Mid-grade lenses at mid-grade prices

tkbslc

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
7,524
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Don't the Panny 12-35 and 35-100/2.8 offerings kind of fit this need? Pushes the $600 - $800 range a bit.
Under $500 if you go for the mark 1 versions. And the only drawback is purplish coloring and .5 a stop less stabilization.

Also Panasonic 12-60mm f2.8-4 is relatively cheap since it was a kit lens once.

There are a dozen+ awesome under $500 primes

And really, the "high grade" 4/3 stuff was never that cheap. It's cheap because 4/3 is a dead system and they don't adapt to much. But they were expensive when current.
 

zanydroid

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Messages
123
Location
San Francisco, CA
If you're going through the effort of adapting lenses to gain faster apertures on a m43 sensor, have you ever thought about simply switching to a larger sensor camera and using "slower" lenses that have the same effective speed?

You SB'd 8-14/2.0 is essentially the same as a 16-28/4. The 22/1.0 can be filled with a 50/1.8. As you mentioned regarding the 50-200, they're getting more difficult (if not impossible) to repair.

I'm not trying to push you in to a system switch. It just seems odd that you're going through the effort to make non-native lenses faster to account for the inherent deficiencies of a smaller sensor, when you could use native lenses on a larger sensor camera and get the same IQ, but with less hassle (plus far superior serviceability if any issues were to ever arise).
I definitely agree with this. Sony bodies are pretty good values, especially if you can live with some usability pain (ugly menus / too small / bad battery is arguably less pain than using a SB lens). Cameras like A7rii with critical usability pain that was eliminated in the followup generation are very, very well priced b/c all the pros jumped ship immediately. I almost never use my 18-35 on my M43 bodies after I got a Sony body.

Also, with 3rd party lenses on Sony you can easily exceed M43 price performance for both primes and zooms. Sometimes you can even get one stop higher performance for the same price. And those FF zooms will work better in low light situations than a bag of M43 primes, and the Tamron 17-28 and 28-75 are cheaper/faster than a bag of f/1.8 M43 primes & weigh the same. Though the bokeh quality is a lot harder to work with IMO, which sucks.
 

zanydroid

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Messages
123
Location
San Francisco, CA
As for the original question of segmentation, I think there are clear deficiency in a few lower priced segments in the M43 lineup.

- Canon has revised their EF-S consumer kit zooms and first upgrade zoom 2-3 times in the 2010s with major formula upgrades. 18-135, 55-250, 10-18, ... These are much, much cheaper than the M43 equivalents and have superior optical quality. All of the version II revs in M43 are less impressive. Yeah, weather sealing and better IS / motors are nice, but all they did was drop in a nicer version of component to the existing design, vs starting more from scratch like Canon does.
- No equivalent to XF 55-200 in price point / portability. IMO the 35-100 is not flexible enough on M43 because you need extra optical reach to match the ability to crop in of an APS-C lens.
- PL 50-200 is a pretty questionable value. It costs the same as the EF100-400ii, which is the second best 100-400 ever made. I would love to get one if it was priced appropriate to its performance level.
- No legacy equivalents to things like the EF 300/4, 400/5.6 semi-legacy lenses. The SWD lenses only partly count b/c they only work on 3 Olympus bodies.

Yeah, I realize that Canon and Fuji have more resources and can spread the cost across higher volume, but I still have my 1st amendment right to criticize!!!
 

demiro

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
2,786
Location
northeast US
Under $500 if you go for the mark 1 versions. And the only drawback is purplish coloring and .5 a stop less stabilization.

Also Panasonic 12-60mm f2.8-4 is relatively cheap since it was a kit lens once.

There are a dozen+ awesome under $500 primes

And really, the "high grade" 4/3 stuff was never that cheap. It's cheap because 4/3 is a dead system and they don't adapt to much. But they were expensive when current.
Yeah, I always come back to m4/3s being about smaller bodies and high value primes (for me). I've cut way back on my photography and my gear, but if I wanted to shoot everything today that I was at my peak (8 years ago) I'd most certainly be looking at m4/3s + FF. I realize that is not necessary today, given the PRO m4/3s options, but for me it would be a pretty easy choice.
 

dhazeghi

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
4,381
Location
San Jose, CA
Real Name
Dara
If you're going through the effort of adapting lenses to gain faster apertures on a m43 sensor, have you ever thought about simply switching to a larger sensor camera and using "slower" lenses that have the same effective speed?

You SB'd 8-14/2.0 is essentially the same as a 16-28/4. The 22/1.0 can be filled with a 50/1.8. As you mentioned regarding the 50-200, they're getting more difficult (if not impossible) to repair.
It's a fair question. The main thing is that while I do (did) occasionally use these lenses, 90% or so of my photography is while hiking/traveling, for which the 12-40/2.8 and now the 12-100/4.0 have been pretty much ideal. The full-frame equivalents are larger (where they exist) and for the most part worse.

So I'm largely okay making do with adapted lenses, though native would certainly be better.
 

zanydroid

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Messages
123
Location
San Francisco, CA
It's a fair question. The main thing is that while I do (did) occasionally use these lenses, 90% or so of my photography is while hiking/traveling, for which the 12-40/2.8 and now the 12-100/4.0 have been pretty much ideal. The full-frame equivalents are larger (where they exist) and for the most part worse.
Yup, i just got the 12-100 as well... my justification was that its an incredible value vs the Canon L and Leica premium superzooms, and 1/3 the size. So I profited as soon as i paid my money!
 

dhazeghi

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
4,381
Location
San Jose, CA
Real Name
Dara
Yup, i just got the 12-100 as well... my justification was that its an incredible value vs the Canon L and Leica premium superzooms, and 1/3 the size. So I profited as soon as i paid my money!
It's an interesting thing. Back in the 4/3 days there was the (rather expensive) Panasonic 14-150/3.5-5.6 which was by a pretty fair margin the best superzoom I'd tried at the time. Now there's the Olympus 12-100/4.0. It shouldn't be that much harder to make an excellent superzoom for APS-C, but somehow it doesn't seem to have happened.

(My friend tried the Fuji 18-135 and I don't know if he got a bad sample, but it was extremely disappointing.)
 

ac12

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
1,836
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
It's an interesting thing. Back in the 4/3 days there was the (rather expensive) Panasonic 14-150/3.5-5.6 which was by a pretty fair margin the best superzoom I'd tried at the time. Now there's the Olympus 12-100/4.0. It shouldn't be that much harder to make an excellent superzoom for APS-C, but somehow it doesn't seem to have happened.

(My friend tried the Fuji 18-135 and I don't know if he got a bad sample, but it was extremely disappointing.)
Even today, with all the technology we have, GOOD affordable superzooms are still the exception to the rule.

Look at the FF lenses, the GOOD Pro zooms are STILL at that 1:3 ratio that they have been at for decades (since the 1970s). And this is in a market segment where they WILL pay for good lenses. Nikon appears to have given up on a 1:5 Z 24-120, and cut back to a 1:4 Z 24-105.

The 1:8 Nikon APS-C 18-140 is good, but not Pro GOOD. As much as I like my 18-140, I will use the 1:3 70-200/4 when I want max IQ.

One of the few exceptions is the Olympus 12-100/4.
 

zanydroid

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Messages
123
Location
San Francisco, CA
It's an interesting thing. Back in the 4/3 days there was the (rather expensive) Panasonic 14-150/3.5-5.6 which was by a pretty fair margin the best superzoom I'd tried at the time. Now there's the Olympus 12-100/4.0. It shouldn't be that much harder to make an excellent superzoom for APS-C, but somehow it doesn't seem to have happened.

(My friend tried the Fuji 18-135 and I don't know if he got a bad sample, but it was extremely disappointing.)
These lenses aren't really engineered for pros. They do improve in sharpness each generation, but not necessarily other aspects of rendering like bokeh (probably b/c the 80% of the target audience doesn't know what to look for / care to spend double the $$$ for it).

I was really set on getting the Sony 18-135 for a while; it's really fun to run around with a 320g lens with 7.5:1 range on a system with amazing autofocus. Averaged out, the DOF is about the same as the 12-100 at 620g. However, I didn't care for the transition bokeh, and one of my use cases is shooting pictures of my dogs in scenes where they're in vegetation & other tasteful clutter. Might still get one day b/c a 300g weight savings is real.
 

Latest posts

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
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom