Idea for new lens, speed.

[ac12]

Was not sure where to put this post/thread.

I was looking at some old 35mm film lenses and what Sigma did with their f/1.8 zooms, and thought why are the m4/3 100mm zooms floored at f/2.8? Why not something faster, like a 40-100mm f/2 as a FAST companion to the 40-150/2.8? The reach of the 40-150 is nice, but some of us want a FAST lens, for low light. The only fast options now are the Olympus 75/1.8 or the 1-stop slower P-35-100/2.8 and O-40-150/2.8.

There is no need to floor m4/3 zooms at f/2.8, just because that is what the FF lenses are. Especially now that Sigma has lowered the floor to f/1.8 for their APS-C lenses. They should take advantage of the m4/3 format and make shorter faster equivalent lenses than the FF guys.

 

[wjiang]

There was a 14-35 f/2 and 35-100 f/2 for 4/3, they were huge.

 

[ac12]

I wonder how the 35-100/2 compares with the Sigma 50-100/1.8?
I need to look up the lens specs.

With the advance in technology, I wonder if it is possible to make the 35-100/2 smaller? Maybe not, because the sensor size and image circle is the same as m4/3.
My personal issue with Sigma's method of getting to f/1.8 is the short 2:1 zoom range. And it isn't a small/light lens either.

 

[pake]

I have sent a couple of emails to Lumix & Oly and told them they should build an f/2 or even f/1.8 25-75mm lens. Now that Lumix has announced the 10-25mm f/1.7 and IF it sells well maybe we'll get a big brother for it as well. I'd buy that in an instant.

 

[Petrochemist]

Was not sure where to put this post/thread.

I was looking at some old 35mm film lenses and what Sigma did with their f/1.8 zooms, and thought why are the m4/3 100mm zooms floored at f/2.8? Why not something faster, like a 40-100mm f/2 as a FAST companion to the 40-150/2.8? The reach of the 40-150 is nice, but some of us want a FAST lens, for low light. The only fast options now are the Olympus 75/1.8 or the 1-stop slower P-35-100/2.8 and O-40-150/2.8.

There is no need to floor m4/3 zooms at f/2.8, just because that is what the FF lenses are. Especially now that Sigma has lowered the floor to f/1.8 for their APS-C lenses. They should take advantage of the m4/3 format and make shorter faster equivalent lenses than the FF guys.

I suspect it's felt the market for such lenses isn't big enough to recover the R&D costs in developing them.

I could find one useful, but there's no way I could pay £10,000 for one and development will cost much more than that.
There's no reason not to just adapt lenses from another mount if you find these fast zooms highly appealing, though I'll stick to primes when I need FAST.

 

[ac12]

I wonder if Sigma would put a m4/3 mount on their f/1.8 zooms?

 

[Turbofrog]

Was not sure where to put this post/thread.

I was looking at some old 35mm film lenses and what Sigma did with their f/1.8 zooms, and thought why are the m4/3 100mm zooms floored at f/2.8? Why not something faster, like a 40-100mm f/2 as a FAST companion to the 40-150/2.8? The reach of the 40-150 is nice, but some of us want a FAST lens, for low light. The only fast options now are the Olympus 75/1.8 or the 1-stop slower P-35-100/2.8 and O-40-150/2.8.

There is no need to floor m4/3 zooms at f/2.8, just because that is what the FF lenses are. Especially now that Sigma has lowered the floor to f/1.8 for their APS-C lenses. They should take advantage of the m4/3 format and make shorter faster equivalent lenses than the FF guys.

Panasonic literally announced an f1.7 zoom lens a few months ago.

 

[wjiang]

Panasonic literally announced an f1.7 zoom lens a few months ago.

Probably after seeing how many were speedboosting/adapting Sigma 18-35 f/1.8s. I suspect if that one does well they'll do a limited short telephoto as well.

 

[Jeffcs]

Probably after seeing how many were speedboosting/adapting Sigma 18-35 f/1.8s. I suspect if that one does well they'll do a limited short telephoto as well.

That would be nice

 

[RogerM]

I would like to see a proper 100 to 150mm macro prime.
I reckon that should sell well.
My 2 cents.

 

[LilSebastian]

There was a 14-35 f/2 and 35-100 f/2 for 4/3, they were huge.

I recognize that there will always be a physical limitation for front element size that relates to f stop and focal length, so that means an f2 will necessarily be larger than the 2.8 zoom with the same range.

Still, I have read from others here that one reason the old 4/3 lenses are larger than modern m4/3 is also partially the significantly improved processing power of the bodies which can correct for lens errors. In the 4/3 days, the corrections happened in the lens more than the software. Could that be enough to make a 35-100 f2 less of a beast today? I wonder.

 

[Reflector]

Was not sure where to put this post/thread.

I was looking at some old 35mm film lenses and what Sigma did with their f/1.8 zooms, and thought why are the m4/3 100mm zooms floored at f/2.8? Why not something faster, like a 40-100mm f/2 as a FAST companion to the 40-150/2.8? The reach of the 40-150 is nice, but some of us want a FAST lens, for low light. The only fast options now are the Olympus 75/1.8 or the 1-stop slower P-35-100/2.8 and O-40-150/2.8.

There is no need to floor m4/3 zooms at f/2.8, just because that is what the FF lenses are. Especially now that Sigma has lowered the floor to f/1.8 for their APS-C lenses. They should take advantage of the m4/3 format and make shorter faster equivalent lenses than the FF guys.

Price, market volume, optical corrections (unless you're building a focal reducer into an already outstanding lens but that just becomes a new lens to put into production...), loonatics on DPR screaming about the imminent, impending death of Olympus for any and every lens they release, people upset by lenses that are faster than f/1.8 primes being released ranting on Youtube/their blogs/forums and how Olympus and Panasonic are going in the wrong direction for not releasing a f/4 prime while begging Sony for a f/2.8 or f/4 prime pancake lens.

I happen to be an owner of very exotic lenses unlike any other out there and I'm quite happy with them. You should look into them as well if you want the speed. 135 format f/2.8 zooms don't come close and they're my favorites to use from their outstanding performance in low light.

9-13mm f/1.3 (18-26mm f/2.6 equiv)
11.5-22.5mm f/1.1 (23-45mm f/2.2 equiv)
32-64mm f/1.1 (64-128mm f/2.2 equiv)
77-192mm f/1.8 (154-384mm f/3.6 equiv)

The last one is the heaviest one of them all, it is also the only one that isn't critically sharp while wide open, I need to stop down about 2/3EV on it. You too can own these lenses, they're a Tokina 14-20mm f/2, the Sigma twins (you're familiar with these) and a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8. Just get the focal reducer and you'll have the benefit of owning "EF mount" too if EOS R matures as a system or you feel like shooting on APS-C Canon (or not), you're also not too far away from plain tubing for Sony if you want to do that. Having mount flexibility is fun and opens your options up.

Edit: Mindfart, Tokina, not Tamron.

 

[ac12]

Price, market volume, optical corrections (unless you're building a focal reducer into an already outstanding lens but that just becomes a new lens to put into production...), loonatics on DPR screaming about the imminent, impending death of Olympus for any and every lens they release, people upset by lenses that are faster than f/1.8 primes being released ranting on Youtube/their blogs/forums and how Olympus and Panasonic are going in the wrong direction for not releasing a f/4 prime while begging Sony for a f/2.8 or f/4 prime pancake lens.

I happen to be an owner of very exotic lenses unlike any other out there and I'm quite happy with them. You should look into them as well if you want the speed. 135 format f/2.8 zooms don't come close and they're my favorites to use from their outstanding performance in low light.

9-13mm f/1.3 (18-26mm f/2.6 equiv)
11.5-22.5mm f/1.1 (23-45mm f/2.2 equiv)
32-64mm f/1.1 (64-128mm f/2.2 equiv)
77-192mm f/1.8 (154-384mm f/3.6 equiv)

The last one is the heaviest one of them all, it is also the only one that isn't critically sharp while wide open, I need to stop down about 2/3EV on it. You too can own these lenses, they're a Tamron 14-20mm f/2, the Sigma twins (you're familiar with these) and a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8. Just get the focal reducer and you'll have the benefit of owning "EF mount" too if EOS R matures as a system or you feel like shooting on APS-C Canon (or not), you're also not too far away from plain tubing for Sony if you want to do that. Having mount flexibility is fun and opens your options up.

Except my dSLR is Nikon, and NONE of the Nikon to m4/3 adapters will allow the lens and camera to communicate. So the Nikon AF VR lenses turn into full manual lenses, like what we used back in the 60s and earlier. With a Nikon lens, I can use it on my dSLR, with a Canon EF mount lens, only on the m4/3 via an adapter. If my dSLR system was Canon, it would be easier.

 

[Bytesmiths]

There was a 14-35 f/2 and 35-100 f/2 for 4/3, they were huge.

Huge… and WONDERFUL! At least, 35-100 — never tried the 14-35.

 

[Bytesmiths]

I wonder how the 35-100/2 compares with the Sigma 50-100/1.8?

I haven't tried the Sigma, but it is hard to figure anything being better than the ZD 35-100. It is sharp at every focal length, from corner-to-corner, and very nearly as good with the EC-14 teleconverter, which gives you 49.5-141mm @ ƒ/2.8.

I call it my "bag of primes."

When I think it is too heavy, I ask myself how much would separate 35/2, 50/2, 75/2, 100/2, and 141/2.8 lenses weigh?

It takes a 77mm filter, whereas theoretically, a 100/2 would require only a 50mm entrance pupil. So perhaps a new version could be smaller and lighter.

Two things that are not so nice, besides size and weight:

1. It is very flare-prone. Use the Hood, Luke!
2. It does not have an SWD focus motor, and thus is a bit noisy and slow. I find it fast enough for my needs, though.

These can be had in excellent condition for well under a kilobuck, which seems a bargain for what was once touted the fastest zoom ever produced.

 

[Reflector]

Except my dSLR is Nikon, and NONE of the Nikon to m4/3 adapters will allow the lens and camera to communicate. So the Nikon AF VR lenses turn into full manual lenses, like what we used back in the 60s and earlier. With a Nikon lens, I can use it on my dSLR, with a Canon EF mount lens, only on the m4/3 via an adapter. If my dSLR system was Canon, it would be easier.

I used to be on F mount. I waited too long for the D400 and decided sticking with Nikon was not for me, given their management's attitudes and the problems they were suffering from starting from the D600. Micro Four Thirds was supposed to be a temporary stop for me, a system that I could adapt lenses to but I did not originally intend to stay...

If you intend on sticking with Nikon: That's just the way it works out. I don't own any Canon bodies myself, I also bought my EF mount lenses before most of my Micro Four Thirds lenses in the first place and at that point I had the option of taking Sony APS-C E mount or Canon... I ended up sticking with Micro Four Thirds for what was offered with the E-M1II, so much so that I just started converting to EF mount gradually just so I could adapt the lenses to the E-M1II when I stared off with a first generation Metabones Speedbooster for Nikon. Now the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 AI-S lives on a shim (and has the indexing tab trimmed for fit) and has an EF mount rear lenscap on the shim... The Sigma 18-35 I will send out to get converted one day.

 

[ac12]

Based on my experience with the EM1, it just does not cut it for fast sports.
So for fast sports, I'm sticking with my Nikon dSLR.

 

[Reflector]

The E-M1II with adapted lenses like the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 have been able to nail birds at sunset. Optics do matter for driving the AF system.

 

[Bytesmiths]

There is currently a lightly-used Sigma 50-100mm ƒ/1.8 for sale in Victoria, BC, Canada (EF mount), for C$1,000, which is about US$720. Don't know if that's a good price, or not.

Must… sit… on… hands… step… away… from… the… keyboard… and… no… bank… account… gets… hurt…

 

[ac12]

There is currently a lightly-used Sigma 50-100mm ƒ/1.8 for sale in Victoria, BC, Canada (EF mount), for C$1,000, which is about US$720. Don't know if that's a good price, or not.

Must… sit… on… hands… step… away… from… the… keyboard… and… no… bank… account… gets… hurt…

I blew my budget for a 12-100/4 at Christmas, so I have to wait to replenish the budget.