I've used the Tamron 28-75 with excellent results. I'm amazed at the size (and cost!) of this thing compared to the Nikon/Canon versions. Given that Tamron has made a relatively compact f/2.8 standard zoom, how much effort do you think it would take to make an f/2 zoom? Sure, it'd probably as big or bigger than the Canon/Nikon 24-70's but would that be something people would be interested in? Assuming good IQ, of course. I was thinking of a 28-70mm f/2 with the same slow AF Tamron usually uses. Thoughts?
These are the days of extreme ISO. The practicality and marketability of something so large and expensive would be next to none. People are much more likely to simply bump the ISO up one stop than to pay more and carry more for that extra stop.
The only other advantage of such a zoom would be DoF control, but primes have that covered so much better already.
There are, of course, f2 zooms for the 4/3rds system. This is possible due to the fact that the image circle is far smaller than that of lenses designed for FF coverage.
Hence, I would have to say the probability of f2 zooms for FF is extremely unlikely.
Hasn't Olympus already been making Zuiko 35-100/2.0 for a while now? Last I checked it retailed for over $2000. So I guess it's possible, at the expense of weight, size and of course cost.
PS: I'm not sure of a 24(28)-70(75) possibility though, most 24/2 or 28/2 prime lenses are often a complex beast in its own (e.g. floating design, CRC) adding it to a zoom lens may complicate things further
cogitech wrote:
There are, of course, f2 zooms for the 4/3rds system. This is possible due to the fact that the image circle is far smaller than that of lenses designed for FF coverage.
And even with the design task eased by a shorter register and smaller circle, these lenses, though excellent optically, ended up large, heavy, and expensive. It's all but inevitable that 135 equivalents would be bankrupting and back breaking.
Leon Noel wrote:
Hasn't Olympus already been making Zuiko 35-100/2.0 for a while now? Last I checked it retailed for over $2000. So I guess it's possible, at the expense of weight, size and of course cost.
But it is only possible due to the fact that it only needs to cover a comparatively tiny sensor. I would estimate that a similar design for FF would need to be 3 to 4 times larger, heavier and more expensive.
cogitech wrote:
These are the days of extreme ISO. The practicality and marketability of something so large and expensive would be next to none. People are much more likely to simply bump the ISO up one stop than to pay more and carry more for that extra stop.
...although I have to say that high iso's have opened up low-light photography. I take far more pictures without flash than I used to, because I can, just about. But often it's difficult, and I don't spend much on zooms as a result. An f2 standard zoom would be number 1 on my shopping list, even if it was quite big and didn't have IS. I don't own any f2.8 zooms now because I feel that f2.8 is one stop beneath the threshold that makes night-time hand-held shooting commercially viable. As a wedding and event photographer, an f2 standard zoom would absolutely rock BECAUSE of the availability of high isos. I could carry one camera instead of three.
brainiac wrote:
...although I have to say that high iso's have opened up low-light photography. I take far more pictures without flash than I used to, because I can, just about. But often it's difficult, and I don't spend much on zooms as a result. An f2 standard zoom would be number 1 on my shopping list, even if it was quite big and didn't have IS. I don't own any f2.8 zooms now because I feel that f2.8 is one stop beneath the threshold that makes night-time hand-held shooting commercially viable. As a wedding and event photographer, an f2 standard zoom would absolutely rock BECAUSE of the availability of high isos. I could carry one camera instead of three....Show more →
As you are a 5DII owner, I would have assumed f2.8 zooms would be fully usable for you at ISO 3200 or more. I often get away with f2 at ISO 1600 at events, so when I do the math it only makes sense that f2.8 would be perfectly usable at 3200.
G. Thomas wrote:
I figured the added bokeh-ness of the f/2 would be welcomed in addition to the light-gathering.
Primes do this so much better than any f2 zoom could. I can see some people wanting it (hell, there's a market for 18-300 Super-Zooms, right) but I doubt it'll ever happen.
cogitech wrote:
There are, of course, f2 zooms for the 4/3rds system. This is possible due to the fact that the image circle is far smaller than that of lenses designed for FF coverage.
Hence, I would have to say the probability of f2 zooms for FF is extremely unlikely.
there are 2 F2 zooms in 4/3rds of interest, the 14-35/2 and the 35-100/2
these zooms follow pretty closely FF design and size, with the exception of a 0.5x focal reducer on the end of the lens. This condenses the light to an image circle size suitable for the 4/3rds format and as a consequence the lens would be capable of 2 stops better light gathering ability and would not be suitable on FF.
Looking closer at the 35-100/2 constant aperture zoom, It is widely assumed that this is a fairly conventional 70-200/2.8 zoom that is throttled back 1 stop perhaps due to some IQ issues, but it is also possible that it is a 70-200/4 zoom and 0.5x focal reducer that fully uses the 2 stops on offer.
If I were to get a zoom, I'd get the fastest I could so an f2 zoom would be very interesting and certainly not slower than f2.8. In fact the main reason I don't have a zoom is thanks to their generally small apertures (especially in medium format).
