Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Why no 35-100 f2.8 for m2/3rds

  1. #1
    Senior Member biglouis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,127
    Post Thanks / Like

    Why no 35-100 f2.8 for m2/3rds

    I've been thinking about this a lot recently, mainly because I have agreed to photograph a friends wedding - which is already making me anxious!

    There are some wonderfully exotic lenses for m4/3rds cameras, e.g. the Lumix 20/1.7 and the Pana-Leica 45/2.8 Macro. Lenses like the 45-200 and the 7-4 mimic their equivalent counterparts from Nikon and Canon.

    But what appears to be missing, to me is the wedding/event photographer's staple aperture/focal length which is the 70-200/2.8 fov lens.

    The 35-100 constant 2.8 aperture m4/3ds equivalent would be an excellent addition to the range of lenses and I am surprised neither Panasonic or Olympus make one. The whole beauty of the m4/3rds system is portability without compromising quality so why not a 35-100/2.8 to round out the offering?

    LouisB

  2. #2
    Senior Member Brian Mosley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: Why no 35-100 f2.8 for m2/3rds

    I'm guessing it would compromise the 'portability' aspect.



    I'd prefer to see a fast 57mm prime lens - it's at the sweet spot in terms of dof flexibility for portraits, and would be more likely to give decent bokeh.

    Cheers

    Brian

  3. #3
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Why no 35-100 f2.8 for m2/3rds

    First off, I hope Olympus refrain from making any zoom lenses for the m4/3rds at all. Smaller faster primes from Pana would be most welcome.

    Second, I would like to see adequately sized and versatile flashes and accessories for the m4/3rds.


    3rd, why would any wedding/event photogs use m4/3rds when there are far better/reliable solutions available from Nikon/Canon/Sony?

    or the Olympus 4/3rds could be pressed into service.....

  4. #4
    Senior Member biglouis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,127
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why no 35-100 f2.8 for m2/3rds

    Brian, my whole point is that the m4/3rds spec allows lenses of equivalent fov to be created in much smaller form factors, for example the 45/2.8, the 7-14 and the 14-150s compared to their Nikon and Canon counterparts. So, I'd assume that while a 35-100/2.8 zoom would be large, it would not be as large as the equivalent for a DX or FF camera.

    Vivek, the promise of the m4/3rd camera is quality in a small size. While I wouldn't expect a professional wedding photographer to base his kit around a m4/3rds standard, the occasional pro-am like me would like a lens for event photography. Unfortunately, with the exception of the 20/1.7 and 45/2.8 there are few (any?) other fast lenses for m4/3rds cameras.
    LouisB

  5. #5
    Senior Member Brian Mosley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: Why no 35-100 f2.8 for m2/3rds

    I'm certainly not arguing against SHG glass for m4/3rds - of any type, zoom or prime would be fine by me!

    Cheers

    Brian

  6. #6
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,929
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why no 35-100 f2.8 for m2/3rds

    Quote Originally Posted by biglouis View Post
    Brian, my whole point is that the m4/3rds spec allows lenses of equivalent fov to be created in much smaller form factors, for example the 45/2.8, the 7-14 and the 14-150s compared to their Nikon and Canon counterparts. So, I'd assume that while a 35-100/2.8 zoom would be large, it would not be as large as the equivalent for a DX or FF camera.

    Vivek, the promise of the m4/3rd camera is quality in a small size. While I wouldn't expect a professional wedding photographer to base his kit around a m4/3rds standard, the occasional pro-am like me would like a lens for event photography. Unfortunately, with the exception of the 20/1.7 and 45/2.8 there are few (any?) other fast lenses for m4/3rds cameras.
    LouisB
    Marketing and time gate what is produced and how quickly it surfaces to the store. Also a little bit of technology.

    The only advantage Micro-FourThirds has over FourThirds SLRs with respect to producing compactness in the lenses, rather than the body itself, is the short lens mount register. This advantage is most acute when producing short focal length prime lenses as simpler lens designs can be used that are more compact and faster while achieving similar lens performance.

    But when focal length grows, the size of the lens inevitably must grow too if the lens is going to be fast. A 100mm f/2.8 lens MUST have a diameter large enough to accommodate elements at least 36mm in diameter (larger really) and a supporting structure capable of keeping them properly aligned. A 35-100/2.8 lens will be large relative to the Micro-FourThirds body, no matter what, and while I'd love to see more top-notch pro-class lenses in Micro-FourThirds, the big question is whether they would sell in adequate quantity to be profitable.

    Look at all the complaint threads about how overpriced the good, fast mFT lenses are perceived already. Pro quality big zoom lenses will top all the current consumer lens pricing by a factor of two, just like the HG and SHG lenses in the FourThirds SLR line do. And they won't be pocketable compact ... they can't be. So people will whine about them.

    I'd hate to be a product planner at Panasonic or Olympus. I'd want to produce the pro class equipment that I love, but it would likely be a profitless venture. I'm happy to see what has surfaced already ... the 7-14/4, 20/1.7, 40/2.8 Macro are all excellent lenses, on par with as good as it gets. And they're selling pretty well from all reports. Panasonic and Olympus are wise to make careful steps to keep that profitability going.

  7. #7
    compositor20
    Guest

    Re: Why no 35-100 f2.8 for m2/3rds

    that is why a 12-75 f2.5-3.3 would be good idea (it looses 1/3 stop at long end a little of tele and gains much uable wide and normal end and 1/3 more light at wide

    its the lens people expect panasonic to introduce with gh-2 it would cost probably 1000 euros but people would buy it

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •