guidostow wrote:
My 24-70 2.8 DG DN Art II is brilliant except for the infinity issue so it is off on the recall to get a tune up.
More on topic, I've been quite impressed by the I series primes, the 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/2 are superb! I also had the 24mm f/3.5 which is also optically fine, but I find it a bit slow to focus manually in dim conditions so it is on it's way to MPB to go towards a 24mm f/2.
guidostow wrote:
My 24-70 2.8 DG DN Art II is brilliant except for the infinity issue so it is off on the recall to get a tune up.
More on topic, I've been quite impressed by the I series primes, the 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/2 are superb! I also had the 24mm f/3.5 which is also optically fine, but I find it a bit slow to focus manually in dim conditions so it is on it's way to MPB to go towards a 24mm f/2.
Same here, I love the Contemporary range. I just wish they'd make a 28/2!
I'll perhaps give the 24-70/2.8 another try later in the year when they've figured out how to make them!
alexcarnes wrote:
Same here, I love the Contemporary range. I just wish they'd make a 28/2!
It's insane that the contemporary i series goes: 17mm, 20mm, 24mm f/2, 24mm f/3.5, 35mm, 45mm, 50mm, 65mm, 90mm and just nothing between 24mm and 35mm. Every single possible other focal length is covered, including some nobody would have expected!
thomas.D wrote:
However, I would like something above 90mm - a i-series 135 mm f4 for instance.
I do, too. Leica made a 135mm f/3.4 for their M-lens line back then. And it was fairly compact and light-weight. Considering the development in manufacturing processes, I would say that Sigma would be able to introduce a lens in that focal length at a similar aperture speed, f/3.4, that is.
Who do you think is in charge here, of this lens focal length selection and production? There are reasons for what they do however, and they have to do with the sales volumes and profit shares accounted for prime lenses and zoom lenses. Which do you believe makes more money for, not just the slacker major producers like S/C/N, but the very large adjacent outfits like Sigma, Tamron et al?
See, this is why there are so few 60-65-70-75mm lenses and it's also why we see precious few (and nearly always entry level) 28mm lenses, along with no 26-30-32mm lenses.
These are midzoom bookend zones!
And as for 70mm, it cuts both down and up into their 70-200mm game - the long game ($$), you know, the one some call part of their 'holy trinity'. Well, worship away, folks, at this profit center of the people who decide what you get to use.
And, if someone produces a great light lens or two in the vicinity of 120-135mm, that cuts down their great profit center of the 70-200mm, literally cuts it in half - it's why all the 135s are fast, huge and heavy.
Just like the zooms, so they get you to throw away the great advantages of prime lenses AND get you puffy about their great bokeh blur devices to boot - win, win. You can't call them up and ask, pretty please, can we have an xx mm lens, sirrah?
I hope it is clearer now, who is in charge of things and who takes it. Whether they like it or not. So quieten downs and don't disturb the masters of the game, please. These people have businesses to run, and they intend to maximize profits, at your expense of course. There is literally nothing you can do about it.
Jan 03, 2025 at 02:43 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
MAubrey wrote:
It's the same as the difference between 17mm and 20mm and 24mm and larger than the difference between 45mm and 50mm.
I think there are clearly two sets of i-series lenses, however. There is the f/2 set (20, 24, 35, 50, & 65) and there is the slower set (17 f/4, 24 f/3.5, 45 f/2.8, & 90 f/2.8). I'm not sure that a 28 fits that well into either set. Perhaps they could have added a sixth f/2 lens, but I still think the decision not to make a 28mm lens is more understandable when you realize that even these i-series lenses can be grouped as f/2 lenses and slower lenses.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think there are clearly two sets of i-series lenses, however. There is the f/2 set (20, 24, 35, 50, & 65) and there is the slower set (17 f/4, 24 f/3.5, 45 f/2.8, & 90 f/2.8). I'm not sure that a 28 fits that well into either set. Perhaps they could have added a sixth f/2 lens, but I still think the decision not to make a 28mm lens is more understandable when you realize that even these i-series lenses can be grouped as f/2 lenses and slower lenses.
That makes sense from one perspective. I can see that.
Though I'm not sure it was at all planned given the release order. The 35mm, 65mm, and slow 24mm all came out at once, for example. And they were the first ones after the 45mm. After that, it felt like they were just filling in gaps. And from that view, 28mm is the only gap unfilled.
I suspect (and hope) we will see a 28mm released from Sigma in this DG DN Contemporary series. Seems like it would fit nicely in the slower, more compact focal length releases since there is a big gap between the 24 3.5 and 45 2.8. A compact 28 2.8 would be perfect.
ISO1600 wrote:
I built up a mess up overlapping lenses while trying to flesh out a small FP travel kit. I also have the Kipon 35/2.4, which I really enjoy the handling and look of, but hate the longer MFD and that it's not even f2 wide open. Debating which one to keep... The AF in the DG DN is basically useless on the FP so that won't really sway my decision.
I must have shared a google photos album in this thread, because i get notifications occasionally of people checking it out.
I've long since ditched the FP- that camera is such a conundrum. So good in some ways, so frustrating and half-baked in others. The 35/2 DG is a complete waste on it- the AF is dog slow, and honestly looking back it doesn't stand out optically. There's almost nothing remarkable or amazing about it. It's kinda small, kinda heavy, slow to focus, middle of the road optics (not super sharp wide open, but not an old "character" lens either).
The FP and Kipon 35/2.4 was an awesome little kit. I miss that. I don't miss the 35DGDN at all.
philip_pj wrote:
Who do you think is in charge here, of this lens focal length selection and production? There are reasons for what they do however, and they have to do with the sales volumes and profit shares accounted for prime lenses and zoom lenses. Which do you believe makes more money for, not just the slacker major producers like S/C/N, but the very large adjacent outfits like Sigma, Tamron et al?
See, this is why there are so few 60-65-70-75mm lenses and it's also why we see precious few (and nearly always entry level) 28mm lenses, along with no 26-30-32mm lenses.
These are midzoom bookend zones!
And as for 70mm, it cuts both down and up into their 70-200mm game - the long game ($$), you know, the one some call part of their 'holy trinity'. Well, worship away, folks, at this profit center of the people who decide what you get to use.
And, if someone produces a great light lens or two in the vicinity of 120-135mm, that cuts down their great profit center of the 70-200mm, literally cuts it in half - it's why all the 135s are fast, huge and heavy.
Just like the zooms, so they get you to throw away the great advantages of prime lenses AND get you puffy about their great bokeh blur devices to boot - win, win. You can't call them up and ask, pretty please, can we have an xx mm lens, sirrah?
I hope it is clearer now, who is in charge of things and who takes it. Whether they like it or not. So quieten downs and don't disturb the masters of the game, please. These people have businesses to run, and they intend to maximize profits, at your expense of course. There is literally nothing you can do about it....Show more →
Does it really make sense to blame the businesses for the choices that consumers make?
thomas.D wrote:
However, I would like something above 90mm - a i-series 135 mm f4 for instance.
I'd be down with a compact 135/4. I feel like if there's any chance of such a lens, it's in the 'i' series. They really went for small size on the 90/2.8, so if they put the same design team on the 135...
Dave Sanders wrote:
I'd be down with a compact 135/4. I feel like if there's any chance of such a lens, it's in the 'i' series. They really went for small size on the 90/2.8, so if they put the same design team on the 135...
Agreed. A very small 135/4 would be great. In the meantime, that little 90/2.8 does pretty good service in crop mode as a 135/4. I really like that lens.
When did you last get to vote on the 'will we do a 28mm' committee? Or 'how about a slow landscape set of lenses for serious usage?' I dont recall them approaching anyone I know on the pros and cons of the noble focal length of 28mm or anything like Leica's SEM 21mm and 24mm Elmar. So as these things go, I speculate as to why it is so, more so if a pattern emerges as it does in this matter of the FL ecosytem.
You sound knowledgeable about consumer attitudes on these matters. Can you direct me to any textual content that provides us cogent and comprehensive data reflecting consumer lens preferences of the major producers?
A lot of people would like to see more industry analysis and particularly prospective user sentiment regarding the tools they need - lenses. Not having a go at you here, I am genuinely interested in these things, I am a curious person, for good or ill. Both, at times.
MAubrey wrote:
It's insane that the contemporary i series goes: 17mm, 20mm, 24mm f/2, 24mm f/3.5, 35mm, 45mm, 50mm, 65mm, 90mm and just nothing between 24mm and 35mm. Every single possible other focal length is covered, including some nobody would have expected!
Actually I would love a 40mm f2 way before I'd like a 28mm.
