LensTip.com

I've decided to reactivate for a while this type of communication with my Readers. I used to do it more often but then the situation was more dynamic, more things happened on the market, and it was more to tell. Still now I think I get a topic that made me think about some issues and I would like to share that with You all.

In October 2013, almost exactly 11 years ago, a new era started in photography. Sony presented their first full frame mirrorless cameras, the Sony A7 and the Sony A7R models, along with five Sony FE mount lenses. The majority of observers realized at that time that sooner or later Sony rivals would follow suit.

Sony A7 mirrorless camera announced in October 2013.

We dealt with a quite new deal – new cameras had new mounts and they forced a completely new lens system. What's important, the lack of a mirror cell meant quite new possibilities. Contrary to initial rosy suggestions, such a solution had advantages and disadvantages. It allowed a construction of smaller and ligher wide angle lenses but also caused more problems with telecentricity. Savings in dimensions of new wide angle models was levelled out by bigger dimensions and weights of standard lenses and shorter telephoto lenses.

It doesn't change the fact that about a decade ago every big photo company had to face a challenge of designing and introducing a new lens system. My argument and, at the same time, the reason behind this article is such that none of the companies has thought out the whole operation seriously; in many cases they either decided to go as the crow files or they got lost in corporative labyrinths of contradictory decisions.

Only the segment of zooms avoided the chaos of change because the majority of producers knew the needs of the users and catered to them so they behaved in a classic and predictable way. They launched such lenses as the 24-70 mm and the 70-200 mm, both their expensive, journalistic f/2.8 versions and their cheaper f/4.0 equivalents. The offer was soon complemented by ultra wide angles of view – we saw launches of 16-35 mm or 14-24 mm class, sometimes even 12-24 mm devices. Then slower but more universal zooms were shown, starting with 24 mm and ending at 105, 120, or even 200 mm.

In case of classic prime lenses the situation was different and it is strange, especially that there were no contraindications to introduce the right tactics that would ensure a sensible schedule of launches.

If I were among people responsible for such schedules I would start from a classic trio of models with the following focal lengths: 35, 50, and 85 mm. In their case contemporary technology allows to design as many as three different model lines. First, you can offer an aperture as fast as f/1.2 without any problems and, when it comes to a standard lens, even f/1.0 or f/0.95. Still, in order to simplify our deliberations let's stop at f/1.2 and assume that we can offer here a premium line of lenses (marking it as P) with the following parameters: 1.2/35, 1.2/50, and 1.2/85. As you see there are no compromises here. The lenses are fast so their dimensions will be significant; it means we don't have to limit their weight and size by force. Our priorities are clear – the best image quality and solid workmanship. There are also no distinct price limits - after all it is supposed to be a line of products for customers who cherish top-of-the-range quality and are willing to pay for it extra money.

Going a step further we can introduce a standard line (marking it as S) with the following parameters: 1.8/35, 1.8/50, and 1.8/85. Our approach is different this time – we try to offer lenses with an excellent price/performance and price/quality ratio. At the same time we don't go over the top with physical dimensions so there have to be some compromises but only those that are easy to correct with software of the camera and allow us to gain a lot in other areas.

When our system flourishes you can only finish it properly; then you can think about introducing a thrid line, marked with a letter C meaning 'compact'. It would include optical devices with the following parameters: 2.5/35, 2.5/50, and 2.5/85 and they would be small, lightweight models very sensibly priced.

Venus Optics LAOWA Argus 28 mm f/1.2 FF fullframe lens

Of course the classic trio of 35, 50, and 85 mm lenses can be enlarged by not so classic 28 mm but, in my opinion, only when you can start from f/1.2 aperture and then pass to f/1.8. Still, such lenses wouldn't be a priority; you can start producing them only when your system already features more indispensable models.

Then you should think about the line-up of primes for longer and shorter focal lengths. Let's deal with the second problem first. Some classic focal lengths like 24, 20, 16-17, and 14 mm come to mind. Of course in this case it is impossible to offer f/1.2 aperture - the lenses would be too big and too expensive. Still the latest launches proved that in each of these cases we are able to offer f/1.4 lenses in our top P line. Once again it's obvious that these constructions will be big, featuring a huge, convex front element that, maybe with an exception of the 1.4/24 model, will prevent fitting classic filter threads. Dimensions and price shouldn't limit you here because image resolution and build quality are the most important priorities.

In the S series you have to limit your aperture to f/2.0 as it will allow you to offer lenses that are lighter, more shapely, better priced, and allowing an ordinary filter thread, perhaps with an exception of the 2/14 model. The next step? Passing to the C series where all the aforementioned models can be offered with an aperture as fast as f/2.8. Such an aperture will allow you to produce lenses that are relatively small and lightweight, perfect for those journalists, travelers, and filmmakers that prefer to remain unconspicuous. Alternatively you can fit a drone with them.

Passing to longer focal lengths, the f/1.4 aperture can be maintained at 135 mm. It allows us to create three lines of products: P1.4/135, S 2/135, and C 2.8/135.The 105 mm could be an interesting addition because in this case, not thinking about the price and dimensions, you can start designing even from f/1.2 aperture.

The 200 mm focal length is another step – here you should offer a P line model as fast as f/1.8-2.0, and an S line model as fast as f/2.5-2.8, then a relatively small and lightweight C 3.5/200 but it's only an option.

To sum up my perfect offer of prime lenses would be like this:

Of course then you should enlarge your offer by something with longer focal lengths but here the order of launches is quite obvious and everybody knows that at first you should show 2.8/300, 2.8/400, 4/500, or 4/600 models and add to them 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters. Then you can think about other options. You have to have a macro lens in your line-up and here, whtout any doubts, you should start with a classic as fast as f/2.8 and with a focal length ranging from 90 to 105 mm. At some point you should also think about some nice fisheye and tilt-shift instruments.

And that's it. A very simple plan to be realized successively, but only after taking into account actual market needs and your production capacity. You should start from the most classic models and these that are needed the most and then pass to less obvious instruments to make your offer unique.

Now let's take a reality check – how the situation looks like? Unfortunately it's hardly as perfect as our ideal scenario.

I admit that the tests of Nikon lenses were the major contribution to this article, something that spurred me to write about that topic at all. Why? Because Nikon is a company that seems to do everything backwards.

Nikkor Z 35 mm f/1.8 S.

First they launched a series of expensive, big primes: the 1.8/20, the1.8/24, the 1.8/35, the 1.8/50, and the 1.8/85. After that they showed even more expensive and bigger models: the Nikkor Z 58 mm f/0.95 S Noct and the Nikkor Z 50 mm f/1.2 S. The first one didn't even feature an autofocus unit. Then they made a more classic and more sensible move by showing the 2.8/50, and 2.8/105 macro models but after that the madness started again – they launched strange and random devices in form of the 2.8/28, 2/40, and 2.8/26 instrumentss. Then they produced big and expensive 1.2/85 and 1.8/135 portrait lenses. Lately, so over six years after the launch of the Z system, people in Nikon reminded themselves that they don't feature any f/1.4-1.8, moderately priced models in their line-up and they launched the Nikkors 1.4/35 and 1.4/50. In some sense it was necessary catching up but, as a result, now smaller and cheaper f/1.4 models compete with their bigger, optically more efficient, and more expensive but slower f/1.8 models from the same system. As you see there is no order or logic in this policy and, as a result, the Z system users have to keep thinking about their choices instead of buying their favourite kind of lenses and taking photos.

Is Nikon the only company that got lost in this madness? Unfortunately not. Lately Sigma have tried hard to outperform them. On the one side Sigma, in order to maintain the highest standards, limits their production to just one factory in Japan. They don't plan to move it to another country, a move worth praising, but also a serious limitation when it comes to production capacity. Such limitations mean that, when it comes to the next launch, you should think twice and then rethink the whole plan once again in order to choose well.

Sigma C 45 mm f/2.8 DG DN.

Now let's look at the Sigma mirrorless primes segment. Everything was strange at the very beginning because the Sigma C 45 mm f/2.8 DG DN was launched as one of the first. The lens was neighter small nor lightweight nor optically outstanding nor especially needed. Next years brought us launches in the Contemporary line. Some of them were needed and quite successful but others were total misses. That second category includes among others such models as the 3.5/24 or the 4/17. As I've heard their sales volume in Poland is a single digit number and still somebody had designed them, implemented the production, and made overloaded Sigma production lines even more clogged. What for?

Sigma A 50 mm f/1.4 DG DN.

As if it wasn't enough, Sigma seemed to take a leaf out of Nikon's book and started to create inner competition between devices from the same system. First, in February 2023, they showed a quite bulky A 1.4/50 model and one year later they decided to launch the A 1.2/50 that competed with the older lens with its optimized weight and dimensions. I really don't understand such a move. These launches were just one year apart – wouldn't it be more sensible to launch something like the A 1.2/50 device or even something faster, with excellent image quality as the selling point? The final result is such that we get two expensive 1.2/50 and 1.4/50 models on the market and there is just a tiny difference between them when it comes to aperture, performance, and dimensions.

Sony FE 50 mm f/1.2 GM.

What's even more interesting, Sigma could actually draw some precious conclusions from actions of Sony but, apparently, they didn't care. As it happens Sony had made a very similar mistake but with different order. First, in January 2021, we saw the FE 50 mm f/1.2 GM and less than two years later it was knocked out by a launch of a bit smaller and lighter but also cheaper and optically better FE 50 mm f/1.4 GM. The overwhelming chaos in Sony standard lenses line-up has been made even more baffling by the Sonnar 1.8/55, a lens that is definitely not worth its price, the 1.8/50 that seems to be pulled straight from old double gauss annals, and the 2.5/50, a midget launched not so long ago that also doubles a bit the FE 40 mm f/2.5 G, presented at the same time.

Sigma at least tried to fight a bit in the primes segment, contrary to their main rival, Tamron, that has given us not so small f/2.8 models from time to time.

Panasonic Lumix S Pro 50 mm f/1.4

That's not the end of problems. You've got the L-mount system on the market and their creators came up with a 'brilliant' idea of offering us at the very beginning one of the biggest, heaviest and the most expensive 1.4/50 class lenses in history. We think here of course about the Leica Summilux SL 50 mm f/1.4 ASPH and the Panasonic Lumix S Pro 50 mm f/1.4, both as heavy as one kilo. The prices of Leica instruments have always been weird so almost $6600 for an ordinary standard lens hasn't surprised me much. Still the policy of Panasonic did make me surprised a lot. If you want to launch a system that is supposed to gain even a tad of popularity and recognition you can't start by showing the most classic 1.4/50 model and offer it for a price of $2100 – anyway that's the official price tag in the Panasonic shop.

You should mention the fact that the 1.4/50 model is indeed exceedingly sharp and it's a kind of defence of Panasonic; then this company rose to the challenge and released a series of f/1.8 lenses with focal lengths starting from 18 to 85 mm that are praised by their users a lot.

Canon RF 35 mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro.

Compared to that the actions of Canon look the most sensible of all. The launches of their R mount primes were started from the RF 35 mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro model very moderately priced; then they launched expensive but fast RF 35 mm f/1.2L USM and RF 85 mm f/1.2L USM lenses and then once again they catered to those who look for a favourable price-performance and price-quality ratio and presented the RF 85 mm f/2 MACRO IS STM, the RF 50 mm f/1.8 STM, and the RF 16 mm f/2.8 STM. They were perhaps not ideal launches but still they are far from chaotic movements of other companies, presented by us above.

In order not to make our story too sweet we have to add the fact that the Canon R system users had to wait almost six years for lenses of so classic parameters as the 1.4/35 and 1.4/50.

To sum up when you get a chance to design your system from scratch, it's worth thinking it through at the very beginning and start building with a clear, simple, and sensible plan in mind. What's more, such a well-thought-out schedule can be made public so your potential customers know in advance what they can expect in years to follow. By doing so you would prevent them from spending money for temporary solutions and substitutes. Imagine that – a photographer, instead of thinking what to buy for months, can make a quick choice and just enjoy taking photos. I have an impression that almost none of big companies present on our photographic market have followed that path.