What I want in a m4/3 lens...

Oliver Rush

Oliver Rush

Well-known member
I know the subject of lenses has been beaten to death here, but here goes...
For most lenses for my AF100, the best choices are for other formats, usually FX or DX nikons. I have never been a fan of m4/3 lenses. I hate the thought of spending alot of money on glass that only covers m4/3, and besides the 7-14mm f/4 and the 25mm f/.95 (but frankly you can get a canon 24 f1.4 for just a bit more, and it covers FF, so not worth the price IMHO for the 25 f/.95 m4/3 lens), I have yet to see any glass really take advantage of the m4/3 sensor size to make lenses that you could not make (or afford if they do) in other formats... cheap fully manual high speed primes for less than the FF equivalent, reasonably priced fast (as in f/2.8) ultra-ultra wide primes, and cheap fast super-telephoto lenses. Something like a rectilinear 7mm or 8mm f2.8 prime at a reasonable price, cheap high speed normal primes (like $300 a pop, the 20mm f/1.7 is a good start though I have not used it personally) and maybe a super-tele like a 300mm f/2 or f/2.8 at a lot cheaper price than what a FF version of that lens would cost. While you really don't need lenses like a 7mm f2.8 or 300 f2 in your everyday kit, it would really unlock the potential of this sensor size to things not obtainable as cheaply and easily with other camera sensor sizes IMHO... Anyway, this is what would really interest me. End of late night rant.
 
Last edited:
I will second fast and cheap, as opposed to slow and expensive. There is no reason why fully manual lenses like the zeiss lenses couldn't made in format native versions for half the cost of full frame. Maybe cosina/voitlander will realize that the 25 .95 is no longer a niche lens and will ramp up production, hopefully produce a full set, ideally with de-clicked video apertures. Even if they made the lenses to cover aps-c/super35 to expand cross marketing to sony nex and the like it would be a step in the right direction rather than just giving new mount options to lenses designed to cover full frame still 35.
 
Oliver Rush said:
and maybe a super-tele like a 300mm f/2 or f/2.8 at a lot cheaper price than what a FF version of that lens would cost. While you really don't need lenses like a 7mm f2.8 or 300 f2 in your everyday kit, it would really unlock the potential of this sensor size to things not obtainable as cheaply and easily with other camera sensor sizes IMHO... Anyway, this is what would really interest me. End of late night rant.
Click to expand...
Just to let you know, a 300mm f/2 lens' is just as hard to make in fourthirds size as it is to make in full frame size (or APS-C size). This is a common misconception that the smaller format makes for cheaper lens's of the same specs.

However, if you want the 300mm f/2 field of view (compared to full frame), then that's where the size advantage comes in, because you could get a 150mm f/2, and you would expose for f/2 but be framed at 300mm (compared to full frame).

By the way, if you want to visualize what I'm talking about, Olympus makes both a 300mm f/2.8 (which is supurb), and also a 150mm f/2.0 (which is also supurb).

Remember, APS-C lens's are typically smaller because they're "wider" instead of a 28-85mm FF, APS-C has 17-55mm, so yes, smaller and lighter. Same goes for smaller formats.

But a 300 f2 on fourthirds is just as big/heavy/expensive as a 300 f2 on full frame...
 
I will second fast and cheap, as opposed to slow and expensive. There is no reason why fully manual lenses like the zeiss lenses couldn't made in format native versions for half the cost of full frame.
Click to expand...

Do you halve your rate when shooting on any camera less than a full frame ?
 
I'm guessing it's not too much less expensive to make a fast M43 vs. a fast FF lens. Good optics are good optics. So fast and cheap isn't any more likely here than elsewhere. Personally I'd be into fast and good in my lens. I'd rather pay a little more and get great native mount optics. The one drawback in the M43 world I currently see is serious lack of prime lenses period.

Noah
 
The issue as I see it is that everyone seems to have a different ideal lens ( depending on what they use the camera for)

The camera is designed for interchangeable lenses ( lens systems) just like a professional cine camera. ie. "a production camera".

To use this camera outside it primary design scope might require those users to be very adaptable and patient in what appears maybe be a very long wait for their "ideal" lens to evolve.

Personally...for me , there is no shortage of excellent (even perfect) lens solutions for the AF100 camera.

Others... want/need OIS, auto focus, qulity, fast , servo zooms...and CHEAP. ( These are less much likely to be requirements in the RED , Alexa , F3 circles)

My prediction is that Zeiss may do something similar to what they did for Panasonic on the DVX / HVX cameras. Nice simple little lens, good glass... but both had lousy servos. Built to budget level
 
JPM Photography said:
i mean, if you want some fast, good primes, grab either old nikons or canon fd lenses. cheap and great!
Click to expand...

I have a set or nikons and love them. Best glass around for an AF100 currently bang for buck wise IMHO. I am also not saying that there an not GREAT lenses one can use with the AF100, there are, and I am perfectly happy the glass I have and that is available with the use of adapters for my regular lens kit on the AF100...

That said, I want to see lenses that I cant get in FF factor (or that are unfeasibly expensive as FF or s35 glass) that could be made somewhat more affordable or made possible because they only have to cover m4/3. I would not dream of a 7mm f/2.8 prime that would be anywhere near affordable for FF, but for m4/3 it sounds much more feasible. If they can do it as a zoom at f/4, surely they can design a prime at that length that is a stop faster.

And with the long lenghts, I am talking about for extreme tele shots with faster glass. A lens with the FOV of a 600mm lens a FF camera would only require a 300mm lens on a m4/3 camera. If there was a 300mm f/2 for m4/3 (I am not doubting it would be expensive, but not as much as a 300 f/2 costs for a FF camera), that would give you a FOV equivilent on a FF camera of 600mm, which would take a $10K+ still lens for the same speed. I mean no one really needs the fov of a 300mm lens on m4/3 for most situations, but it would be a cool little niche thing for m4/3.

Lastly, I know panasonic does not make lenses... but other people are starting to make glass for m4/3, and I would just like to see some really interesting glass made possible by the smaller sensor size, that gives me a reason to buy it over a lens that covers s35 or FF.

p.s. The more I think about this about this, I do have to say, if someone made a fully manual 7mm f/2.8 prime for like $600-800, I would be all over it.
 
Last edited:
Oliver Rush said:
If there was a 300mm f/2 for m4/3 (I am not doubting it would be expensive, but not as much as a 300 f/2 costs for a FF camera)
Click to expand...

I think your logic is flawed here. A top notch 300mm f/2 for the m4/3 format would cost just as much to produce as a top notch 300mm f/2 for the FF format. I don't see any reason why the m4/3 would be any cheaper.

As far as I know, only Nikon has produced a 300mm f/2 lens ( only 441 of them ) and it has sold in the $10K - $20K price range, so this is probably not a good lens to use for an affordable example:

Nikon Nikkor 300mm f/2.0 ED IF

...Now if you factor in FOV, then yes m4/3 becomes a much cheaper option, where an Olympus 150mm f/2 sells for $2,500, which is a fraction of the $10K - $20K price of the Nikon lens, and it probably performs better too.

Olympus 150mm f/2.0 ED Lens
 
I have a set of Nikons I'm working with now and I like them a lot. I have an Olympus 11-22 to cover the wide range. I'd love more options at the low end because of the FOV constraints. It would be nice if someone had a 14mm manual everything prime that didn't distort too badly. I would love a set of Cinema lenses with a Nikon mount... actually I guess I want the Zeiss CPs... but for about 1/2 the dough! Otherwise, next stop Duclos ZF's. Still need to replace that Oly some time. Right now it's serving the purpose many use the Tokina 11-16 for. I don't really understand the value in buying specifically for m 4/3 except on the very wide range.
 
TheDingo said:
I think your logic is flawed here. A top notch 300mm f/2 for the m4/3 format would cost just as much to produce as a top notch 300mm f/2 for the FF format. I don't see any reason why the m4/3 would be any cheaper.

As far as I know, only Nikon has produced a 300mm f/2 lens ( only 441 of them ) and it has sold in the $10K - $20K price range, so this is probably not a good lens to use for an affordable example:

Nikon Nikkor 300mm f/2.0 ED IF

...Now if you factor in FOV, then yes m4/3 becomes a much cheaper option, where an Olympus 150mm f/2 sells for $2,500, which is a fraction of the $10K - $20K price of the Nikon lens, and it probably performs better too.

Olympus 150mm f/2.0 ED Lens
Click to expand...

My point about that as a specific lens was that a lens in m4/3 that was 300mm would cost less than a 600mm lens of the same speed on a FF camera while having the same FOV... hence alowing the same tele FOV at a lower price than that FOV on a FF camera. I was saying was that if it was m4/3 only and cheaper, that would be interesting. If it is not possible on that specific focal lengths or if it was a still fast but less extreme aperture, then so be it, explains why no one would make one...as I said before, if was to cost the same I would just buy FF glass and mount it on a m4/3 sensor.... I just mentioned it as a single possibility;

The point of my post was that I want to see lenses come out that take advantage of the sensors size to make something unique. A 7mm 2.8 prime for would be awesome, and I assume as they can make a 7mm-14mm constant f/4 parafocal zoom for under a grand, then a 7mm 2.8 prime should be possible, as well as other lenses like the 25 f/.95 but a little more reasonably priced. Stuff I can already get cheaply or reasonably priced as a FF lens I am not interested in buying in m4/3... I would buy m4/3 lenses I could not buy in other formats or faster than I could find in other formats at price points that could not be met by larger format lenses.
 
Last edited:
Oliver Rush said:
I would buy m4/3 lenses I could not buy in other formats or faster than I could find in other formats at price points that could not be met by larger format lenses.
Click to expand...

What you are looking for is in my view a classical triangulation of problems and as such insolvable: fast, small and cheap. We all may want that. Good, fast, special lenses are expensive and they will stay expensive. And the Voigtlaender is pricey, yes, but is still rather sensational at what they ask for.

I was some time ago communicating with the new sales manager of Kinoptik/Paris about their Tegea 9.8 mm f 1.8. A formidable lens. They do not build it any more. It's last price was 8.700 €. Hurts...... but it is realistic.

The Lumix-lenses are optically nice but for me not really usable. And they will stay construction-wise this way as they are consumer lenses. Unless MFT get's more momentum (Ikegami!) we need to wait it seems. Olympus may come with new lenses in June.
 
Oliver Rush said:
A 7mm 2.8 prime for would be awesome, and I assume as they can make a 7mm-14mm constant f/4 parafocal zoom for under a grand, then a 7mm 2.8 prime should be possible, as well as other lenses like the 25 f/.95 but a little more reasonably priced.
Click to expand...

According the the m43 Rumors website, Olympus is supposed to make some new "Pro m4/3" lens announcements around the end of June, that is to include at least one fast pro-quality wide-angle. I hope this is true, especially if the rumors of a 12mm f/2 or faster lens pan out. ( yes a 12mm f/2 lens might cost close to $1K, but I would definitely buy one )
 
My prediction is that Zeiss may do something similar to what they did for Panasonic on the DVX / HVX cameras. Nice simple little lens, good glass... but both had lousy servos. Built to budget level

It was Leica, and if Leica or Zeiss built one they would sell like hotcakes.
 
Bucknfl said:
if Leica or Zeiss built one they would sell like hotcakes.
Click to expand...

I think it would sell like hotcakes if anybody built it provided that it was either a f/2.0 or faster wide-angle lens or a f/2.8 constant wide-zoom, and was sharp wide open. OIS would be great for the zoom, and manual focus is fine for either type. This should be a no-brainer for Olympus, Sigma, Tokina, Zeiss.
 
TheDingo said:
I think it would sell like hotcakes if anybody built it provided that it was either a f/2.0 or faster wide-angle lens or a f/2.8 constant wide-zoom, and was sharp wide open. OIS would be great for the zoom, and manual focus is fine for either type. This should be a no-brainer for Olympus, Sigma, Tokina, Zeiss.
Click to expand...

A fast lens with a HVX like range that was parafocal and a constant f/2 or f/2.8 for m4/3 would be prohibitably large and expensive, a 1/3 sensor is MUCH smaller than a m4/3 sensor, which is what makes it possible for the HVX... I am not saying it would be it would not be nice or possible, but not really feasible... I would like to see something like the 14-140, but parafocal with a constant f/4. That would be something I would see as more likely to happen.
 
My wish is that Panasonic would simply buy Olympus Corp outright and produce native Micro Four Thirds versions of the incomparable Zuiko 14-35mm and 35-100mm f2.0 Four Thirds lenses. Glitch-free, completely remote-controlled iris and focus support for these superb lenses would give the AF100 capabilities unmatched by any video system in its class.
 
Oliver Rush said:
A fast lens with a HVX like range that was parafocal and a constant f/2 or f/2.8 for m4/3 would be prohibitably large and expensive
Click to expand...

I would not expect a zoom with HVX like range, but rather something like the APS-C 17-50 f/2.8 or 24-70 f/2.8 lenses that are currently being produced. I would buy this m4/3 equivalent ASAP.
 
TheDingo said:
According the the m43 Rumors website, Olympus is supposed to make some new "Pro m4/3" lens announcements around the end of June, that is to include at least one fast pro-quality wide-angle. I hope this is true, especially if the rumors of a 12mm f/2 or faster lens pan out. ( yes a 12mm f/2 lens might cost close to $1K, but I would definitely buy one )
Click to expand...

Me too, but I'm hoping for full manual and stops on the focus ring. I would pay $1K for that.
 
Bucknfl said:
My prediction is that Zeiss may do something similar to what they did for Panasonic on the DVX / HVX cameras. Nice simple little lens, good glass... but both had lousy servos. Built to budget level

It was Leica, and if Leica or Zeiss built one they would sell like hotcakes.
Click to expand...

Apologies for my typo. Thinking Leica and typed Zeiss.

Even so...that lens was very nice ( sharp and clear) but the servo was almost un mangeable if one attempted a zoom with ramped start /stops. To me it was a victim of being cheap and lightly engineered to enable the consumer features of OIS and auto focus.

Its very good optics were its saving grace and I am sure it would find a considerable market on the AF100. Possibly it may be let down by its short telephoto end for some users requirements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top