Which brand has the best lens line-up?

GFFPhoto

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
1,793
Fuji definitely has a really nice system, but that article seems to be more about Sonys lack of focus (I agree %100) and his hopes that Fuji doesn't follow suit than being about Fuji's lens line up. I don't think he meant that as an insult to m43.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
That may be the case, but it was these comments that appeared to imply that the Fuji lens line-up was the best:

All things considered, is there a more desirable lens line on the planet right now than Fuji XF?

...Fuji has created a coherent, consistent line of all-new lenses that essentially have it all ...
 

dhazeghi

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
4,420
Location
San Jose, CA
Real Name
Dara
Are you asking which brand or which system? Brand-wise, I'd say it's pretty clear-cut. System-wise is harder.

To me the most impressive thing about Fuji is that they've managed to create a system that's nearly as complete as Olympus + Panasonic m4/3, but in 2 fewer years.

As to which is 'best', I don't think it's really clear-cut. Fuji generally maintains a 1-stop DoF advantage across their lineup and they've got the 2 best ultra-wide lenses on the mirrorless market (the 10-24/4 and the 14/2.8). But m4/3 has more choices for very compact lenses, and does a much better job if you need long reach (especially on the E-M1 with 4/3 lenses).
 

usayit

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
2,964
Location
Some call it the arm pit of NYC.
Is it just me or the article on the TOP really light on content?

This is the jist....

In just a few years, Fuji has created a coherent, consistent line of all-new lenses that essentially have it all when you consider all the factors that impinge on desirability—size, weight, performance, handling, specs, and consumer cost. Expensive but attainable, fast but not too big, sensational image quality—nothing clearly beats it for general non-specialist photography even now, and users have faith that the vaporware on the lens roadmap will show up when Fuji says it will. The company's track record has been excellent. All that is priceless.

and the same can be said for pretty much many of the mirrorless systems. What about size, weight, performance, handling, specs, and cost that made the author come to the conclusion? If its so good that it "nothing clearly beats it" then why not dedicate two blurbs on specifics?

Then something that's greek..... drivel... an attempt at creative writing?

Then repeats

Fundamental strength: a coherent, comprehensive lens line that consumers feel safe investing in and are confident will continue.

Again.. why? No specifics?

Then mentions

Micro 4/3 has a delightful motley of all kinds of lenses from a variety of makers—anyone who cannot window-shop an appealing Micro 4/3 lens arsenal isn't trying very hard.

Again... Why should micro 4/3rds even be mentioned within the context of such a clear leader in lenses for mirrorless?



I read TOP once in a while, but this article would leave me wondering... I've seen more content out of Ken Rockwell.



Clearly Fuji has stepped up the competition and it is a very good option. I have no doubt that a photographer would be totally happy with Fujifilm. But to name one system as the *best* at any one thing, someones gotta back up their opinion and claim... not just expect people to take their word on it.
 

agentlossing

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
4,915
Location
Oregon USA
Real Name
Andrew Lossing
Sounds to me like they're positioning "coherent, consistent" as meaning that there aren't multiple options to cover the same thing, which I would argue is a STRENGTH of M4/3, not a weakness. I like our "delightful motley" however feel that phrase has a bit of a condescending connotation to it.

Don't really see how you can condescend to the likes of the Pana/Leica 25mm, the Olympus 12mm, the Voigtlanders, the Pana/Leica 42mm... Okay, I'll stop.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
I did mean 'system', as I consider all m4/3 manufacturers under the same umbrella, considering that they are all more or less compatible.

Maybe Mike is a pseudonym for Ken? Or vice versa.:biggrin:
 

usayit

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
2,964
Location
Some call it the arm pit of NYC.
To me the most impressive thing about Fuji is that they've managed to create a system that's nearly as complete as Olympus + Panasonic m4/3, but in 2 fewer years.

IMO, it is impressive. Olympus and Panasonic from what I observed came in too conservatively for their new system. For a while we were looking at the 17 f/2.8, 20mm f/1.7 and a bunch of kit lenses as primary choices. Then the 14mm f/2.5 which in all honestly came in at way too high of an initial price. It took a few body iterations before more premium lenses started to appear: 45mm macro, 25mm f/1.4, etc.. Its only recently did olympus start delivering the 12mm f/2, 25mm f/1.8, and 45mm f/1.8. etc... They also started from the bottom up in terms of body. They introduced a slew of bodies targeted at the retro interested consumer market... which just recently lead to a pro-ish body (EM5) and pro body (EM1).

If you look at the original announcement of the Fuji Xpro1 back in 2012, they immediately released 18mm f/2, 35mm f/1.4, and the 60mm f/2.4. The body itself was immediately targeting the higher end market with really well priced lenses. They later released lower tier bodies at lower prices.

Looks like the start at the top tier work your way down has worked more effectively than Olympus and Panasonic's more conservative approach. BUT Fujifilm wasn't testing the waters either.... Olympus and Panasonic have already shown that a mirrorless has viability in certain markets by the time Fujifilm got involved. So I guess they were more confident.
 

usayit

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
2,964
Location
Some call it the arm pit of NYC.
I did mean 'system', as I consider all m4/3 manufacturers under the same umbrella, considering that they are all more or less compatible.

Sure... I can go with that.

So there is a case to be made that too many options can cause the customer to hesitate on the buy in. Maybe a different marketing message coordinated by Olympus and panasonic would clarify. Oh wait... did I just say marketing in the context of Olympus/Panasonic? oy vey...
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
Looks like the start at the top tier work your way down has worked more effectively than Olympus and Panasonic's more conservative approach. BUT Fujifilm wasn't testing the waters either.... Olympus and Panasonic have already shown that a mirrorless has viability in certain markets by the time Fujifilm got involved. So I guess they were more confident.

I think that is probably a very important point. All the other manufacturers were clearly waiting in the sidelines to see how the mirrorless market would unfold with Olympus/Panasonic. Obviously they weren't sitting on their hands doing nothing, but they allowed Olympus/Panasonic to take the biggest risks initially.

The first movers don't always become market leaders, but the constant innovation by Olympus/Panasonic has not slowed up and I believe that they are still the leaders in the mirrorless market.
 

agentlossing

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
4,915
Location
Oregon USA
Real Name
Andrew Lossing
I would even hard the opinion that Fuji played off of the existing mirrorless lineup, headed by m4/3, when they released their own cameras with a more premium spin. They hit the less saturated end of the market with a bang, but I can't help feeling they were dependent on the other systems in a way.
Sent from my RM-940_nam_att_200 using Tapatalk
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
If Olympus/Panasonic hadn't started the ball rolling with the mirrorless system, I wonder whether anyone else would have taken the risk, or even though of it as a concept? I gather from some reports from Olympus, that m4/3s (though not under that name) was always on their long-term radar, but that the 4/3s system was an unavoidable starting point at the time of introduction. What makes me loyal to Olympus is that they did not abandon the 4/3s supporters and eventually provided a camera that could effectively use 4/3 lenses. I'm hoping that Olympus continues with that support in future bodies, as lenses are forever (to a large extent), but bodies come and go. Afterall, you can still buy any of the 4/3 lenses, so the that system isn't dead, and has a very useful and purposeful life for many.
 

alex66

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
1,556
I thought the main gist of the article was that Fuji did it the right way and Sony were all over the place. As good and desirable Sony's offerings in the body dept are there is a lack of coherence in their lenses, I don't know as I saw all the options I would want from Sony but then Mike did own a Nex6 I think so may have felt let down. Fuji has created a good lens line up and by some means created a good aura around it. I thought his comment about µ43 was that there is a great choice from a range of makers and it would be hard not to find what you want but our cameras were not really part of the article. I must admit I find Fuji a tempting proposition and have had some great Fuji glass in the past especially the STX 55 1.6 and the lens on the GS645s both were fantastic, I wish I could have adapted the former for µ43, it was one of the best 35mm lenses I have had.
 

speedandstyle

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
2,477
Location
Roswell NM yes that Roswell!
I think Fuji has a better thought out line of lenses than either Panasonic or Olympus. They have good coverage of the focal length range in both primes and zooms. They are also designed with a single style where as neither Panasonic or Olympus can decide how to style their lenses. However I do think there is a much better selection with m4/3 because there are two companies involved. Oh wait there are also 3rd party lenses and m4/3 has an advantage there too. I also think m4/3 has a big advantage in pricing. Only a couple of the Fuji lenses are entry level priced but m4/3 has multiple entry level lenses.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
The article was about Sony vs Fuji and how each have approached their system development, but it was the statement about Fuji having the most:

...desirable lens line on the planet...

and creating (the most?):

...coherent, consistent line of all-new lenses that essentially have it all ...

made me wonder what Mike had been smoking. Maybe he'd been hyped up by the fumes of new concrete laid in his street, or simply been dry on blog ideas, but it sure comes across as a Fuji fetish.
 

laser8

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
403
Location
Mare nostrum, Istria
I would not be too hard on TOP for this one. Looks like the main argument was Sony's lenses mess, and Fuji's good approach. It is quite arguable that the lens line-up is not up to what m43 offers, but hey, it's his opinion, not a law carved in stone.

I agree the lenses look sweet (and have comparable equals, if not more of them, in m43 line-up), but what about the bodies? If you compare the x-e2 with the gx7 (like I did yesterday, had some spare time :biggrin:) except for the things both do well, the gx7 has at least some edge in:
- peaking
- touch screen (focus point choice, additional menus...)
- video
- flash work
- swivel lcd/evf (very useful, I can testify!)

And, the DOF issue is nullified by the stop of difference in lots of instances by the higher SS.

And last but not least, I'd not trade a PASMC dial for the SS one, from a practical point of view.

I think a similar comparison can be made for almost all other bodies, and a system is not only lenses. The article on TOP would have been perfectly ok, if it said best lens line-up for mirrorless cameras that should appeal to retro/nostalgic photographers.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
I just had another look at TOP and noticed this quote in the featured comments:

The new Sony FE Mount is something altogether different. As far as I am aware there is not another camera manafacturer that has done anything similar in producing a body that can use pretty much almost any lens in existence."

WTF?
 

lightmonkey

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
479
olympus has GEMS in the 25/1.8 and 45/1.8. everytime its in my hand i just marvel at how small they are.
 

janneman

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
433
Location
Netherlands
Real Name
Jan (John) Kusters
I agree on the article mostly being about the right way to do things (like Fuji, steadily building a coherent lens line up) and the wrong way to do things (Sony with several more or less compatible mounts and all over the place). The article is not so much about all other brands.
When it comes to that, it gets very personal (what do I need, what do you need), and there are more brands that are not exactly wonderful in their line up. I left Nikon because of their lack of small affordable DX primes (they had a 35mm that was a nice standard on their DX, but nothing wider and the new generation FF lenses were expensive and big.
It took Olympus and Panasonic some time before they realised mirrorless was not just an alternative for compacts, and their lenses and camera's showed that. But once they got the message, they managed to build a very respectable system quite fast, and as far as I can see it is getting pretty complete now. Small, middle and big bodies with and without evf's, a wide range of lenses, most things are here already. Just a few more faster zooms and long primes and the basic system is complete (and they are on the way). Perhaps a tilt&shift or two, a longer macro lens and a below system, perhaps a prime with build in central shutter, and a bit more on the flash system (I would still go Metz if I needed serious flash), but we are getting into specialist territory with that kind of stuff.
 

usayit

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
2,964
Location
Some call it the arm pit of NYC.
Forgetting Sony has provided quite a bit of backwards compatibility?

Forgetting Sony has provided a backward compatibility to a whole battery of lenses dating back to the Minolta A-mount? This includes backward compatibility with the crop E-mount lenses for the former NEX system.

Forgetting that its easy to build consistency across a system that is barely 2 years old? Try maintaining that through the legacy of time.


Yeh.. the more I read that article and think about the more I think WTF is he talking about? Sony has its faults (proprietary format fights, incoherent messaging, etc) but to say one system is the best simply because of the faults of its competitor is pretty.. well.. far fetched.

PS> My father's camera, Minolta Maxxum 7000, with its kit zoom and beer can telephoto zoom can be still used with Sony's alphas... that's going back to 1982-ish.
 
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
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom