Jump to content
🇩🇪 Neu: Leica SL3 Reporter ×
🇺🇸🇬🇧 New: Leica SL3 Reporter ×

Now a New 4/3 Lens Roadmap

Riley

By Riley
in Digital Forum

Recommended Posts

Cephalotus

Cephalotus

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Actually, Nikon has built a 300/2 AI-S and it's not that big and expensive even by today's standards. But again, as I've said, you can't get the same results between the two for the same subject from the same distance. :)

 

Not with the Nikon, because it lacks in resolution (ok, I only own the MF 300/2,8 for my E-1), but of course you get the same resolution from the ZD 300/2,8 compared to a 600mm lens on 35mm film/sensors.

That's what the ZD 300/2,8 was designed for and that's one reason why it does cost more than 300/2,8 lenses made for film (like my Nikon AIS 300/2,8)

 

Yes, it has one stop more DOF than a 600/4 on 35mm format, but I never missed more shallow DOF than the 300/2,8 gives me on fourthirds. (it's only half the DOF of a 300/2,8 mounted on a 35mm camera and that's not much, because the CoC in FT are half the size of 35mm). Quite the opposite is true.

 

You can add a 2x converter to the ZD 300/2,8 and you will get a 1200mm "equivalent" with F5,6 which gives a reasonable bright viewfinder and AF, with 600/4 + 2x you are at F8 and things become tricky for AF systems. (especially if you "only" use a 5D on not a 1Ds)

 

And don't forget the difference in weight and size. The 600/4 also needs a very heavy tripod, the 300/2,8 can sit on a good standard tripod.

 

So the question is:

 

One stop less DOF (is that really desireable for supertele?) and maybe a bit less noise at "equivalent ISO setting" compared to significantly more size and weight and higher cost and more problems with converters.

 

There are reasons to prefer a 600/4 + 35mm camera, but there are also reasons to prefer a ZD 300/2,8 + fourthirds.

 

If you don't have money to burn (like me) you can mount a 300/2,8 designed for film on a fourthirds camera and in THAT case you have to give up resolution, because the lens is not good enough for the fourthirds sensor.

 

Hope that posting was not wasted on a 4/3 basher, but written to someone who has a real interest in such things.

 

best regards

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply
sdai

sdai

Posted
Posted

I have no doubt that Rob, Imants and Martin ... you guys have your good reasons to prefer the 4/3 system, but the preferences of various individuals was not what the argument was about.

 

Let's get "some" facts straight ... and see what Olympus avoids to say:

 

A Zuiko Digital 300/2.8 is really just a 600/5.6 in 35mm terms (that's to match the FOV and DOF), it costs 5700 US and does not have ultrasonic motors and IS. A EF 600/4L IS ... of course, is sold at 7000 dollars. :)

 

A Panasonic 25/1.4 ... as Imants has just posted, weighs a 510g, and really will just behave like a 50/2.8 in 35mm terms, what's that alike ... a Canon 50/2.5 costs only 240 bucks and weighs only 280g. A Sigma 50/2.8 macro goes 1:1 costs 310 bucks ...

 

Will the 25/1.4 outperform the 50/2.8 macro when wide open? ... obviously no. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest stnami

Guest stnami

Posted
Posted

Simon I stated that I no longer use the 4:3 system but would if they got their act together...... in the end the argument is shot to pieces by results which is the image

Link to post
Share on other sites
sdai

sdai

Posted
Posted
Simon I stated that I no longer use the 4:3 system but would if they got their act together......

Good for ya, Imants ... and I've already told you the "E-3" won't happen till a very late date "maybe" in 2007. ;)

 

in the end the argument is shot to pieces by results which is the image

Can't agree more with you on that, sir ... I actually found my most frequently used gear is the Sony 790a camera phone. RAW format using Aperture, Lightroom? ... no kidding. LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites
Riley

Riley

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Simon the 25/1,4 is OIS

I think that would make a difference to the price weight and performance

so comparing the 50/2.8 to the 25/1.4, I can get another 5 stops speed out of the 1.4

are you seriously suggesting that isnt a significant difference ?

 

i shoot interiors, this is my living

i wouldnt compromise what i do over some whacky belief system

i need the combination depth of field and available apertures with flash

i need to shoot across 2 rooms exceeding 25ft, use flash and balance outdoor light

everything in focus, i dont want or need a DoF thin as a razor

 

now i might get the numbers i need with an APS C, but not easily with a FF

with a FF a need a tripod, which means the whole operation takes a lot longer

add up what that costs in FF with 22mm/2.8, double the time on the job

with the additional costs in gear and additional time, my bottom line begins to look crucially damaged

see that i use 4/3 because it has real advantages

Link to post
Share on other sites
deltoid1

deltoid1

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No, the lens is NOT OIS.

 

Simon the 25/1,4 is OIS

I think that would make a difference to the price weight and performance

so comparing the 50/2.8 to the 25/1.4, I can get another 5 stops speed out of the 1.4

are you seriously suggesting that isnt a significant difference ?

 

i shoot interiors, this is my living

i wouldnt compromise what i do over some whacky belief system

i need the combination depth of field and available apertures with flash

i need to shoot across 2 rooms exceeding 25ft, use flash and balance outdoor light

everything in focus, i dont want or need a DoF thin as a razor

 

now i might get the numbers i need with an APS C, but not easily with a FF

with a FF a need a tripod, which means the whole operation takes a lot longer

add up what that costs in FF with 22mm/2.8, double the time on the job

with the additional costs in gear and additional time, my bottom line begins to look crucially damaged

see that i use 4/3 because it has real advantages

Link to post
Share on other sites
Riley

Riley

Posted
  • Author
Posted
No, the lens is NOT OIS.

 

apologies its not OIS

 

so we are down to 2.8 v/s 1.4, 2 stops

there are many 50mm sub 1.8 lenses that are considerably more expensive second hand on ebay

 

you wont find the same focal in APS C, which might be around what 33mm/1.4 ef

the Canon Ef 50/1.4 lists for $520

 

from Ken Rockwell on the Nikon 50/1.4

Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AI Nikkor

It has the standard performance I see in most fast normal and wide-angle manual focus Nikkors. It has the usual barrel distortion. Here's the breakdown:

 

f/1.4: Spherical aberration lowers contrast. A lot of coma in the corners making them quite soft. Falloff

f/2: Much better. Falloff much less

f/2.8: Quite good, falloff and coma gone. Sharp all over

 

lol at usual distortion/fall off/chroma

is junk still a four letter word ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
sdai

sdai

Posted
Posted
apologies its not OIS

 

so we are down to 2.8 v/s 1.4, 2 stops

there are many 50mm sub 1.8 lenses that are considerably more expensive second hand on ebay

 

you wont find the same focal in APS C, which might be around what 33mm/1.4 ef

the Canon Ef 50/1.4 lists for $520

 

from Ken Rockwell on the Nikon 50/1.4

Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AI Nikkor

It has the standard performance I see in most fast normal and wide-angle manual focus Nikkors. It has the usual barrel distortion. Here's the breakdown:

 

f/1.4: Spherical aberration lowers contrast. A lot of coma in the corners making them quite soft. Falloff

f/2: Much better. Falloff much less

f/2.8: Quite good, falloff and coma gone. Sharp all over

 

lol at usual distortion/fall off/chroma

is junk still a four letter word ?

 

That's too funny, Rob ... to match the focal length and DOF of a 50/1.4 on 1Ds, Olympus would have to make a 25mm f/0.9. Guess what Ken Rockwell would say:

 

It has all the mojo you'll ever need for creative production. Economic bumbo jumbo, it's an instant collectors' item. LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites
deltoid1

deltoid1

Posted
Posted

You're funny. Okay, how about comparing your exotic 25mm with ASPH and 4 UD elements to another lens with some exotic glass, a EF 50 1.2 L? Hmmm. Where is your f 0.61 lens?

 

apologies its not OIS

 

so we are down to 2.8 v/s 1.4, 2 stops

there are many 50mm sub 1.8 lenses that are considerably more expensive second hand on ebay

 

you wont find the same focal in APS C, which might be around what 33mm/1.4 ef

the Canon Ef 50/1.4 lists for $520

 

from Ken Rockwell on the Nikon 50/1.4

Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AI Nikkor

It has the standard performance I see in most fast normal and wide-angle manual focus Nikkors. It has the usual barrel distortion. Here's the breakdown:

 

f/1.4: Spherical aberration lowers contrast. A lot of coma in the corners making them quite soft. Falloff

f/2: Much better. Falloff much less

f/2.8: Quite good, falloff and coma gone. Sharp all over

 

lol at usual distortion/fall off/chroma

is junk still a four letter word ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Riley

Riley

Posted
  • Author
Posted
You're funny. Okay, how about comparing your exotic 25mm with ASPH and 4 UD elements to another lens with some exotic glass, a EF 50 1.2 L? Hmmm. Where is your f 0.61 lens?

 

Well, I know a 50 at f/2.8 is surely going to leave a 50 at f/1.4 in dusts and you can't get the shallow DOF which is the reason why people buy f/1.4 lenses.

 

what you people appear to be chasing is narrow DoF

to cheap to get into MF ?

 

narrow DoF is not commercially viable for me

but it suits your purposes to be ignorant of anyone elses requirements

your tiresome bs arguments play like fiddles on some canon forum

maybe thats where you belong ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
deltoid1

deltoid1

Posted
Posted
what you people appear to be chasing is narrow DoF

to cheap to get into MF ?

 

narrow DoF is not commercially viable for me

but it suits your purposes to be ignorant of anyone elses requirements

your tiresome bs arguments play like fiddles on some canon forum

maybe thats where you belong ?

 

Buy my 50 lux and I'll be gone,

Link to post
Share on other sites
Riley

Riley

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Leica 25/1.4 @ 1.4 official sample

 

http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/l1/img/sample_images/P1030189.JPG

 

for comparison

 

Pentax 50/1.4 @1.4

 

http://k53.pbase.com/o6/78/10678/1/71044644.0PhvabYL.IMGP0869.JPG

 

Canon 50/1.8 @ 1.8

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_50_18/samples/IMG_1350-02.jpg

 

Canon 50/1.4 @ 1.4

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_35_14/samples/IMG_7536-01.jpg

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites
deltoid1

deltoid1

Posted
Posted

Hey, DOF looks just like my 50 at 2.8. But mine is far sharper though...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest stnami

Guest stnami

Posted
Posted
I have a filter list and forward most of my incoming calls to my office
........ please call your office and get them to filter me out from your responses about our mate Ollie::eek:
you, until recently, still used a D2 though Imants ... right
... yep sure do and still do, last weekends Mardi Gras landed mid four figures in sales and it was just for fun, still pays bills despite minimum effort:) :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...