p.2 #1 · Would you pay L-dollar for a fast wide m4/3 prime?
Bifurcator wrote:
Yep, and not only that but in an ultra-wide the extra stop is seldom used - for me. Can you find or show an image anywhere on FM that is any good and that uses ultra-wide lengths (8mm~12mm) at f1.2 or the likes? I don't think I've ever seen one. So what is it we're paying the extra $900 for? Just a number printed on the barrel?
Lotusm50 wrote:
I think that is primarily because there are very, very few lenses in the 8mm-12mm (16mm-24mm equiv) focal range that are f1.2 or f1.4. I can think of one, off hand, the Canon 24/1.4 L. Quite frankly, if I got a lens like this I would want it to perform well wide open (and focus close) at f1.4 because that is exactly where I would want to use it.
mawz wrote:
I can think of 4, 3 of which hit production. In addition to the 24L are the 21 and 24mm Summiluxes (The SMC Pentax 20mm f1.4 never made it to production)
Also in seeing what Ulrik's been doing with his 24/2, I'd love to see him with a similar or wider f1.4 or f1.2 lens.
Got any of "Ulrik's" links handy. 24/2 is much wider than I was talking about but if it's a non-crop sensor it might be wide enough to demonstrate what I'm missing here. I have the Zuiko 21mm f/2 and I don't think I have any shots I like from that lens that actually use f/2. Most are 5.6 ~ 16 - focusing is just too difficult and really flat shots that wide just don't look good to me. Thus my comment about 8mm to 12mm lenses. I could expand this comment I guess up to about 20mm. At that point it becomes more useful I guess but still not commonly so. I also have both the Nikkor Ai-S 20mm f/2.8 and the Nikkor Ai 20mm f/4 and I view them as nearly identical parts - never really needing or wanting to use the extra stops. So that's my feelings on 20mm and 21mm lenses. Now back to my idea about 8mm to (expanded opinion) 18mm (35mm equiv.) lenses. On a crop sensor is different of course.
PS: Rereading the OP I see he said: "Question is, would anyone here pay $1100+ for a 12mm or 15mm f1.0/1.2/1.4 for m4/3 mount?" So I guess that kinda tags me out somewhat.
p.2 #2 · Would you pay L-dollar for a fast wide m4/3 prime?
Bifurcator wrote:
PS: Rereading the OP I see he said: "Question is, would anyone here pay $1100+ for a 12mm or 15mm f1.0/1.2/1.4 for m4/3 mount?" So I guess that kinda tags me out somewhat.
Oops.. my bad. Edited the title to make it more clear. I'm sure, however, seeing the Nikon 14-24/2.8 that it might be possible for a super wide, super fast 135 lens to be made. (OT: someone needs to get Canon to make that lens in EF mount; I'd pay Nikon dollar to get that one)
p.2 #6 · Would you pay L-dollar for a fast wide m4/3 prime?
Lotusm50 wrote:
Ahh the 21mm f1.4 Summilux. All US$6500 of it. I'm sure you'll find some images wide open on the Leica forums. Although I wonder if you can accurately focus it with the M rangefinder.
Actually a fast 21-24mm is the direction I hope that Zeiss is taking the new design of the ZF/ZE 25mm. I think it would fill a better niche in the ZF/ZE line up. Right now, there might be a bit too much overlap (for some, at least) between the 21/2.8, the 25/2.8 and the 28/2.0. A 25/1.4 would garner, IMHO, more interest, no matter how good the 25/2.8 is (and I like it very much).
Note NIkon is also expected to announce a 24/1.4 AF-S in the near future, and at some point we'll see that Zeiss 'Large Aperture Wide-Angle' from Sony.
p.2 #7 · Would you pay L-dollar for a fast wide m4/3 prime?
Bifurcator wrote:
Got any of "Ulrik's" links handy. 24/2 is much wider than I was talking about but if it's a non-crop sensor it might be wide enough to demonstrate what I'm missing here. I have the Zuiko 21mm f/2 and I don't think I have any shots I like from that lens that actually use f/2. Most are 5.6 ~ 16 - focusing is just too difficult and really flat shots that wide just don't look good to me. Thus my comment about 8mm to 12mm lenses. I could expand this comment I guess up to about 20mm. At that point it becomes more useful I guess but still not commonly so. I also have both the Nikkor Ai-S 20mm f/2.8 and the Nikkor Ai 20mm f/4 and I view them as nearly identical parts - never really needing or wanting to use the extra stops. So that's my feelings on 20mm and 21mm lenses. Now back to my idea about 8mm to (expanded opinion) 18mm (35mm equiv.) lenses. On a crop sensor is different of course.
PS: Rereading the OP I see he said: "Question is, would anyone here pay $1100+ for a 12mm or 15mm f1.0/1.2/1.4 for m4/3 mount?" So I guess that kinda tags me out somewhat.
p.2 #8 · Would you pay L-dollar for a fast wide m4/3 prime?
On a crop sensor or a non-crop? I had a bit of a brain-fart earlier. If he's using 8 to 18 mm really flat on a non-crop sensor I do want to look even though that's off-topic for this thread which is considering M-4/3 bodies. 24/2 on either a crop or non-crop I already mostly, understand.
Also I just noticed in that paragraph you quoted I said 24/2 is much wider than I was talking about... - when I really meant to say narrower.
p.2 #9 · Would you pay L-dollar for a fast wide m4/3 prime?
Do you think a Nikon 17-55 DX worth as much as a Nikon 24-70 FX, assuming they have identical sharpness, contrast and everything?
Even assuming that a lens made to cover a smaller sensor is supposed to worth as much as a lens of identical f stop made to cover a larger sensor, it must be one heck of a lens for it to match the performance of L prime and FF sensor.
