Lenses that m43 deserves

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by Reflector, Nov 15, 2013.

  1. Reflector

    Reflector Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 31, 2013
    7-14mm f/1.6
    Why: Ever needed to blow stuff away at point blank with overwhelming bokeh that scares people? In non ideal lighting conditions? There you go.
    Can this exist?
    Imagine a really, really big 14-24 f/2.8 lens but redesigned to compress the image circle into a m43 sized one.
    What should this be priced at for a dangerously competitive lens?
    USD $2000
    How much does a 14-24 f/2.8 lens cost? What if you integrated the telecompression elements into the design? There you go.

    14-40mm f/1.2-1.6
    Why: A walk around lens that truly can provide ultimate performance in all conditions, from light to night. Disturbing sharpness when stopped down.
    Can this exist?
    See: Sigma 18-35 + Speedboosting = 13-25 f/1.2 (And it is rumored that the Sigma 18-35 is really something like a 18-35 f/1.2-1.8 if you look at the iris not fully opening on the 18mm end.)
    What should this be priced at for a dangerously competitive lens?
    USD $1000
    Sigma 18-35 + Speedbooster = $1200 realistically. The latter is a separate element, now imagine if it was an integrated lens.

    12-25mm f/1.2
    Why: A walk around lens that truly can provide ultimate performance in all conditions, from light to night. Disturbing sharpness when stopped down.
    Can this exist?
    See: Sigma 18-35 case from previously.
    USD $1000
    Trading off a variable, fast aperture design for a constant f/1.2 lens that hits the FoV of a standard 50mm on 135.

    40-100mm f/1.6 IS
    Why: At longer FLs, it would be more efficient to have the IS inside the lens than rely on the body stabilization.
    Can this exist?
    Do 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses exist? Yeah? There you go, this wouldn't be too far off either as again: Redesign to compress the image circle into a m43 sized one.
    What should this be priced at for a dangerously competitive lens?
    USD $2300
    How much does a 70-200VR/IS f/2.8 lens cost? What if you integrated the telecompression elements into the design? There you go.

    40-100mm f/1.4
    Why: Lighter variant for people who do not feel they need in-lens IS.
    Can this exist?
    See above: Subtract the stabilization from the lens
    What should this be priced at for a dangerously competitive lens?
    USD $1000
    Nikon still makes a 80-200mm f/2.8 lens without stabilization and it is definitely less chunky than the 70-200VRs.

    14mm f/0.7
    Why: Because there is no reason not to have a fast, wide lens.
    Can this exist?
    Do 135 format 28mm f/1.4s exist? Go redesign one to compress the image circle into a m43 sized one.
    What should this be priced at for a dangerously competitive lens?
    USD $1400-1800
    Ever need to shoot something semi wide? In less than ideal lighting? You say I asked this before? Then go answer this question yourself.

    25mm f/0.7 NOCT
    Why: Ever shoot in the dark? There you go.
    Can this exist?
    This kind of already does if you were to hypothetically take a Canon 50mm f/1.0 and then compress the image circle a m43 sized one.
    What should this be priced at for a dangerously competitive lens?
    USD $1500
    It isn't an Otus or NikOtus. It would be a true, low light lens that does not suffer from coma. f/0.7 is also your maximum limit for an actual lens instead of an optical collimator. Here you have a dangerously fast option that turns dangerously sharp when stopped down to f/1.8.

    60mm f/0.7
    Why: Ever shoot in the dark at further away things that you want to frame perfectly and refuse to crop because of intense perfectionistic OCD on your composition? Look no further
    Can this exist?
    Go imagine a 85mm f/1.2 redesigned with the image circle compressed down too.
    What should this be priced at for a dangerously competitive lens?
    USD $2200
    Stare at a 85mm f/1.2. Done? Integrated telecompressor in the design? There you go.

    90mm f/1.2 IS
    Why: Ever shoot in the dark at really far away things that you wanted to frame perfectly? Perfectionistic OCD? Moving subjects? Don't think about this more, throw money at it and make it your lens.
    Can this exist?
    Go imagine a 135mm f/2.0 lens with a Speedbooster. Now imagine if that was an APS-C image circle 135mm f/1.8 lens so it isn't as ginormous.
    What should this be priced at for a dangerously competitive lens?
    USD $1200
    About those 135mm f/2.0s? Guess their price and adding a telecompressor at the end.

    All said lenses must have:
    A functional manual focus ring, as in the Olympus "faux" clutch mechanism. With proper dampening or resistance. Infinitely variable between infinity and minimum focusing range, not with noticeable steps between the range.
    A PROPER focus scale that indicates down to: f/4 or f/5.6, f/8, f/16. No "big chunky text." Colored lines with said apertures marked in color. Engraved onto a plate on the lens body or directly on the lens body. The distances should be marked in useful graduations with large, highly readable text in imperial+metric coded respectively with white+yellow text and not sparsely with the bare minimal amount of divisions. Aperture ring optional.

    Dark scenery and subjects is a subjective concept that people misunderstand. Manmade lighting from a distance lighting something up that you can see will demand you to set your camera at ISO 25600 wide open at 2.8 to get a quarter second (1/4) exposure. That still sucks by any standard when your subject decides to move from its own locomotion or external sources like wind, ocean waves and many other influences such as gases combusting and pushing away partially combusted products or combustion byproducts. This is not about shooting in "moonlit"* conditions. The moment something moves, you are unable to maintain a decent shutter speed short of having something like a D3s with a 50mm f/1.2 or 58mm f/1.2 Noct.

    Click for a 1:1 version.

    Why would someone need giant, 135 format sized lenses like this? Because the argument of equivalence means jack squat when you actually are faster:
    There is no 13-25mm f/1.2 lens for 135 format. That literally NEGATES the entire argument of "oh but it has more stops for noise and thin DoF." That becomes a 27-53 f/2.5 lens in DoF, but in light gathering ability for your image? That is a f/1.2 lens. That is 3.3 stops of light inhaling capability on a lens. Some people actually use that capability instead of shooting at f/4 all day long with test charts and cats for their subjects and then proclaim that they posses the fullest frame and that their equivalence destroys postage stamp sized sensors.

    Now imagine your AF speed wherein on sensor PDAF implements directionality (So the CDAF does not have to wiggle back and forth quickly) and then CDAF is used right as the focus hits the zone. Now imagine being able to SEE your actual f/0.7-1.2 lens' DoF because you sure won't see your thin DoF on your ground glass screen. Fortunately with all those focusing aids and fast, highly accurate AF, you could actually focus something like this without having to stare it down on your EVF or LCD.

    These would be lenses for actual photographers, professional and ones that are extremely passionate and highly competent. They would definitely not be for the casual photographer who wants to show photos of their offspring and pet units where they are clipped partially out of focus.

    This would nullify and annihilate stupid arguments that misuse the word "equivalence" so very much.

    If you consider this post very scary and offensive to your very existence as a photographer, please don't mind me. You can go back to shooting out of focus shots of your offspring and pets then sharing them on every photo website and social network that you can beam your work from and into people's faces.

    Dear Panasonic and Olympus:
    If you are listening, please do consider getting Sigma/Tamron/Tokina to ghostdesign for you if you are unable to do so yourself without producing an optically excellent lens. Also stop jerking the North American market around and aggressively market products instead of letting Samsung NXes take your place up on the shelf. You already know there are professional and competent shooters that want you to produce great cameras that can go from tiny-and-pocketable to APS-C DSLR like in size. Now there must be an armory of lenses to support this. A true armory of high performance lenses that are actually worth their value. There would be a huge market for such "exotic" but high performing lenses that are actually equivalent to their FF counterpart 1:1 but with the light gathering capability.
    • Like Like x 2
  2. jyc860923

    jyc860923 Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Feb 28, 2012
    Shenyang, China
    OK, these really scare me:eek:

    nice idea
  3. alex66

    alex66 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jul 23, 2010
    And to think all I want is a 12 to 67.5 F4 as a walkaround zoom, as long as it has good iq I would put up with a variable aperture too. These look very rich and heavy for my taste.
  4. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Nov 7, 2010
    To each his own with regard to a lens wish list, but if I wanted glass like that I would not have switched to m4/3.
    • Like Like x 2
  5. hkpzee

    hkpzee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 5, 2011
    Hong Kong
  6. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman Subscribing Member

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    while you are at it you might as well wish for a miniature pet unicorn to carry all those lenses about....

    all really very silly and not at all based on any practical form of reality in terms of physics or economics.... have actually looked at the price/size of any lens so far produced in the sub f/1 bracket.... or even a leica 24/1.4 ?

    anyway...each to their own

    • Like Like x 3
  7. nickthetasmaniac

    nickthetasmaniac Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 11, 2011
    First up, Olympus has already done what you're talking about here with the ZD 14-35/f2 and 35-100/f2 zooms for classic 43rds. Go look how big they are. Go look how expensive then are. Now imagine if they were f1.4 (or god forbid f1.2) instead of f2. Now imagine that hulking mass mounted on, not a big chunky E-5, but a teeny weeny little EM5. Not to mention that for what it would cost (I suspect you're estimates may be off)... For that money and that size why wouldn't you just get a D4 and 50mm noct?

    But anyway, what would I know? I'm just a casual photographer shooting out of focus pics of my children and pets (I seem to have misplaced them unfortunately) :smile:
  8. Business 101.

    There has to be a market with enough people willing to purchase such products. A personal wish list, is just that... and will never be enough to justify an investment.

    As Nick pointed out, they already have similar zooms in 4/3rds mount. Their size and price are going to be in contention with the market in which micro 4/3rds camera play in. Too big, too expensive, for what.. a couple extra stops? Let's face it... they weren't exactly the most popular in the market (I have yet to see either in the field in use) Some of the fastest high quality lenses from both Canon and Nikon for example are not their stellar sellers when compared to more "practical" cousins.

    Canon Examples: 85mm f/1.2L vs 85mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4 vs 50mm f/1.2, etc...

    Your Leica "NOCT" reference for example. The Summicron and Summilux are far far far more popular than the Noctilux. The size, close focus distance, weight, and long focus throw of the Noctilux makes it impractical for most people. It is relegated to a niche product... something to show case. Interesting enough, the f/2 Summicron 50mm is far more popular than either. Many find it a perfect blend of function, design, and rendering. During my Q&A of a few Noctilux owners online, I was surprised of two things.... Noctilux lenses are bought and sold and resold MANY times. They circulate through owners who lusted for them, then realized that its not practical. Noctilux users almost always have another 50mm available. A more practical 50mm. I don't think these fast lenses sell well... which is part of the reason of their insane high prices.

    The prices you are suggesting (not sure with what research) are fairly high for this market too. We've got people her complaining that micro 4/3rds is not affordable enough and the vast majority of the lenses for this system are under $1000.
  9. marcl

    marcl Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 8, 2012
    Some of these lenses would be interesting if they could be produced. I understand for many m43 is all about the whole system size. But what's wrong with expanding the coverage of the system in terms of size? It's what Olympus started doing with the very modular EM5. And both Panasonic and Olympus have continued going that way: GM1 on the small side and GH3/EM1 on the large side. Same thing with lenses: have you sent the size of the Olympus 40-150/2.8? Yes, I welcome small m43 cameras and pancake lenses. I also welcome large cameras and fast lenses. Then, depending on my purpose, I will choose the right equipment for the job. That's the genius of m43 for me.

    Now, the lens I would like Panasonic or Olympus to make is a 16-50/2.8 constant aperture, or maybe even 2.0. As mentioned by the OP, Sigma has already proven that fast zoom that are not too bulky are feasible. That lens would cover just about 75% of my shots.

    Hear me Panasonic and Olympus? 16-50/f<2.8 for about a $1,000.
  10. Olympus already experimented with this via their 4/3rds cameras that were just as large as their APS and FF competitors. It didn't work out well for them. Their value proposition wasn't enough to convince the market. Right now, size and weight with DSLR quality IS their value proposition in the market.

    Now yes.. it would be interesting. But A bad business decision by Olympus that results in a divestment from other R&D work that is more aligned with their current direction or even worse, going out of business would be far worse outcome.

    "demiro" made a good point. Most wouldn't have switched to micro 4/3rds for these types of lenses.

    PS> Consider medium format and take note of their specs.

  11. barbosas

    barbosas Mu-43 Veteran

    May 7, 2013
    What a comprehensive list you have there :)
    • Like Like x 1
  12. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    I disagree completely. To match full-frame for light-gathering will require equally large lenses and in many cases may not be achievable (constraints on the mount make f/0.7 impossible in practice). Those lenses will be limited to a very low volume market, ensuring higher prices. Moreover even if this is achievable, m4/3 will still not be directly competitive due to lower resolution sensors. This is would be an expensive use of limited R&D money, to achieve gains in a small, highly competitive market. No sale.

    Camera systems, m4/3 included, should be developed with an eye to their strengths. What we should be seeing are more pancake lenses, more compact high-quality zooms, and perhaps if useful C-AF finally becomes available, compact long telephotos. These are all areas that m4/3 can easily lead in, and they are substantially larger niches than the one you suggest above.
    • Like Like x 3
  13. jsusilo

    jsusilo Mu-43 Veteran

    Aug 28, 2012
    +1. I like the recently re-structured Olympus 'PRO' line strategy. After delivering outstanding primes, we needed higher quality f2.8-4 type zooms. The system will also benefit by having more higher quality pancakes ala P14. When 'PRO' tele comes along, tele-converter will not be too far behind I presume. After all that, niche f2.0 or brighter zoom then may be in the cards. Sorry to disappoint but I'm just being logical.
  14. Reflector

    Reflector Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 31, 2013
    ...Since when was I Leica aligned? Perhaps you don't recognize the Nikon 58mm f/1.2 Noct.

    Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 ($800) + Speedbooster ($400)

    Last time I checked the 12-40 is at $1,000 (And while optically excellent, go imagine a 24-70 f/2.0 from a APS-C lens and think about the price that 12-40 is going at.) Olympus could get away with an APS-C sized lens at f/2.0 fixed for right around $1k +/- a hundred.

    It is fully possible at shorter FLs to obtain a f/0.7 lens:
    An unicorn? Perhaps you would like to ride it, since I actually have my lenses from my D200 which are primarily 135 format lenses with an exception to my Sigma 10-20. Funny, last time I checked they didn't weigh as much as medium format gear.

    And yes, I own a sub 1 "m43" lens in my 50mm f/1.2 + Speedbooster combination. I actually do end up using it wide open and the moment I stop it down it becomes the sharpest lens in my collection.

    Funny, that Speedbooster thing actually sells pretty well for people who want to take APS-C optics and compress them into high performance m43 lenses.

    I switched to m43 exactly because of wanting a 35mm f/0.9 lens for very little. Funny how that 50mm f/1.2 was on eBay for $400 for me before the Speedbooster was even available. I do miss autofocus but not when I'm able to have exotic options at a whim for low cost.

    My estimates are made from taking the Speedbooster case ($400) and then taking an existing lens design and putting the telecompression optics in the rear of the lens to integrate it. It would cost less than buying the lens and SB seperately if not be on par with a straight up 135 or APS-C lens. With an integral design on a 135 lens, you could get effectively something very much like the original design but with 2x reduction.

    Ignoring that, I have announced that in the future (Depending on second hand prices) that the D3s is already on my "to obtain" list. It has been since it was released. Funny how nobody notices that I own Nikon F mount glass and STILL OWN F mount glass. I never intended to drop the system so long as the D3s exists, regardless of the D3s' size.

    You can create a f/0.7 lens. You can definitely create a f/0.7 lens with a lot of difficulty at a shorter FL:

    Read: A well integrated design. Beyond f/0.7 you become a collimator and no longer produce an usable image.

    Seriously? How many times have I had to point out that a D2H will produce MASSIVE usable prints while the D200 struggled to go past ISO 800 with less than ideal lighting as the D2H produced usable indoor lit images at ISO 6400? Sensor resolution is merely one component of an image. At this rate I'll direct you to this post:


    Hopefully you aren't going to let me know that you like the concept of a D800E with a 28-300VR as much as some people around here. Except they stick a 18-200VR or 18-300VR instead...

    For some reason people assume I am one of those Sonyite A7R or Ken Rockwellian Dx00 with a 18-200VR type users here. Perhaps if you looked through my posting history you'd notice I am a huge advocate of not caring about the system and not screaming for sensor sizes. Funny how the A7/R fanbase is now proclaiming f/4 superiority when it brings them to the same performance level as... Oh m43, the system they claimed the FF NEX would "annihilate and genocide" as the One True Camera System to act as the Final Gear Acquisition Syndrome Solution. Ah, talking to these people while I take photos on beaches really lets me feel their flavor. Perhaps too well. (For the people who are incapable of comprehending this: Go stare at the A7/R release news comments and how there were people screaming how it would "destroy m43 and every other system." Still don't comprehend it? Go speak to one of them and see how long your sanity lasts until you realize they invoke Godwin's Law with their own attitude except with photographic equipment.)

    I'll leave a few images for the people who think these lenses are "too massive" to fit on m43s

    Funny, I used the latter case to actually take a few shots off with 1/8s exposures at 300mm. Unfortunately the VR makes that 70-300 fairly huge. Curiously it was actually very usable. With the HLD-6 everything feels even more usable...

    Oh and of course, everyone misses my point about moving subjects. How convenient, I'll leave this here with a note that as wide as my 50mm f/1.2 goes on the Speedbooster, ISO still has to go up to not-blur this boat:


    Ignore the horizon, as I made that as a NR comparison for a fellow photographer friend and not a rotation+crop.

    I am far more than familiar with the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8's size. It looks tiny to me given what I use for my lenses. ( https://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=52850 )

    This is exactly why m43s deserves fast, high performance lenses between the 135 and APS-C size range and the existing set of lenses that are being produced right now. I am able to drop my E-M5 into a small bag with a 50mm f/1.2 mounted to a Speedbooster in effectively a smaller package than my D200. Even with the HLD-6 and a spare battery (3 in total. The D200's battery life is pathetic at 200-ish shots per battery) I still can pack the E-M5 with both HLD-6 parts easier than I would with the D200 and go places where the D200 definitely isn't going to go.

    That's what I'm looking for, now ask them for that in f/2.0 form:
    (20-53mm f/2.0. A 24-70 would yield a 17-50mm f/2.0. And that's with a 135 image circle, imagine how much smaller that gets if the lens was designed for an APS-C image circle with a telecompressor element instead.)
    Oh by the way, that Tamron costs $500. New. With a 6 year warranty. Funny how those prices work (Olympus: Bring your prices down and you will sell 12-40s faster than you can make them.)
  15. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Nope it's worse than that:

    " In addition, the Canon 50mm f/1 is discontinued, rare, and expensive, and even if you transformed it to a 35mm f/0.7 you might not be able to find a camera sensor capable of accepting an f/0.7 cone of light (~+/- 45 degrees for the extreme marginal rays)."

    Thanks to that lost light, you're not actually going to have an f/0.7 lens in any meaningful sense.

    I don't know why you keep going back to the D200 vs. the D2h, but it's really not relevant (and both of those cameras were quite noisy at ISO 800, let alone 6400). There is a real-world difference between the kind of prints you can make with a current 16MP m4/3 sensor and a 36MP FF sensor. You may argue that at the print sizes most people use, it's not an issue, but I guarantee you that to most of the people forking out $2.5k for a lens, the argument that they can switch to m4/3 to get a system that is incompatible with their existing gear, perhaps marginally smaller and lighter, costs as much or more, and loses them 35%+ in linear resolution is just not very compelling.

    With the attitude shown above, I can't imagine why anybody wouldn't be convinced by your arguments. Since the topic of this discussion is clearly no longer cameras however, I'll bow out. Good day.
  16. AceAceBaby

    AceAceBaby Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    Jan 21, 2013
    I think it's valid to ask if, when Metabones can make a reducer/light amplifier that works so well, without any integration of design; why not an OEM, making a lens with the same output, for a similar cost or less?

    At least we do have the Metabones adapter(s), so there's that.
  17. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Is it me, or has the OP got an 'attitude' - esp the references to taking blurred shots of pets and kids. Does he/she not see the quality of some of the work here? Arrogant.

    Seems this thread would be more at home on DPR.
  18. RevBob

    RevBob Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Jun 4, 2011
    NorthWestern PA
    I definitely agree, but I think it goes back to economics/market. How many people actually buy lenses that cost more than $1000? I realize that many folks do buy them, but are there enough people to make them economically viable?
    • Like Like x 1
  19. RevBob

    RevBob Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Jun 4, 2011
    NorthWestern PA
    Ease up - the original thread is fine. Using words like "attitude" and "arrogant" start to move us toward DPR type arguments. Let's keep it friendly, even when we disagree. Thanks!
  20. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Ok - point taken. Apologies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.