p.2 #1 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
Knut. wrote:
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…...Show more →
idk of a tele zoom under 500g.
Pretty sure a 50, 100, and 200mm prime will weigh much more than a 50-300mm lens (665g) though.
p.2 #3 · 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.
The main issue with tele primes is as ever - unless the subject happens to fill the frame properly you end up cropping and losing IQ.
Maybe the 100-400/4 will have a built in TC but it won't be chaep. There have been 100-400/5.6 lenses since the 90s though not of high IQ since about 10 years ago. The 200-600/6.3 is good for some things, but there is that weirdly look at higher radius from the center and mostly needs f/7.1. Make it a f/5.6 with high IQ all over that is also capable with a 1.4x. I would be in on it immediately at triple the price of the 200-600/6.3. Flimsy lenses that are too slow and have mediocre IQ are a false economy.
p.2 #4 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
Exactly. I choose zooms for cropping in camera and to save weight. No way you can choose primes and get lower weight than most Tele zooms. And I usually carry 2 lenses at most because weight is important to me. I could carry something like a 16-35 or Tamron 17-28 and the 28-200 and be well under what comparable primes would weigh. I might give up a bit of IQ but not enough to make primes worthwhile.
aCuria wrote:
idk of a tele zoom under 500g.
Pretty sure a 50, 100, and 200mm prime will weigh much more than a 50-300mm lens (665g) though.
p.2 #5 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
The argument that zooms can easily replace slow primes doesn't hold in my opinion.
Zooms can be compact and lightweight, but then the max. aperture is just too slow. The Tamron 50-300mm is a nice and compact lens, but F6.3 at 300mm is just not going to do it for me. A 300mm F4 with similar weight and size is doable, as Nikon has demonstrated. I'd much prefer such a lens over a slow zoom.
Also, most of the time I use telephoto zooms at the long end.
And I don't like telescoping lenses (higher risk of water/dust/sand ingress).
p.2 #6 · 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 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....Show more →
It’s shooting landscapes where weight of the lens is not so important. 99% of my landscape shots are done off a tripod so the weight of the lens is not that important and today’s zooms when stopped down to f8 are extremely good. I really doubt one would notice any difference in a print made from a 200 f4 prime versus a print made from the 70-200 f4 zoom. Primes for me are important for street / cultural photography where I do carry the camera / lens on my wrist all day long. But for landscapes my camera and lenses are in my backpack until I arrive at my destination where I setup my outfit on a tripod.
p.2 #7 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
keepcoding wrote:
The argument that zooms can easily replace slow primes doesn't hold in my opinion.
Zooms can be compact and lightweight, but then the max. aperture is just too slow. The Tamron 50-300mm is a nice and compact lens, but F6.3 at 300mm is just not going to do it for me. A 300mm F4 with similar weight and size is doable, as Nikon has demonstrated. I'd much prefer such a lens over a slow zoom.
Also, most of the time I use telephoto zooms at the long end.
And I don't like telescoping lenses (higher risk of water/dust/sand ingress).
Depends what one shoots. If you are shooting landscapes at f8, then zooms would fit right in…but if you are shooting street then the extra stops with fast primes can be invaluable.
p.2 #8 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
chez wrote:
Depends what one shoots. If you are shooting landscapes at f8, then zooms would fit right in…but if you are shooting street then the extra stops with fast primes can be invaluable.
Sure. For me it's mostly wildlife, so a decent aperture and rendering free of artifacts (onion rings, LoCA) is valuable.
p.2 #9 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
To replace a 70-180 zoom, I bought a used Batis 135/2.8 in excellent condition. Image quality is superb and the size & weight are almost ideal. Having a lens around 135mm is essential for me, but I don't use it a lot, so I can forego a bigger zoom.
p.2 #10 · 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.
Agree up to a point, but having just shot 15,000+ images for a gig with a 24-70GM, 70-200GM (both v2) plus 35GM, 50GM, and Sigma 85/1.4 I can say with certainty that primes are still in another league to zooms, even wide open. Zooms catch up some when stopped down, but I didn't usually have that luxury, lighting wise. Yes, the zooms provided perfectly acceptable results overall, but in this age of high-resolution sensors I suspect most people strive for more than "acceptable".
Sure, there's a chance that my zooms are "bad copies" but based on my long experience with zooms vs primes going back to film days I'm not convinced that even stellar copies would make a huge difference because all zooms are weak at some focal length or another -- it's the nature of the beast and the tradeoff we make for the added flexibility.
p.2 #11 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
There's a place for both primes and zooms. I shoot a lot of sports where a prime isn't practical. Others (football, either flavor) in poorly lit stadiums where I need the reach and the aperture you can only get with a big prime. But even in day games or well-lit arenas I'll swap out for a prime for a different look when doing non-action shots.
It's silly when people try to extrapolate their use case as if it applies to everyone. If what you want doesn't exist, there probably just aren't enough users that share your preference to justify the cost of creating that lens.
p.2 #13 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
chez wrote:
It’s shooting landscapes where weight of the lens is not so important. 99% of my landscape shots are done off a tripod so the weight of the lens is not that important and today’s zooms when stopped down to f8 are extremely good. I really doubt one would notice any difference in a print made from a 200 f4 prime versus a print made from the 70-200 f4 zoom. Primes for me are important for street / cultural photography where I do carry the camera / lens on my wrist all day long. But for landscapes my camera and lenses are in my backpack until I arrive at my destination where I setup my outfit on a tripod....Show more →
And it really depends where you go and how you travel. 1,5kg for a body like the A7C and 3-4 lenses is achievable. No way you get there with a zoom in this package. In addition you do not want this weight dangling from your neck on long hikes.
Considering that trecking people try to shave every gram from their other gear when on a trail, it is just inconceivable that anyone would include a 700g+ zoom on a cross country treck. It just doesn‘t happen.
Look at the great portraits of Philip_pj, make a guess where he has shot them in the Himalajas and you grasp why he is going for lightweight fixed focals of Thypoch… It all makes sense.
Of course, if you drive around in your car to get to where you want to shoot your landscapes, things look different…
p.2 #14 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
Knut. wrote:
And it really depends where you go and how you travel. 1,5kg for a body like the A7C and 3-4 lenses is achievable. No way you get there with a zoom in this package. In addition you do not want this weight dangling from your neck on long hikes.
Considering that trecking people try to shave every gram from their other gear when on a trail, it is just inconceivable that anyone would include a 700g+ zoom on a cross country treck. It just doesn‘t happen.
Look at the great portraits of Philip, make a guess where he has shot them in the Himalajas and you grasp why he is going for lightweight fixed focals of Thypoch… It all makes sense.
Of course, if you drive around in your car to get to where you want to shoot your landscapes, things look different…...Show more →
I personally never hang a camera off my neck no matter how much it weighs as it just gets in the way as you travel and obscures your view of where you are placing your feet. This really is only important when trekking through dangerous terrain…not on some well groomed paths that you might be used to. I also need both hands free to help with traversing steep terrain and to clear branches from my face.
My gear stay in my backpack until I arrive at my destination. Then I use my tripod to setup my compositions. Where a zoom comes in handy is if you cannot position yourself exactly where you want and zoom into the exact composition you are looking for.
I use both zooms and primes for my landscape photography and have made very large prints from both type of lenses. Primes are mainly under 100mm and zooms greater than 100mm. This combination works very well for landscape photography.
p.2 #15 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
Knut. wrote:
Thank you, that lens is really interesting!
Yes! I wonder what the working distance is at 1:2 and 1:1. My issue with the 70-200 f4 macro is at 1:2 the working distance is about 8"--a bit short for some skittish critters. Anyone know?
p.2 #16 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
chez wrote:
I personally never hang a camera off my neck no matter how much it weighs as it just gets in the way as you travel and obscures your view of where you are placing your feet. This really is only important when trekking through dangerous terrain…not on some well groomed paths that you might be used to. I also need both hands free to help with traversing steep terrain and to clear branches from my face.
My gear stay in my backpack until I arrive at my destination. Then I use my tripod to setup my compositions. Where a zoom comes in handy is if you cannot position yourself exactly where you want and zoom into the exact composition you are looking for.
I use both zooms and primes for my landscape photography and have made very large prints from both type of lenses. Primes are mainly under 100mm and zooms greater than 100mm. This combination works very well for landscape photography....Show more →
This just shows how varying individual approaches are and that there is no right or „best „solution in general, but only the best solution for ones own, very personal individual approach. Makes our hobby so interesting!
p.2 #17 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
keepcoding wrote:
The argument that zooms can easily replace slow primes doesn't hold in my opinion.
Zooms can be compact and lightweight, but then the max. aperture is just too slow. The Tamron 50-300mm is a nice and compact lens, but F6.3 at 300mm is just not going to do it for me. A 300mm F4 with similar weight and size is doable, as Nikon has demonstrated. I'd much prefer such a lens over a slow zoom.
Also, most of the time I use telephoto zooms at the long end.
And I don't like telescoping lenses (higher risk of water/dust/sand ingress).
Can a 24-50/2.8 replace a 24/2.8?
How about replacing a 50/2.5?
To me a 300/6.3 zoom can’t replace a 300/4 prime… but the rumored 100-400/4 can.
The 300/4 Nikon is double the weight of the 300/6.3 zoom. It’s not a good example
Yes, super interesting lens indeed. The fact that it doesn't AF at closer distances is a decent design compromise. It checks a lot of boxes being quite light combined with very high magnification. My lens in this category is the Voigtländer 180/4 APO-Lanthar which is even lighter but only goes to 1/4 magnification. I love this (rare) lens, but the Laowa is the one you can actually buy, and if I didn't already have the Voigtländer and it came in F-mount, I would be very tempted.
p.2 #19 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
aCuria wrote:
Can a 24-50/2.8 replace a 24/2.8?
How about replacing a 50/2.5?
To me a 300/6.3 zoom can’t replace a 300/4 prime… but the rumored 100-400/4 can.
The 300/4 Nikon is double the weight of the 300/6.3 zoom. It’s not a good example
Well, the 100-400/4 may be able to replace the primes regarding focal length and aperture, but it will be much heavier and probably won't be on the same level of image quality.
About the 300/4 Nikon: maybe my info is wrong, but on the Nikon website it says 755g, which is barely heavier than the Tamron 50-300mm (665g).
p.2 #20 · Countless prime lenses, why no F4/F5.6 telephoto primes?
grantgoodes wrote:
Yes, super interesting lens indeed. The fact that it doesn't AF at closer distances is a decent design compromise. It checks a lot of boxes being quite light combined with very high magnification. My lens in this category is the Voigtländer 180/4 APO-Lanthar which is even lighter but only goes to 1/4 magnification. I love this (rare) lens, but the Laowa is the one you can actually buy, and if I didn't already have the Voigtländer and it came in F-mount, I would be very tempted.
I read there is a firmware update allowing AF at closer distances. May be great for focus bracketing. It would be nice to know the focal length shortening i.e. effective focal lengths at various mags along with working distances. I love my CV 180/4 and it takes extension well. With a 25 mm ext tube it goes to 1:2.5 mag. I can put it in a jacket pocket.
Flimsy lenses that are too slow and have mediocre IQ are a false economy.