p.1 #1 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
I find it weird that we have literally hundreds of prime lenses in the range 24 - 85mm, but basically no affordable telephoto 100mm+ prime with an aperture of F4/F5.6.
I know there are plenty of zooms, but looking at the Sigma 500mm just shows me how much better a prime lens could be. It would be good to have some affordable, lightweight 200mm - 400mm options.
Anyone else looking for "slow" telephoto primes? Any guess as to why there haven't been any announced yet?
p.1 #2 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
It is kind of a mystery. Sigma has a monopoly over E-mount small teles with the 500mm. Nikon has a few options in Z-mount. But I am surprised Nikon hasn't ported the F-mount 300 and 500mm PF lenses over to Z-mount. Still more baffled no one else has licensed or copied the designs for E-mount. Canon's cheap RF 600 f/8 and 800 f/11 options seem to be popular. Odd that Canon has not offered the 300 f4 in RF-mount. I think that lens was in production longer than any other lens ever (someone please correct me if I'm missing something). Clearly enough people liked the 300 f4 to keep it going for 30 years.
Sony has patents for Fresnel lenses but they have not exercised them yet. Seems like most manufacturers are concentrating on the high and low ends of the price spectrum like $12,000 600 f/4 and $900 600 f/8. A 600 f/5.6 would seem to be the happy medium but no one is going there.
p.1 #3 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
I think the reason is lack of product differentiation that would result in cannibalizing the sales of more profitable lenses. There's not enough difference between a prime 600mm f/5.6 and a 600mm f/4 to make it dramatically cheaper, but given comparable quality many would buy it instead of the 600mm f/4 to save, say, 20%. Instead of selling more lenses and making more money, they'd be splitting the sales of one existing product between two and enduring more development and overhead costs.
It's the same reason that features that could be implemented via firmware in some cameras are not. They are reserved for the more expensive and more profitable models to differentiate them from the rest. If you want the feature you have to pay, even though it would cost next to nothing to provide it in the cheaper cameras.
Regarding patents, they are often used to limit the abilities of competitors, rather than to implement the patented feature in a product made by the patent holder. The patent holder may or may not use it at sometime in the future, but they don't want anyone else to implement it in the meantime.
p.1 #6 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
Zooms. They're easier to sell to a broader audience. I think any slower tele prime coming from Sony at this point will have something else going on in the design, like a 200/2.8 GM STF or a 300/4 G Macro (take my money now) that keep them more on the specialty side. Otherwise, and in the foreseeable future, I think we'll be depending on third parties to fill the gaps, like with Sigma's excellent 500/5.6 or Laowa's big bargain in a small package 180/4.5 while Sony puts more R&D into more impressive zooms.
I'm not really in the market for anything like it, though. The 300GM solved those problems for me, with its light weight and excellent performance with the extenders. I don't feel like there's any reason for me to envy Nikon's Z PF lenses. While it's as large as any other lens of its type, it's a reasonably small 420/4, and I doubt anyone will make a smaller 600/5.6.
p.1 #9 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
aCuria wrote:
70-200/4 gets you the first 4, and a 1.4x gets you the last one
30% lighter means you save 200g, but you lose all the other focal lengths. Is that worth it?
That new 100-400/4 could be interesting
Yep, the 70-200 f4 does it for me. For me these f4 lenses would be for landscapes and the zoom much better meets those needs than a combination of f4 primes.
p.1 #10 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
freaklikeme wrote:
The 300GM solved those problems for me, with its light weight and excellent performance with the extenders. I don't feel like there's any reason for me to envy Nikon's Z PF lenses. While it's as large as any other lens of its type, it's a reasonably small 420/4, and I doubt anyone will make a smaller 600/5.6.
I agree. The 300mm & 2x extender eliminated my need for the 600/4.0 (which was my dream BIF lens). An extra stop isn't worth $6K, and it's nice to go back to 300mm if the environment warrants it.
p.1 #11 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
aCuria wrote:
70-200/4 gets you the first 4, and a 1.4x gets you the last one
30% lighter means you save 200g, but you lose all the other focal lengths. Is that worth it?
That new 100-400/4 could be interesting
At 1) Yes, but a single focal length is always much lighter. I want my lenses as light as possible and do zooming in post (e.g. I crop). To me (of course a very personal view) zooms are obsolete and a relict of times when I was still shooting slide film. Today I can do all necessary zooming by cropping in post, up to crop factors of 1.5 or even 2.
2) Personally I find light weight most important. Since I can crop, I also do not lose anything. Long ago I have noticed that 24MP is more than enough for anything I do. The reserve I have between 24 and 50(60)MP is what I can divert to cropping.
A reason why my lenses are usually spaced with a factor of 2x fov. With a dedicated button I do the 1.4x croppings for in between focal lengths.
14-35-75-150 for example (cropping with a factor of 1,4 on an A7RV) would also yield 24, 50, 110, and 230.
This yields 14-24-35-50-75-110-150-230 in a light weight four lens package with at least 30MP; what more to ask?
p.1 #13 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
jwpstl wrote:
To me, primes are a relic of a past where zooms weren't good enough and primes were required to get acceptable IQ.
I'd take the one lens solution over a 4 prime solution all day and everyday.
Isn‘t it nice, that people can have different preferences depending on their personal workflow?
- To me the weight on my neck in the field would be a no-go.
- You might be be annoyed by the necessity of doing the cropping in post.
Image quality most likely is not the decissive factor: I compromise by cropping and you compromise by accepting that the zoom is good enough. It just leaves weight and postprocessing as the deciding differentiators.
p.1 #14 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
Today’s market is likely very different than SLR days, when every lens - prime or zoom - had two or three tiers of quality and price.
General consumers usually want the convenience of a zoom and prefer low price points…buy it once and then done.
Pros will want task-specific zooms or primes but often wider aperture. Companies bundle all best features there. If they introduce a really good f/4, then it needs to be dumbed down for some other features, or it will eat into the market of the pricier, wider options. The newer 70-200/4 did that, as did the 300 GM (vs the 600).
I think we are arriving near the peak of what camera innovation can be, so companies will have to broaden their lens lineup to continue to generate new revenue.
p.1 #15 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
Knut. wrote:
At 1) Yes, but a single focal length is always much lighter. I want my lenses as light as possible and do zooming in post (e.g. I crop). To me (of course a very personal view) zooms are obsolete and a relict of times when I was still shooting slide film. Today I can do all necessary zooming by cropping in post, up to crop factors of 1.5 or even 2.
2) Personally I find light weight most important. Since I can crop, I also do not lose anything. Long ago I have noticed that 24MP is more than enough for anything I do. The reserve I have between 24 and 50(60)MP is what I can divert to cropping.
A reason why my lenses are usually spaced with a factor of 2x fov. With a dedicated button I do the 1.4x croppings for in between focal lengths.
14-35-75-150 for example (cropping with a factor of 1,4 on an A7RV) would also yield 24, 50, 110, and 230.
This yields 14-24-35-50-75-110-150-230 in a light weight four lens package with at least 30MP; what more to ask?
In my view its the subject that determines if a prime or zoom should be used. A 100-400mm f/4 is going to be much more useful for sports compared to a pair of 100/4 and 200/4 primes.
I am not convinced the cropping angle works so well in the context of slow primes either. If we start at 100mm f/4 and crop to 200mm you end up with f/8 equivalent, this is too slow for my taste.
It makes more sense when starting at 35/1.4 and cropping to get 70/2.8 equivalent.
p.1 #16 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
jwpstl wrote:
To me, primes are a relic of a past where zooms weren't good enough and primes were required to get acceptable IQ.
I'd take the one lens solution over a 4 prime solution all day and everyday.
My first 'good' lens was Canon EF 200 2.8L (II).
It was about half the weight, half the size and half the price of the 70-200 2.8L IS.
It was no better optically.
Definitely not a case of zoom not good enough.
Soon after I got 400 5.6L. For me, it was weight, AF speed and cost that appealed.
Opinions vary on whether optical quality was actually better than the 100-400 L zoom.
Depending on the individual's opinion, 'zoom not good enough' might have applied, might not.
Once the 100-400 L II was released, zoom was good enough and possibly better.
That's very recent 'past' though.
p.1 #17 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
aCuria wrote:
In my view its the subject that determines if a prime or zoom should be used. A 100-400mm f/4 is going to be much more useful for sports compared to a pair of 100/4 and 200/4 primes.
I am not convinced the cropping angle works so well in the context of slow primes either. If we start at 100mm f/4 and crop to 200mm you end up with f/8 equivalent, this is too slow for my taste.
It makes more sense when starting at 35/1.4 and cropping to get 70/2.8 equivalent.
I complete agree with you, that zooms are very useful for sports. I also have a 200-600 zoom and cannot really imagine replacing it with fixed focal lenses.
What I wrote was from my perspective which is dominated by landscape shooting. For landscapes I always do some fine tuning with cropping and (to me) this is best done in post. I agree that in most cases this does not exceed a crop of 1,5 so I‘m mostly fine with lenses spaced at 2x.
I have no problems finding exactly the focal length I need between 9mm and 100mm, but the field is very thinned out above 100mm, and I personally miss light weight lenses (<500g) there.
I did not fully understand your argument, why a 35/1.4 is a 70/2.8 when cropped. Maybe you can explain what you mean?
In any case I shoot most of my lanscape shots at f5.6 or f8 so for (my) specific use a slow but very sharp fixed focal length between 135 and 200mm would be very interesting. If it were just 400g, I would just drop it in my carry on bag more frequently. 150 or 180mm at f5.6 should be doable with 400g.
How often do I consider my 1kg 70-200 zoom, but then just leave it behind… Especially when doing light city traveling.
p.1 #18 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
Choderboy wrote:
My first 'good' lens was Canon EF 200 2.8L (II).
It was about half the weight, half the size and half the price of the 70-200 2.8L IS.
It was no better optically.
….
You have really got my arguments why I prefer fixed focals there 😉
- half the weight
- half the size
- half the price
…
Ok, if it is really suposed to be superb, price will not be half, and if equal effort is invested, then the fixed focal length will be better centered, have less distortion and most likely still be slightly sharper, although the differences have come down.
p.1 #19 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
Knut. wrote:
I complete agree with you, that zooms are very useful for sports. I also have a 200-600 zoom and cannot really imagine replacing it with fixed focal lenses.
What I wrote was from my perspective which is dominated by landscape shooting. For landscapes I always do some fine tuning with cropping and (to me) this is best done in post. I agree that in most cases this does not exceed a crop of 1,5 so I‘m mostly fine with lenses spaced at 2x. I have no problems finding exactly the focal length I need between 9mm and 100mm, but field is very thinned out above that. and I personally miss light weight lenses (<500g) there.
I did not fully understand your argument, why a 35/1.4 is a 70/2.8 when cropped. Maybe you can explain what you mean?
In any case I shoot most of my lanscape shots at f5.6 or f8 so for (my) specific use a slow but very sharp fixed focal length between 135 and 200mm would be very interesting. If it were just 400g (e.g. 150 or 180mm, f5.6 should be doable with 400g), I would just drop it in my carry on bag more frequently (much much more often than I take the 1kg zoom)....Show more →
Knut. wrote:
I did not fully understand your argument, why a 35/1.4 is a 70/2.8 when cropped. Maybe you can explain what you mean?
If you shoot a image on a full frame sensor 35/1.4, then perform a 2x crop you get the field of view of a 70mm.
However the background blur and compression you get after cropping is exactly equivalent to having used 70mm at f/2.8 on a full frame sensor.
You will quickly be convinced if you test this out yourself.
Knut. wrote:
In any case I shoot most of my lanscape shots at f5.6 or f8
The RF100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM is only 635g.
That new rumored 100-400G may be interesting to you, if its similar in weight to the Canon.
While a 100-400 zoom may not be sharper than a 100mm prime at 100mm, the zoom is most likely to be sharper compared to cropping to 150mm.
If all focal lengths are equally valuable to you, then the zoom makes more sense for the landscape use case. It does require you to be more careful with framing in-camera though.
p.1 #20 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
aCuria wrote:
If you shoot a image on a full frame sensor 35/1.4, then perform a 2x crop you get the field of view of a 70mm.
However the background blur and compression you get after cropping is exactly equivalent to having used 70mm at f/2.8 on a full frame sensor.
You will quickly be convinced if you test this out yourself.
The RF100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM is only 635g.
That new rumored 100-400G may be interesting to you, if its similar in weight to the Canon.
While a 100-400 may not be sharper than a 100mm prime at 100mm, the zoom is most likely to be sharper compared to cropping to 150mm.
If all focal lengths are equally valuable to you, then the zoom makes more sense for the landscape use case. It does require you to be more careful with framing in-camera though....Show more →
These are definitely valid points from the perspective „which zoom would be doable“.
I am open minded to zoom or fixed focal lens but do set a limitation:
- My lenses mustn’t exceed 5oog (ideally be around 400g)
So if there is a zoom that fulfills this, I‘m happy to consider it, I just have found that fixed focal lenses are more likely to do so.
Having filled my lens requirements between ultra wide and 90mm, I still miss a lightweight lens between 100 and 200mm.
Fans of zooms always jump in at this point and try to sell me the advantages of zooms in this focal range. But just as I have not been overwhelmed by the weight of Sigma‘s 14-24 zoom, I‘m clearly not impressed by the weight of any 70-200 zooms.
Clearly not everyone is as sensitive to weight as I am, but many on this site are: just look at the lenses Fred follows the last two years: they are mostly in the 100 to 300g range 😉. He has not tested any zooms as far as I am aware of. Just food for thought…
