Need a zoom lens

David W. Jones said:
Since cost doesn't matter to you, I would suggest a two lens solution at this point since single lens coverage at this time is unavailable. A Duclos converted PL mount Tokina 11-16mm T2.8, and an Angenieux Optimo 17-80mm T2.2 will cover the range you specified.

As an aside, maybe it's just the frugal business owner part of me that must justify the validity of business expenses compared to the income they will generate, but it must be nice being able to say "cost doesn't matter".

All the Best!

Dave
Click to expand...

I own the Tokina 11-16 in a Nikon mount and I was using that for a bit of the run and gun stuff yesterday. I just wished it was a longer zoom range. It is one of the best lenses I own and would recommend it in a heartbeat. I was just in a situation where changing lenses was a huge inconvenience and a few shots were missed because I was either changing lenses or on the wrong lens at the time. A fast zoom with a somewhat longer zoom range is needed for this camera and the future competitors of it, and I'm sure some company will step up to the plate soon.
 
I highly recommend the Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 AT-X Pro II lens. I just purchased a nikon mount version of this lens and couldn't be happier. The lens features manual aperture, the lens does not extend while zooming and focusing, and it also holds it's focus while zooming. The best part is that they can be found on the used market for around $300.00.

There are newer versions of this lens, but be sure to find the f/2.6-2.8 version. This version features superior optics and performance over the newer versions of this lens.

You can find a lab test/review of this lens here: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/276-tokina-af-28-70mm-f28-26-at-x-pro-ii-lab-test-report--review
 
in the 70's and 80's the most common lens on small 16mm cameras was an angenieux 12-120 f2.2.
Click to expand...

At that time, the equivalent lens that covered 35mm was the Angenieux 25-250 T3.4... I handheld it many times on an Arii IIc shooting rock concerts and love-ins n the late 60's - it's not something I would want to do again. And also, the 12-120 was f2.2 but T2.8.

I discovered that I could get by with primes, and changing lenses on the IIc... My plan for documentary shooting (personally I abhor the term "run and gun" - it implies a lack of artistry) with the AF100 is probably the 14-35 and my Leicaflex Angenieux 45-90 f2.8... I will also keep my HPX500 - and even the 200 until I've actually tried the AF100 (I've never even seen one yet).
 
Last edited:
Brian@202020 said:
Well the rumored 12-60 f2.8 Panasonic lens mentioned earlier in this thread is a lot closer
Click to expand...
It's also only a "rumor" and has never been suggested or confirmed by any Panasonic source that I've ever seen. Maybe it will exist (would be nice) but it isn't something you can buy and use.

If that range is what you want, why not look at the Olympus 12-60? It's almost as wide (12mm vs. 11mm) as your Tokina, just as fast, and much more telephoto. 2.8 on the wide end, 4.0 on the tele end.
http://www.four-thirds.org/en/fourthirds/standard.html#i_012-060mm_f028-040_olympus
http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/lenses/12-60_28-40swd/
 
why not?
Because of CONSTANT "f" stop.

Even operating Lumix 7-14 Manually fast is a nightmare.
Iris wheel on AF100 is not as precise as on HVX200.One must work harder using that wheel...HVX200 iris wheel was faster and more responsive.
That is why any MANUAL ZOOM WITH IRIS CONTROL like Red Zoom is the best in a long run.:kali:

jiri
 
There are only 2 choices for AF100.
Cheap and not cheap.

CHEAP: buy Olympus 14-35mm f2.0 & 35-100mm f2.0.
BEST CHOICE: Duclos Tokina 11-16mm T2.8 & RED PRO 17-50mm T2.9

Guys buying $5000 camera must understand to get the best results one must spend another $5,000 on GLASS or more to get results fast & precise.
Do not forget camera bodies change.....what if one buys another camera with larger sensor 3 months later, Your Olympus glass is no good......

jiri
 
Barry_Green said:
Bigger sensor = bigger glass. You can get a 1/6" CCD camcorder with a 20x lens, no problem. But try to make a 20x lens that covers a huge 4/3 or S35 chip, and you'll be looking at a lens that's a yard long, half a foot in diameter, and weighs 30 pounds.
Click to expand...

This is why im surprised there arent faster zooms around for m4/3. From what I understand the olympus 14-35 & 35-100 f2.0 zooms are just 24-70 & 70-200 lenses redesigned with focal length reducers. Seems like if more companies did this, they could put 2x focal length reducers on FF35 zooms and turn something like a 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 into a 14-150mm f1.8-2.8 or a 24-120 f4 into a 12-60 f2 that would still cover micro 4/3. I guess it will just take a couple years for m4/3 glass to catch up to what is out there for FF35 or even 16mm. I have a lightweight $300 9.5-57 f1.6 for 16mm sitting in front of me that could look good on m4/3 with a 1.5x extender as a 14-85 f2.4. Just cant figure out how to mount it with readily available teleconverters...
 
I think there are two types of users with this camera in regard to "what lens question".

"Film Guys" and "Stills Guys" (movie converts).

Still guys are used to using Non Manual Lenses with electronic control of everything... including AF / AE.

Film Guys are used to manual lenses.

Film guys wont tolerate non constant aperture or inabilty to set an F-stop and know what it is. (eg via an adapter). Stills guys might tolerate these ( until they experience the "issues"they bring to motion picture work.

I said before..."its a conundrum wrapped in a puzzle and packaged as a Camera (BODY)".
 
nyvz said:
This is why im surprised there arent faster zooms around for m4/3.
Click to expand...
There are. The fastest zooms around are all for 4/3 and m4/3 (which are the same, as far as the optical plane is concerned, the only substantive difference is the flange focal distance). If you want a fast zoom, you want a 4/3 or m4/3 zoom.

From what I understand the olympus 14-35 & 35-100 f2.0 zooms are just 24-70 & 70-200 lenses redesigned with focal length reducers.
Click to expand...
I've read that too, I don't know if it's accurate or not, I don't think Olympus has ever said that's what they're doing. Even so, whatever they're doing, it works. They have the fastest zooms around.

Seems like if more companies did this, they could put 2x focal length reducers on FF35 zooms and turn something like a 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 into a 14-150mm f1.8-2.8 or a 24-120 f4 into a 12-60 f2 that would still cover micro 4/3.
Click to expand...
No, apparently not, because while the 2x focal reducer would indeed get you the field of view, they didn't get a full two f-stops of brightness out of the Olympus lenses, they only got one additional f-stop of brightness. So a 28-70 f/2.8 (which is a common lens on SLRs) became a 14-35 f/2.0. And a 70-200 f/2.8 SLR lens, became a 35-100 f/2.0. And the 24-120 f4 became a 12-60 f/2.8. Even so, you've got the same field of view as the SLR lenses, and twice as bright, so that's still putting them ahead of the FF35 and APS-C guys.

I guess it will just take a couple years for m4/3 glass to catch up to what is out there for FF35
Click to expand...
In what way? You already have the Olympus zooms from three years ago that are offering the same field of view and twice the brightness. How would that mean they need to catch up?

I would certainly like to see more fast zooms and more fast primes, and if optical reducers are the way to go, then by all means, let's go. They certainly haven't had a negative impact on the quality of the Olympus lenses! (assuming, of course, that that's what Olympus is actually doing).
 
Barry_Green said:
No, apparently not, because while the 2x focal reducer would indeed get you the field of view, they didn't get a full two f-stops of brightness out of the Olympus lenses, they only got one additional f-stop of brightness. So a 28-70 f/2.8 (which is a common lens on SLRs) became a 14-35 f/2.0. And a 70-200 f/2.8 SLR lens, became a 35-100 f/2.0. And the 24-120 f4 became a 12-60 f/2.8. Even so, you've got the same field of view as the SLR lenses, and twice as bright, so that's still putting them ahead of the FF35 and APS-C guys.
Click to expand...

I noticed that, but one would expect to gain 2stops from a 2x focal length reducer, just as one loses 2stops from a 2x teleconverter (plus minor transmission loss)... Any idea why they only got one?

Also, I'm not sure I'd characterize a 14-35 f2 on m4/3 as twice as bright as a 28-70 f2.8 on FF35, since technically the FF35 lens still allows about twice as much light to hit the sensor as the m4/3 lens, its just also spread over 4x the area. In the end, all else being equal, the FF35 lens and system should theoretically have 1stop less depth of field and 1stop more sensitivity than the m4/3 lens and system despite the higher f-stop.
 
nyvz said:
I noticed that, but one would expect to gain 2stops from a 2x focal length reducer, just as one loses 2stops from a 2x teleconverter (plus minor transmission loss)... Any idea why they only got one?
Click to expand...
No, not really... I read some article somewhere about it and they explained it, but I don't remember what they said, only that they got it.

Also, I'm not sure I'd characterize a 14-35 f2 on m4/3 as twice as bright as a 28-70 f2.8 on FF35, since technically the FF35 lens still allows about twice as much light to hit the sensor as the m4/3 lens, its just also spread over 4x the area. In the end, all else being equal, the FF35 lens and system should theoretically have 1stop less depth of field and 1stop more sensitivity than the m4/3 lens and system despite the higher f-stop.
Click to expand...
What does it matter whether the light is spread out across 4x as much sensor space? What matters is whether the system lets you get the shot, or not. If you're trying to get an exposure, and proper exposure calls for f2, then the 4/3 with the Olympus will be able to deliver it, and the FF35 with the 2.8 lens won't. It'll be underexposed on that system.
 
Shooter said:
I think there are two types of users with this camera in regard to "what lens question".

"Film Guys" and "Stills Guys" (movie converts).

Still guys are used to using Non Manual Lenses with electronic control of everything... including AF / AE.

Film Guys are used to manual lenses.

Film guys wont tolerate non constant aperture or inabilty to set an F-stop and know what it is. (eg via an adapter). Stills guys might tolerate these ( until they experience the "issues"they bring to motion picture work.

I said before..."its a conundrum wrapped in a puzzle and packaged as a Camera (BODY)".
Click to expand...

EXACTLY!
Best post so far.
 
If there are 17-50 constant 2.8 zooms for APS-C, why can't there be 14ish-60ish constant 2.8 for M43? In my sheer ignorance, I can't really understand why.

Even reading about well, lenses would be huge and heavy... Well, I'm not asking for 14-140 constant f2. Just a little more reach from reasonable wide to slightly tele at a moderate f2.8.

nyvz said:
I have a lightweight $300 9.5-57 f1.6 for 16mm sitting in front of me that could look good on m4/3 with a 1.5x extender as a 14-85 f2.4. Just cant figure out how to mount it with readily available teleconverters...
Click to expand...

A 14-85 f2.4 for M43 would indeed be the killer lens.
 
Barry_Green said:
What does it matter whether the light is spread out across 4x as much sensor space? What matters is whether the system lets you get the shot, or not. If you're trying to get an exposure, and proper exposure calls for f2, then the 4/3 with the Olympus will be able to deliver it, and the FF35 with the 2.8 lens won't. It'll be underexposed on that system.
Click to expand...

Well it matters because if one system has twice as many photons coming in, that system is probably more likely to get you the shot. Of course this is a bit academic since we dont have proper FF35mm cameras for video available like we have for S35 and now have for m4/3. But I'm just saying I feel it would be misleading to tell people to expect they are more likely to get a shot at f2.0 on m4/3 than at f2.8 on FF35. I have shot a lot of EX1 and 7D together and in low light the 7D is clearly an order of magnitude better at f2.8 or even f4 than the EX1 at f1.9. f1.9 sounds like more light, but 1/2" is an awfully small area to be collecting light in. Compared to FF35, m4/3 is small area to be collecting light in, especially with a lens that collects half as many photons onto the sensor area.
 
biginvegas said:
There is the Nikon G 17-55 2.8 (about $1k) and the cheaper Tokina 16-50 2.8 half the price.
Click to expand...

Today we shot a national TV spot with the AF100 and the Nikon 17-55 AFS G DX f2.8 lens. FANTASTIC lens on the AF100 with the Novoflex adapter. We had a heap of great fast glass on hand, but the 17-55 and the Nikon 85
f1.4 AFD were the only lenses used...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top