emaxxman Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 When I first got into photography, I thought f/2.8 zooms were the only option for quality optics. I've come to appreciate lightweight lenses as I find myself lugging more and more equipment around. I bought into the 3rd party versions (could never afford the G lenses) but am now tired of the weight cost. I see that Canon has quite a few constant f/4 L lenses. I was thinking that f/4 G lenses would be a great product range for Minolta. Minolta's strengths have been in the prosumer level of bodies (800si, 7, 7d). F/4 G lenses would be sharp wideopen, affordable to the prosumer, and also offer the quality that pros require. Would you buy one...I definitely would! Here's what I would want... 24-105 f/4 17-35 f/4 Definitely an updated version of the 70-200 f/4!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drjedsmith Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 Interesting option for those of us who will never be able to afford f2.8 G glass...or at least can't justify it.<BR><BR> I wonder how close the 24-50mm f4 and 70-210mm f4 are to the quality you want already? I am in the process of testing out these two lenses, and the results so far indicate plenty of sharpness...<BR><BR> Ah yes, for those interested in my lens saga - I am using these lenses now, as Kim agreed that she'd rather have an f2.8 zoom lens for herself. :-)<BR> Jed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_thorlin Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 Thang - am assuming you are talking film camera use here. Cannot see you getting these from Minolta nowadays as they seem committed to lenses for the digital cameras and I gather that these are being at least partially outsourced. The existing 24-105 is f3.5-4.5 and cannot see them bothering to change much here. The latest 17-35 at f2.8-4 only came out in 2004 so any change is unlikely. The old 70-210 f4 is a heavy old beast but is still so popular because it is so good - they would have to go some to match it let alone beat it so see no effort likely on this either especially as there is a recent ( feeble ) 70-210. I would like to see some some action as well but do not think I will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_at_vividoptic.com Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 I think it would be fantastic to see KM fill the gap, but they have already filled it with the 17-35/2.8-4 & 28-75/2.8 to some degree. So we have 28-70/2.8 G, then 28-75/2.8, then 24-105, then whatever. Likewise in 17-35/3.5, then 17-35/2.8-4, then 20-35, then whatever. Canon have a much bigger market so they have slotted in the 16-35/2.8 Pro, then the 17-40/4, then have the consumer 20-35/3.5-4.5. IMHO, seeing as the 17-35/3.5 G & 28-70/2.8 G are now getting a bit old, slow AF for example. I woul love to see them replace these lenses with two lenses each A totally pro/uber expensive: 14-28/2.8 G SSM with price to match, and then also a 14-28/4 mini-G/half-G a new-line or lenses. Likewise make the 28-70 a 24-85/2.8 G SSM, then give us a 24-85/4 mini-G. They could even make the pro lenses full-frame (9D) and the mini-G/half-G ones for the 1.5x crop only!? I would love to see it happen. BUT I don't know if they have a big enough market to do it. Canon has what, 40-50% of the SLR market, Nikon 40-50%. Then the noise is made up with us Minoltians and the people at Pentax. What do we have 5% of the market if that each? It just can't make financial sense to have that many optics in the range for a small player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_bedell Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 Since I do mostly indoor available light photography of people, f/4 zooms -- even really good quality ones -- would be totally useless to me. I wouldn't spend a dime on one. What zoom would be useful to me? A 24-35mm f/2 for my 7D. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emaxxman Posted January 2, 2006 Author Share Posted January 2, 2006 ------------------------ "I think it would be fantastic to see KM fill the gap, but they have already filled it with the 17-35/2.8-4 & 28-75/2.8 to some degree. So we have 28-70/2.8 G, then 28-75/2.8, then 24-105, then whatever. Likewise in 17-35/3.5, then 17-35/2.8-4, then 20-35, then whatever." ------------------------ I have to disagree with you on those lenses. Based on reviews, with the exception of the old G lenses, none are up to the specs of the G lenses. Now that I have a 7D with higher ISO's at the ready, I can deal with an f/4 as long as it's tack sharp wide open. The new 17-35, 28-75, and 24-105 all have mixed reviews in that regards. The 28-70 f/2.8 G lens is a bit dated and very slow focusing. At the very least, it needs to be updated to be a faster focusing lens. The 17-35 f/3.5 is waaaaay too expensive for an f/3.5. It's price requires an f/2.8 constant aperture. Also, G lenses would have a build quality that none of those lenses have. Heck, just bring the build quality up to the same level as Sigma's EX line or that of the Maxxum 100 macro D. Those are plastic/metal but rock solid. The new rebadged Tamron's and 24-105 aren't up to the same level. ------------------- I would love to see it happen. BUT I don't know if they have a big enough market to do it. Canon has what, 40-50% of the SLR market, Nikon 40-50%. Then the noise is made up with us Minoltians and the people at Pentax. What do we have 5% of the market if that each? It just can't make financial sense to have that many optics in the range for a small player. ------------------- That's the problem with Minolta though. Their camera bodies (film and digital) are leaps and bounds better than the other manufacturers offerings with respect to the prosumer feature set and price point. With the advent of digital, more and more people are buying DSLR's. If Minolta can offer a competitive lens system in the prosumer market, it can easily steal some of the other's customer base. In fact, I think Minolta HAS TO update and expand it's lens offering. It's one of the barriers to a greater customer base. What's the one piece of advice given to new SLR buyers on this site...LOOK AT THE WHOLE SYSTEM. Minolta can't think it will survive if the only good thing about it's system are the bodies and a select few G lenses (which are out of price range for most users.) Just look at the buzz that in camera anti shake has created. It immediately offers prosumers something that none of the other DSLR's makers can offer...antishake with EVERY single lens...that's a big selling point. High quality, sharp wide open, f/4 G lenses would be more than affordable and justifiable for prosumers and also be another great selling point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_bedell Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 The lens I'd like to see is a Minolta f/2 version of the Leica Tri-Elmar. I don't need continuously variable focal length in a lens, but having two or three focal lengths in a single lens would be useful. f/2.0 is where I shoot 80% of the time, so I MUST have that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 4/400 SSM for a 'reasonable' price (that is: not 50% more for SSM than comparable Canon and Nikon offerings, and less than the outrageously priced Canon DO lens). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmphoto1 Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 David, If you are looking for an f2.0 zoom, you are on the wrong platform. Olympus is the only one that can currently do it and that is due largely to the 4/3 format. If KM does do it, expect healthy 4 figures in price. Otherwise, you are stuck with primes. I like Chtis' idea of a different level G to match sensor size. They could even start using what they have as a start: Take the Tamron lenses, put a couple asph surgaces on them, and veef up the material used, then double the price. chad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_hohner Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 <blockquote><i>The 17-35 f/3.5 is waaaaay too expensive for an f/3.5. It's price requires an f/2.8 constant aperture.</i></blockquote> <p> The difference between f/3.5 and f/2.8 is only 1/2 stop. That's nothing to worry about longer than 2 seconds. <p> Just compare the Canon 17-35/2.8 with Minolta's 17-35/3.5. By making the lens f/3.5 they lost 1/2 stop in speed but they gained image quality. I'd prefer that any day, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_bedell Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Chad - Yeah, I know it's daydreaming, but it's what I want. ;-) I can't wait for full-frame to get cheaper. I want my viewfinder back and want my 35mm f/2 to be a wide angle (again)! Lens lineups in general become much, much more interesting (i.e. you can get fast AND wide) once the sensor gets bigger... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franka t.l. Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Considering Minolta commitment to the APS-C sized format ( AS incorporated ) I tend to agree that any quality 4.0 G lens would made sense. Not only will they be able to be priced within reason, but its also far easier to design in the neccessary focal range. A 16-72/4.0G(D) which give us the roughly the same coverage as the old 24-105 would be a welcomed addition. Similarly not everyone can afford or willing to lug along the SSM 2.8 Lens. A simple 100-300/4.0G and/or 80-200/4.0G could satisfied most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now