f2.0 zoom lenses

[blackshadow]

I was checking out the competition and see that Olympus make a 35-100mm f2.0 zoom lens. http://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/products/lens/35-100_20/index.html
I'd really find a use for a quality f2.0 zooms that covered the 24-70 and 70-200 ranges, how many others of you out there would find a real world use for faster zooms.
Any comments on reasons why Canon couldn't build zooms at this speed whether as EF or EF-S lenses.
The price of this lens blows L series glass out of the water too as does http://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/products/lens/90-250_28/index.html (which they market as the 35mm equivalent of 180-500mm).
A long fast zoom 200-500 f2.8 would be an awesome piece of kit for us Canonites.

[coreypolis]

cost and physical size.

Have you seen the 200 F/1.8 prime before? Its huge, heavy and bulky, and if you throw in a zoom factor to that it would be a nightmare

[blackshadow]

cost and physical size.

Have you seen the 200 F/1.8 prime before? Its huge, heavy and bulky, and if you throw in a zoom factor to that it would be a nightmare

I have drooled over one before.

[CoolToolGuy]

I have ogled at the new Olympus lenses with their fast speeds as well. They have one advantage with the sensor size they are designing for, since it has a 2x crop factor and requires a smaller image circle.

I'm sure it is possible for Canon to break the f2.8 barrier (on zooms), but as mentioned size and price are (at least two of) the challenges.

I'm hoping the Olympus gear gets enough of a following so that Canon takes notice. One possibility is that Canon produces them as EF-S lenses that will fit the about-to-be-announced 3D. . . :lol: :rolleyes:

Have Fun,

[Tom W]

If you consider depth-of-field and noise, the Olympus needs a faster aperture compared to larger camera formats. A 35 mm f/2 lens on an Oly digital will achieve the same image framing as a 70 mm lens on a 5D, but will only achieve the same shallow DOF of the 5D with its 70 mm lens set at f/4 (~1.47 feet at 10 feet distance).

Noise-wise, the faster lens comes in handy by allowing a lower ISO setting to overcome the sensor noise that is more abundant with Oly's smaller sensor.

[CoolToolGuy]

If you consider depth-of-field and noise, the Olympus needs a faster aperture compared to larger camera formats. A 35 mm f/2 lens on an Oly digital will achieve the same image framing as a 70 mm lens on a 5D, but will only achieve the same shallow DOF of the 5D with its 70 mm lens set at f/4 (~1.47 feet at 10 feet distance).

I guess I'm confused - if the DOF of the 5D is achieved when the 35mm f/2 is set at f/4, doesn't it have 2 more stops to go to make it shallower yet?

Have Fun,

[coreypolis]

I guess I'm confused - if the DOF of the 5D is achieved when the 35mm f/2 is set at f/4, doesn't it have 2 more stops to go to make it shallower yet?

Have Fun,
you're going down a road you don't want to go ;)

[CoolToolGuy]

you're going down a road you don't want to go ;)

Oh, you mean this is one of those topics where I need to set up the "Cone of Silence", get a 4-hour supply of sustinence, and hit the head first, right? :rolleyes:

Have Fun,

[Tom W]

I guess I'm confused - if the DOF of the 5D is achieved when the 35mm f/2 is set at f/4, doesn't it have 2 more stops to go to make it shallower yet?

Have Fun,

Too clarify.....

The depth-of-field of the 35 mm lens on the Olympus (with it's roughly 2X crop factor) at f/2 at 10 feet shot distance is 1.48 feet.
The depth-of-field of the 70 mm lens on a 5D at f/4 at 10 feet is 1.47 feet.

This based on the results of http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Given the format size, the approximate framing of the 35 mm lens on the Oly is roughly equal to that of a 70 mm lens on a 5D.

[CoolToolGuy]

Too clarify.....

The depth-of-field of the 35 mm lens on the Olympus (with it's roughly 2X crop factor) at f/2 at 10 feet shot distance is 1.48 feet.
The depth-of-field of the 70 mm lens on a 5D at f/4 at 10 feet is 1.47 feet.

This based on the results of http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Given the format size, the approximate framing of the 35 mm lens on the Oly is roughly equal to that of a 70 mm lens on a 5D.

Thanks, Tom that makes a little more sense to me as far as the math goes - but the optics and the difference of the frame size and such is the "Cone of Silence" stuff, and I'll leave that for another day.

Still, the exposure capabilities of an f/2 zoom are intriguing nonetheless.

Plus, I see I'm not the only one who was curious about this:

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2514928&postcount=1

Have Fun,

[Tom W]

Thanks, Tom that makes a little more sense to me as far as the math goes - but the optics and the difference of the frame size and such is the "Cone of Silence" stuff, and I'll leave that for another day.

Good move. :)

Still, the exposure capabilities of an f/2 zoom are intriguing nonetheless.

Plus, I see I'm not the only one who was curious about this:

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2514928&postcount=1

Have Fun,

Yes, an f/2 zoom is intriguing, especially in a range where it's fast aperture is most useful (which is bound to be different for different people). I'd prefer a 50-100 mm range on full-frame for portraits and close-in sports.

[CoolToolGuy]

Good move. :)



Yes, an f/2 zoom is intriguing, especially in a range where it's fast aperture is most useful (which is bound to be different for different people). I'd prefer a 50-100 mm range on full-frame for portraits and close-in sports.

Well, I'm not considering a jump to Oly, but the numbers are the numbers to the general public, and if they or the reviewers make noise about it, it may entice Canon to take a stab at an f/2 zoom.

Keep in mind, in the film days (using the FD period as a reference), even f/4 was unusual for zooms, since primes still ruled. As zooms became more prominent, they became faster.

As I mentioned, 'anything' is possible with a market that is willing to spring for it. In those bad old days, Oly drove the movement to 'smaller is better', and it affected the products of the competition. This may be a similar event - but hopefully not for a Canon 4/3 sensor!

Have Fun,

[Tom W]

Well, I'm not considering a jump to Oly, but the numbers are the numbers to the general public, and if they or the reviewers make noise about it, it may entice Canon to take a stab at an f/2 zoom.

Keep in mind, in the film days (using the FD period as a reference), even f/4 was unusual for zooms, since primes still ruled. As zooms became more prominent, they became faster.

Yeah, I had a highly-desired Tamron 35-80 (or 28-80??) f/2.8 zoom with an FD Adaptall mount that we literally wore out. It was a rarity. Not sure of the exact year vintage.

As I mentioned, 'anything' is possible with a market that is willing to spring for it. In those bad old days, Oly drove the movement to 'smaller is better', and it affected the products of the competition. This may be a similar event - but hopefully not for a Canon 4/3 sensor!

Have Fun,

Yeah, it's definately possible. I would expect the zoom range to be on the order of 2:1 (3:1 tops) on a full-frame lens, though. It seems that 3:1 is around the limit for keeping distortion reasonably controlled on the 2.8 and slower lenses.

While I agree that Olympus' smaller-sized bodies were a driving force in the 35mm film market, I don't think the digital Oly has had much effect on their competitors with the smaller 4/3 format. I think it was cost that drove Canon, Pentax, Nikon, etc. (and Olympus) to the smaller sensors. At the time of the 10D, there was no way that full-frame could have been built and priced at a level suitable for the masses.

Today, it's changing. Assuming that the 5D is still profitable, we're seeing full-frame going mainstream, at least to a certain extent. I'm sure that there's still a significant cost difference between, say, a 5D and a 30D, but the selling price gap has shrunk significantly in one year.

Anyway, back to the lens - if there's a market and the price point is sellable, there may be an f/2 zoom in Canon's future. A 50-100 f/2 zoom would certainly take the 85/1.8 and 100/2 out of contention, assuming the image quality of the zoom was good. The same effect would be possible with other fast zoom ranges vs. moderately fast primes (35/2, 28/1.8, 50/1.8, etc.). Only the fast primes would survive.

[blackshadow]

There is no way I would make the jump to Olympus either even though I have fond memories of an OM10 that is now sitting gathering dust!

I hope that the Olympus f2.0 lenses do encourage Canon to get something similar in the pipeline.

[MrChad]

Had Olympus ever launced the E-400 kit in the states I might have had to buy one as a fun day camera. At which point such f/2.0 zooms might have slowly started showing up at my house.

But Olympus appears to have great gear with poor delivery. The most exciting lens IMO is the 14-35mm f/2.0 that has been talked about for years but never debuted. Then they drug their feet on the new E-1 for just too--too long.

[wsmith]

That would be feasible on a 35-70 FF L zoom or an expensive 20-40 EF-S. There shouldn't be a problem but I doubt this would replace neither the choice of a 28-70L2.8 or a bunch of fixed lenses, or for EF-S the 17-55 EF-S IS and WA FF lenses for EF-S.

Another way is to make that lens lighter, a bit like the 50mm 1.4, trading some quality. Then this wouldn't be an L lens but some EF 38-60 1.8 or EF-S 24-40 1.8 (pushing to 1.8 instead of 2.0). But again, who would need that since cropping is so much easier and much better with better lenses. That would have been good for film only when cropping needed so much professional care.

[wsmith]

The APS-C and half frame have both the same DOF problem. Everywhere as for unprofessional, they sell at Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony or Olympus, their lenses made for smaller frame DSLR as if they just had to downsize the same way their focal length and keep the same aperture, or speed. This is completely untrue. You do get the same speed, the same size of picture becuse of a same FOV, but you don't get the DOF. The DOF is dowsized the same way. To compensate, they should make faster lenses by the same amount they downsize them. In fact I don't get why the lenses do not become faster. In fact those APS-C and half frame lenses should be much faster even they have precision problems at manufacturing downsized material. They should be much faster, like the amount of the factor from full frame at the same price the lenses they replicate.
This is not the case for some sort of reason : maybe they want to introduce future full frame lenses at higher prices and just manage to sell better and cheaper products, because EF-S lenses at the same speed as EF are definetly cheaper to produce. Keeping the same speed is just a trick !

However, since Nikon stop building full frames, and Pentax and Sony follow, who needs DOF. I mean very small sensors 1/3.2 inch are easy to take fix-focus lenses. In fact all non zoom on those are fix focus. This is just how this explains how at the extreme end of smaller size sensors there is no focus field problem of effect and the lenses keep staying on focus easily with acceptable apertures. The focus field is only needed when a photographer needs to show some object or person apart from its background.
It's impotant for potraits and much important professionally for artist in photography or pictures of people in magazines. This only means you can get those made on film with your old full frame or better size camera. You can also use Canon and its full frames DSLR. Other than these which do not make the market, including basic reporters who rather need tele zooms, Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Olympus will provide well spec'd material and will simply omit to further fulfill famillies and amateurs with what they used to rely on during the good ol'times of 24x36. They will point the zillions of pixels, ISO and standard lens features, as if it were the same. Didi you ever get the DOF on 24x36. You needn't but now they just forgot to say the old rule of thumb isn't gone the same way the downsize.