1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Missing lens manual fully corrected f2.8 7mm < 400$

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by JoFT, Sep 19, 2015.

  1. JoFT

    JoFT Mu-43 Veteran

    360
    Nov 11, 2014
    Stuttgart
    Johannes
    I love the Samyang, Rokinon etc f2.8 14 mm on my FF body. Something similar for m43 would be really great
     
  2. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    833
    Sep 30, 2013
    I would love a Samyang 7/2.8 or even 7/4 if it was smaller than the 7-14/4. If it's the same size as the 7-14, I wouldn't see the point of switching.
     
  3. budeny

    budeny Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 4, 2014
    Boulder, CO
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    You are being super unrealistic with the price. I think maybe 9-10mm f2.8 at that price.
     
  5. JoFT

    JoFT Mu-43 Veteran

    360
    Nov 11, 2014
    Stuttgart
    Johannes
    I paid for my 14mm f2.8 309.- €. This price is real. To claim the same amount of money for a quarter of the amount of glass should be fair, or?
     
  6. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    Yes but you stated you wanted 7mm (which would give you 14mm in full frame equivalent) ƒ2.8, which is going to cost a whole lot more to produce (especially fully corrected for rectangular perspective). They already produce a 7.5mm ƒ3.5 (it is a fisheye) that is actually a really great little lens.
     
  7. JoFT

    JoFT Mu-43 Veteran

    360
    Nov 11, 2014
    Stuttgart
    Johannes
    I know both lenses. The Fisheye I recommend a young Swiss videographer (Illiano.ch) and the 14 mm f2.8 I own... The lens costs (not price!) is depending on the amount of glass and the amount of surface to be machined - and a bit the complexity of the surfaces, too. But generally spoken: as smaller the lens is as cheaper becomes the machining part...
     
  8. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    There is nothing cheap about making a 7mm rectangular lens in any format. If it was cheap they would already exist. Making something smaller is generally not cheaper. The materials may be cheaper because you need less but the machining cost is exponentially increased because your tolerances are smaller. The 7.5mm fisheye is cheap because they are having to introduce lens elements to correct the distortion. Which means a rectangular lens will require a bit more glass then a fisheye.
     
  9. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    833
    Sep 30, 2013
    By this logic, the Samyang M43rds 7.5/3.5 should be more expensive than the Samyang APS-C and Fullframe fisheye lenses. It's not, it's about the same or less. The Same logic would dictate that the 10/2.8 would be significantly more expensive than the 14/2.8, the 10/2.8 is a bit more expensive (msrp of $500 vs $400 for the 14) but it's not a big difference. I wouldn't expect a 7mm rectilinear lens from Samyang to cost more than $500 (unless it's very fast like 1.4-2). From Olympus or Panasonic? $1000 probably if 2.8, less if 4.0.

    The Samyang 10/2.8 is at least as complex a design as a M43rds 7/2.8 would need to be, considering that it roughly matches the angle of view but provides a larger physical aperture size, more like a 7/2.0 in M43rds terms.

    Additionally, a 7mm lens with a shorter flange distance of 20mm vs 45mm for a DSLR lens should make the design easier to pull of (or at minimum keep the size/weight to reasonable levels). The image circle is 4 times smaller as well, so again the requirements should be more forgiving. To get a lens as wide as the 14mm on a DSLR covering a FF sensor, it requires an extreme retrofocal design. Same for the 10/2.8.

    I agree that a rectilinear 7mm lens will be more complex than the 7.5/3.5, but that lens costs about $250.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2015
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  10. SojiOkita

    SojiOkita Mu-43 Top Veteran

    614
    Feb 23, 2014
    France
    It should be approximately the same complexity to make a 14 mm focal length 24x36 lens (I hate to say "full frame", micro fourd thirds is also full frame) and to make a 7 mm focal length micro four thirds lens.

    The complex thing is the wide angle of view for a rectilinear lens, not the small focal length.
    Otherwise the iphone lens would be mega expensive (it's a 4.1 mm f/2.2).

    The 24x36 Samyang 14 mm f/2.8 is not a fisheye, it's a rectlinear lens. And it costs approximately 400$.

    The also make a 10 mm for APS-C (which is equivalent to 7.5-8 mm in micro four thirds), but there is no such wide angle lens for micro four thirds.
    (Samyang only adapted the 10 mm lens mount but that's not the same at all...)
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  11. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    So given that the flange focal distance on M4/3 is roughly half that of a standard FF DSLR (19.25mm vs 42-44mm), and the image circle is half the size...

    Shouldn't it be possible to literally do a 1/2 downscale replica of a FF lens and have it be the functional equivalent on M4/3? I've never gotten a convincing explanation as to why this wouldn't work.

    I do recognize that the greater pixel density of M4/3 cameras would result in worse performance out of my half-scale FF lens, so maybe that's the primary reason why Panasonic and Olympus don't use this strategy. Nearly every one of their "equivalent" lenses is more complex than their FF competition, with more elements and more special glass, and much better MTF curves (by necessity). Hence the increase in price.

    I would still expect such a 7/2.8 lens to sell for at least $500-600 dollars, though. A smaller market means higher margins. The price of the optical glass is insignificant in the grand scheme of things (so having less of it wouldn't cost much less), and most lenses are primarily moulded and not machined, so the cost is all in overhead.
     
    • Like Like x 1