[Klaus]

Pro lenses need the ability to separate the subject. This f8 FF equivalent lens does not have that. For the rest it appears to be pretty good.

 

The DoF question isn't really applicable here - there are no wide-range FF zooms either (yes, f/5.6 but that doesn't cut it).

[toni-a]

Wonder how long such lenses would maintain their optical quality.

The more complex the lens design, the more you have moving elements the more your lens is prone to deterioration with use, a ten year old prime, can be easily found in mint condition, this is much harder for a zoom lens (although very possible with proper care)

A lens with such a design complexity which is intended as carry on and travel lens (translates heavy stress) should be having a tough job keeping its optical quality with years.

[wim]

I'm going to jump into a MILC. Where I'm struggling is whether to go APS-C or MFT. The Sony a6300 with the 16-50 retractable lens cost $50US more than a Pany GX85 with the 12-32 pancake lens and is only 20g heavier. The size difference is also negligible. Overall performance, iso, focus, resolution, etc, definitely goes to the Sony. 

 

For a small easy to pocket/travel MFT kit I could add the Pany 35-100mm f/4.0-5.6 pancake lens and a 20/1.7 prime. While the zoom optics may not be great, this kit is appealing. Then stick to my Canon SLR gear for everything else.

 

The only downside to the Sony is once you add a medium zoom. The Sony 55-210 is twice as long retracted and 2.5x the weight. I keep feeling if Sony decides to come out with a retractable ~50-200mm lens for the alpha, it could put a last nail in the MFT coffin.

 

I think it is about time people realize that there are different cameras ans systems for a purpose. They each have their own, Currently, for sports photography you'd likely go for Nikon D5, Canon 1DX, etc. MFT is great fro video (Panasonic GH5), and stills plus best weathersealing (Olympus OM-D E-M1 II). There also are size and weight differences which become more and more relevant too. Do note that quite a few pro photographers lately have been switching to MILCs, and photogs for NatGeo often use MFT cameras (they used to use FT a lot as well).

 

So nail kin the MFT coffin? <ROFL> Dslr is where the coffins are being built right now. Give it another 10 years ands most if not all manufacturers will no longer make dslrs.

 

BTW, I see a lot of youngsters who want to get beyond photography with mobile phones getting into MFT. Why? Because of the possibilities (120+ lenses available), small, compact and light compared to dslrs, and stylish.

 

Kind regards, Wim

[wim]

Back to the 12-100mm.  If I remember, I think Tamron came up with the first 10x zoom lens for a DSLR.  The 18-200mm.  I got one, and I eventually sold it because I wanted to buy some other lens, but it wasn't that bad.  Still, don't the laws on lens snobbery exist anymore?  Can you really call a 10x zoom a PRO lens?  It makes me wonder if they aren't really packing these tiny MFT lenses with super technology that just might not be doable on much larger FF lenses do to their large size.  If a 10x zoom has PRO quality that is saying something.  I think Canon has released a really large zoom x factor "L- lens", but I sort of ignored it.  I figured it was just a fad.

 

OK, this is the lens: 

EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM

 

This is interesting to me only in the fact that Canon should not call this kind of lens L, should they?  See!  I'm a lens snob and I'm not really even a good photographer.  I just like taking pictures!  (I have access to Tamron's 28-300 Piezo Drive VC, but haven't really used it much.  It is compact, I will give them that!)

 

To tell the truth I don't even think the

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM L IS

 

Should be an "L-lens" because of the variable aperture.

 

On the other hand

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS II

 

Most definitely deserves L status.  You have to have some exceptions.  A lens with this zoom range has size constraints.  I don't the the 70-300 is long enough, I mean, it's non-L variants have the same demographics!  I've heard it is better than it's numbers suggest (meaning its review numbers), but it seems like a hard sell to me!

 

Well, those lenses are L lenses regardless, considering their build and optics, compared to similar lenses available in non-premium builds.

 

As to the 12-100, it is an 8.3 times zoom, not 10 . It is a PRO series zoom because of the way it is constructed, and because of the excellent optics. There is no real comparison with the consumer varieties of these lenses, like the Oly 14-150 and Panny14-140.

 

It is not a hard sell at all, considering it was sold out in no time everywhere in the world, after being released at the same time more or less as the E-M1 II. They are becoming available again right now.

 

If you look at reviews everywhere, it appears to be quite the lens. Oh, and with that lens on an Olympus IBIS body you get another stop of IS. Not a sports lens obviously, but 6s to 20s handheld shots is nothing to sneeze at .

 

Kind regards, Wim

[wim]

Wonder how long such lenses would maintain their optical quality.

The more complex the lens design, the more you have moving elements the more your lens is prone to deterioration with use, a ten year old prime, can be easily found in mint condition, this is much harder for a zoom lens (although very possible with proper care)

A lens with such a design complexity which is intended as carry on and travel lens (translates heavy stress) should be having a tough job keeping its optical quality with years.

 

As long as any other PRO lens, like the Canon and Nikon variants, if not longer considering Olympus' past.

 

Kind regards, Wim

[toni-a]

As long as any other PRO lens, like the Canon and Nikon variants, if not longer considering Olympus' past.


Kind regards, Wim

Well at least in Canon world, ALL canon L lenses (and some high quality lenses like 17-55f2.8 IS) have the easy possibility of being readjusted, as soon as you remove the mount of any Canon L lens you have shims that are made for readjusting lens centering, it's advised to check centering and adjust it every couple of years, if the Olympus has that then it's truly a pro lens otherwise I wouldn't pay that amount on it, being a pro also has to do with longevity and possibility of advanced service.

[wim]

Well at least in Canon world, ALL canon L lenses (and some high quality lenses like 17-55f2.8 IS) have the easy possibility of being readjusted, as soon as you remove the mount of any Canon L lens you have shims that are made for readjusting lens centering, it's advised to check centering and adjust it every couple of years, if the Olympus has that then it's truly a pro lens otherwise I wouldn't pay that amount on it, being a pro also has to do with longevity and possibility of advanced service.

 

Of course Oly PRO (and non-PRO) lenses can be adjusted. Actually, you can adjust AF as well, in-camera, certainly in teh E-M1, and AFAIK, in most other bodies as well.

 

Olympus does offer a PRO service as well, since the end of last year.

 

The question is whether you'd want to pay twice as much or even more, for a similar lens in FF. And please no equivalence arguments. Although equivalence wise a lens may have the DoF of a FF lens at twice the aperture number, it still is a lens at that aperture.

 

The only reason to go FF is for more noisefree images in difficult circumstances, or for very high resolution. However, MFT suffers much lens from banding and blotching than most DSLRs do, so from that POV up to 1600 iso and 3200 iso the cameras are easily as usable as with dslrs. In addition, IS with any of these cameras i smore advanced than any other system, so you can easily handhold shots at shutter speeds which are unheard of with non-MFT cameras. As mentioned higher up, no substitue for sports shooting (although the E-M1 comes very close), but certainly great for all kinds of images which do not have a lot of movement.

 

Kind regards, Wim

[toni-a]

Of course Oly PRO (and non-PRO) lenses can be adjusted. Actually, you can adjust AF as well, in-camera, certainly in teh E-M1, and AFAIK, in most other bodies as well.


Olympus does offer a PRO service as well, since the end of last year.


The question is whether you'd want to pay twice as much or even more, for a similar lens in FF. And please no equivalence arguments. Although equivalence wise a lens may have the DoF of a FF lens at twice the aperture number, it still is a lens at that aperture.


The only reason to go FF is for more noisefree images in difficult circumstances, or for very high resolution. However, MFT suffers much lens from banding and blotching than most DSLRs do, so from that POV up to 1600 iso and 3200 iso the cameras are easily as usable as with dslrs. In addition, IS with any of these cameras i smore advanced than any other system, so you can easily handhold shots at shutter speeds which are unheard of with non-MFT cameras. As mentioned higher up, no substitue for sports shooting (although the E-M1 comes very close), but certainly great for all kinds of images which do not have a lot of movement.


Kind regards, Wim

Thanks Wim, usually I am not the guy that argues, when I ask a question it's for learning not arguing.

If Olympus service is capable of correcting acquired decentering and the lenses are designed with long term use in mind then professionals would be more interested in MFT.

Despite not offering the best low light capabilities, nor the highest dynamic range, nor low prices. Many professionals aren't moving away, what's the main reason? It's the good service, quality of the products, when before buying a lens you know that you will be able to use it with high quality images for years, You will be encouraged to gt it. And most important you will be afraid investing in other systems.

[Brightcolours]

Of course Oly PRO (and non-PRO) lenses can be adjusted. Actually, you can adjust AF as well, in-camera, certainly in teh E-M1, and AFAIK, in most other bodies as well.
 
Olympus does offer a PRO service as well, since the end of last year.
 
The question is whether you'd want to pay twice as much or even more, for a similar lens in FF. And please no equivalence arguments. Although equivalence wise a lens may have the DoF of a FF lens at twice the aperture number, it still is a lens at that aperture.

Aperture is a size, usually measures in mm. an 100mm f4 lens has an apparent aperture (opening seen from the front) of 25mm diameter. A 200mm f4 lens an opening of 50mm diameter. Indeed, the lens (it) still only has that 25mm diameter aperture.
 

The only reason to go FF is for more noisefree images in difficult circumstances, or for very high resolution.

That, of course, is simply not true. The only real reason to go for FF is the ability to use more shallow DOF.

However, MFT suffers much lens from banding and blotching than most DSLRs do,

That seems like, well, nonsense. Pulled out of thin air.

so from that POV up to 1600 iso and 3200 iso the cameras are easily as usable as with dslrs. In addition, IS with any of these cameras i smore advanced than any other system, so you can easily handhold shots at shutter speeds which are unheard of with non-MFT cameras. As mentioned higher up, no substitue for sports shooting (although the E-M1 comes very close), but certainly great for all kinds of images which do not have a lot of movement.
 
Kind regards, Wim

[Arthur Macmillan]

I like that camera size link, Klaus!  It's fun looking at your fantasy set-ups.  It was a shocker to see the EF 85/1.2L is over a kilo!  And apparently the Sigma Art 85 is much heavier still!

 

Right!  Well I thought I would add another devil to the why sales are down phenomenon.  Someone mentioned that phone cameras are getting good enough for a lot of people.  But what I have been seeing here is there seems to be a lot of people buying compact fixed lens cameras with anything from single focus range to 10x or more zoom ratio.  These cameras are very inexpensive, and some have pretty decent IQ.  My own experience with them is that they are slow, have short battery life, break easily, and are unpredictable.  But I developed my dislike of them years ago.  They may be better now.  But they are big with the hiking crowd.  I hope I never have to use one again!

 

Just as an aside I tried to use my iPhone to take a photo of a golf ball.  I was free to pick a shady or sunny area.  It made no difference.  The dimples were impossible to capture.  It was an eye opener.  With an actual camera, it would have been a simple shot even with the cheapest lens!