Why don't they think outside the box?

[Whtrbt7]

I think the reason why M43 manufacturers don't create mid aperture zooms is due to the fact that the price difference between the F/2.8 zooms and variable aperture zooms is not that great. You end up creating a product that cannibalizes from both the F/2.8 zoom buyers and the variable aperture buyers. So now you have 3 lines of product that sells only slightly more lenses at a lower profit margin. While it would be great for Olympus to have created a F/1.8 PRO zoom, it would have compromised too much on price, image quality, and market. It's just not a smart play for them. The only exception would be if they produced such a zoom at a much lower price in order to sell more cameras and get people from the point and shoot market as well as the DSLR market. Basically turn into a no-compromise system that performs better and costs less than DSLRs and point and shoots.

 

[T N Args]

All we're asking for is a longer zoom than the 12-40 or 12-35, that trades a little speed but not quality. Not a 'mid-range' quality product. Not a 'half way' lens or range between 14-42 f/5.6 and 12-40 f/2.8. Basically a longer edition of the 12-35-pro-type optic.

Such a lens could be a true all-in-one general-purpose travel zoom for the luxury lens brigade, who don't feel that the optical compromises inherent in a 10x zoom, even a good one, are for them. Say a 12-65 or 12-70, a bit slower than f/2.8 but not 5.6.

Canon have the popular 24-105 f/4 L, Nikon their 24-120 f/4, Olympus Four Thirds the 12-60 f/2.8-4.... that sort of thing.

 

[Turbofrog]

I'd be very interested to see some of your f2.8 results from that unique lens ... got a link??

Here's another example of what I mean:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I'm sure the f2.8 M4/3 zooms could do this at 12mm as well, but I scored my 11-22mm for $200. Despite it's slow AF and enormous size, it is a special lens. It does make me covet the newer lenses like the 12-35 or 12-40 that undoubtedly perform even better...

 

[Turbofrog]

All we're asking for is a longer zoom than the 12-40 or 12-35, that trades a little speed but not quality. Not a 'mid-range' quality product. Not a 'half way' lens or range between 14-42 f/5.6 and 12-40 f/2.8. Basically a longer edition of the 12-35-pro-type optic.

Such a lens could be a true all-in-one general-purpose travel zoom for the luxury lens brigade, who don't feel that the optical compromises inherent in a 10x zoom, even a good one, are for them. Say a 12-65 or 12-70, a bit slower than f/2.8 but not 5.6.

Canon have the popular 24-105 f/4 L, Nikon their 24-120 f/4, Olympus Four Thirds the 12-60 f/2.8-4.... that sort of thing.

That's a fair point. I imagine it would have to sell for about the same price as the f2.8 lenses, but is a complementary offering rather than a replacement, as you say. Something like a 12-70 f2.8-f4.5 would be pretty unique and special.

 

[SkiHound]

I do not want to hijack the thread but I always thought that the 40-50mm length was called normal because (on 35mm film) gives you a FoV close to the human vision. I suspect there are two different "normal" reference numbers, optical and human vision, that for 35mm by chance are close. Does it make sense?
Or maybe the lenses/sensor/flange distance/etc. are designed so that a focal length equal to the diagonal will always approximately match the human FoV for any sensor size?

Years ago I recall some kind of "white paper" from Kodak. They were basically saying that the 50mm focal length (135 format equivalence) was approximately what you'd see clearly (not thinking about what's in your peripheral vision) if you're just relaxed with one eye open, 35 was approximately the field of view with both eyes open (again, not including peripheral vision), and 90 about the field of view if we're really trying to concentrate on a specific point. As to the original point, companies can't meet the idiosyncratic needs of every photographer. It's always a compromise and we are a fickle bunch. The lens is too large, too heavy, too expensive, too slow, doesn't have the right build quality, etc. While I think there are still a couple of gaps (e.g., no native tilt/shift, no native AF wide prime, and until the 300 hits the street no fast long telephoto option) the system is pretty comprehensive. That doesn't mean I couldn't "design" some lenses that would meet my idiosyncratic wants.

 

[agentlossing]

I think some of the standards the format has adopted are idiosyncrasies of past systems. I'd be happier if they did nothing different except to release a faster kit zoom like Fuji did and was lauded for. It would get me interested in a zoom again.

They can stick with all of the tired focal lengths then. To be fair, some lenses, like the 20mm, are a bit less common but created in such a way as to be quite advantageous to the strengths of the system.

 

[DeeJayK]

To be fair, some lenses, like the 20mm, are a bit less common but created in such a way as to be quite advantageous to the strengths of the system.

The P20 seems like a good example. That was an early lens for the system and seemed to be a case where the lens was designed with an eye toward the specific strengths of the system and not with any "legacy" focal length equivalency in mind. (I realize there are legacy 40mm lenses, but it was certainly never as popular a focal length as e.g. 35mm or 50mm.)

Since then, and particularly recently, it seems that focal lengths are chosen specifically to match the established "standards". The best (worst?) example of this are the recent 42.5mm lenses. I realize that these work out to a 85mm "equivalent" which is one of those "holy" focal lengths, but it seems to me that hewing so closely to tradition really draws attention to the crop aspect of the 4/3 sensor. It's almost like the system has an inferiority complex. Why not just make it (or even just market it as) a 40mm or 45mm?

 

[fransglans]

I want more miraculous pancakes like the p20. a 27mm 1.7 pancake would've been nice

 

[Turbofrog]

The P20 seems like a good example. That was an early lens for the system and seemed to be a case where the lens was designed with an eye toward the specific strengths of the system and not with any "legacy" focal length equivalency in mind. (I realize there are legacy 40mm lenses, but it was certainly never as popular a focal length as e.g. 35mm or 50mm.)

Since then, and particularly recently, it seems that focal lengths are chosen specifically to match the established "standards". The best (worst?) example of this are the recent 42.5mm lenses. I realize that these work out to a 85mm "equivalent" which is one of those "holy" focal lengths, but it seems to me that hewing so closely to tradition really draws attention to the crop aspect of the 4/3 sensor. It's almost like the system has an inferiority complex. Why not just make it (or even just market it as) a 40mm or 45mm?

I guess because M4/3 already has those lenses. They can sell just as easily to the people who don't care and want to take advantage of everything the system can offer, but now they can also sell to the people who nee-e-e-ed their portrait lens to be 85mm equivalent.

I'm sure they're only selling what sells...

 

[johnvanatta]

I agree that fractional focal lengths are more than a little silly. And really unwieldy to talk about too. AND not even very accurate since focal lengths are usually +/- 10% anyway.

Therefore prime sets are really more about interval spacing than hitting specific targets. And though there are a few omissions at the ends (9mm, 150mm) and one I'd like to see in the middle (35mm) there are options at a decent interval just about everywhere.

 

[piggsy]

ed- whoops wasn't meant as a specific reply

Couple things - just because this seems to have taken a weird turn and I'm not sure if we really need some sophisticated explanation beyond "customers like to maximise the value they get, and companies don't like losing money"

I wonder how viable "odd" focal lengths actually are commercially - even if you are trying to hit the same point equivalent on 1.5 or 2x crop. Just from looking into old Vivitar MF lenses - you see them branching out into all sorts of weird stuff - weird f-stops, weird zoom ranges, weird mixes of capabilities (28-90 zoom! 90-180 1:2 flat field macro! 135mm close-focus not flat field macro! 2.5 not enough? how about 2.3!) apparently part of it was just trying to stand out and differentiate. I don't believe this really worked for them that well. At a certain point when you are asking people to fork out a lot of money for a lens (and they were!) there is maybe a bit of pucker factor involved in the purchase, and counting on what seems to me like a fairly notoriously conservative (and, well, just plain stodgy ) market buying things where they don't know exactly what they will get out of it is maybe a bit of a loser.

Second thing - what do we see happening that we can't attribute to just plain market research, rather than some platform inferiority complex or chip on an engineer's shoulder? Isn't it much more likely just feedback from their market research? Like - my personal view of what happens is they get a bunch of photographers of various degrees of skill and fame and ask them some very boring questions in a very standard focus group kind of setting. What lenses do you use on your current sytem. What lenses would you need to consider switching to a Panasonic or Olympus body. What is most important to you among all of the things. Or other just plain sales research through their own contacts in retail - what have we missed in the market in particular that Panasonic/Olympus/Sigma/Samyang/whoever have cornered and are making out like bandits on.

No surprise that you see people in the same business doing the exact same thing as a result.

 

[PMCC]

We do have the 12-32, which is probably the only pancake zoom out there...
The Canikon F4 lenses are only good compared to their kit zooms -- ours are plenty sharp. Moreover, people are already complaining our F2.8 zoom not producing enough broken. So it is not clear if there is space of a better-than-kit slower zoom.

 

[davidzvi]

We do have the 12-32, which is probably the only pancake zoom out there...
The Canikon F4 lenses are only good compared to their kit zooms -- ours are plenty sharp. Moreover, people are already complaining our F2.8 zoom not producing enough broken. So it is not clear if there is space of a better-than-kit slower zoom.

I would have to disagree with you here, at least on the Nikon side (I've never used the Canons). The current Nikon f4 and f3.5-4.5 (they are actually the current FX kit lenses) are very good. They may not be as good as the f2.8s but they are good compared to the f2.8s. I read quite few posts from Nikon shooters that purchased the 24-120 f4 as part of a kit planning to just sell it off and instead sold off their 24-70 f2.8 instead. And the 70-200 f4? It rates 1 point under the 70-200 f2.8 II on DXO when mounted on a D810 and is better in some areas.

 

[eteless]

They may not be as good as the f2.8s but they are good compared to the f2.8s.

I agree

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

We do have the 12-32, which is probably the only pancake zoom out there...

apart from our other two pancake zooms, that is.

 

[Turbofrog]

apart from our other two pancake zooms, that is.

And the thoroughly average pancake zooms (3 of them) from Sony and Samsung.

 

[Andym72]

I appreciate the OP's comments, but upon reflection I don't see the lens selection as a major problem for mu43. I certainly don't think it's worth the R&D money to come up with a new 22 mm lens. Between Olympus, Panasonic, and some third party folks, mu43 has a good lens selection for the group that spends the money, i.e., the enthusiasts. I'm just saying I don't think there's much bang for the buck for the imaging divisions.

I don't think the OP meant 22mm as well as 20mm and 25mm, he meant instead. The point being, when the Panasonic 20mm came out (which was before any of the 25mm primes), why was it 20mm? Why wasn't it spot on at what is "normal" focal length for m43, which is 22mm? Was it because there are certain design advantages to 20mm on this system (like the widest you can go without having to use a retrofocal design)? Or was it because it just apes the 40mm pancakes seen on some SLR systems, like the Konica AR mount for example?

 

[tkbslc]

ed- whoops wasn't meant as a specific reply

Couple things - just because this seems to have taken a weird turn and I'm not sure if we really need some sophisticated explanation beyond "customers like to maximise the value they get, and companies don't like losing money"

I wonder how viable "odd" focal lengths actually are commercially - even if you are trying to hit the same point equivalent on 1.5 or 2x crop. Just from looking into old Vivitar MF lenses - you see them branching out into all sorts of weird stuff - weird f-stops, weird zoom ranges, weird mixes of capabilities (28-90 zoom! 90-180 1:2 flat field macro! 135mm close-focus not flat field macro! 2.5 not enough? how about 2.3!) apparently part of it was just trying to stand out and differentiate. I don't believe this really worked for them that well. At a certain point when you are asking people to fork out a lot of money for a lens (and they were!) there is maybe a bit of pucker factor involved in the purchase, and counting on what seems to me like a fairly notoriously conservative (and, well, just plain stodgy ) market buying things where they don't know exactly what they will get out of it is maybe a bit of a loser.

Second thing - what do we see happening that we can't attribute to just plain market research, rather than some platform inferiority complex or chip on an engineer's shoulder? Isn't it much more likely just feedback from their market research? Like - my personal view of what happens is they get a bunch of photographers of various degrees of skill and fame and ask them some very boring questions in a very standard focus group kind of setting. What lenses do you use on your current sytem. What lenses would you need to consider switching to a Panasonic or Olympus body. What is most important to you among all of the things. Or other just plain sales research through their own contacts in retail - what have we missed in the market in particular that Panasonic/Olympus/Sigma/Samyang/whoever have cornered and are making out like bandits on.

No surprise that you see people in the same business doing the exact same thing as a result.

Since someone else brought this thread back, I'll quote and agree wholeheartedly with you.


Say you are designing a system from the ground up. You need to decide what lenses to offer. Do you:

A) Look at the best selling and most used lenses for established systems and try to make close equivalents

or

B) Spend months/years re-inventing the wheel and then trying to convince customers that there is a good reason for it.


One is safe and already has built in widespread customer acceptance. The other is risky and could alienate as many customers as it excites.

 

[Andym72]

I do not want to hijack the thread but I always thought that the 40-50mm length was called normal because (on 35mm film) gives you a FoV close to the human vision. I suspect there are two different "normal" reference numbers, optical and human vision, that for 35mm by chance are close. Does it make sense?
Or maybe the lenses/sensor/flange distance/etc. are designed so that a focal length equal to the diagonal will always approximately match the human FoV for any sensor size?

The reasons for 50mm becoming a "standard" FL have already been covered - Oskar Barnack was reusing an existing design.

But there's a whole lot of myth about why 43.3mm on 135 film is "normal", and yes the field of vision of human eyes is one of those myths!

It's based on the theory that when you look at a photographic print, the distance you hold it from your eyes is equal to the diagonal of the print, and given this, how do you make the perspective effects in the print look the same as we see naturally with our eyes? And the answer is the diagonal again - the print has been "blown up" from the film frame size. Therefore, at exposure, you want the lens to be the same distance from the film as the diagonal of the film frame, to reproduce the same perspective effect as you see with your eyes once the image is blown up to print size.

Now as theories go, this is yet more myth and the first part of it is easy to disprove Just go to any art museum. You'll find most visitors looking at the paintings on the wall are all standing a similar distance from the wall, not matter what the size of the painting (unless it's huge, in which case they step back to get it all in the sharp parts of their field of view).

It is much more likely that there is a naturally most comfortable distance to view prints from (which is true, it's about where you eyes focus at rest), and it just so happens that by complete coincidence, that distance was the same as the diagonal of the most popular print size of the day!

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

This ;

B) Spend months/years re-inventing the wheel and then trying to convince customers that there is a good reason for it.

Is exactly what Olympus and Panasonic did with the 4/3rds system,
and without those E1 and L1 pioneers we wouldn't have any of our m4/3rds clever goodness,
so yeah, go for "Option B"