Which lenses are you missing?

[robin0112358]

Coming in late to this thread and wondering why so many people want impossible zooms or small variations on the ranges already available. What's really missing is the magic that a lens designer like Erhard Glatzel or Jun Hirakawa could bring to bear. The current Lumix lenses are utilitarian, but have no special rendering qualities. Hence I propose the following full-frame designs:

• Lumix S 28mm f/2 Special AKA Hollywood
• Lumix S 43mm f/2 Special AKA Limited
• Lumix S 135mm f/2 Special AKA Bokeh

A word about focal lengths. I chose 43mm as this is the perfect normal focal length (that being the diagonal measure of the sensor). 28mm is the ideal wide focal length and happens to also be the perfect normal on APS-C. 135mm is ideal for portraiture. All three lengths are missing in the current line-up.

Each lens would have metal build, industrial styling, compact size, and aperture ring. Given their antecedents, this can be accomplished while guaranteeing high resolution, good micro-contrast, negligible distortion, and no aberrations... even wide open. With the Pentax 43mm Limited Hirakawa demonstrated that astigmatism can be completely corrected in both the meridional and sagittal subject planes. The trade-off is field curvature, at least until stopped down. But the benefit is pronounced subject isolation and the mythical "3D pop" that these lenses were known for. The Carl Zeiss Distagon 28mm f/2 is similar in that regard.

The lens formulas would be updated to use contemporary composite materials but otherwise would adhere to classic designs, namely:

• Lumix S 28mm f/2 Special: Distagon with floating element for close focus performance
• Lumix S 43mm f/2 Special: augmented double-Gauss design
• Lumix S 135mm f/2 Special: Planar design

These lenses would be targeted to stills photography but would give up none of their charm for video.

Dare to dream!

 

[dirk]

wondering why so many people want impossible zooms or small variations on the ranges already available.

That does not matter. The question is for what people are willing to pay in reality.

It does not makes sense to think about a lens, if you would not buy it the next day, once it would be available.

The "boring" lenses are sold the most. Sigma is big enough to afford also some different lenses, but even Sigma has to think about how many lenses they are able to sell on that specific lens design.

For example the new Sigma 50/1.2 DG DN Art is for sure a lovely lens.

But how many of us are really willing to buy it for 1.500€? Or to carry 750g around alle the time vs. a much cheaper and lighter 50/2.0 DG DN?

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

Coming in late to this thread and wondering why so many people want impossible zooms or small variations on the ranges already available. What's really missing is the magic that a lens designer like Erhard Glatzel or Jun Hirakawa could bring to bear. The current Lumix lenses are utilitarian, but have no special rendering qualities. Hence I propose the following full-frame designs:

• Lumix S 28mm f/2 Special AKA Hollywood
• Lumix S 43mm f/2 Special AKA Limited
• Lumix S 135mm f/2 Special AKA Bokeh

A word about focal lengths. I chose 43mm as this is the perfect normal focal length (that being the diagonal measure of the sensor). 28mm is the ideal wide focal length and happens to also be the perfect normal on APS-C. 135mm is ideal for portraiture. All three lengths are missing in the current line-up.

Each lens would have metal build, industrial styling, compact size, and aperture ring. Given their antecedents, this can be accomplished while guaranteeing high resolution, good micro-contrast, negligible distortion, and no aberrations... even wide open. With the Pentax 43mm Limited Hirakawa demonstrated that astigmatism can be completely corrected in both the meridional and sagittal subject planes. The trade-off is field curvature, at least until stopped down. But the benefit is pronounced subject isolation and the mythical "3D pop" that these lenses were known for. The Carl Zeiss Distagon 28mm f/2 is similar in that regard.

The lens formulas would be updated to use contemporary composite materials but otherwise would adhere to classic designs, namely:

• Lumix S 28mm f/2 Special: Distagon with floating element for close focus performance
• Lumix S 43mm f/2 Special: augmented double-Gauss design
• Lumix S 135mm f/2 Special: Planar design

These lenses would be targeted to stills photography but would give up none of their charm for video.

Dare to dream!

While I'd welcome lenses at all of these focal lengths, especially if they're compact, the faults of the 28mm and the 43mm would not be welcomed by most photographers. The 43mm is not very sharp wide open and while I owned one I saw nothing of the fabled "3D pop" or "fairy dust" from it - performance was mediocre and bested by far by the two L-mount 50s I own and at least equalled by similar (but much cheaper) lenses on the K mount (HD FA 35/2, DAL 50/1.8). The 28/2 is a great performer and certainly has 3D pop, sharp in the centre wide open but needs to be stopped down for sharpness outside the centre. If I were to choose a 135mm lens on which to base a new iteration it would certainly be the old Pentax K 135/2.5, which is fantastic even by today's standards (an incredible feat really, given how old it is).

I'd also disagree that the current Lumix lenses are utilitarian and have unremarkable rendering - I've been nothing but impressed with sharpness and rendering of all three I've used (50/1.8, 20-60, 16-35/4) and the Sigmas too.

That's not to say I wouldn't like to see compact, metal build lenses for the L-mount, but Panasonic will never make them. Maybe Cosina. Or Pentax if they ultimately fail as the sole produced of DSLRs and save themselves by joining the L-mount alliance and making unique lenses like the Limiteds.

 

[RBecker]

.

For example the new Sigma 50/1.2 DG DN Art is for sure a lovely lens.

But how many of us are really willing to buy it for 1.500€? Or to carry 750g around alle the time vs. a much cheaper and lighter 50/2.0 DG DN?

If you compare the new 1.2 with the 2.0 you are right. But I own the „old“ 1.4HSM and there the bill is different! The new lens is:
- smaller in diameter
- shorter in length
- less in weight
- much better in performance (from the MTF)
- half stop faster
That is a quite amazing list of features with only one big drawback: double the price…

But I think I will give my old lens to refund to my dealer and buy the new. For fashion and portrait I assume it will be awesome and much cheaper then the comparable lenses from CaSoNi…

 

[robin0112358]

While I'd welcome lenses at all of these focal lengths, especially if they're compact, the faults of the 28mm and the 43mm would not be welcomed by most photographers.

I must address these so-called faults since I completely disagree.

The 28/2 is a great performer and certainly has 3D pop, sharp in the centre wide open but needs to be stopped down for sharpness outside the centre.

But that's the whole point! The lens can be use for its magic wide-open or stopped down for super sharpness to the borders (true already at f/8). It's the field curvature that puts the borders out of focus when tested against a chart on a flat plane. In real-word shooting this same design decision (not a mistake or defect in the lens) is a non-event. Unless you choose to shoot a brick wall at f/2. In which case the fault is not in the lens.

That aside, you exaggerate the difficulties. I have tested the Distagon f/2 against several other 28mm primes (since I own perhaps a dozen, including Kiron, Cosina, Pentax). Even wide open it is usable, though with some halation. Numerous reviewers and owners attest to the qualities of the Distagon, and I can easily declare it to be the finest 28mm lens I own. I rather wish otherwise, since the size and weight detract from the experience.

The 43mm is not very sharp wide open and while I owned one I saw nothing of the fabled "3D pop" or "fairy dust" from it - performance was mediocre and bested by far by the two L-mount 50s I own and at least equalled by similar (but much cheaper) lenses on the K mount (HD FA 35/2, DAL 50/1.8).

True the FA 43 is not "very sharp" wide open, but no manual vintage prime is... unless "wide open" means f/3.5 or f/4. So this statement doesn't tell us a lot. Is it so soft as to be unusable? Not at all. In fact, the FA 43 is sharper at f/1.9 than, for example, the DA 40 at f/2.8 (to compare a similar focal length from the same manufacturer). At f/2 the centres are as sharp as the FA 50/1.4. From f/2.8 to f/5.6 it was the sharpest Pentax lens tested at Photozone. Obviously contemporary lenses that are several times the size and price will be sharper. That's a given. But we already have those lenses! This is a thread about "missing" lenses. Sharpness is not the only criteria here.

Furthermore, with today's CAD/CAM and materials processes, there is no reason to think that a Lumix S 43mm Special would not show improvements on a Pentax lens from 1997. The important thing is that the design principles and optical formula remain true. For it is these factors that result in that fairy dust you didn't encounter... but that many others have seen. Knowledgeable professionals like Mike Johnston have sung the praises of the Limited lenses on more than one occasion. (Though his favourite Limited is the FA 77.) On release, the FA 43 was reviewed very favourably by magazines like Outdoor Photography and FotoMagazin. Amateur Photographer made this lens their reference normal.

Furthermore, the FA 43 remains the only Pentax lens released for Leica Thread Mount, as the SMC Pentax-L 1:1.9 43mm Special. (Yes, that's where I got the "special" designation for my wish list.) So I guess Leica was somehow wrong in allowing this terrible lens to taint their line-up? The evidence suggests otherwise.

More than one photographer retained a Pentax camera just to continue using this lens. There were entire threads of praise sung on lost Yahoo Groups and the newsgroups of yore. No doubt the construction and petite size were also important aspects.

On a personal level, a wedding photo I took was declared by my friend to be the best portrait taken in his 40 years. Partly that was me, the photographer, since I had enough experience with the lens to optimise the performance. Partly it was the celebratory situation. And partly the amazing rendering of a very special lens. Everything needs to come together for the fairies to dance.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

Well we'll have to agree to disagree. Any lens can be stopped down for landscape sharpness but not all lenses can be shot wide open with a sharp subject and de-focused background - the 28/2 can do this only with the subject in the centre and it would be nice if that weren't the case. That's really the only way I can fault this lens and I agree it's the best 28mm lens I've ever used too.

Manual vintage lenses (in which the 43mm doesn't qualify in either respect) which are faster than f/3.5 but sharp wide open, apart from the 28/2 I can think of a few: the K 135/2.5, the A 50/2.8, a Minolta 35/2.8 I have, the Sigma mini-wide 28/2.8, Rikenon 35/2.8... there aren't many. But the M 50/1.7, DAL 50/1.8, HD FA 35/2 and Auto-Revuenon 50/1.7 are all sharper wide open than the 43mm and produce images with more of a 3D pop than the 43 does and at a far lower price and with superior build quality.

Is the 43mm usable wide open? It certainly wasn't on my K-3, not to my standards, where it was significantly softer than the DA 40mm. I don't think Pentax needed Leica's permission to release the 43 in M mount, they just decided to do it, but that was back in the film days when a lack of sharpness was less of a problem. I found the construction of the 43mm to be quite poor, certainly much worse than that of the DA Limiteds, which really surprised me. And online forums are full of people espousing the fine qualities of a certain lens only to back up their claims by posting images taken with said lens and which do not demonstrate those fine qualities in any way. The 43mm is not a bad lens but there's absolutely nothing special about it and as a result it's massively over-priced and over-hyped.

I'd love to see some L-mount lenses with a very similar design philosophy to the Pentax Limiteds but they'd have to significantly improve their optical qualities to be acceptable in the current market, and I fear that would take them out of the desired philosophy, at least as far as size goes.

 

[robin0112358]

Well we'll have to agree to disagree.

Well, you write this but then chuck in an entire paragraph in rebuttal.

From your statements I can only imagine you had a bad copy of the lens. Or didn't spend long enough with it to find the sweet spot. None of your statements afford with my experience or those of many other photographers. I don't expect to convince you, but provide the following in case others reading accept your opinions at face value.

"If just one lens, the Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Special is almost ideal."

"The Pentax-L is a lens that would be difficult to replace if stolen."

"The FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited produced stellar resolution figures in the MTF lab except at wide-open aperture. At f/1.9 it suffers from rather low contrast combined with a soft border performance whereas the center is already pretty sharp. The situation is completely different at f/2.8 where both resolution and contrast are extremely high."

"The FA 43mm has stood the test of time."

"By substantially improving the craftsmanship, finish, and construction materials in their autofocus 43/1.9 lens, Pentax audaciously challenged and destroyed today's much loved modern standard of mediocre construction quality."

"As soon as I reviewed the very first image I took with this lens, I had the feeling that this might be THE lens! The image was just so rich and sharp and the colors so thick and smooth. And the build, the size, the lens hood, the weight… everything is so perfect."

"Yet the very best AF SLR lenses made today are the Pentax Limiteds. There are only three, and they have focal lengths apparently chosen by means of occultish numerology: there's a 31mm f/1.8 wide, a 43mm f/1.9 "true" normal, and a 77mm f/1.8 short tele. All three are made of metal (imagine that), focus manually more than passably well, and are of an size and weight that doesn't constantly penalize you, whether you're lugging them around or holding them up to your eye on a camera. They have beautiful matching metal lens hoods and a feel of quality that puts them above virtually all other AF lenses."

"I use and think very highly of my FA43/1.9; it sharpness is at least the equal of the best results from my 50mm primes, and its color and contrast are the best of any of my Pentax lenses."

(I've stripped all the names, but have these on file.)

 

[osogris]

We had in other threads interesting discussions about the current lens line up for L-Mount (around 80 lenses from Sigma, Leica and Panasonic) and what lenses might be interesting to produce. I do think it is worth an extra thread to collect the feedback of the L-Mount community.

Obviously this is never objective and always according to the personal preferences of each member. Maybe we can make later in a second step a poll to get a feeling how many members would prefer this or that lens for a future roadmap.

Lenses that have been mentioned already in the other threads in the order of the focal length:

Tilt-Shift lens
28mm FFL small and compact (i.e. i-series)
40mm FFL Art (i.e. a DG DN version)
40mm FFL PANCAKE
50mm Macro
135mm FFL (i.e. a DG DN version)
200mm FFL
Light and compact tele zoom, no matter which aperture
Light and compact 24-200 zoom
24-70/4.0 (small and compact)
70-200/4.0 (small and compact)

Did I miss anything? Please add your wishes for lenses to this list.

Please check first, whether your favorite lens is already available in our L-Mount lens-overview list:

L-Mount Lenses - L-MOUNT-Forum.com

L-MOUNT User Forum, L-Mount forum, L-Mount Forums, L-Mount cameras, Leica, Panasonic fullframe, Sigma fullframe, Sigma Foveon, Lumix, Lumix S1R, Lumix S1, Leica SL, Sigma ART

l-mount-forum.com

I would be really excited to see Cosina/Voigtlander port their APO series to L mount, particularly the 50. Not sure how high that is on their priority list, but the S5ii’s ability to pull off hand held pixel shift images would be a fun combination with that lens. I am sure the APO Summicron 50 is great, but at six times the price and and being larger, there is room in the lineup for the Voigtlander. There is a current M mount version of Voigtlanders 50 APO of course but a version optimized for the Panasonic sensor stack would be very nice to have (plus that would allow for EXIF data).

 

[RuleOfThirds]

Of course, that would be nice. But with some overview about the possible technology this seems extremly unrealistic to me. It is nearly impossible to build a small lens with long zoomrange, good aperture and good quality. That is one factor too much

Best example is the new Lumix 28-200. This lens was only possible by using a slow aperture for the long end. An f4 24-120 could not be very compact by design If you stay with f4. But if you skip the wide angle part there are many more options to go compact and maybe even faster.

And again: my idea of a 40-120 2.8 is not a replacement for typical 24-105 or 24-120, it should be a competitor to the Tamron or Samyang 35-150, but smaller and more lightweight. If such a lens will be available I would buy this at once instead of the Tamron or Samyang. For portrait and people it is a great range, with the typical 24-70 and 70-200 you always have the wrong lens mounted to your body…

Maybe a 24-135/3.5-5.6 OIS should be feasible in a sizeable package and would be an extremely useful range. 5.6 from 120 up would be fine. F4 until 70mm

That would be an instant buy for me if it would have the 20-60 image quality.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

Maybe a 24-135/3.5-5.6 OIS should be feasible in a sizeable package and would be an extremely useful range. 5.6 from 120 up would be fine. F4 until 70mm

That would be an instant buy for me if it would have the 20-60 image quality.

Yep, this is along the lines of what I've thought is maybe the biggest missing lens in the line-up: a standard lens that isn't fast (but isn't particularly slow) and covers a good range with a variable aperture. I'd certainly buy one over the 28-200.

 

[Oíche]

Yep, this is along the lines of what I've thought is maybe the biggest missing lens in the line-up: a standard lens that isn't fast (but isn't particularly slow) and covers a good range with a variable aperture. I'd certainly buy one over the 28-200.

Why not the 24-105 f4 O.I.S?. Really need the extra 30mm? Just asking as I have it plus constant f4.

 

[Travis Butler]

Yep, this is along the lines of what I've thought is maybe the biggest missing lens in the line-up: a standard lens that isn't fast (but isn't particularly slow) and covers a good range with a variable aperture. I'd certainly buy one over the 28-200.

I admit, I wouldn't call 24-135 'standard' by any definition I'd use.

For zoom range, 24-135 is a 5.6x zoom, which puts it well into superzoom territory, with all the accompanying compromises.

For focal lengths, I'd define 'standard' as moderate-wide to moderate-tele, centered roughly around whatever your definition of 'normal' is (43mm or 50mm) - the 'standard' set of focal lengths used by an average photographer. I can accept that 'standard' has shifted down from moderate-wide to extra-wide; but 135mm is pretty far out from what I'd consider part of a 'standard' range.

And finally, 'standard' implies a measure of affordability and usability to me. It shouldn't be too expensive, and it shouldn't be too large and heavy.

24-135 is certainly a desirable focal range to me. But I have real trouble believing that they can keep it both small/light enough to be a walkaround lens (though the 28-200 is certainly more than I'd expected there!) and affordable enough to be a 'standard' part of a photographer's toolkit (and the 28-200 is about double that).

 

[RuleOfThirds]

In Fuji I had the 16-80/4, m43 I had the PanaLeica 12-60/2.8-4, even my first Nikon had a 16-85. My experience is is that it is just a tiny bit too short.

And my desire for 135 came from my XF90 experience. Really like that focal length. Believe me, I really eyed that 24-105/4 already but wanted to wait for the 28-200.

But my comment was 2 fold. I also stated in a sizeable package. By that I ment being around the same size or smaller then the 28-200. So giving up the 200 for a bit more wide angle and speed. But relative small and light. And 67mm diameter.

I only waited for the 28-200 because of the size/weight of the 24-105/4 and 105 is still a bit short for the same size/weight.

 

[Oíche]

In Fuji I had the 16-80/4, m43 I had the PanaLeica 12-60/2.8-4, even my first Nikon had a 16-85. My experience is is that it is just a tiny bit too short.

And my desire for 135 came from my XF90 experience. Really like that focal length. Believe me, I really eyed that 24-105/4 already but wanted to wait for the 28-200.

But my comment was 2 fold. I also stated in a sizeable package. By that I ment being around the same size or smaller then the 28-200. So giving up the 200 for a bit more wide angle and speed. But relative small and light. And 67mm diameter.

I only waited for the 28-200 because of the size/weight of the 24-105/4 and 105 is still a bit short for the same size/weight.

IMO the 24/105 f4 ain't big nor heavy for what it does, it can't be smaller. My problem is prising off the 70-300. Yes most times 105 is too short and I love 300 and 200 is too short. Both 0.5x macro is nice in both and essential, both have great bokeh too. I could easily just use either without fast primes.

I bought a Pentax K-L adapter but have yet to find any notable advantage to using any of the Pentax primes over the Lumix zooms, despite the speed and supposed bokeh it should oroduce. It's most useful for continuing to use my Samyang K mount 14mm f2.8. Both Lumix zooms produce beautiful bokeh no matter what aperture and this more than compensates for a faster legacy in most cases. I do have a Vivitar 28mm f2 which does distinctive bokeh but that is a different matter and I've reminded myself to try it on S5ii as I've forgotten about it and it was my flower lens before!

 

[Nevyn72]

PanaLeica 12-60/2.8-4

That would be a 24-120 F1.4-F2, but wil never be feasible for veing lightweight also.

I think you have to go for 24-135 F4-F6.3

And as a bonus you also get a 135-200 F6.3-F7 for the same price

 

[RBecker]

That would be a 24-120 F1.4-F2, but wil never be feasible for veing lightweight also.

I think you have to go for 24-135 F4-F6.3

And as a bonus you also get a 135-200 F6.3-F7 for the same price

The MFT 12-60/2.8-4 will be a FF 24-120/5.6-8 in terms of viewing angle and DOF. Such a lens could be quite small, but I think not smaller then the 28-200…

I think the most important point will be the final/daily picture quality from the 28-200. If it is a decent lens or even more, the lens is a great option for travel or anything like that…

 

[Nevyn72]

The MFT 12-60/2.8-4 will be a FF 24-120/5.6-8 in terms of viewing angle and DOF. Such a lens could be quite small, but I think not smaller then the 28-200…

I think the most important point will be the final/daily picture quality from the 28-200. If it is a decent lens or even more, the lens is a great option for travel or anything like that…

Check the tread about the 28-200, I've shared sone raws and a video. I'm very pleased with the lens.

 

[Quentinquirelino]

The MFT 12-60/2.8-4 will be a FF 24-120/5.6-8 in terms of viewing angle and DOF. Such a lens could be quite small, but I think not smaller then the 28-200…

I think the most important point will be the final/daily picture quality from the 28-200. If it is a decent lens or even more, the lens is a great option for travel or anything like that…

A 24-120 f5.6-8 most certainly could be a bit smaller than the 28-200. It's even slower and has less zoom. But many people are already unhappy of the darkness of the 28-200. I don't think a even darker zoom wood sell well.

 

[Nevyn72]

But many people are already unhappy of the darkness of the 28-200. I don't think a even darker zoom wood sell well.

They look to much at the 7.1, but the aperture goes smooth over the whole range, only to end @200mm F7.1, what is only a third stop slower than a 6.3.

And in M43 this would be a F2-F3.5... I would say don't look at the numbers or look well at the numbers .

 

[RuleOfThirds]

A 24-120 f5.6-8 most certainly could be a bit smaller than the 28-200. It's even slower and has less zoom. But many people are already unhappy of the darkness of the 28-200. I don't think a even darker zoom wood sell well.

But that was also one of the reasons to switch to Fuji at the time... was tired of always everything in focus, except for when shooting with fast primes. Even my PanaLeica 25/1.4 was a 50/2.8. Of course. So 24-135/4-5.6 would be nice. Also the PanaLeica 12-60/2.8-4 really stretched the corners at 12mm (in body correction I presume) so putting a person in the corner was really a no go. Anyway, I'm happy where I am today, that I can choose if everything is in focus or not. And even happier with a nice do-it-all 24-135

atm the 24-105 is more tempting to me... so @Nevyn72 if you decide to sell yours you can give me a message.