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

Who wants a 12-24mmf2? (POLL)

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by duke, Apr 22, 2012.

  1. duke

    duke Mu-43 Veteran

    420
    Dec 4, 2010
    Tulsa, moving to Houston
    Duke
    I was looking at the 4/3 14-35f2 and that got me thinking about this. I think if such a lens existed it would be on my camera 95% of the time! The benefit of this range is that it gives you the nice wide and is only a 2x zoom so should be more compact. What do you think?
     
  2. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    I agree that would be a nice lens. It wouldn't be my first choice of purchases only because I don't need that focal length very often. It may end up in my stable eventually, but only after lenses like the 35-100mm f/2.8.

    That's all to do with how we shoot though. Between the two schools of "isolate the subject" and "add more scenery", I'm of the former, as anybody will see by looking through my work...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. duke

    duke Mu-43 Veteran

    420
    Dec 4, 2010
    Tulsa, moving to Houston
    Duke
    Yes, I agree that it shouldn't be a priority at the moment since we have nice offerings in the range and need faster telephotos to complete the system. However, I have no need for a 35-100, it's not my style ;)
     
  4. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Well, Panasonic already has a 12-35/2.8 planned. Since I don't need f/2.0 at 12mm and need faster than f/2.0 at 24mm, I think I'd pass.

    The large aperture would also make it hard to keep the size manageable - even with the restricted 2x zoom range, I'd still expect it to be at least 30% bigger than the 12-35/2.8.

    DH
     
  5. duke

    duke Mu-43 Veteran

    420
    Dec 4, 2010
    Tulsa, moving to Houston
    Duke
    This is what I honestly have no idea about. However, judging from the 12 and 20 primes (which are both f2 or under, and both around 100g) it seems possible that the lens wouldn't have to be that large. I said 500g in the poll, which is double the weight of the two primes,do you think it would be more than that?

    EDIT: wow, 500g is a lot when I consider that the 7-14 weighs around 300g. I think it should be doable, just depends on if there is a market or not.
     
  6. ssgreenley

    ssgreenley Mu-43 Top Veteran

    509
    May 12, 2011
    I probably wouldn't buy it because I already have the excellent 12mm and 20mm lenses (and if I didn't, I'd have the 14mm and the 25mm, or the 17mm or 19mm). This is a focal range that's been done to death, with small, excellent lenses. I agree with Ned, however, that the supposed 35-100 will likely be very tempting...
     
  7. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Prime lens designs are drastically simpler than zooms, especially fast ones. The 7-14 is big mainly because it's so wide, but faster lenses increase size too. I don't know exactly what a non-retrofocal 12-24/2 design would look like, but by the standard metrics, a 12-35/2 would be double the size of a 12-35/2.8. You can shave off some of that increase by limiting the range to 24mm, but I still suspect, you're talking about a lens that's at least 90mm long and has a 70mm diameter. Weight depends on barrel materials, but 500-650g seems about right.

    DH
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. zpuskas

    zpuskas Mu-43 Veteran

    459
    Feb 25, 2011
    Santa Barbara, CA
    I already have a Olympus 9-18, so the differences aren't significant enough for me to make a change, though the f2.0 is attractive!
     
  9. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    why the obsession on f2 for a wide to normal zoom?.... the ones in the past have been big and very expensive... even for the 4/3 format.... so nothing has changed that will make that any more viable now

    anyway with IS and better ISO the need for a lens that fast has diminished....

    just my opinion

    K
     
  10. duke

    duke Mu-43 Veteran

    420
    Dec 4, 2010
    Tulsa, moving to Houston
    Duke
    Yeah, I think it was just something that got my imagination going but doesn't really have much point :redface:

    I'll just stick with my primes for now :smile:
     
  11. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    This nonsense theoretical lens would completely dwarf the 14-35mm (which is already larger than the Canon and Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8, despite those lenses on full frame cameras giving better sharpness, better ability for selective focus, and thanks to full frame ISO advantages, better lowlight capability), would cost more like $3,500 at least, and zooming to only 24mm on the long end is completely useless. This lens is neither an extreme wide lens, nor a classic normal lens. It's an awkward focal length (24-48mm, why?), and in a wide-to-normal lens, you wouldn't really benefit from fast apertures like you would on a midrange zoom, or a short telephoto. In fact, most people using this lens would likely be landscape photographers, who are stopped down to f/4-5.6.

    Look at the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8. Now, add a VERY significant 2mm on the short end, and make it 1 stop faster throughout the range. That should give you an idea as to the size.
     
  12. duke

    duke Mu-43 Veteran

    420
    Dec 4, 2010
    Tulsa, moving to Houston
    Duke
    Wow,kind of a critical post :eek:

    I thought 24-50 would be a good compromise for size and quality, and if you really need to get to 70 just take a step or two.
    I don't think you're right about the price or the size. The comparison to the Nikon 14-28 seems completely off to me, why don't you compare 14mm primes so you can get an idea of the size difference between formats :wink:

    Edit: Also, the new Canon is the same price, though it is 100g lighter
    The Zeiss for Sony is heavier but slightly cheaper
    The Nikon is the same weight and slightly cheaper
     
  13. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    That's going a bit far, I'd say. Compare the 7-14/4 for m4/3 and regular 4/3. A 12-24/2 for 4/3 would be at least a bit smaller than the 14-35/2, and losing the mirror would make a big difference redesigning for m4/3.

    The 14-24/2.8 is huge due to 2 reasons - retrofocal design to clear the SLR mirror and coverage of a 24x36 sensor. A m4/3 12-24/2 would be free of both constraints.

    DH
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. dino8031

    dino8031 Mu-43 Regular

    111
    Jan 27, 2012
    Boulder, Colorado
    An f/2 zoom would be both huge and expensive. For me switching from DSLR's to m4/3 is for the sake of portability. Put a monster lens on a small body and what's the point?

    What I'd really like to see are some compact, good quality mid range zooms in f/2.8 or even f/4 without variable apertures.

    An m4/3 equivalent of a Tamrom 17-50 f2/8 would be killer. Sharp, light, fast and cheap.

    The market is already saturated with slow kit zooms. It's time for something more interesting.
     
  15. Corkman

    Corkman New to Mu-43

    2
    Sep 17, 2011
    Cork Ireland
    Ideal for hikers like myself. A 14mm with low light capability would be wonderful
     
  16. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    Too short a range for me. The Lumix 12-35 2.8 will work better for me.