Does anyone really shoot f/2.8 midrange zooms on FF for their shallow DOF? I prefer to use fast primes for that application. Shallow DOF isn't really one of the top attributes I associate with these lenses, rather it's their workhorse build quality, top of the line image quality, and low light capabilities that I care about. In that vein, the 12-35 f/2.8 doesn't appear to lack much.
Also, what exactly is wrong with someone using one of these 12-35 f/2.8 lenses on an E-M5 for 'professional' purposes? How is that so different from a D300 + 17-55 f/2.8 combo? The m4/3 kit would have bit less shallow DOF capability and poorer continuous AF, but would feature IS and much less bulk (weight would be almost 2 pounds lower).
Javier Munoz wrote:
But you can have a small FF system with small fast primes. Pentax did it with their limiteds and so did other companies. I guess it wouldnt be the bread and butter of many pros but there would be a fairly decent market of enthusiasts and pros who care about size.
I personally happen to think that swallow DOF is vastly overrated but I know that I am in a minority
Edit: or so I thought until I finished reading this thread
Nikon has/had small fast primes too: 20/2.8D, 24/2 AIS, 28/2AIS, 50/1.8D, etc. etc., these worked well on film, but not so well on full frame digital. I suspect the DA limiteds may not work so well on any rumored FF Pentax either. It seems fast primes + full frame = large lenses due to the telecentricity requirements. Going mirrorless would help, but today's fast digital FF lenses seem to be very large compared to their film lens forefathers.
For $1400 it should have been f2. For $1000 at f2.8, I can see justification for that. Nobody buys MFT for ultimate image quality, they buy it because it's a fun hot sorta smallish system and they like Olympus cameras.
Having a 24-70 zoom capable of shallow DoF is enormously useful when shooting an event when sometimes you need speed or sometimes you need shallow dof or sometimes you need high shutter speed or etc.
You certainly give up a lot of IQ for the size but now it's also really damn expensive. When you consider previous high quality MFT zooms, the price on this one is a bit shocking.
FlyPenFly wrote:
For $1400 it should have been f2. For $1000 at f2.8, I can see justification for that. Nobody buys MFT for ultimate image quality, they buy it because it's a fun hot sorta smallish system and they like Olympus cameras.
I personally think $1000 would have even been a little high, although it does have IS built in.
I dropped $900 for the Sony 16-50/2.8 and the LAEA1 adapter to use on my Nex, I can't imagine this lens is any better given its the same relative focal length on a 1.5x sensor. It outperforms the Canon 24-70 v1 IMHO, of course its APS- only. I've never looked at Sony as a price leader when it comes to anything, but the 16-50 appears to be quite the bargain - go figure...
Yeah, that's really the only reason that I chimed in on this thread in the first place. My good friend, who shoots the OM-D, contacted me this morning asking if I'd seen the price of the new zoom, and I was surprised to look it up. We kind of came to the agreement that it kinda seems like Panasonic is trying to lure users into thinking that, in terms of lens cost, f2.8 is f2.8, regardless of sensor size.
Keep in mind everyone that the 7-14 started at like $1350 and is now a bit under $1000. We'll have to see what price really ends up being. Also, it may get kitted with a GH3 at a significant discount ($300-$350 off would not be unusual based on the 14-140 GH1/GH2 kits). Panasonic gives big breaks for kits (which is sort of annoying to their established customers).
how much are the E prime and zoom compared with prime and zoom with equivalent f number on FF? Are the NEX zoom cheaper than the zoom with equivalent f number on FF?
aleksanderpolo wrote:
how much are the E prime and zoom compared with prime and zoom with equivalent f number on FF? Are the NEX zoom cheaper than the zoom with equivalent f number on FF?
It's tough because there aren't lot of straight over comparisons. The e-mount primes are all a little more than their a-mount aps-c counterparts, but the build is much better, and some, like the 50/1.8, have OSS. There is an expected constant aperture zoom coming this year for NEX, and I'd doubt it would be much more than the $799 16-50/2.8 for Alpha aps-c.
If you go by actual focal length, the Zeiss 24/1.8 for e-mount is $300 less than the Zeiss 24/2 for a-mount, but, again, it's not an equivalent comparison.
kwalsh wrote:
Keep in mind everyone that the 7-14 started at like $1350 and is now a bit under $1000. We'll have to see what price really ends up being. Also, it may get kitted with a GH3 at a significant discount ($300-$350 off would not be unusual based on the 14-140 GH1/GH2 kits). Panasonic gives big breaks for kits (which is sort of annoying to their established customers).
Ken
Wow, I've gotta be honest, I didn't realize that lens was so expensive, either. Man, Panasonic isn't messing around with these zooms.
I think it's a brilliant move on Panasonic's part.
I don't think anybody regards a $1,000 camera like the OMD as a consumer camera - it's enthusiast bordering prosumer. When the novices move up from a compact P&S into a m4/3 system, they'll read that the 24-70 f/2.8 midrange zoom is a bread and butter event lens. They've probably been to weddings before and noticed the photographers there using them.
So what will they do when they want to take some pictures at their cousins wedding? Get the same type of lenses the "pros" do. Considering it's a big discount to the (native) FF midrange zooms, they'll shell out the cash and think they are getting an amazing deal.
There's a lot with regard to marketing that Panasonic et al have thought about - I don't think it's a huge stretch to assume a lot of the potential buyers will be people like I described above.
jhinkey wrote:
Nikon has/had small fast primes too: 20/2.8D, 24/2 AIS, 28/2AIS, 50/1.8D, etc. etc., these worked well on film, but not so well on full frame digital. I suspect the DA limiteds may not work so well on any rumored FF Pentax either. It seems fast primes + full frame = large lenses due to the telecentricity requirements. Going mirrorless would help, but today's fast digital FF lenses seem to be very large compared to their film lens forefathers.
Pentax FA limiteds (31, 43 and 77) seems to work fairly well on FF digital, or at least that is what many Canon users seem to argue. I guess that if you start adding in lens motors and or VR/IS then the things would get larger fast.
Doug, I just found it interesting no one is insisting on a 35/1.0 APSC lens and price it comparable to a 50/1.4 on FF (look at the 35/1.4 X for example, $600 for a 50/2 DOF equivalent, what a rip off!). But then when it comes to m4/3, people are insisting on equivalent DOF.
With that said, the new Panny lens is too expensive for me.
aleksanderpolo wrote:
Doug, I just found it interesting no one is insisting on a 35/1.0 APSC lens and price it comparable to a 50/1.4 on FF (look at the 35/1.4 X for example, $600 for a 50/2 DOF equivalent, what a rip off!). But then when it comes to m4/3, people are insisting on equivalent DOF.
With that said, the new Panny lens is too expensive for me.
I don't know, I do think a 50/2 equivalent for $600 is more reasonable than an f5.6 equivalent zoom for $1300. Heck, I think the Voigtlander 25/.95 is an ok deal for an 50/1.9 equivalent, considering the complexity, but I do see your point. I guess that, since f2.8 isn't really considered all that complex for a zoom anymore, and we've seen f2 zooms for 4/3s, f2.8 at that cost seems steep. If it was an f1.4 zoom for $2500, I'd likely not have been as surprised by the cost.
mawz wrote:
It's a LOT cheaper than current 1st party 24-70's (which are generally double that, IIRC the Sony is the cheapest at around $2000 and the Canon 24-70LII is closer to $2400 with the Nikkor in the middle) and comparable in cost to Nikon's 17-55/2.8 and Canon's 17-55/2.8 IS for APS-C, more expensive than Sony's admittedly cheap 16-50 (which ironically is actually the best of these).
You can't really compare it to a 3rd party lens and the original Canon 24-70L is long in the tooth and well known to be the worst 24-70 on the market today and is also constrained by price points set over a decade ago when f2.8 normal zooms were a LOT cheaper than today (good lens? yeah, but no better than a good copy of Tamron's 28-75/2.8).
So is the 12-35 overpriced? Maybe a little compared to the best lens in its class, but Sony oddly decided to be VERY aggressive in pricing the 16-50 so I can't really hold it against Panasonic for pricing against the CaNikon equivalents....Show more →
But it's not a 24-70 no matter how you explain it, but this is how Panasonic is pricing it. Just because it's got a FF equivalent FL range of a 24-70 means squat for how it should be priced. And let's not forget this is a FF equivalent aperture of f/5.6. The bill of materials alone would be significantly less. This is the lie of m4/3 (and I now own one), small lenses at FF prices.
I dont think Panasonic has announced the price yet, so we don't even know if the $1300 number is correct.
Plus looking at SLRGear review of this lens it is clear that the panasonic zoom is appreciably better wide open then Canon 17-55mm and Sony 16-50mm. The Nikon 17-55mm doesn't equal the wide-open performance of the panasonic zoom even if you stop down the Nikon by 2-3 stops. The canon costs $1100 and the Nikon costs $1450. The Sony is definitely a bargain though it doesn't match the Pany in performance. And that too in a much smaller and lighter package. I think thats highly impressive!
