Full frame CSC lens you'd buy?

[Hywel]

What would be your #1 lens request from (full frame) CSC system manufacturers?

Mine would be a beauty zoom lens. Pretty much everybody will do you a 24-70 and 70-200, plus 35, 50 and 85 mm primes.

For my bread and butter photography, I'd rather not have anything wider than 35 mm.

I call 24-35 mm the focal lengths from hell- they induce a subtle but horrible distortion to human proportions. This isn't distortion in the "lens aberration" sense, it is distorted perspective from standing too close to the model to get the frame-filling shot. If the model is anything other than completely square on to camera so every part of her body is essentially the same distance from the lens, you get horrible fat-thighs/big-nose/receding ears/huge feet/tiny head distortion... like you do with a much wider lens. Only instead of being an obvious, whacky effect like it is with a 16 mm lens, it just gives a really unflattering perspective in the focal lengths from hell.

I also don't need anything longer than a 135 mm lens for people photography generally, with the exception of a 180 mm macro (see posts passim).

In fact I could probably live with 90 or 100mm in a high-quality fast zoom.

So... the lens I'd buy like a shot would be a 35-135 mm f/2.8 (or even faster if the technology is there).

Such lenses existed in the dim and distant past of celluloid, I think- although maybe not as fast as f/2.8.

I'd buy a 35-100 mm, or a 40-120 mm, or any variant on it with good image quality and good max aperture.

Obviously a faster lens would be better- if Sigma could magic up an f/1.8 35-135 mm with nice bokeh I'd pay a considerable sum for it! (They have a 50-100 f/1.8 but it is APS-C only- darn it).

I know that might be unrealistic but f/2.8 should be feasible, shouldn't it? Or is there some physical fundamental reason why they always seem to split the focal length range around 70 mm?

 It would be of great use to me for general shooting, make ring flash a lot easier to work with again, and prevent me from endless lens changes which can be necessary in some shooting conditions (ring flash, dusty environment, needing to work really fast in limited spaces, etc.). If it could close focus to say 1:2 or even 1:4 life size that would cover 90% of my shooting requirements in one lens.

I'm actually using the Sony FE 24-240 mm in this capacity right now but it needs stopping down to f/8 so it is a flash-only option.

Does anyone else have a lens which they'd like to see and which currently isn't covered by any manufacturer?

  Cheers, Hywel.

[Manoli]

What would be your #1 lens request from (full frame) CSC system manufacturers?

Interesting question.
Off the cuff answer :
(1) 40-105 f/2. No aspherics, 'bootiful' bokeh, pro-grade build (more Otus than Batis) with 'Batis' resolving power and up.
(2) 180 f/2.8 – The only 180's left are a Nikon D (with exposed rear diaphragm) and vintage Leica-R's (both APO and non-APO). Canon have a 200 which is a 20-yr old design but still a kludge on a CSC


I've never warmed to the 135 FL. Either too long or not long enough. The 70-200's are everywhere but, for me, destroy the svelte attraction and discreet nature of the CSC. No-one enjoys having a bazooka pointed at them plus it's cumbersome. If I'm going that large then I'll go for a 200 f/2 – but I'd agree not an ideal match for a CSC ... 

[Paulo Bizarro]

135mm f2.8 or f4, small and compact for travel.

[Herbc]

ditto the 135 f2.8 or f4.  Prefer MF. It would have to exceed Leica M 135 f4 to be worth it.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would like to have a very good 24-105/4, 16-35/4, 24/3.5 T&S, 90/2.8 Macro, 70-400/4.0-5.6.

Well, that is actually what I have, 3X Canon, 1X Sony FE and 1X Sony A-mount.

Best regards
Erik

[scooby70]

What would be your #1 lens request from (full frame) CSC system manufacturers?

A 35mm f1.8 for my A7 which is only ever so slightly bigger than the 35mm f2.8, if that's possible, because..

I call 24-35 mm the focal lengths from hell- they induce a subtle but horrible distortion to human proportions. This isn't distortion in the "lens aberration" sense, it is distorted perspective from standing too close to the model to get the frame-filling shot....

No, they don't. Unless as you go on to say you're too close to the subject. Use common sense and you don't get fat thighs.

So, it's a compact 35mm f1.8 for me. It needn't be one of the worlds best ever lenses but just good enough and being just good might keep the bulk and weight down a bit.

[armand]

A 35mm f1.8 for my A7 which is only ever so slightly bigger than the 35mm f2.8, if that's possible, because..

So, it's a compact 35mm f1.8 for me. It needn't be one of the worlds best ever lenses but just good enough and being just good might keep the bulk and weight down a bit.

What do you think about the size of a Fuji (X-E2, X-T1) with the 23 1.4? 
Almost the same DOF, similar low light performance, very good lens. I'm curious more if you think the size is acceptable and not to interest you in Fuji.

[scooby70]

What do you think about the size of a Fuji (X-E2, X-T1) with the 23 1.4? 
Almost the same DOF, similar low light performance, very good lens. I'm curious more if you think the size is acceptable and not to interest you in Fuji.

I think a Fuji X-T1 + 23mm f1.4 looks a bit bulkier than an A7 + 35mm f2.8 but maybe not significantly so.

I think this demonstrates a problem with the Fuji system for me. I think that bulk wise it competes with the Sony A7 system whilst not matching the image quality and not leaving the more compact Micro Four Thirds system far enough behind, if at all.

The appeal of the Fuji system for me is the manual controls but I'd rather have my A7 for the best image quality I can get in a small package and for when I want to use my old manual lenses at their 35mm field of view and when I want decent quality but in an even more compact package I use my MFT.

For me Fuji is stuck in the middle between the A7 and MFT. The Fuji system might make sense to many people but I'd rather have two cameras, the A7 for ultimate quality and MFT for when I want even more compact kit.

[JV]

I think a Fuji X-T1 + 23mm f1.4 looks a bit bulkier than an A7 + 35mm f2.8 but maybe not significantly so.

I think this demonstrates a problem with the Fuji system for me. I think that bulk wise it competes with the Sony A7 system whilst not matching the image quality and not leaving the more compact Micro Four Thirds system far enough behind, if at all.

The appeal of the Fuji system for me is the manual controls but I'd rather have my A7 for the best image quality I can get in a small package and for when I want to use my old manual lenses at their 35mm field of view and when I want decent quality but in an even more compact package I use my MFT.

For me Fuji is stuck in the middle between the A7 and MFT. The Fuji system might make sense to many people but I'd rather have two cameras, the A7 for ultimate quality and MFT for when I want even more compact kit.

Are you using the original A7?  What makes you so sure that that beats the Fuji's in image quality?

[Jack Hogan]

What would be your #1 lens request from (full frame) CSC system manufacturers?

Are you asking for new CSC lenses with FF equivalent specs, or existing Full Frame lenses with a Compact System Camera mount?
The former is hard (sometimes impossible) and expensive to do; the latter would most likely be disappointing.

Jack

[Hywel]

Are you asking for new CSC lenses with FF equivalent specs, or existing Full Frame lenses with a Compact System Camera mount?
The former is hard (sometimes impossible) and expensive to do; the latter would most likely be disappointing.

Jack

Ummm, I'm asking for lenses for a full-frame compact system camera (ie the Sony A7Rii in my case!) that isn't really available at the moment either in native mount or adapted.

Specifically, my request is for a beauty zoom: 35-135 f/2.8 (or faster if the technology allows: f/1.8 would be much better).  Something which covers the focal lengths most commonly used for people photography- just wide of normal through to mild telephoto for head and shoulder portraits. Sigma have a 50-100 f/1.8 but it is only APS-C; I'd absolutely LOVE a lens with just a touch more range (at the wide end particularly) covering full-frame. I may be the only person who wants that, though.

I definitely agree that a dual lens line-up would be most welcome.

I personally have great use for bokeh monsters like the 85mm f/1.4 Sony GM, but wouldn't want to take it into the mountains: a light and compact set of f/2.8 autofocus primes to complement the fast but heavy bokeh-monster primes for studio/portraiture work seems like a great idea.


Cheers, Hywel

[scooby70]

Are you using the original A7?  What makes you so sure that that beats the Fuji's in image quality?

Yes, I have the original A7.

I've looked at the Fuji's a number of times and have downloaded many images and no, I don't think they match never mind better my A7. Do you?

I'd say that the Fuji images I've looked at maybe better MFT at higher ISO's if I go looking for the differences but Fuji (AFAIK) are a little optimistic with their ISO's so I'm not really certain what the situation actually is. As I said in my original post, I don't think that Fuji can match my A7 whilst not leaving MFT far enough behind. It's just my view, others are free to differ, and then there's the question of bulk and as I mostly use primes my A7 with 55mm f1.8 or 35mm f2.8 fitted is a pretty compact little camera and MFT is even more so.

I do see the attraction of the Fuji otherwise I wouldn't keep looking at them but for me they're stuck in the middle with the bulk of the A7 but not the quality and maybe bettering MFT (maybe...) but at greater bulk.

[Jack Hogan]

Ummm, I'm asking for lenses for a full-frame compact system camera (ie the Sony A7Rii in my case!) that isn't really available at the moment either in native mount or adapted.

Specifically, my request is for a beauty zoom: 35-135 f/2.8 (or faster if the technology allows: f/1.8 would be much better).  Something which covers the focal lengths most commonly used for people photography- just wide of normal through to mild telephoto for head and shoulder portraits. Sigma have a 50-100 f/1.8 but it is only APS-C; I'd absolutely LOVE a lens with just a touch more range (at the wide end particularly) covering full-frame. I may be the only person who wants that, though.

Ah, I see.  You are right, there isn't much in that range at f/2.8 or faster.  Lots of options with the newer f/4s though, including Sigma's Art 24-105/4, Nikon 24-120/4VR and Canon 24-105L.  Perhaps the extra stop of low light performance can be made up for by the a7RII's excellent sensor?

Jack

[JV]

I've looked at the Fuji's a number of times and have downloaded many images and no, I don't think they match never mind better my A7. Do you?

I don't believe you can say that the Sony A7 has a significant image quality advantage over the Fuji's, no...

Even tests comparing the A7II with the X-Pro2 usually conclude that differences are small...

Unless you are into pixel peeping I would say that from a pragmatic point of view both cameras are very close...

FWIW, I sold both Sony and Fuji, so no owner's bias towards either.

[armand]

I deleted it now but I did compare the X-T1 with 23 1.4 with the A7 with either 35 2.8 or the manual focus 35 2.0.
The Fuji is bulkier than the A7 with 35 2.8 but it should be better in low light or if you need more DOF.
It is about the same bulk (less weight though) than the 35 2.0 with what should be similar image quality for similar DOF in not so perfect light (meaning you have to go beyond base iso).