Lenses!

Discussion of lenses, brand or independent, uses and merits
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3996
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by bfitzgerald »

Who's going to buy this middle product? I'll say, three people, max. ;-) This isn't the Goldilocks story. If you're a pro, you can come up with the cash for the high-end lens. For everyone else, you still have options. If you're low on cash, you shouldn't have a FF camera, in which case you can use a 50mm lens.

Well this kinda shows me how out of touch you are with the market and what's going on the Canon and Nikon 85mm f1.8's are VERY popular for FF and APS-C users as a portrait lens they are fast and quite affordable (sub £400) If you think 3 people will buy one you need to get out more and look around :mrgreen:

Having just an f1.4 is nuts it's too expensive and of limited appeal to most buyers

Suggesting the 55-200mm is a "beercan replacement" is something of a joke too sorry it's not even remotely close to what's required, but honestly the old beercan is so good Sony would have trouble making one for a reasonable price going on their lens jacking recently.

As for Olympus yes Henry I get it if size happens to be a major problem, it's not for me and looking at Olympus and their problems it seems smaller isn't really setting the market on fire either. I'm amazed at how people think simply making something smaller is somehow some kind of Holy Crusade to save us from massive cameras. It seems the buying public has other requirements not just size.
classiccameras
Viceroy
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by classiccameras »

I recently dusted off my old Olympus E-510 + Zuiko 14-54 and I got reminded just how good this camera/lens was. I never go above 800 ISO so noise isn't a problem. My point is, here is a manufacturer who made superb glass and even down at kit level, remain superb and affordable. The range was good and Olympus built a system from the ground up with quite a comprehensive lens range. It caught on quite well round the world, but eventually APS-C and many negative reviews knocked the format in to touch which I think was a great shame. Olympus had no choice other than to go M/4/3.
User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3996
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by bfitzgerald »

I kinda predicted that some time ago so did others!
There was no way Olympus were going to compete with APS-C DSLR's with a smaller format (we can argue about how much smaller or if it matters but that's how I saw it)
Esp when there was no price incentive.

Honestly I see "Sensor format problem part two" on ILC's they may face the same problem, EM-1 £1100? Doesn't add up really it's not far off full frame, and whilst I don't subscribe to the must have FF mantra (nice in some ways) the market does and you can't help but wonder where they will go longer term. Of course 4/3 fans were keen to predict the demise of APS-C, however you look at it though not likely to happen, just FF will replace them at the £1000 price point eventually

The biggest problem for camera makers is they think they can buck the trend or consumer electronics and ever decreasing prices, you can now buy a laptop for £200 (ok a basic one) but unthinkable a decade ago. Cameras are just badly overpriced and people have limited resources to keep spending on the same thing with minor revisions. I've some cameras I have had for years, despite a hard core element who upgrades bodies..a lot of people use a camera for a long time. I see plenty of older Canikon DSLR's around, even saw someone shooting a KM5d a few weeks ago.

Time to sell the bodies cheap and get the profits back on lenses. If cameras followed other electronics items you'd pay £150 for an entry model
User avatar
bakubo
Tower of Babel
Posts: 5865
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by bakubo »

I still see people using a Canon 300D when I am out and about. Even here in Japan. I bought one in 2003 as my first DSLR and it wasn't a bad 6mp DSLR -- $999 for body + 18-55mm lens. I used it on trips to Ecuador and Japan. Also, around the U.S. and Canada. Until 2012 I was updating to newer bodies pretty often because the tech was improving so fast, but now I am still using the camera I bought in May 2012 and still don't see anything that has gotten me to spend more money. Something will come along, I am sure, or what I have now may die, but until then I guess I will be content to just keep using what I have.

If my A700 had not had problems I might still be using it. Having said that, the smaller size and weight of m4/3 probably would have gotten me to switch even if the A700 had been problem free.
User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3996
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by bfitzgerald »

Well I only buy "older" near end of life products because I like a bargain! I'm sure I'll give the A77II a look later on when the price is rock bottom. I suspect I'm not alone in that, lenses wise I've had too many bargains off ebay (I'm fussy and go for mostly minty stuff) but it's usually paid off quite well.

Tons of very cheap s/h A mount bodies around and lots of lenses some of them barely used (that 24-105mm I got was brand spanking new clearly bought and forgotten about) It's no wonder camera makers are struggling to shift new cameras, I've no data for lens sales but if Nikon's profits are diving they must be taking a hit too. I might have a few lenses left top pick up but once that's done I can't see what else I'd buy, bar something getting lost or crushed. Camera makers must hate buyers like me, but then that's up to them to provide products that are worth buying, and in a lot of cases minor improvements can't really justify the cost. Sony's lens release schedule for A mount isn't that interesting either very few new lenses and the ones they have around have shot up in price. Hello Tamron and Minolta :mrgreen:
Vidgamer
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:37 am

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by Vidgamer »

bfitzgerald wrote:Who's going to buy this middle product? I'll say, three people, max. ;-) This isn't the Goldilocks story. If you're a pro, you can come up with the cash for the high-end lens. For everyone else, you still have options. If you're low on cash, you shouldn't have a FF camera, in which case you can use a 50mm lens.

Well this kinda shows me how out of touch you are with the market and what's going on the Canon and Nikon 85mm f1.8's are VERY popular for FF and APS-C users as a portrait lens they are fast and quite affordable (sub £400) If you think 3 people will buy one you need to get out more and look around :mrgreen:

Having just an f1.4 is nuts it's too expensive and of limited appeal to most buyers
Most buyers aren't going to buy a lens that has such a narrow purpose. But there are options. For example:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1 ... as_if.html

And on a budget, if you couldn't make do with something like this, the 85/2.8 is probably sufficient.

I suspect that a lot of people on e-mount are buying the Sigma 60mm rather than wait for a Sony 85mm. But 85mm strikes me as one of the few larger gaps in the e-mount lineup. I'll be interested to see if they fill it with an FE lens.
Suggesting the 55-200mm is a "beercan replacement" is something of a joke too sorry it's not even remotely close to what's required, but honestly the old beercan is so good Sony would have trouble making one for a reasonable price going on their lens jacking recently.
Sorry, I concluded years ago that the Beercan could be replaced with the 55-210, and bought the latter. For about the same money, I could have bought the former.
As for Olympus yes Henry I get it if size happens to be a major problem, it's not for me and looking at Olympus and their problems it seems smaller isn't really setting the market on fire either. I'm amazed at how people think simply making something smaller is somehow some kind of Holy Crusade to save us from massive cameras. It seems the buying public has other requirements not just size.
If smaller size never mattered, why were there ever Elph cameras, or other small film cameras? Why was there ever 35mm film when 4x6 or 6x6 is better? Obviously, small size is a feature, and there are tradeoffs involved. When you can have a smaller size and no tradeoff in image quality, now you have something special. If it means nothing to you, that's fine, but you can't say that it doesn't matter for many others.

As for the buying public in general, they seem happy enough with their cellphones. I'm not sure what that tells us. Here in the states, most people prefer larger cars, particularly if price is not an issue. 20" rims even! And yet, I tend to buy smaller cars. I'm sure there are those who say that there's no benefit to a smaller car, etc. ;)
classiccameras
Viceroy
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by classiccameras »

The small 110 film cameras were quite popular in their day, the ladies loved them because they fitted in the hand bag, [purse] and the negs could be enlarged up to arround 6x7. They were very popular amongst the holiday makers going abroad.
User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3996
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by bfitzgerald »

Well the 55-210 is E mount and not a lot of good for A mount users leaving that aside I don't like the rendering from the samples I've seen, and the Minolta 70-210mm f4 is a proven performer here (at least for me field use wise) I don't consider the lenses comparable

Onto the 85mm saga, simply put you have the 3 Amigos as I call it 35, 50, 85mm. It makes sense to offer "a more expensive f1.4 version" and a "more affordable f1.8 offering" that way multiple buyers are covered with their needs. There is nothing wrong optically with any of the "easy choice" lenses I've used them and they're good (but rather tacky cheap build unfortunately)

The 85mm f2.8 is two stops slower than the 85mm f1.4 that's a big difference and I think the lens should have been f2 at least (a stop faster) I elected to buy a Tamron 90mm f2.8 which covers my macro needs and a candid/portrait lens, but an 85mm f1,8 would still appeal. Sony would sell a whole lot more of those than the 85mm f1.4 that's for sure. Again Sony lost out to a third party maker who's offering made more sense.

Ditto 70-200mm if I ever decided to buy an f2.8 (and I don't at the moment) I'd have to be raving mad to pay the prices Sony are asking for the GII version it's not competitive and thus rather pointless, either of the Tamron's are far better value even the newer one which is on a par build wise with OEM makers is vastly cheaper.

There are some other gaps such as a 24-70mm f4 again offering a more affordable alternative to the f2.8 lenses. Though we are told a new 24-105mm f4 is due will be interesting to see if Sony can price it at reasonable levels
Last edited by bfitzgerald on Thu Aug 21, 2014 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
classiccameras
Viceroy
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by classiccameras »

Barry, I have seen a Minolta 24-105 advertised as in good ccondition for £89 from a major high street store, what do you think, worth a look or leave,
CC
User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3996
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by bfitzgerald »

classiccameras wrote:Barry, I have seen a Minolta 24-105 advertised as in good ccondition for £89 from a major high street store, what do you think, worth a look or leave,
CC
Well it's good so far on APS-C no complaints, but I've loaded a roll of film into the 7 and have to shoot that so can't comment on full frame performance yet. I might take it tomorrow as I have a wedding to shoot just to test it out a bit.
£89 sounds a fair price for a nice copy I paid just over £100 for mine boxed not a mark on it. The copy I have is certainly good at the tele end 105mm f4.5 no problem that can be handy to have a bit more speed, and 24mm whilst it's not wide it's about 36mm maybe wide enough. Not sure long term how useful it will be as the 18-135mm is similar albeit not as fast tele end but covers a real wide angle on APS-C. If you do a bit of full frame it might be worth a look, or maybe as a backup general purpose lens. The lens falls into that "not essential" but can't really say no at that price category honestly it's a steal at these prices (with Sony it was up to £400 odd brand new)

I'll report back once I have some 35mm shots done there are some compromises (distortion vignetting) but the lens is amazingly compact and whilst it's not L series build it's a mere fraction of the cost of the Canon, big heavy lump of a lens. Anyone saying mirror less is the way to go for compact size lenses, well the Minolta 24-105mm is debunks that firmly. I like it so far..

As ever performance is relative to cost, still if the lens were awful I'd not entertain it at all no matter how cheap
Vidgamer
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:37 am

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by Vidgamer »

bfitzgerald wrote:Well the 55-210 is E mount and not a lot of good for A mount users leaving that aside I don't like the rendering from the samples I've seen, and the Minolta 70-210mm f4 is a proven performer here (at least for me field use wise) I don't consider the lenses comparable
Sorry, I meant the Tamron 55-200. I consider the lenses comparable. I've seen photos from the Beercan, and while good, I got sharp results even wide-open from my 55-200, and it turned out to be a great performer, IMHO. But without having a Beercan here to compare directly against, who knows? For a while, the Beercan had a cult following, causing prices to get to $250. That has long past. The last time I looked, they seemed to be in the $150 range again, which is still good for what it is.
Onto the 85mm saga, simply put you have the 3 Amigos as I call it 35, 50, 85mm. It makes sense to offer "a more expensive f1.4 version" and a "more affordable f1.8 offering" that way multiple buyers are covered with their needs. There is nothing wrong optically with any of the "easy choice" lenses I've used them and they're good (but rather tacky cheap build unfortunately)

The 85mm f2.8 is two stops slower than the 85mm f1.4 that's a big difference and I think the lens should have been f2 at least (a stop faster) I elected to buy a Tamron 90mm f2.8 which covers my macro needs and a candid/portrait lens, but an 85mm f1,8 would still appeal. Sony would sell a whole lot more of those than the 85mm f1.4 that's for sure. Again Sony lost out to a third party maker who's offering made more sense.
I don't think it's worth worrying about. Sony owns a part stake in Tamron, so maybe they don't even mind that Tamron fills that gap. I agree, it would be nice to have more ~f1.8 choices (in e-mount as well).
Ditto 70-200mm if I ever decided to buy an f2.8 (and I don't at the moment) I'd have to be raving mad to pay the prices Sony are asking for the GII version it's not competitive and thus rather pointless, either of the Tamron's are far better value even the newer one which is on a par build wise with OEM makers is vastly cheaper.

There are some other gaps such as a 24-70mm f4 again offering a more affordable alternative to the f2.8 lenses. Though we are told a new 24-105mm f4 is due will be interesting to see if Sony can price it at reasonable levels
I think f2.8 tele zooms are a bit overkill. Fine for those who find that sort of thing fun, but they're too large, heavy, expensive, and I just don't have a need for those kind of extremes. Even if in the past one could justify such a lens, just the higher ISO capability of newer cameras mitigates the difference quite a bit. So, for zooms, I don't mind f4. Now, for primes, I think there's a place for faster primes, although I do have a couple of the f2.8 primes because of price. When push comes to shove, I'll make do with f2.8.
Vidgamer
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:37 am

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by Vidgamer »

bfitzgerald wrote:.... but the lens is amazingly compact and whilst it's not L series build it's a mere fraction of the cost of the Canon, big heavy lump of a lens. Anyone saying mirror less is the way to go for compact size lenses, well the Minolta 24-105mm is debunks that firmly. ...
Now if you could only attach it to a small camera, you'd have a point. :wink:
User avatar
bakubo
Tower of Babel
Posts: 5865
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by bakubo »

I saw someone post that Sony will release an adapter to mount E-mount lenses to a smartphone.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-sony ... qx-camera/
Vidgamer
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:37 am

Beercan vs. The World

Unread post by Vidgamer »

Coincidentally, the Beercan topic came up on DPR. There is a photo comparison at the bottom which is very telling.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3 ... t-54256887
User avatar
bakubo
Tower of Babel
Posts: 5865
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by bakubo »

bakubo wrote:I saw someone post that Sony will release an adapter to mount E-mount lenses to a smartphone.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-sony ... qx-camera/
The QX1 has been announced:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/131322 ... martphones
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests