GAS: Please Share your Latest Desires Big and Small

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Location
Virginia
Real Name
Steve
While we all know megazoom lenses are compromises, I think everybody should own one of them. There are just too many times when we set out for the day not knowing what kind of photographic situation we are going to be faced with. The Tamron 18-300 seems as good a place to start as any - offering a 27-450mm FF FOV on an APS-C camera.

The only decision is whether you want to use it on a Fuji body (X-T4 or X-S10?) or on a Sony body. I personally think Sony's A-series APS-C bodies wouldn't balance well with this lens. But using one on an A7-series camera in crop mode could be the way to go.

Does anyone remember the Tamron 16-300 superzoom for APS-C DSLRs from 2014? It was available in Canon, Nikon and Sony Alpha mount.


Looks like it was replaced by an 18-400.
Dang it Steve, I hadn’t thought of that. Of course, my four main bodies are the A6000 (which I should sell), the A7R3, the X-T30, and the X-S10. Probably the Fuji. They keep showing it on the X-S10 and I think it might have the best ergs for this lens.
 

mike3996

Hall of Famer
Location
Finland
One offers a scratched 18-35 mm Nikkor wideangle zoom lens. Because of the scratches it goes for something like 100 €.

The seller assures that he doesn't see anything wrong in the pics. This is probably code for "don't close down the aperture to f/11 when shooting against blue skies".

Being a G lens it offers the basic weather sealing so it could serve as a rainy-day lens for my Df.

But because it's a G lens I'd need expensive adapters to get aperture control if I some day wanted to shoot the lens against a Leica sensor.

I have trouble with manually focusing wide-angle lenses and perhaps one cheap autofocusing zoom could sort that out. Then again, I don't know if I want to spend a cent more in the Nikon system at this point.

Yeah, I don't know. :)
 

mike3996

Hall of Famer
Location
Finland
I just don't know what's wrong with me. The upcoming weeks and months may see me making very expensive decisions to move across the country again.

And what do I do? Think about the Leica SL2-S deal that sees a 800 € discount over the retail suggestion. Leica never does this and now this deal lingers in front of me for this prolonged duration.

There's a good chance I decide against any financially stupid relocation ideas but the deal can be gone then and I probably won't get anything in that case.



Addendum

The SL2-S IBIS functionality is also so artificially limited to Leica brand items it seems very irrational of me to go for that body that costs 2500 € more than the functionally equivalent Panasonic S1.

And I don't even intend to shoot my "difficult" M lenses on the camera that much (despite SL/SL2 being much better with M lenses than other competition, it's still no match for a real M) so why oh why I lust after it so much.

I could in fact get the older SL 601 (for pure sexiness) and a Panasonic S1 (for IBIS) for same value than an SL2S, but this feels like an overkill. :D
 
Last edited:
Location
S. Oregon Coast
Real Name
Andrew L
I'm tossing around ideas for a second M4/3 lens, whether to go with an old standby that I've owned before - the 17/2.8 and 25/1.8 are "prime" among those - or be more adventurous and get one of the well-regarded lenses that I have considered in the past but never bought, like the 45/1.8 or the Pana-Leica 25/1.4. Obviously focal length is a "prime" consideration (okay I'll stop!), but in addition to that I am thinking about the lenses that just "work" so well in a more subjective fashion with OMD cameras. Like the way the O25/1.8 just fits (sizewise) and renders beautifully on the 16mp sensors, as it did on my EM10 in the past (and GX85 too, naturally). And, the Pan-Leica 25 regularly has its praises sung - not to mention how welcome f1.4 is on the M4/3 sensor. It opens up creative possibilities with the aperture, much like the Sigma 30/1.4 did, though I eventually didn't appreciate how large that lens felt on a small body.

But then there's the more holistic question of how to build a small but capable kit. Right now I have what some might call a good one-lens solution in the 20/1.7. But the problem with one-lens kits is that, when you expand either up or down in focal length, the one lens becomes less ideal of a solution. If you get a longer lens, you start to wish the 20mm was a bit wider; if you get a wider lens, you wish the 20mm was a bit longer. A one-lens solution often doesn't automatically become a two-lens solution when you add a second lens.

So what to do now? I would actually really like to try what has worked as a two-lens kit for a lot of people: a 17mm and 45mm. the 35mm-equivalent straddles wide and normal fairly well, and the 90mm-equivalent is long but not so long as to make one struggle to implement it. But the 40mm-equiv lens I have now is a tad too tight to work in place of a 35-equiv, and buying a 17mm in addition to the 20mm seems like overkill (even though I know well the difference in rendering and character between the 17/2.8 and 20/1.7 and there's room for both).

I could branch out to not one, but two lenses that would be new to me: the 17/1.8 and 45/1.8. That would probably be a fine kit. But I am sentimentally attached to the 20mm, and know my track record for reacquiring it so I should just hold onto it! Maybe I will just get the 45mm and see how well I can make the 20mm and 45mm work, with the GRIII as my wide angle backup. That seems reasonable.
 

Biro

Hall of Famer
Location
Jersey Shore
Real Name
Steve
I'm tossing around ideas for a second M4/3 lens, whether to go with an old standby that I've owned before - the 17/2.8 and 25/1.8 are "prime" among those - or be more adventurous and get one of the well-regarded lenses that I have considered in the past but never bought, like the 45/1.8 or the Pana-Leica 25/1.4. Obviously focal length is a "prime" consideration (okay I'll stop!), but in addition to that I am thinking about the lenses that just "work" so well in a more subjective fashion with OMD cameras. Like the way the O25/1.8 just fits (sizewise) and renders beautifully on the 16mp sensors, as it did on my EM10 in the past (and GX85 too, naturally). And, the Pan-Leica 25 regularly has its praises sung - not to mention how welcome f1.4 is on the M4/3 sensor. It opens up creative possibilities with the aperture, much like the Sigma 30/1.4 did, though I eventually didn't appreciate how large that lens felt on a small body.

But then there's the more holistic question of how to build a small but capable kit. Right now I have what some might call a good one-lens solution in the 20/1.7. But the problem with one-lens kits is that, when you expand either up or down in focal length, the one lens becomes less ideal of a solution. If you get a longer lens, you start to wish the 20mm was a bit wider; if you get a wider lens, you wish the 20mm was a bit longer. A one-lens solution often doesn't automatically become a two-lens solution when you add a second lens.

So what to do now? I would actually really like to try what has worked as a two-lens kit for a lot of people: a 17mm and 45mm. the 35mm-equivalent straddles wide and normal fairly well, and the 90mm-equivalent is long but not so long as to make one struggle to implement it. But the 40mm-equiv lens I have now is a tad too tight to work in place of a 35-equiv, and buying a 17mm in addition to the 20mm seems like overkill (even though I know well the difference in rendering and character between the 17/2.8 and 20/1.7 and there's room for both).

I could branch out to not one, but two lenses that would be new to me: the 17/1.8 and 45/1.8. That would probably be a fine kit. But I am sentimentally attached to the 20mm, and know my track record for reacquiring it so I should just hold onto it! Maybe I will just get the 45mm and see how well I can make the 20mm and 45mm work, with the GRIII as my wide angle backup. That seems reasonable.
Andre... have you ever tried the Pansonic 14mm f/2.5? That, your 20mm f/1.7 and either the Panasonic 42mm f/1.7 or the Oly 45mm f/1.8 would give you pretty close to the traditional holy trinity of primes: 28mm, 40mm and 85/90mm equivalents. People got around quite well with such set ups for decades during the film era. The Oly 12mm f/2.0 would give you 24mm equivalent. But that's a more expensive lens and not everybody loves it. The Panasonic 15mm f/1.7 is also great - but, again, more money.
 
Location
S. Oregon Coast
Real Name
Andrew L
I've used the 14mm in the past - it's great, small, but it also covers the exact focal length of my GR (well, semi-exact, minus the inherent difference in frame between 3:2 and 4:3) while doing... less, in terms of IQ, DoF control, etc., than the GR can do. I just have no real desire to shoot 28mm-equiv from the EM5 II at the moment.
 

MiguelATF

Hall of Famer
Location
Talent, Oregon (far from the madding crowd)
Real Name
Miguel Tejada-Flores
I've used the 14mm in the past - it's great, small, but it also covers the exact focal length of my GR (well, semi-exact, minus the inherent difference in frame between 3:2 and 4:3) while doing... less, in terms of IQ, DoF control, etc., than the GR can do. I just have no real desire to shoot 28mm-equiv from the EM5 II at the moment.

Given that you already have the 28mm FOV nicely covered with your Ricoh - and given the really special 20mm which you currently have - I have to concur with your leaning towards the Olympus 45mm, whose size and build would seem perfect complements for your Oly body. The only other lens that springs to mind immediately is the tiny (but quite cool) Panasonic competitor to it, the small Lumix 42.5mm f/1.7, a really nice little lens. It's almost a toss-up whether it or the Olympus 45mm is 'better' since both are fine lenses.

The Olympus 17mm f/1.8 would also be a natural - except for its relative closeness to both the 20mm you already have, and the 28mm FOV of your Ricoh. By the same token, the PanaLeica 15mm is rather close to your Ricoh - but it's such a great lens that no conversation would be complete without at least thinking about it. (Though, cost-wise, it may be the priciest of the bunch.)

The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is a very fine lens as well as you know, but its relative bulk and weight factor heavily against it. Which brings me to the last dark-horse candidate, possibly the most underrated lens of the bunch: the earlier Sigma 30mm f/2.8 DN 'Art' lens. I owned one for a few years, some years back, and in retrospect it was a truly phenomenal lens. Not the 'fastest' glass, obviously - but the Sigma engineers did some mysterious magic when they put it together. The only downside to the lens is, at times, an almost clinical sharpness - sort of the opposite of the older analog lenses whose imperfections and occasional 'softness' seem to be in vogue amongst digital photographers these days. But it ticks many of the other boxes - including a truly compact size - and (generally) a surprisingly affordable (low) price.

I'm looking forwards to seeing not only what you decide but (then the real fun starts, no?) what you do with it...!
 
Location
S. Oregon Coast
Real Name
Andrew L
Given that you already have the 28mm FOV nicely covered with your Ricoh - and given the really special 20mm which you currently have - I have to concur with your leaning towards the Olympus 45mm, whose size and build would seem perfect complements for your Oly body. The only other lens that springs to mind immediately is the tiny (but quite cool) Panasonic competitor to it, the small Lumix 42.5mm f/1.7, a really nice little lens. It's almost a toss-up whether it or the Olympus 45mm is 'better' since both are fine lenses.

The Olympus 17mm f/1.8 would also be a natural - except for its relative closeness to both the 20mm you already have, and the 28mm FOV of your Ricoh. By the same token, the PanaLeica 15mm is rather close to your Ricoh - but it's such a great lens that no conversation would be complete without at least thinking about it. (Though, cost-wise, it may be the priciest of the bunch.)

The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is a very fine lens as well as you know, but its relative bulk and weight factor heavily against it. Which brings me to the last dark-horse candidate, possibly the most underrated lens of the bunch: the earlier Sigma 30mm f/2.8 DN 'Art' lens. I owned one for a few years, some years back, and in retrospect it was a truly phenomenal lens. Not the 'fastest' glass, obviously - but the Sigma engineers did some mysterious magic when they put it together. The only downside to the lens is, at times, an almost clinical sharpness - sort of the opposite of the older analog lenses whose imperfections and occasional 'softness' seem to be in vogue amongst digital photographers these days. But it ticks many of the other boxes - including a truly compact size - and (generally) a surprisingly affordable (low) price.

I'm looking forwards to seeing not only what you decide but (then the real fun starts, no?) what you do with it...!
I wondered about the 42.5mm, it does seem like as a rule Panasonic lenses which are at all prone to CAs will demonstrate them the most on Olympus bodies, since Panasonic corrects for them in software. I haven't seen whether this is much of a thing with the 42.5 but that will bear a bit more study.

I did own the Sigma 30/2.8 a long time ago, I can't remember much about it to be honest, as I got the Oly 25/1.8 soon after and moved it along. I do have a couple of photos from it that I really liked though. I sure did admire the results from its longer sibling, the 60/2.8, though I eventually gave it up for being just too long for me, my brain can't wrap itself around framing with a 120mm lens 90% of the time.
 

mike3996

Hall of Famer
Location
Finland
Remembering the good times with Leica Q, I start to browse the ads...

...for Ricoh GR and Fuji X100 series. :D

Q is a great cam but I just know for a fact that I won't last with the fixed 28 mm lens forever, not with that kind of money invested in. Instead why not put 40-50 % of the Q money and get GR to experience that magic for the first time, and then relive some warm moments with the 35mm fl-equiv in the form of an X100 camera.
 

mike3996

Hall of Famer
Location
Finland
I know I won't realize this half-dream anytime soon, and most likely never, but I thought about this the another evening.

I suppose I have to experience the Fujifilm X-Pro2 at least once.

I'd pair the camera with those particular Fujinon lenses that I know to please my eyes or otherwise be interesting to check out:

- 18/2
- 27/2.8
- 35/1.4
- 60/2.4 (new to me, would like to see the results in action)
- 90/2 maybe
- 50-230 maybe
- 15-45 maybe
 

rayvonn

Hall of Famer
Location
London
I know I won't realize this half-dream anytime soon, and most likely never, but I thought about this the another evening.

I suppose I have to experience the Fujifilm X-Pro2 at least once.

I'd pair the camera with those particular Fujinon lenses that I know to please my eyes or otherwise be interesting to check out:

- 18/2
- 27/2.8
- 35/1.4
- 60/2.4 (new to me, would like to see the results in action)
- 90/2 maybe
- 50-230 maybe
- 15-45 maybe
The 60 F2.4 is a real sleeper. Fantastic rendering.
 

mike3996

Hall of Famer
Location
Finland
I have a wish Fujifilm would release actually.

Their X system or at least the original X100 has just turned 10 years old.

What I'd like to see is the lens design of X100 - X100F be turned into an XF lens but with a twist. Make it WR but fully manual focus one. Hard stops. Similar aperture wings as the design in X100. Would pair perfectly with an X-Pro body.

Probably not possible to do that since the X100 lens design relies on a very short flange distance but I can dream right.
 

mnhoj

gee aahrr
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
John
I'd love to get some direct feedback on the image quality and performance from the Viltrox lenses. Good luck.
I posted initial thoughts here on the 24mm F1.8. Short version - very nice overall imo.

I've also used the 23, 33, 56 and 85 briefly with Fuji.
Good lenses in general with the 56 and 85 a notch above the others.
 
Top