When will we start seeing fast mirrorless primes as standard?

[Energize]

So far, most of the equivalent full frame focal length lenses for the mirrorless format cameras like the m4/3 range are relatively slow compared to their full frame equivalents, while still being priced at fairly similar ranges.

So when are we going to start seeing say 25mm f/0.7 lenses for m4/3 to give an equivalent image to a full frame 50mm f/1.4 etc?

The metabones speed booster is nice, but native lenses are well overdue rather than using an adaptor.

 

[a1ex2001]

So far, most of the equivalent full frame focal length lenses for the mirrorless format cameras like the m4/3 range are relatively slow compared to their full frame equivalents, while still being priced at fairly similar ranges.

So when are we going to start seeing say 25mm f/0.7 lenses for m4/3 to give an equivalent image to a full frame 50mm f/1.4 etc?

The metabones speed booster is nice, but native lenses are well overdue rather than using an adaptor.

I'm guessing no time soon as they will be complex and expensive to produce a 25mm f0.7 for example is always going to be a complex design and have some significant compromises with regards to performance to let that much light in.

 

[D.P.]

The answer is likely never with a few caveats.

Nikon, Olympus, Fuji and Panasonic have all produced f/1.2 lenses and for m43 you can buy Voigtlander f/0.95 MF lens in 17.5mm, 25mm and 42.5mm.


You are unlikely to ever see many primes faster than the f/1.4 to f/2.8 on mirrorless because the entire purpose of mirrorless cameras is to have a smaller system. When you design a lens to have equivalent DoF to larger sensor camera by increasing the lens will increase in size in proportion.


1 stop increased aperture requires at least twice the size and weight.
if your primary factor in photography is DoF or low light ability then you should be trying to use faster lenses on a smaller sensor but using a camera with a larger sensor (ande having faster lenses).

 

[Terminal_Boy]

The answer is likely never with a few caveats.

Nikon, Olympus, Fuji and Panasonic have all produced f/1.2 lenses and for m43 you can buy Voigtlander f/0.95 MF lens in 17.5mm, 25mm and 42.5mm.


You are unlikely to ever see many primes faster than the f/1.4 to f/2.8 on mirrorless because the entire purpose of mirrorless cameras is to have a smaller system. When you design a lens to have equivalent DoF to larger sensor camera by increasing the lens will increase in size in proportion.


1 stop increased aperture requires at least twice the size and weight.
if your primary factor in photography is DoF or low light ability then you should be trying to use faster lenses on a smaller sensor but using a camera with a larger sensor (ande having faster lenses).

This.

Even with a large m43 body such as Panasonic's GH4, the type of primes the OP mentions are going to be a handful.

For example, Panasonic's f2.8 35-100mm is twice the length and weight of their latest f4 - f5.6 35-100mm lens. And thrice the price at MRRP.

If you got into m43 because you wanted a decent ILC that wasn't much bigger than a good Point & Shoot as I did, lenses approaching the size of their FF cousins are probably not on your wish list.

 

[Energize]

The answer is likely never with a few caveats.

Nikon, Olympus, Fuji and Panasonic have all produced f/1.2 lenses and for m43 you can buy Voigtlander f/0.95 MF lens in 17.5mm, 25mm and 42.5mm.


You are unlikely to ever see many primes faster than the f/1.4 to f/2.8 on mirrorless because the entire purpose of mirrorless cameras is to have a smaller system. When you design a lens to have equivalent DoF to larger sensor camera by increasing the lens will increase in size in proportion.


1 stop increased aperture requires at least twice the size and weight.
if your primary factor in photography is DoF or low light ability then you should be trying to use faster lenses on a smaller sensor but using a camera with a larger sensor (ande having faster lenses).

Mirrorless bodies are the future though, and since Nikon and Canon aren't going to stop producing their f/1.4 full frame lenses it's going to leave the smaller format sensor bodies like m4/3 increasingly less attractive as far as I can see if they don't produce large aperture lenses to compete with the very cheap f/1.8 primes from Nikon and Canon for their inevitable full frame mirrorless bodies. All the while Nikon and Canon can produce very cheap f/2.8 prime lenses in a small package to out compete anything Olympus et al can offer.

 

[D.P.]

Mirrorless bodies are the future though, and since Nikon and Canon aren't going to stop producing their f/1.4 full frame lenses it's going to leave the smaller format sensor bodies like m4/3 increasingly less attractive as far as I can see if they don't produce large aperture lenses to compete with the very cheap f/1.8 primes from Nikon and Canon for their inevitable full frame mirrorless bodies. All the while Nikon and Canon can produce very cheap f/2.8 prime lenses in a small package to out compete anything Olympus et al can offer.

yeah, eventually all DSLR will loose their mirror.


I don't think you understand the purpose of camera like the Nikon 1 and m43 - the entire purpose is to allow a smaller system. Having a tiny body with huge expensive lenses would be a daft idea.


They aren't trying to compete on an identical aperture basis - it just isn't possible. Olympus and the likes will compete by being a smaller system that for most people for most needs gives sufficient IQ. The m43 IQ already exceeds most canon crop sensors and the Nikon 1 exceed DSLRs from a few years back.

The smaller sensors allow inherently smaller lenses, that is the advantage. There is no purpose in overcoming the the disadvantage by making faster aperture lenses - it is just easy to make a bigger sensor camera.


On the converse, the bigger sensor requires bigger lens to have a bigger image circle, which is why you see the new zoom Sony NEX lenses for the A7 are f/4.0, e.g. 24-70 and 70-200mm lenses are f/4.0 That is to try to keep the size and weight down. You could have a DX sensor camera and use the 17-55mm f/2.8 lenses and find an equivalence. On m43 then you would need a f/2.0 lens - Olympus did release some for F/Ts but they are big and heavy which mitigaes the purposes of the small sensor. Hence they have not been ported to m43

 

[Energize]

It just seems to me that making lenses that gives a system the versatility to do anything a full frame equivalent can makes the system much more attractive, you can use small lenses if you want to walkabout and larger ones for more serious shooting without having to have multiple systems. As for the Nikon 1 series, since Nikon are already the market leading full frame SLR manufacturer there's obviously no pressing need for them to offer such fast lenses at this time, they aren't losing any business.

I'm personally more concerned about the dof, not the noise with regards to lenses like the 35-100 f/2.8. Well and the fact that despite it's equivalent to f/5.6 it's price doesn't reflect that!

 

[D.P.]

The thing is extremely narrow DoF is a very niche area that only applies to some portrait photographers. Shallow DoF with good subject isolation is easily achieveable with m43 cameras, and really Bokeh quality is so. Uh more than just shallow Wafer thin DoF. The Panasonic/Leica 25mm f/1.2 has some of the best Bokeh of any normal prime.

The main exception is when you want to go wide and shallow DoF, in those situations you simply can't replicate the effects of a 24mm f/1.4 as seen on a FF camera on anything with a smaller sensor.

Having a very big, heavy, complex lens ona small light pocketable camera just doesn't make sense. Olympus are not trying to cometr with CaNikon FF cameras. What they mostly compete with is people who would use a Crop DSLR with a kit lens but want something smaller, or people that want DSLR like image quality but in a small light package. They don't try to compete with the wafer thin DoF or shooting in the shadows of a moonless night togs- they just couldn't compete.


The high price of the m43 2.8 zooms reflects the complexity and quality.

 

[englishpremier]

On the converse, the bigger sensor requires bigger lens to have a bigger image circle, which is why you see the new zoom Sony NEX lenses for the A7 are f/4.0, e.g. 24-70 and 70-200mm lenses are f/4.0 That is to try to keep the size and weight down. You could have a DX sensor camera and use the 17-55mm f/2.8 lenses and find an equivalence. On m43 then you would need a f/2.0 lens - Olympus did release some for F/Ts but they are big and heavy which mitigaes the purposes of the small sensor. Hence they have not been ported to m43

You say that, but many Leica lenses are tiny compared to their SLR equivalents. This is something that many A7 owners are talking about at the moment. Of course small size comes at a cost.

 

[a1ex2001]

You say that, but many Leica lenses are tiny compared to their SLR equivalents. This is something that many A7 owners are talking about at the moment. Of course small size comes at a cost.

an awful lot of the leica lenses people base these comments on are manual focus roughly normal length primes which are easy to make small, I don't think even Leica make a pocket size lens over 85mm

 

[robj20]

I think camera manufacturers are concentrating on ISO performance and rightly so, a f2.8 lens with a camera that can easily output great 3200ISO pictures is more useful than a f1.4 that can only do 800ISO. Its also smaller. For times when you want the shallow DOF or ultimate light gathering you can sacrifice size and stick a converted lens on.

The new Loxia lenses are pretty small and are f2 so pretty fast but you loose AF.

There are also specialist lenses like the Mitakon 50mm f0.95.

 

[D.P.]

You say that, but many Leica lenses are tiny compared to their SLR equivalents. This is something that many A7 owners are talking about at the moment. Of course small size comes at a cost.

They are tiny because they don't have autofocus,they also are old designs that are often less corrected. Leica lenses are the same size and weight as old MF Nikon lenses for example.

 

[Columbo]

You say that, but many Leica lenses are tiny compared to their SLR equivalents. This is something that many A7 owners are talking about at the moment. Of course small size comes at a cost.

They are missing AF, don't have modern elements in them. Hardly a fair comparison?

 

[Terminal_Boy]

It just seems to me that making lenses that gives a system the versatility to do anything a full frame equivalent can makes the system much more attractive, you can use small lenses if you want to walkabout and larger ones for more serious shooting without having to have multiple systems.

The problem is that a lens alone with not allow even a very capable m43 camera to match the IQ and AF speed of a good FF camera.

 

[Aedus]

The problem is that a lens alone with not allow even a very capable m43 camera to match the IQ and AF speed of a good FF camera.

I don't think people expect them to, if they did DSLR's would be a bit redundant, no-one would pack a chunkier camera and lens' for the fun of it.

 

[D.P.]

They are missing AF, don't have modern elements in them. Hardly a fair comparison?

A quick comparison:
LEICA APO-SUMMICRON-M 90mm f/2 ASP = 473g,
Nikon 85mm f/1.8 G = 351G


LEICA SUMMILUX-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH 335g for Alu, 460g for brass
Nikon 50mm f/1.4 G 278g






It is clear - if you want small light primes choose the Nikon (or Canon), and not the Leica! Plus you get autofocus.

 

[Above&Beyond]

They are tiny because they don't have autofocus,they also are old designs that are often less corrected. Leica lenses are the same size and weight as old MF Nikon lenses for example.

Leica lenses are by and large better corrected and smaller than their Nikon counterparts, even the manual Nikon lenses. You would expect that given the price of Leica lenses.

 

[CGrieves]

Having a very big, heavy, complex lens on a small light pocketable camera just doesn't make sense.

I think manufacturers might target small/light equipment as a priority from a commercial perspective, but I think big, heavy large aperture lenses would sell too, just not in the same volume. What makes "sense" is a very personal thing, and after all the whole point of an interchangeable lens system is choice of lenses, not just a narrow selection that make the most ergonomic sense. You can make a big heavy lens work on a small camera, particularly one with a viewfinder- you just adapt, the same as you would putting a pancake lens on a 1Dx. I think this "balance" thing is a bit mythical and somewhat overstated for most enthusiast photographers. It's a camera after all, not a target rifle.

Speaking for myself, I've recently been considering chopping in my canon kit and its big fat f2.8 zooms for the big fat Fuji f2.8 zooms. I can't foresee any issues with a big fat zoom on a compact mirrorless body, but everyone's mileage may vary.

 

[englishpremier]

They are missing AF, don't have modern elements in them. Hardly a fair comparison?

Quite fair for me. I use a mirrorless camera with legacy glass. Many of the leica lenses are much smaller than the old manual focus SLRs like the Canon FDs even the Minolta MDs.

 

[GTRacer]

They are tiny because they don't have autofocus,they also are old designs that are often less corrected. Leica lenses are the same size and weight as old MF Nikon lenses for example.

For lenses below 90mm that usually isn't the case. Take 35mm for example:

Nikon 35/1.4 AIS:
62.11 x 67.12mm (length from mount x diameter)

Leica 35/1.4:
28.06mm x 51.99mm

Leica 35/1.4 ASPH:
46.2mm x 53.2mm

The differing flange distance seems to have a huge effect on lens size for the shorter focal lengths, they seem to even out once you hit 75mm.