1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Native lens wishes...

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by MAubrey, Jan 24, 2013.

  1. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    Here's random musing. I really liked FOV of using 58mm lenses for film. I wouldn't mind seeing Olympus make a 29mm f/1.4. I'd probably drop my PL25 in a heartbeat if they did, though such a longer normal isn't commonly see for modern lenses.

    Or maybe Sigma will make a fast version of its 30mm f/2.8 for μ43 and NEX...that's be a decent alternative, too.
  2. Bravin Neff

    Bravin Neff Mu-43 Veteran

    Sep 25, 2011
    Bravin Neff
    I can't say on share your feelings. In my world, 50-80mm (equivalent) is "no man's land." I can't get along with those focal lengths.
  3. Thinh Ly

    Thinh Ly Mu-43 Regular

    Sep 26, 2012
    Washington D.C.
    I'd love to see a fast 56mm equivalent, but 58mm would work too.
  4. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    Bravin, yeah I know that many people feel that way. Personally, I'm not a particular fan of short telephoto 80-90mm equiv. lenses.
  5. arentol

    arentol Mu-43 Veteran

    Jun 29, 2012
    58mm is not a normal lens, and people calling a 55mm or 58mm lens normal is exactly the reason I have to keep posting this information:

    On 135 (commonly referred to as 35mm) format a 43mm lens is true normal (Normal is defined as the diagonal measurement of the film or sensor). A 50 mm lens on 135 has a 14% more narrow Angle of View (AOV) than a 43mm lens. A 58mm lens has a 30% more narrow AOV. No format, other than 135, calls lenses normal if they are more than 7% from true normal, and most only call lenses that are within 4% normal. 50mm is twice the 7% acceptable variation, and 58mm is more than 4 times that amount. I am sorry, but 50mm is not a normal lens, and 58mm is really really really not normal.

    50mm ended up being "Normal" on 135 only because 50mm lenses are easier to design and cheaper to build. So camera makers started calling 50mm "Normal" because people wanted "normal" lenses and 50mm lenses were "close enough" while being cheaper to make with very good optics. This has been going on for so long now that 50mm is considered by almost everyone to actually be Normal, and as a result lenses close to 50mm are also considered "Normal". Thus a 58mm lens, which is so far from actual normal that there is absolutely no way that anyone could ever even vaguely justify it (unlike 50mm), is called "normal" by those who don't know better.

    50mm lenses never should have been called normal to start with. They should have been called something like "standard" instead, and that is what we should all start calling them now. I don't expect to stop this practice of calling them normal by myself, or really at all, but you never know. A lot of misunderstanding about photography issues has been corrected via the internet over the last few years, and just maybe this can be corrected too some day, if we all correct people when we see them make this mistake.... Especially when it is a 55 or 58mm "normal" mistake.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    Yes, arentol. All of that's true. Feel free to go and reread my entire OP and simply replace "normal" with "standard." As far as I can tell, the language has already changed and there's nothing to do about it. Just like how English has lost its Germanic case system and we no longer have Old English's free(-er) word order.

    As for me, I'm not going to correct the "mistake." It's natural language change.
    • Like Like x 3
  7. Cederic

    Cederic Mu-43 Veteran

    Nov 14, 2012
    I still hold out hopes of a 14mm (28 equiv) pancake OIS f1.4

    It'd suit my street needs perfectly, and also be good for videoing people dancing.
    • Like Like x 3
  8. Blotzphoto

    Blotzphoto Mu-43 Regular

    May 25, 2012
    Lou Doench
    I would love to have a fast telephoto, like a 300/2.8 for wildlife or zoo photography
    • Like Like x 6
  9. rklepper

    rklepper Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Dec 19, 2012
    Iowa, USA

  10. Fmrvette

    Fmrvette This Space For Rent

    May 26, 2012
    Detroit, Michigan
    Me three. I could (would) settle for a fast 200mm.

    My 45-200mm is nice for the price but leaves something to be desired at the long end...


    • Like Like x 1
  11. speedandstyle

    speedandstyle Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I also want to see more telephoto lenses! Even a slow one is better than none! I could get by with an f4 as anything long and f2.8 would be super pricey.

    I hate the grammar nazis! :mad: 
    To me "normal" is a range of focal lengths that are near to what the human eye sees. No two people see exactly the same so I don't see how you can force a single focal length as being the only one. To me the normal range is 40mm-58mm in the old 35mm film days or 20mm-29mm for m4/3. It may not be the mathematical truth but it is a very long accepted photography concept.

    I love my adapted 28mm on m4/3 and the Sigma 30mm is almost identical in angle of view. I do wish they were faster as both are f2.8 but 95% of the time that is fast enough. There is a rumor that Sigma is going to redo the 19mm and 30mm but not sure if that means making them faster or not.
  12. Salt Peanuts

    Salt Peanuts Mu-43 Regular

    May 26, 2012
    What I want is 17mm f/1.4 and a m43 version of Nikon 105DC or 135DC.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. kevwilfoto

    kevwilfoto Mu-43 Veteran

    Sep 23, 2011
    I would love to have a tilt/shift lens. I had a Canon 24 TSE once and loved it immensely. I wanted other lengths, too, as 24 can be too wide sometimes. I think a 20mm native T/S lens would be about right for me. A 40mm or 45mm to go along with it would be nice, too.

    I challenge Olympus to make it, and keep the $499 price they seem to be favoring lately (60 macro, 17/1.8).
    • Like Like x 1
  14. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    9mm TSE
    150mm f2
    300mm f4

    That'd do me just nicely, thanks very much.

    • Like Like x 1
  15. spatulaboy

    spatulaboy I'm not really here Subscribing Member

    Jul 13, 2011
    North Carolina
    I want a 50mm f1.4 please. That would complete my 25/1.4, 50/1.4, and 75/1.8 kit.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. ssgreenley

    ssgreenley Mu-43 Top Veteran

    May 12, 2011
    Schneider announced a 30mm f/1.4. It'll be expensive, but probably awesome! I'm looking forward to that; otherwise I don't think we need much.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. phigmov

    phigmov Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Apr 4, 2010
    A fast, affordable 25mm in f1.4 or 1.8 - if Oly made one of these in the same style as the 45mm they'd be on to a winner. The Pana-Leica and Voightlander are too darn expensive.

    Thats about it. I'm easy to please :) 
    • Like Like x 1
  18. arentol

    arentol Mu-43 Veteran

    Jun 29, 2012
    A 300 f/2.8 would have to have a front element over 100mm wide. If we ever see a lens that size it will be a very long time from now or come from a third party, because olympus and Panasonic are both focussed on keeping lenses smallish. A 300 f/4 on the other hand would be quite doable with a 75mm front element.

    The longest f/2.8 we are likely to see anytime soon is a 200mm. But keep in mind the fastest 400mm lens from Canon is an f/2.8. So a 200 f/2.8 would have the same reach and same light gathering ability. Same with a 300 f/4, because Canon's fastest 600mm is an f/4 as well.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Fmrvette

    Fmrvette This Space For Rent

    May 26, 2012
    Detroit, Michigan
    I could force myself to live with that onerous limitation...



  20. Dalton

    Dalton Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 24, 2010
    Portland, Oregon USA
    Dan Ferrall

    Do you think that perhaps the angst over this is a bit much? I too fight battles which will never be "won." I can't seem to keep myself from getting into a fray about my own silly notions about this or that. You may well be spot on about this but, in the grand scheme of things, who cares?
    I'll give up one of mine if you will try and let down a little on this one.
    • Like Like x 1
  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.