Fast mid-long zooms - why not?

[Archiver]

Where are the fast mid-long zooms?

In the 2010s, Sigma shocked the camera world with the 18-35mm f1.8 and 50-100mm f1.8 for aps-c sensors. These allowed aps-c users to shoot zooms with lower ISOs, and in lower light, and capture motion with less noise issues. The 18-35 brought new life to my ancient Canon 30D, and I'd love to get my hands on a 50-100.

It wasn't until years later that Canon innovated with the 28-70mm f2, essentially a bag of fast full frame primes in one lens. Sigma did it slightly differently with the 28-45mm f1.8, and Sony now has its own 28-70mm f2 in a smaller, lighter package than Canon.

As someone who does a lot of low light action shooting, I would love to see a fast mid range zoom like a 35-70 or even 40-90mm f1.8 or f2 in full frame. I would put up with the expected weight of such a lens because my usual range for low light sports and events is 35-70. Would it be big and heavy? Yes. But it would likely still be in line with the current offerings from Sigma, Canon and Sony, and shouldn't be bigger or heavier than the usual 70-200mm f2.8 workhorse that people lug about.

Anyone else?

 

[trix4ever]

Sigma is about to release a 17-40mm f1.8 for aps-c...

 

[Archiver]

Sigma is about to release a 17-40mm f1.8 for aps-c...

Hahaha, it would be great, but it doesn't help me with full frame L mount cameras. 😄

 

[trix4ever]

Hahaha, it would be great, but it doesn't help me with full frame L mount cameras. 😄

Well my SL2-S is so good at high iso that my Leica 24-70mm f2.8 which is crisp wide open is good enough for me, if I really need more I have the Sigma dg dn 20mm f1.4 and I am looking at the Sigma 35mm f1.4 ( the 1.2 is too big for me). They should bring out the 24-35mm f2 in L-mount.
Actually I would probably buy a 35-70mm f2 if it was good wide open, otherwise there's no point really, is there?
I think all the Sigma lenses are really made for the Sony crowd and we benefit because it's so cheap to add an L-mount version, so if they get the urge to compete with Sony in the fast zoom arena, we might benefit.
I suspect if you have a need for a particular lens the only real answer is to buy into the system that has it, usually because the system sells enough to justify niche lenses.
Wishing costs nothing.......

 

[Archiver]

I suspect if you have a need for a particular lens the only real answer is to buy into the system that has it, usually because the system sells enough to justify niche lenses.

This is a surprisingly good point that leads only to pain in the wallet, haha.

At one time, I was seriously considering buying into the Sony system because it has cameras, features and lenses that would suit me well. Sports action, low light, and high end video work are provinces of Sony at this time. A Sony A9 variant for stills and an A7S III for video would be the bodies, and the 28-70 f2, 200-600mm, 35mm f1.4 GM and 90mm Macro would take care of everything I would want to shoot. But such a kit would require a budget outside of mine.

Heck, I just saw that Sony has a 50-150mm f2! Now that is a dream lens for what I do. How is that even possible? Do I need to rethink my life hahahaha

 

[Freakscene]

Maybe with L mount cameras where the low light performance is only moderate, such a lens might be useful, but the amusing contradiction is that on a Sony A1, for example, where you can get a fast zoom, it is much less useful than just cranking the ISO. These lenses just are not that much faster than what is available, whereas ISO 25,600 or 102,400 are entirely usable on those cameras.

 

[Archiver]

Maybe with L mount cameras where the low light performance is only moderate, such a lens might be useful, but the amusing contradiction is that on a Sony A1, for example, where you can get a fast zoom, it is much less useful than just cranking the ISO. These lenses just are not that much faster than what is available, whereas ISO 25,600 or 102,400 are entirely usable on those cameras.

Oh, I love this about RFF. We're a bunch of knowledgeable enablers. "If you want feature X, just buy the system that gives you feature X, And by the way, that system's most expensive flagship body also has feature Y and Z which help even more." 😆

 

[Freakscene]

Well my SL2-S is so good at high iso that my Leica 24-70mm f2.8 which is crisp wide open is good enough for me, if I really need more I have the Sigma dg dn 20mm f1.4 and I am looking at the Sigma 35mm f1.4 ( the 1.2 is too big for me). They should bring out the 24-35mm f2 in L-mount.
[snip]

I suspect if you have a need for a particular lens the only real answer is to buy into the system that has it, usually because the system sells enough to justify niche lenses.
Wishing costs nothing.......

Exactly. Just buy a used Sony (get an A1 or A7s iii - then the sky is the limit!) and the 50-150f2.

The camera is just a backcap for your choice of lenses.

But good luck learning all the menus and interfaces!

 

[Archiver]

Exactly. Just buy a used Sony (get an A1 or A7s iii - then the sky is the limit!) and the 50-150f2.

The camera is just a backcap for your choice of lenses.

But good luck learning all the menus and interfaces!

There is something to be said for multiple bodies with the same controls and menus. Now that I use the S1, S5 and SL2-S, I sometimes find myself flicking the left hand corner of the S1 to turn it on (no, that's the SL2-S) or turning the front dial of the SL2-S to change mode (no, that's the S5). Panasonic was on to something when they made the S1 and S1R with the same controls.

 

[Freakscene]

There is something to be said for multiple bodies with the same controls and menus. Now that I use the S1, S5 and SL2-S, I sometimes find myself flicking the left hand corner of the S1 to turn it on (no, that's the SL2-S) or turning the front dial of the SL2-S to change mode (no, that's the S5). Panasonic was on to something when they made the S1 and S1R with the same controls.

I generally work with two Leica M10 Monochroms, one with a 50mm Summilux and one with a 28 Summilux. I hate complex user interfaces and I hate working with more than one at a time. But if you want those lenses . . .

 

[Archiver]

I generally work with two Leica M10 Monochroms, one with a 50mm Summilux and one with a 28 Summilux. I hate complex user interfaces and I hate working with more than one at a time. But if you want those lenses . . .

I wish I hadn't had this conversation, now I want that Sony 50-150mm f2 and at least an A9. Seriously, that pairing would meet all my indoor and most outdoor sports needs.

Secondhand A9 is about $2800, the lens is something daft like AUD $7000. But wait, Sony Australia have it on sale for a mere snip at $6000! What am I waiting for?? Let's see if I can find $10k in the sofa cushions 😄 I can only hope that Sigma will release a similar lens for L mount at some stage. If only I wasn't so deeply invested in the Lumix/Leica L mount system and had $10k just lying about, eh.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Maybe it makes sense for really specific use.
The only one I'm aware of - bokeholics who doesn't want to deal with prime, but OK to workout 🙂
Could be very common...

To me anything faster than 2.8 in zooms is too bulky, heavy, non practical.
Sony 28-70 f2 is one kilogram.
Tamron 28-75 2.8 in same mount is half of the weight and three times less expensive.
0.8 makes no difference at all in low light.


The "noise" is demon from the past, IMO. It was required by stock services.
In real world, if operator of camera knows how to operate the camera... even 500D from 2009 is fine @12800.

K3 from 2013. ISO 8000, f5.6.

And these days, even dirt cheap RP with old 6DII sensor has incredibly good low light capabilities.
Its EVF was acting like night vision google for me. Showing things better than I could see myself in the dark.

RP. f5.6 ISO 8000. @f2 it would be useless DOF.

Running and gunning with f2 or f1.8 means you have to slow down, no matter how fast AF is.
If you could slow down, IS and f4 will do the same as f2/f1.8.

PS: In the past I had no issues with 50 1.2 EF on assignment. My assignments allowed me to zoom by legs.

 

[Shadams]

I'm with Ko.Fe. on this one. I've got digital cameras from 2007 (Nikon, Canon, etc.,) that rock at ISO 6400 and higher and anything in the last ten years has kind of crushed the noise issue altogether. The beautiful thing is that nowadays that means smaller lenses, particularly in zooms, and sure, slower, but it's not a real penalty, even in OOF areas. For an interesting comparison, have a look at Jay Maisel's photos of Billie Holiday on colour transparency stock. Pushed hard, it looks like. They look like barfed-up skittles. They look fabulous.

Now, with just about any manufacturer's offerings, you can get ISOs in the tens of thousands and the technical image quality is still fantastic. And this is out of full-frame, APSC, and m4/3 bodies. Small bodies, small lenses - particularly long zooms that go fairly wide and fairly long that are all optically brilliant and corrected - means that you're gonna carry your camera more often and for longer. We know where that leads...

 

[Archiver]

@Ko.Fe. @Shadams I've worked with many digital cameras over the years, from the Canon 30D and 5D Mark II to the Panasonic G9, S1 and S5, and there is a considerable difference in noise performance and dynamic range at higher ISOs.

Older cameras from pre-2010 just don't cut it, perhaps excluding the Nikon D700. The Canon 30D is not acceptable over ISO 1600, and the 5D Mark II has hideous shadow banding and cross hatching. The later Canons had poor dynamic range compared with Nikon offerings, especially at higher ISOs. M43 bodies don't cut it over ISO3200 for noise, colour fidelity or file malleability, especially compared with full frame sensors. I've used m43 with f1.2 lenses, and while the results are acceptable, they aren't like full frame.

I regularly shoot indoor sports at 1/800 and 1/1000. From experience, f4 needs ISO6400 and is often underexposed, producing a useable but not optimal image that can be pushed in post. The faster the lens the better, and f2.8 would only just be okay. F1.8-2 primes are acceptable and requires ISO4000 in the conditions I regularly encounter, so a f1.8 or f2 mid-long zoom would be perfect. My clients won't accept barfed up skittles no matter how much I might want to be Jay Maisel. 😄 By the way, thank you for the link to Jay's website, there are some tremendous documentary images there which are so inspiring.

A potential solution was the Samyang 35-150mm f2-2.8, but it has very poor reports with respect to autofocus, so that is off the list unless Samyang can patch this through firmware.

 

[Shadams]

Heh, you're welcome. Usually I look to painters for inspiration but Jay is the exception. And then I found out that all my favorite photographers studied painting.

"Older cameras from pre-2010 just don't cut it, perhaps excluding the Nikon D700."
Fair enough - the D3 and D700 are essentially the same except for speed in autofocus. Essential workhorse picture-making machines. Of course, it depends on what you're shooting. The faster lenses are huge and heavy. Indoor arena sports work often involves chartered strobe systems - not usually accessible for an independant or freelancer. Magnum's Matt Black does superb work with Olympus. His colleague Alex Majoli did great work with point and shoot digital. But it really depends on what you're after. If you shoot sports you're more than likely a Canon user simply because they had the best AF in the business for a long time. Horses for courses, right?

I'm old and essentially retired except for a few niche jobs. Canon's mirrorless offerings tempted me away from the D3, 4, and 5. If I feel that that's all too "clattery" I can work in good light with a Fuji X100f and a little Sony RX100M7. Ridiculous quality in small, quiet packages. The electronic shutters of the Canon R5 and 6 are silent and the only obstacle is the largeness of the set up. If that's not a factor, it's usually the way to go.

Jay shot everything outside at 1600 and everything inside at 6400 - on the D3 at least. That was back in 2009. Remember, we were shooting two-digit ASA stock back in the day unless you were a Tri-X guy. 1600 and 6400 are astounding numbers. To say nothing of the numbers we can see now: 12500 is excellent out of Canon and looks like what 1600 did in 2009. It's all a sliding scale: How still can you be vs how fast is your subject moving in what kind of light?

I'm enjoying your insights.

 

[Dogman]

I'm a total believer in letting the ISO fall wherever it wants and adjusting aperture and exposure compensation for the DOF and scene brightness. With the D3 and D700, I would top out at 6400. As Shadams says, that's still kinda awesome to me having done the film thing. But with the mid-level Z5 and Z6 I just set max ISO at stratosphere and fire away.

Nothing special photos incoming.

This was at ISO 10000 to get DOF. I added grain in post processing. I almost always add grain and vignetting. I just like the look.



The EXIF says this was shot at 6400 but I was pushing the exposure compensation upwards pretty high to get detail on a backlit scene.



Again I added grain (noise) 'cause I like the look. And I'm not using super cameras here. Just run of the mill 24mp Nikon lowly Z5 and Z6. They are also JPEGs. I stopped shooting Raw a long time back. I do use good lenses--in these photos I used the Zeiss 35/2 Biogon ZM. And I also do some careful post processing.

While I really love using cool-kid lenses, I'm well past getting old. My eyes are getting worse and my barbwire backbone is giving out. That cane I've been using is sometimes not enough. I'm thinking my next lens will be something practical for the near-invalid. Maybe the Nikkor Z 24-70. The ƒ/4 model of course. Don't need bigger aperture (and bigger lenses) with the ISOs these days.





....................................

 

[Ko.Fe.]

New Sigma for APS-C sensors is half kilogram and weather-sealed.
I'm still not convinced.
Tamron 28-75 2.8 does the same, weights the same.
But FF high ISO performance is better.

 

[Shadams]

New Sigma for APS-C sensors is half kilogram and weather-sealed.
I'm still not convinced.
Tamron 28-75 2.8 does the same, weights the same.
But FF high ISO performance is better.

One hundred percent. Full frame and let's not go crazy on the photosite count. Less is more. I think there is a sweet spot at 24 MP....
I've had nothing but good luck with Tamron across a bunch of different bodies, film and digital. This has all been crushed, for me, by Canon's 24-240. I hang that thing on an RP, R6, or R5 and it's light, optically just fine, and AF performance is stellar. If I shoot my son at football (soccer), I put it on an APSC body, the R7, just for a little more reach. But most of the time it's on one of the full-frame bodies.
Another FF body gets the 14-35 F4L.
In my world the 24-240 kills the mid-long requirement, but, define mid-long, right?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

One hundred percent. Full frame and let's not go crazy on the photosite count. Less is more. I think there is a sweet spot at 24 MP....
I've had nothing but good luck with Tamron across a bunch of different bodies, film and digital. This has all been crushed, for me, by Canon's 24-240. I hang that thing on an RP, R6, or R5 and it's light, optically just fine, and AF performance is stellar. If I shoot my son at football (soccer), I put it on an APSC body, the R7, just for a little more reach. But most of the time it's on one of the full-frame bodies.
Another FF body gets the 14-35 F4L.
In my world the 24-240 kills the mid-long requirement, but, define mid-long, right?

Yes, after all, it is where most of the gear is in use.
Personal use.

I see zero use for 50MP.
Total fake on mobiles, nothing but waste of disk space overall.

I still can't find replacement for 5DC and M9 sensors. Enough of MPs and else. Including dynamic range, which is totally misunderstood by many.