Which brand has the best lens line-up?

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by OzRay, Jun 30, 2014.

  1. GFFPhoto

    GFFPhoto Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 24, 2013
    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.
     
  2. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    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:

     
  3. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    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).
     
  4. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Is it just me or the article on the TOP really light on content?

    This is the jist....

    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

    Again.. why? No specifics?

    Then mentions

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. agentlossing

    agentlossing Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jun 26, 2013
    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.
     
  6. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    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:
     
  7. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    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.
     
  8. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    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...
     
  9. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    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.
     
  10. agentlossing

    agentlossing Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jun 26, 2013
    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
     
  11. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    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.
     
  12. alex66

    alex66 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    715
    Jul 23, 2010
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. speedandstyle

    speedandstyle Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    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.
     
  14. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    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:

    and creating (the most?):

    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.
     
  15. laser8

    laser8 Mu-43 Veteran

    403
    Jan 29, 2013
    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.
     
  16. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    I just had another look at TOP and noticed this quote in the featured comments:

    WTF?
     
  17. lightmonkey

    lightmonkey Mu-43 Veteran

    480
    Dec 22, 2013
    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.
     
  18. janneman

    janneman Mu-43 Veteran

    414
    Dec 6, 2012
    Netherlands
    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.
     
  19. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    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.