their 12mm/5.6 ultra-wide Heliar ...
On the other hand, maybe I should write Cosina and let them know what I would like to see. Every little bit helps.
They can get right on that after they develop the fast lenses the rest of us want I have been spoiled by the 20/1.7 ... Honestly, it didn't take long ...
I like a mix of fast and slow, but first I want fast. I was surprised at how beautiful the 28mm f/2.8 Leica Elmarit is.
I'm quite happy with the slower lenses, anything between f2-4. The fastest lens I have is the CV 50mm f1.1, but don't really use it at wide open all that much. The CV 75mm f1.8 is slightly faster than f2, but I prefer using it at f2, as the purple fringing is reduced significantly (as I recently found out). I also don't really care about paper thin depth of field, it's OK once in a while, but not for every photo one takes. Cheers Ray
I am with you: - The new Pentax 35 mm F2.4 icw a "fast" Sigma / Tamron tele zoom 50-150 or 70-200 mm F2.8 will make my MF 50 mm F1.4 close to obsolete. - But a good and affordable compact auto focus Pentax prime (Limited - light in the 70-100 mm range might be more interesting than that big zoom to further complete my set of lenses. Of course lens sets are personal, but it doesn't sound too complex to me to find biggest holes (marketing oppertunies) in current set of lenses available.
But slow when compared to the fast manual lenses available. I don't really consider the m4/3s zoom lenses in my discussions, as they are pretty much another issue altogether, though the primes and one zoom are all within the f2-4 category. Cheers Ray
Unfortunately, there isn't an official "definition" for fast ... IMHO, anything 4 or faster is "fast", f2.8 or faster is definitely fast by just about any definition So, to be clear, I want m43 lenses in every focal length no slower than f4 even for zooms before they add (more) slow lenses to accommodate the OP
There are two reasons to want fast lenses. Some people say that the current line of faster primes for mFT is still to slow because of the sensor size in terms of bokeh.... Personally, I just want faster lenses to reduce ISO. Then again, I'd take two zooms with the same zoom range. One that is fast and large for specific situations and one that is slow and small for everyday walkaround.
I want faster lenses for the shallower DOF. But I would be good in the f2-3.5 range if could keep optics quality up and costs down. They have to be pancakes too. One 12, and one 40 =)
Narnian, I couldn't agree with you more. After a month with my E-P1 and various lens combos, I have settled (for now) on small vintage lenses, even if they have small max apertures. I posted this on another thread, but my "easy-to-carry in coat pocket" line-up includes a Voigtlander 15mm F4.5 for wide shots, the Olympus Zuiko 35mm F1.8 for my normal, and the Leica 90mm F3.5 Elmar for tele shots. Am quite happy with all this so far, and have used the kit zoom only once or twice. I may still spring for an Oly 17mm 2.8 for the AF--I have a hard time focusing on the LCD with my bifocals! {}
