Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: How high would you go?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,278
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)

    Default How high would you go?

    So if you have dropped all of your 4/3rd mount gear to go m4/3rd gear how much would you pay for SHG lenses in micro 4/3rd mount? Are you a serious enough shooter to pay $1500-2500.00 for a lens? Would you buy a Carl Zeiss m4/3rd mount lens? Just what would you pay for high end glass and what kind of focal length would you be looking for?
    Last edited by cosmonaut; 07-02-2012 at 05:59 PM.


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,240
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 61 Times in 43 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: How high would you go?

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmonaut View Post
    So if you have dropped all of your 4/3rd mount gear to go m4/3rd gear how much would you pay for SHG lenses in micro 4/3rd mount? Are you a serious enough shooter to pay $1500-2500.00 for a lens? Would you buy a Carl Ziess m4/3rd mount lens? Just what would you pay for high end glass and what kind of focal length would you be looking for?
    What focal lengths I'd buy ... almost always, my most valuable lens is a fast normal. For mFT format, I'd want that Voigtländer 17/0.95, either the Summilux or Voigtländer 25, the 45 and the 75. I rarely have need or interest in much wider or longer. $600-1200 per lens isn't outrageous for quality lenses in that focal length range. (That's pretty much what my more expensive M-mount lenses for the GXR-M and M9 ran me.)

    The SHG zooms are a lot more expensive, in good part because they are zooms, or the other choice is ultra-high speed very long telephotos. I'd rather rent the telephotos because I use them so rarely, and I use zoom lenses very very infrequently because I dislike having all the bulk.

    Of course, just like with the Leica, one could spend $2500 or more for an SHG lens without blinking hard. But there are more Leica lenses in the focal lengths I use at that quality level.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    1,020
    Thanks
    68
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)

    Default Re: How high would you go?

    I would like to see some m4/3 equivalents to the 150/2 and 300/2.8, but as true m4/3 designs with fast accurate focusing. I would be willing to pay about the same as the 4/3 SHG, but would rather pay a bit less, of course. I know that these would be specialty lenses, so their volume would be low. I also want m4/3 EC-14 and EC-20. What the heck, how about an EX-25, while we are at it.
    Ken610

    4/3: E-5 x2, HLD-4 x2, E-520, E-1, 9-18, 12-60 SWD, 14-42, 14-54 I, 18-180, PL 25/1.4, 25/2.8, 35-100/2, 40-150 II, 50/2, 50-200 SWD, Bigma 50-500, 70-300, 90-250/2.8, 150/2, 300/2.8, EC-14, EC-20, EX-25, FL-50r x2, FL-36r, Jobu Jr, Jobu HD2.
    m43:: E-M1 3x, HLD-7 x2, 12-40, E-M5 Black, E-M5 Silver, 12-50, 12-40, 75-300 II, PL 14-140 II, 9-18, 17/2.8, 14-150, PL 100-300, PL 14/2.5.
    Other: XZ-1, PT-050, UFL-1, UFL-2, TG-1, all stored in a big bolted to wall gun safe!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Staten Island, New York, United States
    Posts
    1,172
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: How high would you go?

    I switched a while back and ended up getting rid of all my 4/3 lenses (the last two being the 40-150 and the 14-54II).
    While I really like the size/weight combination of the 12-50, I would LOVE a m4/3 version of the 12-60 lens - and I believe it has already been rumored over at 4/3 Rumors (though a low number).
    How much I would be willing to pay would depend on the IQ and again the size/weight of the lens. For me, the whole purpose of the m4/3 cameras (currently have an EM5 and an EPL1 - converted for IR) is to have as small and light-weight kit as possible. So if the resulting 12-60 is much bigger/heavier than the 12-50 it would have to have MUCH better IQ for me to even consider it, regardless of the price.
    Now - considering that the forth coming Panasonic 12-35 @ $1300 US have a lot of people excited (not really me, a bit too short on the long end) - if Olympus could make the size/weight of the 12-60 similar to the 12-50 (perhaps remove the power zoom that I really don't need) and keep the price around the Pana's price of $1300, I would be very interested.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,135
    Thanks
    58
    Thanked 22 Times in 17 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0
    Real Name
    Tom

    Default Re: How high would you go?

    I don't think I am at a level where I need a $2000+ lens

    But I am considering the new Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 lens and a few of the more expensive primes.
    flickr | "God made the integers; all else is the work of man" - Leopold Kronecker

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    2,354
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 12 Times in 9 Posts
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)

    Default Re: How high would you go?

    Quote Originally Posted by tomsi42 View Post
    I don't think I am at a level where I need a $2000+ lens

    But I am considering the new Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 lens and a few of the more expensive primes.
    A wise choice........
    E-1
    E-5
    EP-3
    EPL-1
    EM-5
    Pen F
    M8.2
    M9-P
    M 240
    Dlux 109
    M-6
    Enuff lenses to supply the world.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,278
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)

    Default Re: How high would you go?

    I would love to see something like the 12-60mm. That lens I think is a classic. I am really not liking the design of the 12-50mm and the ring that pushes back and forth for video or stills. I wish they would offer a choice not to have this. I also agree I wish the Panasonic had more reach. I hope it's as good as the price. I am pretty surprised at the sharpness of the 9-18mm though. For the price that's a really nice lens. I just don't like that lock thing.
    I rarely shoot third party lenses on a system. My Summicron 5cm doesn't work well on the NEX 7.


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Summit County, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,168
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 5 Times in 2 Posts
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)

    Default Re: How high would you go?

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmonaut View Post
    So if you have dropped all of your 4/3rd mount gear to go m4/3rd gear how much would you pay for SHG lenses in micro 4/3rd mount? Are you a serious enough shooter to pay $1500-2500.00 for a lens? Would you buy a Carl Zeiss m4/3rd mount lens? Just what would you pay for high end glass and what kind of focal length would you be looking for?
    A bit of a rambling reply:

    I moved entirely to m4/3 last August. I've loaded myself up with primes (8mm, 12mm, 25mm, 45mm) and the dreadful 14-42mm IIr. I have my eyes set on the 75mm f/1.8 @ $1000 USD with hood. The 12-35mm has my attention even at $1300 USD. If I were to look at SHG native-m4/3 glass, a 150mm f/2 would be my choice at $2000 USD; I would pay it. The size of the 150mm f/2 is quite workable with a m4/3 body, while the size of the current 35-100mm f/2 is a bit more problematic. Maybe you E-M5 folks, with a grip, have a different view on that. While reserving judgement on image quality, it appears that the new Lumix 35-100mm f/2.8 @ $1600 is a contender. Again, I would pay it.

    I will pay for good glass. I don't care where it comes from as long as it's native-m4/3 and of very fine quality. My current stable of m4/3 primes makes my E-PL3 a better camera than its meager specifications might suggest. I'm waiting for a new Pen with the new sensor before I decide on an upgrade. I love my VF-2 flexibility and it's not the best match with an E-M5.
    Regards,

    Jim Pilcher
    Summit County, Colorado, USA

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,141
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default Re: How high would you go?

    If there's one thing I miss on M43, it's the 12-60/50-200 combination. That covered a wide range, with aperture to spare, and no weak areas, with just two lenses. The current M43 zooms are a bit too slow, they're about like SG ZD. I use the 50-200 on the EM5 a lot, M43 just doesn't have a lens like this. Their tele zooms are squeezed between a high wide open aperture and diffraction limitation.

    The 12-50 isn't bad, but if you compare it to the later Leica 14-50 which is the same aperture, it shows how much that lens can be downsized. I wonder if they could do the same with the 12-60. Ditch the macro and power zoom, and go for the best IQ like they did with the 45 1.8.

    As for SHG... frankly, I'm watching 35-100 prices. If they dip a bit more, I may get that instead of the 75 1.8. I've seen a lot of gorgeous shots taken with the 35-100.
    E3, E1, E330, EP1, EM5
    ZD: 7-14, 8FE, PL25 1.4, 14-54, 35-100, 50-200, 70-300 50 Macro, EX-25
    MZD: 12-50, 45 1.8, 14-150
    Nikkor: 105 1.8, 400 3.5, TC301 teleconverter
    FL-50, STF-22

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    356
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default Re: How high would you go?

    ...hey Trapper, how are you going to use a 35-100? I already have the 35-100 but haven't tried it out using the adapter yet, just yesterday I attached the 50-200 and 12-60 onto my new EM5 to see how the combination worked, I bought the EM5 last weekend and they had the adapter on a rebate program so it's 'free' right now. I found my 50-200 definitely hunts before locking onto focus, as does my 12-60, when they do lock on the results are amazing from the EM5. I haven't had a lot of time yet to play with the new camera but will be doing so over the next several days as I plan on taking it on a trip next week and want to have everything all figured out...
    ...based on my first tests, the m43 12-50 is a neat little lens, I've tried it out on both dark and well lit subjects and am quite pleased with the results. I bought the EM5 to be my trip camera and the camera that "lives in the glove box" of my car - the camera that's always available. With the 12-50 attached and in a small bag it fits perfectly in my glove box, so if I want to bring HG ZD lenses along to use then we're talking about bringing along the regular "larger format" kit with my E5 and E3, or I guess I can just bring the lenses in their own cases. I also have the SHG 14-35f2 but haven't tried playing with it mounted on the EM5...
    ...as for how high would I go for new m43 lenses, like Trapper, if they came out with 12-60/50-200 combo that was smaller and a bit faster and focused like the m43 12-50, I'm impressed enough with the EM5 that I'd probably seriously consider selling off much of my regular 43rds equipment to finance it...
    cheers,

    Lorne Miller

    http://lornemiller.smugmug.com/

    4/3rds stuff: E-1 w HLD-2
    35-100 f2, 14-35 f2 SWD, 50-200 SWD
    m4/3rds stuff: OM-D E-M5 x 2, mZD 12-50, mZD 40-150, mZD 14-42

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Staten Island, New York, United States
    Posts
    1,172
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: How high would you go?

    Quote Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
    The 12-50 isn't bad, but if you compare it to the later Leica 14-50 which is the same aperture, it shows how much that lens can be downsized. I wonder if they could do the same with the 12-60. Ditch the macro and power zoom, and go for the best IQ like they did with the 45 1.8.
    This is what I am hoping for. While I love the versatility of the 12-50 and it is a great match for the EM5, I just keep thinking that it can't extract all that the camera/sensor is capable of. (And this coming from a dedicated non-pixel peeper.)

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada City, California
    Posts
    3,215
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: How high would you go?

    Even though I live on a small, fixed income, I need the best for concert photography, which accounts for most of my pics. The 35-100mm SHG lens has been my workhorse for several years. I don't shoot much wide-angle stuff at shows so I couldn't quite justify the 12-35mm f/2 lens, pressing the slower 14-54 into service when I had to.

    Now that I have an E-M5 body (works great in low light with the 35-100 SHG using MF or 2-second AF), I pre-ordered the Panny 12-35mm f/2.8 lens to cover wider angles at concerts and to serve as my walkabout lens. I'm keenly interested in the upcoming 35-100 f/2.8 lens and will pay the premium price if it is very good optically, to get fast AF for shows that have more action on stage, and lighter weight.

    When pushing photographic limits, we've got to pay the price for the right gear or find something else to do.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,278
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)

    Default Re: How high would you go?

    I look forward to your thoughts. My a850 + 24-70mm + grip = 5 pounds. But the Carl Zeiss never stops amazing me with it's quality. I personally don't want a Panasonic lens. I hope Olympus puts out a high end lens soon. I know they are listening and watching the forums. But I also think they worry about how serious m4/3rd shooters are and how well a high end lens will sell.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Finnerty View Post
    Even though I live on a small, fixed income, I need the best for concert photography, which accounts for most of my pics. The 35-100mm SHG lens has been my workhorse for several years. I don't shoot much wide-angle stuff at shows so I couldn't quite justify the 12-35mm f/2 lens, pressing the slower 14-54 into service when I had to.

    Now that I have an E-M5 body (works great in low light with the 35-100 SHG using MF or 2-second AF), I pre-ordered the Panny 12-35mm f/2.8 lens to cover wider angles at concerts and to serve as my walkabout lens. I'm keenly interested in the upcoming 35-100 f/2.8 lens and will pay the premium price if it is very good optically, to get fast AF for shows that have more action on stage, and lighter weight.

    When pushing photographic limits, we've got to pay the price for the right gear or find something else to do.


  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    95
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: How high would you go?

    I've gone to m4/3 since I got the EM5 with the kit 12-50 in May. So far I've added the Oly 12 mm and 45 mm, as well as the P/L 25 mm. I just pre-ordered the Oly 75 mm, but that is getting pretty pricey for my budget. Some day I hope to get a longer zoom to handle the high end. I'd like to see something nice in the 50-150 range from Oly that's weather sealed. Have to wait and see, no more $$$ left anyway!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •