Rethinking Zooms for the M43 Ecosystem

[sanveer]

Fast zooms are not as common as they should be. I wish there were like 2-3 zooms for the M43 ecosystem that could relieve filmmakers and photographers of the headache of constantly changing lenses to reframe shots. Also if they were Fast, low light wouldn't really be an issue. 

I wish Olympus and Sigma could perhaps collaborate on the following Zooms:

1. 12-25mm f2.

2. 24-50mm f2.

3. 45-100mm f2.

Also if they could have good OIS and smaller sizes, along with being under $1500, it could be a runaway success.

DO you think they should some other specifications for zooms in the M43 ecosystem? Or would you prefer constantly changing lenses? 

[Kisaha]

I know that my favorite one for run and gunning is the Olympus 12-100mm 4f, hard to beat that, except in price.

[sanveer]

7 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

I know that my favorite one for run and gunning is the Olympus 12-100mm 4f, hard to beat that, except in price.

It's a superb lens. And there was an offer on it recently (dunno if its still on, I saw it on 43rumors.com) 

[Cinegain]

Yeah, that would be cool. People love to adapt the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, but for many it's too cumbersome and kind of defeats the purpose of going with the more compact allowing ecosystem. Popular as well for the Samsung NX1 system was their S lens 16-50mm f/2-2.8. These are really the kind of lenses that are awesome! Now... Olympus has a good thing going for them with the f/2.8 PRO line-up. 7-14, 12-40 & 40-150mm. As Kisaha mentiones there's the nice 12-100mm f/4 PRO too. In turn Panasonic has the Lumix f/2.8 12-35 & 35-100mm and the Leica line-up of f/2.8-4 lenses. Apparently it is not that easy to create f/2.8 or faster zooms that are compact. There used to be one lens for 4/3 sensors... the Olympus M.Zuiko 14-35mm f/2.0 ED SWD. About the price of a kidney. Not compact either. Guess something we'd like to see... is just not in the stars.

[Kisaha]

Just now, sanveer said:

It's a superb lens. And there was an offer on it recently (dunno if its still on, I saw it on 43rumors.com) 

It is, indeed. Do not know about an offer, how much it cost now?

I own the NX 16-50S which is 2-2.8f, so a 12-25mm 2f m43 isn't that amazing and unique, (2f-2.8f on an APS-C zoom lens that is 24-77mm equiv is truly unique, and happened 5 years ago).

Using those classic workhorse lenses, you still need to go more Tele some times, while with the 12-100mm you have the full range for 95% of what a run and gun cameraman needs. 4f is not ideal of course, but with the dual ISO sensors won't be a big issue, and the lens is reasonably small and light as well.

[sanveer]

1 minute ago, Kisaha said:

It is, indeed. Do not know about an offer, how much it cost now?

I own the NX 16-50S which is 2-2.8f, so a 12-25mm 2f m43 isn't that amazing and unique, (2f-2.8f on an APS-C zoom lens that is 24-77mm equiv is truly unique, and happened 5 years ago).

Using those classic workhorse lenses, you still need to go more Tele some times, while with the 12-100mm you have the full range for 95% of what a run and gun cameraman needs. 4f is not ideal of course, but with the dual ISO sensors won't be a big issue, and the lens is reasonably small and light as well.

Interesting. How about a faster version of the 12-100 f4 with a little bit of the range shaved off? Like, perhaps a 12-60 f2.8? It could be mildly bigger to accomodate the extra light gathering. 

[Kisaha]

14 minutes ago, sanveer said:

Interesting. How about a faster version of the 12-100 f4 with a little bit of the range shaved off? Like, perhaps a 12-60 f2.8? It could be mildly bigger to accomodate the extra light gathering. 

Sure, the most important aspect for me are the 24mm in the wide end (a very significant reason I do not LOVE the Canon 18-135mm, Sigma 18-35mm, Sony 18-105mm, which otherwise I like for specific needs in specific systems and cameras), if it can reach 120mm, as you mention, it is great and perfectly usable, if it can be 2.8f. The Pana-Leica is good for some people too, I much prefer the Olympus, not only spec wise.

Mildly bigger won't be an issue, because the GH5 cameras and the P4K are large cameras, and heavy. 

The 18-35mm is a very good lens, but very limited in focal lengths and using a speed booster increases the weight, total width, price (  @Cinegain already mentioned some of those, and mentioned the NX S, very accurate comment, in all!), not very impressed personally, and starts from 29mm in Canon-land, now for m43, it is like owning a couple of wide lenses, and that's it, not medium, not tele at all (obviously).

[kye]

I agree with the OP.

In terms of my own camera decisions, if there was an equivalent to the Sigma 18-35 that was on m43 it would really change my attitude to the whole m43 system.  I bought a GF3 back in the day and it came with the 14mm f2.5 lens as well as the (ergonomically terrible) kit zoom, so when the GH5 came out I was very interested in the IBIS for my handheld guerrilla film-making work because I already owned one half-decent lens in the m43 system, but the lack of a killer lens and the complication of adapting the 18-35 was too off-putting for me, with the focus issues killing off the option well and truly.

At the moment I'm kind of split between looking at desirable cameras and then looking for lenses that suit and also looking at desirable lenses (like the 18-35) and looking for a camera body to suit.  Right now I've got the XC10 which has a good 'body' but the lens is a bit limiting, and the 18-35 which is wonderful but my 700D / ML body is a bit limiting.

A killer lens option for m43 would make me reconsider that system again.

[Kisaha]

The 18-35mm is a great lens, definitely not the Holy Grail of lenses.

As I mentioned above, plenty of reasons to search elsewhere for a more compmete solution. I mentioned already the S lens, which is a 16-50, 17 focal lengths more and wider (which is more important, more significant and more useful, than the longer end) 2f from wider, until almost the full range of the Sigma (until 32mm I believe, then it goes to 2.3f, 2.5fand 2.8f really fast), and equally sharp with very good stabilization and the fastest focusing on the system, while cost similar money when it was new. 

There are similar examples in most systems. I am not really sure why people (especially people with not much experience in working environments) consider the Sigma the one lens to rule them all. Far from it. There are plenty of m43 options from Olympus/Panasonic/Leica and others, they are litterally dozens of options and even Sony has the 16-70mm Zeiss which, not my favorite, but still a worthy do-it-all option (the 18-105 is very good for the cheap price and has amazing stabilization, if anyone do not want to spend top money).

[jonpais]

1 minute ago, Kisaha said:

The 18-35mm is a great lens, definitely not the Holy Grail of lenses.

As I mentioned above, plenty of reasons to search elsewhere for a more compmete solution. I mentioned already the S lens, which is a 16-50, 17 focal lengths more and wider (which is more important, more significant and more useful, than the longer end) 2f from wider, until almost the full range of the Sigma (until 32mm I believe, then it goes to 2.3f, 2.5fand 2.8f really fast), and equally sharp with very good stabilization and the fastest focusing on the system, while cost similar money when it was new. 

There are similar examples in most systems. I am not really sure why people (especially people with not much experience in working environments) consider the Sigma the one lens to rule them all. Far from it. There are plenty of m43 options from Olympus/Panasonic/Leica and others, they are litterally dozens of options and even Sony has the 16-70mm Zeiss which, not my favorite, but still a worthy do-it-all option (the 18-105 is very good for the cheap price and has amazing stabilization, if anyone do not want to spend top money).

Maybe because it’s optically superb and blazing fast? There is no other like it in the m4/3 system.

[IronFilm]

11 hours ago, Kisaha said:

I know that my favorite one for run and gunning is the Olympus 12-100mm 4f, hard to beat that, except in price.

If only it had OIS then I'd be keen indeed. 

And a f2.8 version, even with less reach, so we'd have the MFT equivalent of the 18-105mm f2.8 for Sony APS-C

[jonpais]

15 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

If only it had OIS then I'd be keen indeed. 

And a f2.8 version, even with less reach, so we'd have the MFT equivalent of the 18-105mm f2.8 for Sony APS-C

But it does have IS.

[anonim]

Maybe just to remind to important quality of no-protruding-while-zooming for using on gimbal (or pure aesthetic wise)... As far as I know, just two native lenses are such, both Panasonic's - 35-100 and 45-175mm (and one more reason for popularity of Sigma 18-35). From that point of view, from adapted lenses side (out of Zeiss Contax or Nikon push-pull design) may be interesting giant Nikon 28-70 2.8 and - my first choice - Leica R 28-70 with incredible smoothness of zoom and focus rings, also with ability for easy declicking aperture.

[IronFilm]

42 minutes ago, jonpais said:

But it does have IS.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1281427-REG/olympus_v314080bu000_m_zuiko_digital_ed_12_100mm.html

Well well well, I was wrong all this time in my mind when I thought of this lens! Thank you for the correction

[Kisaha]

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1281427-REG/olympus_v314080bu000_m_zuiko_digital_ed_12_100mm.html

Well well well, I was wrong all this time in my mind when I thought of this lens! Thank you for the correction

..plus a wrote a few hundrend words to explain how important is to have a 24mm equiv. for a do it all zoom, don't bring us back to the 28-29mm equiv. in the wide end! I could definitely could loose some of the tele end for 2.8f, but the 24mm equiv. are very important for me.

@jonpais I understand, but there are other excellent optical lenses, and with a speedbooster this is an ultra wide zoom, and ultra wide lenses are considered specialized ones, I have never used one as a main lens in 20 years of working experience. Plus the speedbooster costs some extra more money, add some extra more size and weight (that is why this is NOT an excellent gimbal lens for m43).

It is pretty obvious that I am pro native lenses(!), and this thread is all about native, workhorse zooms, which my personal opinion is that the Sigma is not.

I do not say that it is not an excellent option (and relatively cheap), but not as a workhorse lens that you want to have on your camera on a difficult working day, and for anyone still forgoten on the NX mount, the 16-50S is by far a much better choice, and only 0.2f slower, so never had the need to buy one. 

[Snowfun]

16 hours ago, Kisaha said:

I know that my favorite one for run and gunning is the Olympus 12-100mm 4f, hard to beat that, except in price.

Agreed. Fabulous lens (use it on my BM Micros).

[jonpais]

47 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

..plus a wrote a few hundrend words to explain how important is to have a 24mm equiv. for a do it all zoom, don't bring us back to the 28-29mm equiv. in the wide end! I could definitely could loose some of the tele end for 2.8f, but the 24mm equiv. are very important for me.

@jonpais I understand, but there are other excellent optical lenses, and with a speedbooster this is an ultra wide zoom, and ultra wide lenses are considered specialized ones, I have never used one as a main lens in 20 years of working experience. Plus the speedbooster costs some extra more money, add some extra more size and weight (that is why this is NOT an excellent gimbal lens for m43).

It is pretty obvious that I am pro native lenses(!), and this thread is all about native, workhorse zooms, which my personal opinion is that the Sigma is not.

I do not say that it is not an excellent option (and relatively cheap), but not as a workhorse lens that you want to have on your camera on a difficult working day, and for anyone still forgoten on the NX mount, the 16-50S is by far a much better choice, and only 0.2f slower, so never had the need to buy one. 

I haven’t shot with my Sigma and SB in years because I also prefer working with native lenses. The selection is much greater now than when I was starting out.

[sanveer]

After doing a little bit of research, I discovered that while there is a site comparing most Amatuer and Prosumer Cameras (https://camerasize.com/compare/), there appear to be none that compare Camera Lens sizes (except one that matches M43 cameras with lenses for relative look and size estimations http://four-thirds.org/en/special/matching.html). There is a strange presumption that lenses must remain small at the cost of faster glass or great options, and this applies to Panasonic too. Olympus has been shamelessly making some superb glass and some of it is pretty small too, especially for the quality and brightness that it offers. 

If Samsung could make f2-2.8 (16-50mm) Zooms, there is no reason Panasonic should not aim for Zooms that start brighter than f2.8 (Panny Leica f2.8-4 12-60mm). I saw the Zuiko f2 Zooms and they are absolutely enormous. Panasonic should aim for a combination of bright and decent range, even if it means a little large lens (not as enormous as the Zuiko f2 zooms). I don't like variable zooms, cause they suddenly feel weird if you don't close the aperture to begin with, and then zoom in.

A 12-100 versions of the stellar Olympus f4 zoom, but with an f2.8 lens would be perfect. It could be large. This single lens could outsell everything but the M43 system if it has good OIS and isn't priced above $1499.

[Kisaha]

24 minutes ago, sanveer said:

After doing a little bit of research, I discovered that while there is a site comparing most Amatuer and Prosumer Cameras (https://camerasize.com/compare/), there appear to be none that compare Camera Lens sizes (except one that matches M43 cameras with lenses for relative look and size estimations http://four-thirds.org/en/special/matching.html). There is a strange presumption that lenses must remain small at the cost of faster glass or great options, and this applies to Panasonic too. Olympus has been shamelessly making some superb glass and some of it is pretty small too, especially for the quality and brightness that it offers. 

If Samsung could make f2-2.8 (16-50mm) Zooms, there is no reason Panasonic should not aim for Zooms that start brighter than f2.8 (Panny Leica f2.8-4 12-60mm). I saw the Zuiko f2 Zooms and they are absolutely enormous. Panasonic should aim for a combination of bright and decent range, even if it means a little large lens (not as enormous as the Zuiko f2 zooms). I don't like variable zooms, cause they suddenly feel weird if you don't close the aperture to begin with, and then zoom in.

A 12-100 versions of the stellar Olympus f4 zoom, but with an f2.8 lens would be perfect. It could be large. This single lens could outsell everything but the M43 system if it has good OIS and isn't priced above $1499.

The Olympus is 1350euros here, most definitely it will cost more than 1499USD! The OIS is pretty good already.

m43 used to be everything about size and weight, but their latest flagships forgot about it, and they went full on. GH5 is bigger and heavier than even full frame dSLRs, there is no reason to hold zoom lenses on the old miniaturization mantra, when you have such a big and heavy body. 

My opinion about size/weight body vs size/weight lens ratio is that they have to be analogous. What I mean, if you have a full frame zoom like the 70-200, which is a very common lens on many people's arsenals, the ergonomics of the camera have to be capable for such lenses, that is why I was founding the A7 cameras very bad ergonomically. Same with m43, their 35-100 zoom lenses were small and light, and that was a great advantage of the system against large and heavy dSLR cameras. Personally, my sweet spot is APS-C, and specifically, the aforementioned NX with the unique S lens.

[sanveer]

4 hours ago, Kisaha said:

The Olympus is 1350euros here, most definitely it will cost more than 1499USD! The OIS is pretty good already.

Hahaha. Maybe $1999 if it is one lens (f2.8 12-100mm) to rule them all then all. I feel that Olympus lenses have letter optics than Panasonic's which correct a lot of flaws by way of internal processing instead of making better lenses.

 

4 hours ago, Kisaha said:

My opinion about size/weight body vs size/weight lens ratio is that they have to be analogous. What I mean, if you have a full frame zoom like the 70-200, which is a very common lens on many people's arsenals, the ergonomics of the camera have to be capable for such lenses, that is why I was founding the A7 cameras very bad ergonomically. Same with m43, their 35-100 zoom lenses were small and light, and that was a great advantage of the system against large and heavy dSLR cameras. Personally, my sweet spot is APS-C, and specifically, the aforementioned NX with the unique S lens.

Actually I am guessing the GH series cameras are getting huge due to 3 reasons:

1. Unlimited Recording, 

2. 5-Axis OIS, and most importantly

3. Due to having 10-bit recording without having heat issues thay come with it and without having a fan or other things.

 

The tiny size of the Sonys had ensured that they have overheating issues (they have dealt with it by having much better processors and I am guessing some superb built-in heat sink in models such as the A7iii), disappointing OIS (especially noticeable while walking), and over sized lenses (especially some of the good G Master ones).

The NX1's ergonomics are soemthing different. The grip of the body itself is so well curved. Which is one aspect most companies wither don't design well, or don't improve with subsequent models.

I think lens manufacturers should also be asked by CIPA to state their levels of IS compensation in exact stops.