What is holding back fast zooms or primes?

[noelh]

Listen people, it's not about technical limitations - it's all about the market and what Panlympus think they can sell and make money on. Why do you think there are umpteen gazillion 14ish-45ish zooms? Because that's what most people will buy most of the time.

Also, consider this is still a very young system compared to Canikon & co.

Bright zooms are (supposedly) coming very soon, and I would imagine bright telephoto primes would be next after that.

Yes, the bottom line. Margins and total profits. The higher msrp for fast long lens and the special use of at 300mm/f2.8 vs 14-45mm/f3.5-4. Hopefully a lens manufacture will fill the void for "specialty" lens.

 

[Rudi]

Look at the internally zooming "folded" optics in the weatherproof point and shoots as an example. Look at the size difference between the 4/3's lenses and their m43 counterparts. There are many examples of how lenses can be made smaller, still maintaining a high level of optical performance.

... and that is not one of them. The optics in those compacts are average at best. But I agree with you that lenses have gotten bigger in the last two decades - unfortunately most of that are things like AF motors and IS mechanicals, stuff like that. Also, unfortunately fashion trends also play a part - current professional-grade DSLRs are much larger than they have to be, and I think it's just a mindset of: "the bigger they are, the more serious and professional they must be". (Fashion is probably the wrong word to use, but it applies well here - both Nikon and Canon make HUGE cameras because they obviously think that professionals want them. Then you can buy top-range prosumer DSLRs that are all of a sudden a lot smaller. Why? Do professional photographers have huge ape-like hands? I know I don't, and I make a icing at this, so either I'm an exception, or it's a photographic fashion trend).

Pentax has the FA77/1.8 Ltd. and DA70/2.4 Ltd. The 70/2.4 is a pancake lens, and the 77/1.8 is nearly a pancake lens. Both offer very good optics. The 77/1.8 was made for full frame sensor cameras, while the 70/2.4 was made for APS-C sensor cameras. While neither has a built-in or internal AF motor (they rely on the Pentax cameras' motors), my guess is that it should be physically possible to make m4/3 lenses of the same focal length that are about the same size as these two. Food for thought.

Don't forget that a lot of lenses designed for film won't work all that well on digital sensors. Film accepted light from any angle, a CMOS or CCD won't. What's worse, we can view images at 100%, and see the aberrations much better than we could in the old days.

Yes, the bottom line. Margins and total profits. The higher msrp for fast long lens and the special use of at 300mm/f2.8 vs 14-45mm/f3.5-4. Hopefully a lens manufacture will fill the void for "specialty" lens.

Any fast telephotos, whether prime or zoom, will cost a lot of money. Good glass always does. Unfortunately people who are willing to spend the money (and I am in that group) are in the minority. I think the reason we don't have good fast glass just yet is because manufacturers were making sure their investment in :43: was paying off, before starting to spend money on designing something that might not even sell that well 43: had to be well-established before spending money on fast glass became a viable business strategy). Even now, it might be a risk. Depending on how expensive these lenses will be will determine how many will sell. If they don't sell well, they will either disappear from the market, or become even more expensive.

 

[CPWarner]

I am not sure I completely agree with the sentiment that micro 4/3 has little advantage at the tele end. Having owned a Canon EF 500mm f4 and used a Canon EF 600mm f4, the adapted Canon FD 300 f2.8 I currently use on my GH2, that effectively gives me 600mm due to the crop factor, is a huge drop in weight and size in comparison to the 600mm. The 300mm is not small, but I would gladly carry a 300mm f2.8 over a 600mm f4 any day!

That said, I would welcome some fast native telephoto and supertelephoto primes with autofocus and image stabilization. A 75mm f 2.8 and a 150mm f2.8 would be a great start, then a 400mm f4 as one can never have enough reach with wildlife...

Cliff

 

[leendertv]

I'm waiting for a 90mm or 100mm macro lens!

And a 300mm F4 or 400mm F5.6 too! (but I don't expect this)
I think there is a bigger market for this lenses then a 300mm F2.8 or 500mm F4 (or f5.6).
(because these lenses are about half the price!)

 

[Rudi]

I am not sure I completely agree with the sentiment that micro 4/3 has little advantage at the tele end.

I don't think that there is little advantage at the tele end with :43:, I think some people's expectations are probably unrealistic. They bought :43: for the reduction in size and weight, but by the time you get into "supertelephoto" territory (which a 300mm is on :43, you're gonna pay the price in dollars and size/weight, no matter the system. It's just that the size/weight will be less with :43: than a DLSR system (I'm not so sure about the dollars ).

But the size/weight will only be less if we're comparing effective focal length (a misleading term, but you know what I mean)! If we compare an actual 300mm f/4 made for a DSLR, and an actual 300mm f/4 made for :43: (effectively 600mm f/4 when mounted on a :43: camera), they will be very close to each other in size and weight.

 

[Luckypenguin]

I realise that comparison to a full-frame camera makes the numbers look more impressive, but the fairest comparison between m4/3 and DSLRs is to an APS-C sensor. In that case 300mm on a m4/3 camera is equivalent to 400mm on a DSLR, not 600mm. A 600mm lens on my Canon gives me ~960mm field-of-view!

 

[dhazeghi]

It could be smaller... by almost a third. So it would still probably weigh around two thirds of 1.5 kg - so around 1 kg! That would not be a small lens...

That's completely wrong. The Sigma 150/2.8 macro for 4/3 is less than 1kg, and that's an internal focus macro. A regular 150/2.8 would be far smaller, and somewhat lighter.

DH

 

[Rudi]

That's completely wrong. The Sigma 150/2.8 macro for 4/3 is less than 1kg, and that's an internal focus macro. A regular 150/2.8 would be far smaller, and somewhat lighter.

DH

It it not "completely wrong". It was an estimate, not an engineering fact. The Sigma 150mm f/2.8 for DSLR bodies is 1.18 kg in weight. More than my estimate. The lens you mention weighs 920 g, or 0.92 kg! I call that "around 1 kg" (see above :tongue: ).

Does not look "completely wrong" to me. I think I was in the ballpark.

 

[dhazeghi]

It it not "completely wrong". It was an estimate, not an engineering fact. The Sigma 150mm f/2.8 for DSLR bodies is 1.18 kg in weight. More than my estimate. The lens you mention weighs 920 g, or 0.92 kg! I call that "around 1 kg" (see above :tongue: ).

Does not look "completely wrong" to me. I think I was in the ballpark.

Canon 135/2.8 weighs 390g and is 100cm long.

Yes, a non-macro 150/2.8 will be slightly bigger and longer. But it will not be 3x the weight and 50% longer.

DH

 

[Rudi]

Canon 135/2.8 weighs 390g and is 100cm long.

It is also mainly plastic in construction, and of shorter focal length. Totally apples and oranges.

Even if we keep the construction differences aside (and they are major!), it's a little like saying that the Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 should only weigh 33% more than the EF 300mm f/2.8, because its only 33% longer. The 300/2.8 weighs 2.35 kg. The 400/2.8 weighs a lot more than just 33% extra (3.84 kg). 63% extra! And that's with the new materials that lightened up both of the new lenses recently (but the 400/2.8 saw a dramatic decrease in weight, much more than the 300/2.8 did. I can't find the old specs now, so am using the specs for the newest models).

A fairer comparison might be the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro (not the IS model, the lighter non-IS version). Still plastic in construction, but built to last. It weighs in at 580g. Even if we assume that the theoretical 150mm f/2.8 will be only 50% heavier (because it's only 50% longer, which I just said we shouldn't do), it will weigh in at 870g! In theory. It would probably tip the scales at over 900g. Either way, it's still pretty close to my estimate of "around 1 kg". It is also in line with the Canon 180mm f/3.5 which weighs in at 1.09 kg. Slightly longer, slightly heavier, and this is despite it also being slightly slower.

In optics, much like in life, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Unless they invent new materials to make lens elements out of (since they take up the majority of a fast tele lens), lenses are not gonna get any lighter. Or smaller. :smile:

 

[CPWarner]

But the size/weight will only be less if we're comparing effective focal length (a misleading term, but you know what I mean)! If we compare an actual 300mm f/4 made for a DSLR, and an actual 300mm f/4 made for :43: (effectively 600mm f/4 when mounted on a :43: camera), they will be very close to each other in size and weight.

I agree that a 300 f4 is going to be the same size no matter if you hook up a full frame or an APS-C or a m4/3. No debate there. But the effective focal length for what you carry is important, well so my back tells me. That 300 f/4 gives me the equivalent field of view of 480mm on a 1.6x APS-C, and a 600mm on a m4/3. I would much rather carry the 300 f4 and get an equivalent of a 600f4.

 

[CPWarner]

I realise that comparison to a full-frame camera makes the numbers look more impressive, but the fairest comparison between m4/3 and DSLRs is to an APS-C sensor. In that case 300mm on a m4/3 camera is equivalent to 400mm on a DSLR, not 600mm. A 600mm lens on my Canon gives me ~960mm field-of-view!

Ok, I understand your perspective, but APS-C is irrelevant to me as I moved from full frame to m4/3. Regardless, with your comparison of m4/3 to APS-C:

A canon 300mm f2.8 weighs 5.17lbs, is 5" in diameter, an 9.8 inches long. A 400mm f2.8 weighs 8.47lbs, is 6.42" in diameter an 13.5" long. That is a significant difference to me.

 

[Rudi]

I agree that a 300 f4 is going to be the same size no matter if you hook up a full frame or an APS-C or a m4/3. No debate there. But the effective focal length for what you carry is important, well so my back tells me. That 300 f/4 gives me the equivalent field of view of 480mm on a 1.6x APS-C, and a 600mm on a m4/3. I would much rather carry the 300 f4 and get an equivalent of a 600f4.

My back would agree with you on that!

The only problem I see is that a 300mm f/4 is NOT quite equivalent to a 600mm f/4 on full frame. To get the same DOF and overall "look", you'd need a 300mm f/2, and I'm not sure we want to speculate about how much that would weigh. Or cost!

 

[~tc~]

With those long lenses, I would argue that the increased DOF with the same exposure is more of an ADVANTAGE than a liability

 

[Rudi]

With those long lenses, I would argue that the increased DOF with the same exposure is more of an ADVANTAGE than a liability

As with anything in life, that is not always the case. That is why a 600mm f/4 is not truly replicated by a 300mm f/4 on :43:. Yes, it will do the same job most of the time, but not ALL of the time. Which doesn't make it useless, it just doesn't make it a replacement.

 

[dhazeghi]

It is also mainly plastic in construction, and of shorter focal length. Totally apples and oranges.

Even if we keep the construction differences aside (and they are major!), it's a little like saying that the Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 should only weigh 33% more than the EF 300mm f/2.8, because its only 33% longer.

The difference in focal length between 135 and 150mm is 11%. Not 33%.

As to the plastic, all Olympus and Panasonic lenses are plastic.

No apples or oranges. Just solid fact.

A fairer comparison might be the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro (not the IS model, the lighter non-IS version).

It's an IF macro. That contributes dramatically to size and weight.

In optics, much like in life, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Unless they invent new materials to make lens elements out of (since they take up the majority of a fast tele lens), lenses are not gonna get any lighter. Or smaller. :smile:

Of course they're getting smaller and lighter. Mirrorless is simply the latest improvement. Or do you think the decrease from 510g to 200g of the 25/1.4 was just a coincidence?

DH

 

[Rudi]

As to the plastic, all Olympus and Panasonic lenses are plastic.

Not all of them. If you're going to argue this lens by lens, how about the mZuiko 12mm f/2? That's not plastic! Plus... it's not just the external construction that I am talking about, it is the about the quality and materials of all the mechanical workings of a lens. Not just the outside! But I assumed that that was a given.

You can either accept the fact that good glass and lens mechanicals weigh a certain amount or not. If you think that lenses will be magically lighter just because they are made for :43:, then you will be sorely disappointed. I have provided you with several examples of lenses that measure and weigh right around the estimates that I made earlier. What's more, there are lots more lenses that support my argument. Look up the specs if you don't believe me. You, on the other hand, supplied one example of an inferior-construction lens to support your argument. I don't think that one of anything constitutes a statistical trend, but I am not going to argue the point with you any longer. I am going to leave it at that, because I am clearly wasting my time...

 

[meyerweb]

Exactly! The size of the front lens element (and therefore the size of the entire lens) is determined by simple physics. And since you cannot change the laws of physics, nothing can be done to reduce the size of the lens beyond a certain point. A lens' maximum aperture is the ratio between its focal length and the diameter of its front element (the size of the opening through which light enteres the lens). So a 300mm f/2.8 lens needs to have a front element at least 107 mm in diameter or larger, and a 300mm f/4 lens needs at least a 75mm opening at the front to reach f/4 at its max aperture (aperture is just another word for opening after all).

But you're missing half the equation. To get the equivalent of a 300mm 2.8 lens on a DSLR (450mm FF eq), you only need a 225mm 2.8 lens on m43. And a 225mm f/2.8 can be quite a bit smaller than a 300mm 2.8. It's not just aperture, it's the relationship between aperture and focal length. Then add the relatively brilliant way Oly and Panasonic incorporate digital correction, and you can shrink the length of the lens even more. Just compare the 14-140 with an APS-C format 18-200. The difference is pretty substantial.

And just to be precise, it's not the front element that has to be a (in your examples) 107mm or 75mm. It's the aperture as viewed from the front of the lens, and the actual diameter of the lens will vary with the optical formula.

So yes, a fast tele will be bigger than a slow tele. But still quite a bit smaller than an equivalent lens on a DSLR. A 225mm f/2.8 only needs to be 80mm diameter, not 107mm. and a 225mm f/4 only 56mm, not 75.

 

[Rudi]

But you're missing half the equation. To get the equivalent of a 300mm 2.8 lens on a DSLR (450mm FF eq), you only need a 225mm 2.8 lens on m43.

Actually, it's you who's missing half the equation. If you want the closest equivalent of a 300mm f/2.8 on a (Nikon crop) DSLR, you would need a 225 mm f/2 lens on :43:. Which would still have to be at least 113 mm or so in diameter. And that is if you want the lens to only look like a 300/2.8 on FF, which approximates a 450mm f/4 on a crop DSLR. What's worse is if you wanted to achieve the same results as a 450mm f/2.8 FF lens with :43: - you'd then need a 225mm f/1.4 lens! No free lunch!

Lots of sports photographers buy these large supertelephotos for a reason, and it's not just shutter speed - they buy them for the subject isolation that those large apertures provide at long focus distances! So if we're going to start talking about "the equivalent of" a certain lens, let's look at the overall performance, not just a few select features and forget the rest.

So yes, a fast tele will be bigger than a slow tele. But still quite a bit smaller than an equivalent lens on a DSLR. A 225mm f/2.8 only needs to be 80mm diameter, not 107mm. and a 225mm f/4 only 56mm, not 75.

Yes, and a 450mm f/4 lens would only need a 113mm diameter. So your equivalent lens for :43: would be smaller, but not remarkably so. Both lenses still have to be as large as they need to be, i.e. large and reasonably heavy, with all that glass inside them. :smile:

 

[dennisk]

Actually, it's you who's missing half the equation. If you want the true equivalent of a 300mm f/2.8 on a (Nikon crop) DSLR, you would need a 225mm f/2 lens on :43:. No free lunch.

I think you are both correct from what I have learned so far. Please let me if I'm wrong.

To get the same DOF, Rudi is correct. You need a 225/f2 to match the 300/f2.8 but it will be a faster lens.

To get the same fov and lens speed meyerweb is correct. You need a 225/f2.8 because the crop factor only affect the field of view and not the aperture BUT it will have a bigger DOF.