«

f2.8 primes? Is this Russia, 1974?? Unless they're $100 a piece.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/10/SigmaDigitalNeo

RichA <> wrote:

>f2.8 primes? Is this Russia, 1974?? Unless they're $100 a piece.
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/10/SigmaDigitalNeo


Panasonic seems happy to offer an f/2.5 prime (14mm) and Olympus an
f/2.8 prime (17mm). Both are reasonably good if unspectacular lenses.

If the OEM Micro Four Thirds manufacturers are happy to produce lenses
with these not-very-wide apertures, you can't really criticise a third
party manufacturer for following their lead, especially as the Sigma
lenses are likely to be inexpensive.

Actually, I am pleased to see that Sigma has introduced new designs
rather than offer tired old formulae in Micro Four Thirds mount, which
is what Sigma did with their lenses for Four Thirds DSLRs.

"RichA" <> wrote in message
news:0401ed80-44db-46fb-8ffb-...
> f2.8 primes? Is this Russia, 1974?? Unless they're $100 a piece.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/10/SigmaDigitalNeo

What is so lame about an f2.8 prime?

On Jan 10, 12:07*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >f2.8 primes? *Is this Russia, 1974?? *Unless they're $100 a piece.
>
> >http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/10/SigmaDigitalNeo
>
> Panasonic seems happy to offer an f/2.5 prime (14mm) and Olympus an
> f/2.8 prime (17mm). *Both are reasonably good if unspectacular lenses.

Panasonic also offers a 20mm f1.7 which is more in-line with what
decent prime should be. The whole idea behind micro 4/3rds should be
that you can release faster lenses at a lower cost (well, that hasn't
materialized) than competing DSLR makers using APS sensors. A sensor
with more noise paired with slower lenses just makes no sense, unless
all you care about is weight.

On Jan 10, 8:16*am, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <nto...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "RichA" <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0401ed80-44db-46fb-8ffb-...
>
> > f2.8 primes? *Is this Russia, 1974?? *Unless they're $100 a piece.
>
> >http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/10/SigmaDigitalNeo
>
> What is so lame about an f2.8 prime?

It's too slow, unless it's a macro or a cheap 100mm. Remember when
Olympus had f2.0 version of nearly all their OM wide primes, at a
price.

RichA <> wrote:

>On Jan 10, 12:07*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >f2.8 primes? *Is this Russia, 1974?? *Unless they're $100 a piece.
>>
>> >http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/10/SigmaDigitalNeo
>>
>> Panasonic seems happy to offer an f/2.5 prime (14mm) and Olympus an
>> f/2.8 prime (17mm). *Both are reasonably good if unspectacular lenses.
>
>Panasonic also offers a 20mm f1.7 which is more in-line with what
>decent prime should be.


But it is likely that the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 will always be much
more expensive than a Sigma 19mm f/2.8. People with a m43 camera and
kit lens who want to try a fixed focal length lens will probably find
an inexpensive Sigma 19mm f/2.8 an attractive option at a
significantly lower price than a Panasonic 20mm f/1.7.


>The whole idea behind micro 4/3rds should be
>that you can release faster lenses at a lower cost (well, that hasn't
>materialized) than competing DSLR makers using APS sensors. A sensor
>with more noise paired with slower lenses just makes no sense, unless
>all you care about is weight.


.... or cost. If you cannot justify the cost of a Panasonic 20mm
f/1.7, an inexpensive Sigma 19mm f/2.8 is an attractive option.

You seem to forget that the new Sigma lenses are not aimed at people
like you.

On Jan 10, 12:41*pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >The whole idea behind micro 4/3rds should be
> >that you can release faster lenses at a lower cost (well, that hasn't
> >materialized) than competing DSLR makers using APS sensors. *A sensor
> >with more noise paired with slower lenses just makes no sense, unless
> >all you care about is weight.
>
> ... or cost. *If you cannot justify the cost of a Panasonic 20mm
> f/1.7, an inexpensive Sigma 19mm f/2.8 is an attractive option.

The cost of the m4/3rds stuff is all over the board. $350 for a 20mm
f1.7 prime seems fine to me, but $800-$900 for a normal zoom with a
speed range of f4-5.6 or 6.3 seems like robbery.

> You seem to forget that the new Sigma lenses are not aimed at people
> like you. *

We don't know what they cost yet, but I'll assume they'll be under
$200.00/ea. But this is the old "golf club" conundrum. Do you spend
as a novice a lot of money on a good set of clubs, because even an
incremental improvement would help you, or should they be reserved for
pros? In other words, is the novice going to be partly hobbled by
buying a cheap f2.8 prime lens as opposed to a better, faster prime?

RichA <> wrote:

>On Jan 10, 12:41*pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >The whole idea behind micro 4/3rds should be
>> >that you can release faster lenses at a lower cost (well, that hasn't
>> >materialized) than competing DSLR makers using APS sensors. *A sensor
>> >with more noise paired with slower lenses just makes no sense, unless
>> >all you care about is weight.
>>
>> ... or cost. *If you cannot justify the cost of a Panasonic 20mm
>> f/1.7, an inexpensive Sigma 19mm f/2.8 is an attractive option.
>
>The cost of the m4/3rds stuff is all over the board. $350 for a 20mm
>f1.7 prime seems fine to me, but $800-$900 for a normal zoom with a
>speed range of f4-5.6 or 6.3 seems like robbery.


I agree, there seems to be little logic to m43 pricing, even within a
manufacturer's range. I can't work out why Olympus can offer an
outstanding f/1.8 45mm (equiv. 90mm) portrait lens for less than $350
but a mediocre f/2 12mm (equiv. 24mm) sells for a whopping $799.


>> You seem to forget that the new Sigma lenses are not aimed at people
>> like you. *
>
>We don't know what they cost yet, but I'll assume they'll be under
>$200.00/ea. But this is the old "golf club" conundrum. Do you spend
>as a novice a lot of money on a good set of clubs, because even an
>incremental improvement would help you, or should they be reserved for
>pros? In other words, is the novice going to be partly hobbled by
>buying a cheap f2.8 prime lens as opposed to a better, faster prime?


99% of m43 buyers won't need any better than cheap f/2.8 Sigma primes.

On Jan 10, 2:35*pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 10, 12:41 pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >The whole idea behind micro 4/3rds should be
> >> >that you can release faster lenses at a lower cost (well, that hasn't
> >> >materialized) than competing DSLR makers using APS sensors. A sensor
> >> >with more noise paired with slower lenses just makes no sense, unless
> >> >all you care about is weight.
>
> >> ... or cost. If you cannot justify the cost of a Panasonic 20mm
> >> f/1.7, an inexpensive Sigma 19mm f/2.8 is an attractive option.
>
> >The cost of the m4/3rds stuff is all over the board. *$350 for a 20mm
> >f1.7 prime seems fine to me, but $800-$900 for a normal zoom with a
> >speed range of f4-5.6 or 6.3 seems like robbery.
>
> I agree, there seems to be little logic to m43 pricing, even within a
> manufacturer's range. *I can't work out why Olympus can offer an
> outstanding f/1.8 45mm (equiv. 90mm) portrait lens for less than $350
> but a mediocre f/2 12mm (equiv. 24mm) sells for a whopping $799.
>
> >> You seem to forget that the new Sigma lenses are not aimed at people
> >> like you.
>
> >We don't know *what they cost yet, but I'll assume they'll be under
> >$200.00/ea. *But this is the old "golf club" conundrum. *Do you spend
> >as a novice a lot of money on a good set of clubs, because even an
> >incremental improvement would help you, or should they be reserved for
> >pros? *In other words, is the novice going to be partly hobbled by
> >buying a cheap f2.8 prime lens as opposed to a better, faster prime?
>
> 99% of m43 buyers won't need any better than cheap f/2.8 Sigma primes.

We've cross a Rubicon though. Years ago, image banks and such
wouldn't touch anything that wasn't taken with a Canon or Nikon DSLR.
Now, we've got cameras from every mfg. capable to being submitted to
just about any stock service there is. So there is the possibility
more people will be engaging in submitting images to make money. A
m4/3 with a slow lens is at a considerable disadvantage to an APS or
FF with a fast lens, even at low ISO. I won't shoot above 400 ISO
with an m4/3 for any image I really want to keep, unless I am forced
to. Slow lenses are a major problem in this regard as even an
overcast day can kill chances to obtain decent shots, if you are
trying to shoot a 200 ISO with a zoom that never gets any faster than
f5.6-6.3.
Meanwhile, someone using a Nikon D7000 (I'm using this often as a
comparison, but there are numerous DSLRs that are as capable) and a
f4.0 lens has a major advantage, on the order of 2 stops, if not
slightly more. So, if someone is "serious" about obtaining decent
shots, they are at a disadvantage. The only way to make it so the
m4/3rds can compete is to jack up the speed of the lens. Now, this is
out of the question for long teles, no one (sane) will mount a 300mm
f2.8 (Olympus charges $7000 for the 4/3rds lens) on an m4/3rds body,
but wide lenses (50mm and under) could be faster. I have a 25mm f0.95
that covers the m4/3 sensor, third parties have created some in the
25mm - 50mm range. No reason Olympus or Panasonic can't do the same
with AF.

On 1/10/2012 7:38 AM, RichA wrote:
> On Jan 10, 12:07 am, Bruce<docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> RichA<rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> f2.8 primes? Is this Russia, 1974?? Unless they're $100 a piece.
>>
>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/10/SigmaDigitalNeo
>>
>> Panasonic seems happy to offer an f/2.5 prime (14mm) and Olympus an
>> f/2.8 prime (17mm). Both are reasonably good if unspectacular lenses.
>
> Panasonic also offers a 20mm f1.7 which is more in-line with what
> decent prime should be.


Not for Micro 4/3 .... a really nice normal prime for that should
be f/0.7 or f/0.8. Remember the small sensor still needs
the apparent front aperture size as does a full frame 35mm (for the same
angular field of view), for the same sensitivity.

Doug McDonald