Wow I never thought I'd see a lens..

[bfitzgerald]

This slow at the tele end
https://www.canon-europe.com/lenses/can ... -stm-lens/

Makes the old Minolta 24-105mm look like a bargain. I thought F4.5 might put people off, turns out it's quite fast compared to this. It is slightly lighter, but it is not smaller. Maybe we'll see more of these "even slower" lenses. I saw Nikon making the 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3. Seems we are in a period of "lens speed creep"

[bfitzgerald]

Perhaps I spoke too soon!
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-produ ... 4-6.3.html
https://www.canon.ie/lenses/canon-rf-600mm-f11-is-stm/
https://www.canon.ie/lenses/canon-rf-800mm-f11-is-stm/

[bakubo]

Yeah, several companies are coming out with rather slow FF lenses which are smaller than the faster FF lenses. IMO, one can't compare to the speed of old film lenses though. In film days ASA 100 was about as fast as I went with slide film -- slide film speeds that were the best were ASA 25, 50, 64, and 100 -- 200, 400, and beyond were just not that good. With print film I sometimes used ASA 400, but I liked to use 100 or 200 if I could. Some people preferred ASA 25 and 32 print film though.

With digital FF though ISO 3200 or 6400 is probably more like ASA 100 film (or maybe 200). The old film thinking about maximum apertures just seems to not be all that relevant anymore. DOF, of course, is the same. In most situations f6.3, f7.1, or f8 with FF digital will still allow using low ISO such as 100, 200, or 400. In lower light with FF it is no problem to go higher, even much higher.

[bfitzgerald]

Perhaps I can see that. Maybe the 600/800mm primes have some appeal for their size/weight. I've no idea if they are any good, and F11 could mean a lot of high ISO shooting.
What I don't get is the 24-105mm, Canon already have a 24-105mm F5.6 STM surely a more appealing lens. F7.1 is a step too far in slow zooms IMO.
Also the new Nikon kit lens, yes it's small but we've had 24-50mm F4 since the 80's, so how exciting a variable aperture short zoom is I'm not convinced about that either. The scary part is Nikon are asking for £439 for a slow plastic mount lens, and Canon are asking for £450 odd for that 24-105mm. Wow just wow..

[bakubo]

Something that doesn't get discussed is something that strongly influenced me in early 2012 to start using m4/3 rather than my DSLRs. It is that the base ISO is 200 for the m4/3 bodies. That means that even with comparatively slow lenses such as the Olympus 14-150mm f4-5.6 (sort of equivalent to FF 28-300mm f8-11) that much of the time even with that rather slow zoom I would still be able to shoot at the base ISO.

I have all my photos in Lightroom so I just checked. Looking at all my Olympus files (PEN-F, E-M10II, E-M10, E-M5) taken in all those years I see that about 83% were taken at ISO 200. And 89% were taken at <= ISO 400. And the Olympus bodies also have great IBIS. Of course, one can move up to ISO 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, etc. and I have at times, but I rarely need to. When the light really gets low I generally put on a lens such as the Panasonic 20mm f1.7, Olympus 25mm f1.8, Olympus 45mm f1.8, or even the Panasonic 14mm f2.5.

In all my years using film in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and until 2002 when I was shooting color slide film I was using ASA 25, 50, 64, and 100. With color print film I was using ASA 25, 80, 100, 200, and 400. With B&W print film I was using ASA 125 and 400. For many international trips I used ASA 100 film. For example, in 1995 I spent a few weeks trekking in the central highlands of West Papua New Guinea -- Irian Jaya and I used a Minolta Alpha 707si SLR + Tamron 28-200mm f3.8-5.6 and a Minolta 50mm f1.7. Almost all the photos except a few at night were taken with the slow Tamron. I only used Fujichrome 100 ASA 100 slide film. No IS either. Oh boy, if I had had an m4/3 body and a couple of lenses I could have done much better!

The rather fast base ISO and IS really helps with regards to using somewhat slow lenses. Of course, with APS-C and especially FF this helps a lot too. With FF f5.6 and f8 lenses along with great high ISO and usually IS means that for most people the fast f2.8 and faster lenses just don't make a lot of sense. Smaller, lighter, less expensive FF f5.6 and f8 lenses are quite usable for the vast majority of people.

The info I can get from Lightroom is cool. I did some more checking and I see that using my 4 zooms (all with modest apertures f4-5.6, I don't have any f2.8 zooms) in the last 8.5 years my photos with these zooms were:


82% <= ISO 200
90% <= ISO 400
95% <= ISO 800
97% <= ISO 1600
99% <= ISO 3200


Also, I found that even with these modest aperture zooms I shot 71% at f4-5.6 and 29% at > f5.6 (stopped further down).

This is just my experience shooting what I tend to shoot, but the modest apertures along with the m4/3 low ISO setting of 200 (and IBIS) means that I am rarely forced to go to ISO above 400.

All that tells me that for the way I mostly use my cameras a FF body with these new slow zooms would be just fine. Most of the time even with the modest apertures I would still be shooting ISO 100-400, but no worries at all about going on up to 6400 or even higher on FF.

[bfitzgerald]

Depends how you shoot. I use IS quite a bit often, however sometimes in very poor lighting.
In such cases a lens with "reasonable speed" is useful, in order to keep the ISO down. At things like churches/weddings etc, true not much movement so IS is really useful you don't need a high shutter speed.
Still even so focal length is a factor, I could used the old 100-200 or 70-210mm in such cases relying on IS to give me hand holding shoots not a problem. In bad light I'd probably pull out the 100mm F2.8 macro on crop the 17-50mm F2.8 was the one to go for, and if things are just plain dark a fast 50 for FF or 35mm for crop did the job.

It was normal for kit type lenses to be around the F5.6 mark, lot of examples 18-55mm, 18-70mm, even the old plastic film ones 28-80 and 28-100mm. The "more premium" old Minoltas were often F4.5 such as the 28-85, 28-105mm, 24-105mm, 35-105mm etc etc.
I remember back in the day some people moaned they were not constant F4 (ala Canon 24-105mm F4). Mind you that lens is merely ok ish at 105mm F4, usable not what I'd call takco sharp. The variable aperture was not something that fussed me on those lenses, and F4 v F4.5 isn't much difference in speed. Still better than F5.6

Now the trend on these lenses is just even more baffling. F7.1 is just damn slow for 105mm, that's 2/3 stop slower than F5.6
Sure the IS might be great on the Canon's and the low light is surely very good. Either way I'd much rather use an F5.6 than F7.1, and F4.5 looks just plain fast v 7.1! I don't get it, other than being given away for next to nothing or not much in a kit deal it looks like a poor purchase.

The Nikon lens is small, I get that and you could argue F6.3 isn't much worse than F5.6, Truth is a 24-50mm at F5.6 isn't that interesting either. I certainly can't see the justification for the stand alone prices, frankly they look like last gasp desperation margins on a lens that probably costs very little to make. This is a worrying trend in "new slow lenses", perhaps I'm old school, if it's up to 300mm and it's not F5.6 (even the old kit teles were that), then it's not worth buying, or even using.

So yeah you can use IS to make up the difference, still there are other considerations, DR narrows at very high ISO, those F11 primes probably start showing diffraction at that F stop, other than size/weight a 150-600mm is probably going to be a more useful lens to have for long tele shooters, if light isn't bright and you have movement you'll be right up the ISO scale fighting to get shutter speed.

[Fotogeorge]

I haven't had much concern about having so-called fast lenses. I usually do handheld shots. I don't care to carry around a heavy tripod. The few f2.8 lenses that I own are soft at full aperture. I work around with the f3.5-5.6 lenses. I just bought a Sony a7iii. I don't own any FE full frame lenses. So, I am using my A-mount lenses , with the LA-EA4 adapter. I found the Sony A-mount lenses work best. The Minolta A-mount lenses are slower AF and not as sharp. I value the sharpness on my Sony A 24-105 3.5-5.6 lens. The A-mount lenses are lighter weight too. Although, I have a Tamron full frame AF 70-300 f4-5.6 lens that is a monster; I hesitate to mount it on the *.*4 adapter. I am doing well with the Minolta 100-300 mm tele. When I use auto ISO, I am able to get more speed in using a so-called slow lens. Software can deal with noise, sharpness, and HDR values. I like using DXO 3.3 pro and NIK on RAW files.
For me it's creating an image with whatever hardware I own. I'm not a pixel peeper. I like using tele lenses for landscapes and close up shots, especially if I can't get close enough to the subject. I'm disappointed that the E-system doesn't allow me to use the macro flash I use with the A-mount system. The E-mount system has a different technology. I'm waiting for a good sale on the E-adapted macro-flash I put into my wish list at B&H. The Nissin MF18 probably will get discontinued before ever having a sale price. Then, I can use my Minolta 100 mm 2.t macro lens. It's most always windy in my area, so I use flash to capture the moment regardless of the winds. I like the shallow DOF on the a7iii, that I get with my A-mount lenses. The DOF on E full frame is better, than with E aps-c gear. The E full-frame has a built in crop value for getting a closer shot. I shot the magnolia blossom with a Minolta 100-300 mm APO on a Sony a7iii with *.* 4 adapter. IMHO!

[bakubo]

Now the trend on these lenses is just even more baffling. F7.1 is just damn slow for 105mm, that's 2/3 stop slower than F5.6
Sure the IS might be great on the Canon's and the low light is surely very good. Either way I'd much rather use an F5.6 than F7.1, and F4.5 looks just plain fast v 7.1! I don't get it, other than being given away for next to nothing or not much in a kit deal it looks like a poor purchase.

Not baffling at all. If current FF cameras topped out at ISO 400 then, yeah, it would be baffling. Having good ISO 1600, 3200, 6400, 12,800, etc. though makes it totally the opposite of baffling. Makes perfect sense. Some people want smaller lenses to go with their smaller FF mirrorless bodies. Unless things are different where you are it is unlikely anyone is going to force you to buy one rather than a faster one. In fact, Nikon, Canon, etc. very much encourage you to buy the highest priced, faster lenses!

[bakubo]

The info I can get from Lightroom is cool. I did some more checking and I see that using my 4 zooms (all with modest apertures f4-5.6, I don't have any f2.8 zooms) in the last 8.5 years my photos with these zooms were:


82% <= ISO 200
90% <= ISO 400
95% <= ISO 800
97% <= ISO 1600
99% <= ISO 3200


Also, I found that even with these modest aperture zooms I shot 71% at f4-5.6 and 29% at > f5.6 (stopped further down).

This is just my experience shooting what I tend to shoot, but the modest apertures along with the m4/3 low ISO setting of 200 (and IBIS) means that I am rarely forced to go to ISO above 400.

All that tells me that for the way I mostly use my cameras a FF body with these new slow zooms would be just fine. Most of the time even with the modest apertures I would still be shooting ISO 100-400, but no worries at all about going on up to 6400 or even higher on FF.

Just for grins I went back into Lightroom to check some stats of my Sony A700, A100, and KM 7D photos. I found something similar:

82% <= ISO 400 (of those 99% were at >= f3.5)
90% <= ISO 800
99% <= ISO 1600
99.7% <= ISO 3200

[bfitzgerald]

Now the trend on these lenses is just even more baffling. F7.1 is just damn slow for 105mm, that's 2/3 stop slower than F5.6
Sure the IS might be great on the Canon's and the low light is surely very good. Either way I'd much rather use an F5.6 than F7.1, and F4.5 looks just plain fast v 7.1! I don't get it, other than being given away for next to nothing or not much in a kit deal it looks like a poor purchase.

Not baffling at all. If current FF cameras topped out at ISO 400 then, yeah, it would be baffling. Having good ISO 1600, 3200, 6400, 12,800, etc. though makes it totally the opposite of baffling. Makes perfect sense. Some people want smaller lenses to go with their smaller FF mirrorless bodies. Unless things are different where you are it is unlikely anyone is going to force you to buy one rather than a faster one. In fact, Nikon, Canon, etc. very much encourage you to buy the highest priced, faster lenses!

It is if you are trying to get people to buy native lenses on these newer mounts!
I'm certainly not going to consider really slow lenses at all, unless they gave them away for almost no extra cost bundled with the body
You might not shoot much in low light, others do. Hence you're not going to consider these lenses for much more than daily walk about lenses.

I'm not saying I want to walk around with fast lenses all the time, but right time and place. That's why I usually use primes for speed, v carrying around F2.8 zooms. The only exception to that is the Tamron 17-50mm, which isn't heavy is very good at least my copy wide open across the range, and it's a very small lens. That's crop though FF is another story those 24-70mm F2.8's are heavy, I did use the Tamron version and you'll feel the weight carrying them around all day. Perhaps the 28-75mm is more manageable it's about half the weight of the 24-70mm Tamron G2, I've not used that lens so can't say if it's any good (was on the try list at some point). I just tend to go 50mm for real bad light, and that's not exactly huge or heavy either way ;-D

Nikon/Canon/Sony can encourage people to buy super fast lenses, but you add up the cost of that it gets real expensive very fast. That's one reason I didn't switch to MILC, just plain poor value particularly optics

[bfitzgerald]

I haven't had much concern about having so-called fast lenses. I usually do handheld shots. I don't care to carry around a heavy tripod. The few f2.8 lenses that I own are soft at full aperture. I work around with the f3.5-5.6 lenses. I just bought a Sony a7iii. I don't own any FE full frame lenses. So, I am using my A-mount lenses , with the LA-EA4 adapter. I found the Sony A-mount lenses work best. The Minolta A-mount lenses are slower AF and not as sharp. I value the sharpness on my Sony A 24-105 3.5-5.6 lens. The A-mount lenses are lighter weight too. Although, I have a Tamron full frame AF 70-300 f4-5.6 lens that is a monster; I hesitate to mount it on the *.*4 adapter. I am doing well with the Minolta 100-300 mm tele. When I use auto ISO, I am able to get more speed in using a so-called slow lens. Software can deal with noise, sharpness, and HDR values. I like using DXO 3.3 pro and NIK on RAW files.
For me it's creating an image with whatever hardware I own. I'm not a pixel peeper. I like using tele lenses for landscapes and close up shots, especially if I can't get close enough to the subject. I'm disappointed that the E-system doesn't allow me to use the macro flash I use with the A-mount system. The E-mount system has a different technology. I'm waiting for a good sale on the E-adapted macro-flash I put into my wish list at B&H. The Nissin MF18 probably will get discontinued before ever having a sale price. Then, I can use my Minolta 100 mm 2.t macro lens. It's most always windy in my area, so I use flash to capture the moment regardless of the winds. I like the shallow DOF on the a7iii, that I get with my A-mount lenses. The DOF on E full frame is better, than with E aps-c gear. The E full-frame has a built in crop value for getting a closer shot. I shot the magnolia blossom with a Minolta 100-300 mm APO on a Sony a7iii with *.* 4 adapter. IMHO!

Interesting well the updated Sony lenses based on the Minolta designs bar some newer coatings the differences should be minimal, subject to copy to copy variations as expected. The 28mm I have used the Minolta and Sony both were almost the same, I kept the Sony as I got it for a silly low price. Both were good at least in the middle wide open (very good actually), on FF you'll want to drop it down to tighten the corners. Tamron 17-50mm I had 3 copies on various mounts and all were good at F2.8 even at 50mm, I know some have had issues I didn't that's my experience.

As far as AF speed depends a lot on the lenses. The macro lenses are not fast, then again most macro lenses are not even the newer ones with AF motors. Some of the tele lenses are not exactly speed demons, again varies considerably (managed to get some action stuff done on the 100-200mm and 70-210mm only when I had adjust the AF settings to group - too easy to miss with single point AF). They are not quick lenses for AF depends a lot on the type of shooting you do (directly at you is far harder v following to the side) For fun I put the 50mm on the A99 and got runners heading straight at me on a marathon and that nailed it pretty easily. Some of the in lens motors are quite fast (the 18-135mm is one of the better ones), some are not that quick the 55-300mm being an obvious example

The 100-300mm APO I was considering that lens, opinions seem to vary how good it is at 300mm F5.6 if it's usable I would pick one up (they are around less so the D version), and not expensive. I've no idea how it compares to the Sony G lens which his also fairly affordable on the used market, quite a lot larger

Be interesting to hear how you get on with it, the A7iii is probably the only camera worth considering at the moment for FF, the A7 and A7ii I have used and they couldn't track a slow moving cat with accuracy the AF is just too slow, perhaps it's not as bad with the LEA4. It is a shame Sony have not updated the adapter with the 79 point AF which would be a reasonable compromise I could work with that for action stuff, I can use the 15 point as I have done on the A57 - really they should have done more for A mount users, it's the no. of cross sensors even the A77 and A99 have many more and that is useful in marginal conditions for action shooting. I've found the A77ii to be pretty much bang on, despite the DPR AF report where they were probably using the wrong settings ;-D The AF is good at tracing in my experience.

I would try an A7iii, thing is with the LEA4 I get better AF performance with the native A mount bodies. Perhaps Sony don't care or worry about it, then perhaps I don't care to buy any E mount gear ;-D I won't say never as I want to extend the life of the system, but I can get the job done with those bodies

[bakubo]

You might not shoot much in low light, others do.

Of course. You have been using Lightroom for many years also so it would be cool to see your different distribution of all your A-mount photos by ISO and aperture. Takes just a few minutes.

I already provided it for all my A-mount and all my m4/3 photos.

[bakubo]

You might not shoot much in low light, others do.

Of course. You have been using Lightroom for many years also so it would be cool to see your different distribution of all your A-mount photos by ISO and aperture. Takes just a few minutes.

I already provided it for all my A-mount and all my m4/3 photos.

I guess it is scary to look up the stats.

[bakubo]

Well, Lightroom stats can be terrifying so I guess I am the only one with big cojones who is brave enough to take the risk of checking them out.

In all my years using film in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and until 2002 when I was shooting color slide film I was using ASA 25, 50, 64, and 100. With color print film I was using ASA 25, 80, 100, 200, and 400. With B&W print film I was using ASA 125 and 400. For many international trips I used ASA 100 film.

The new FF Nikon 24-50mm f4-6.3 sort of reminds me of the old A-mount Minolta 24-50mm f4 that came out in the mid 1980s. I never bought one, but I sometimes thought about buying a used one at one of the many used shops in Tokyo in the 1990s. Sadly, many of those shops are gone now. I did buy a Minolta 70-210mm f4, 35-70mm f4, and 28-135mm f4-4.5 back then though at used shops and I still have them packed away in the States with my A700, A100, 7, 707si, 7xi, 7000i, etc. along with other lenses and bodies. With film f4 was a modest aperture since usually people would use <= ASA 100 film and no IS. Sometimes up to ASA 400 if using color or B&W print film. With modern FF digital that also has great IS though the Nikon with f4-6.3 one can easily use higher, even much higher, ISO settings with no problem. Just off-hand the Nikon Z5 or Z6 at ISO 6400 is probably quite a bit better than ASA 100 35mm film.

[bfitzgerald]

You might not shoot much in low light, others do.

Of course. You have been using Lightroom for many years also so it would be cool to see your different distribution of all your A-mount photos by ISO and aperture. Takes just a few minutes.

I already provided it for all my A-mount and all my m4/3 photos.

I guess it is scary to look up the stats.

Not scary at all 30% of my images are shot at ISO 800-3200
That's the stats so it would seem that I use high ISO quite a bit for many types of shooting

It's possible to argue high ISO is so good now, nobody cares. For me such slow lenses are a total turn off, and almost embarrassing Nikon would ask over £400 for such a lens on it's own. I have not used the Minolta 24-50mm as I've too many 20 something zooms anyway, evidently it's pretty good can't say either way.

Thing is 24-70mm is already on the Z mount, and the F4 is in a bundle why waste your time with the 24-50mm aside from being smaller the 24-70mm F4 is hardly massive. High ISO is one thing DOF control another point to note. A 24-50mm F4 would still be too short a range, they should have done a 28- something zoom for a kit lens IMO make it something different. They have 2 x 24mm zooms no need for 3 unless they make a 24-105mm at one point which they probably will, so 4 24- something zooms. Not a logical way to move forward IMO

Nikon seem to be struggling in the last couple of years. Perhaps they need some fresh thinking in the board room