thrice wrote:
It seems like every manufacturer is avoiding f/2 like the plague (outside of M-mount), which I really don't understand.
Steve Spencer wrote:
L mount certainly hasn't avoided f/2 with the Leica SL f/2 APOs and the Sigma Contemporary line both having a large number of offerings. Nikon of course has the f/1.8S lenses that are close to an f/2 line. It is really Sony and Canon that have opted for a full set of top level f/1.4 lenses with very few f/1.8 or f/2 offerings, and the few offerings at f/1.8 or f/2 they have are consumer lenses without much correction. I think that is too bad as I think f/1.8/f/2 is often a nice compromise.
I'd also love a set of optically superb, compact f/2 lenses from Canon (my choice of mirrorless), but I think that is what their f/1.4 VCM line is supposed to be. As I've speculated before, I think they stretched those to f/1.4 (with strong wide open vignetting) rather than being conservative and detuning them to f/2, which I have also speculated is what Leica did with the Cron-SL APO ASPH line. Canon's VCMs and the Leica APOs are very similar in size with respect to optics. Yet one is f/1.4 and the other is f/2. Leica says they designed the Cron-SLs to look/render like faster lenses and it probably helps that the optics are probably larger than needed for f/2. Canon on the other hand probably went for f/1.4 because on paper it looks better than f/1.8 from Nikon, meanwhile Sony has a bunch of really good f/1.4 lenses that Canon needs to compete against. From a marketing perspective, f/1.4 is more sexy and it would be more difficult to convince the average user to spend a similar premium, if perhaps only slightly lower, for 'just' f/2 performance, even if it was competitive with the Cron-SLs at a fraction of what those cost.
A line of premium f/2 lenses IMO also makes a lot more sense if you're going to market a line of f/1.2 halo primes that are massive and expensive. Not everyone wants those and I don't really understand the point of simultaneously marketing similarly performing f/1.4 lenses. I'm thinking of the Sony 50/1.2 and 50/1.4. Here I think Nikon's lineup makes sense - f/1.2 halo lenses and 'premium' f/1.8 'real world' lenses that get the job done. Their two f/1.4 offerings are inexpensive 'character' lenses and therefore fill a justifiable niche. Canon's VCMs do make sense alongside their two f/1.2 halo lenses because the VCMs are uniquely designed to target hybrid use in a way that the f/1.2s don't address. However, Canon's 'budget' f/1.8 lenses are a let down for anyone wanting higher-end performance. They're competent but cut corners in areas such as AF speed and physical design, while being otherwise uninspiring.
Back to the topic of the Zeiss Otus ML lenses... aren't the Loxia lenses supposed to be the 'high quality' f/2 (or thereabouts) line? Does no one like the Loxia lenses? I haven't seen much discussion about them for a long time. I can imagine that the Voigtlander f/2 APOs have had an impact.