Sigma did this in the past - offering all their APS-C mirrorless primes with MFT mounts - but announced their withdrawal from the market, apparently due to poor sales. Most Chinese manufacturers of manual focus APS-C mirrorless primes (7Artisans, TTArtisan, Meike, etc.) already offer MFT mount versions of their lenses. The problem with full-frame lenses on MFT is that they need much higher resolution (in lp/mm) for MFT sensors with their smaller pixels. A 20 MP MFT sensor requires an optical lens resolution of 150 lp/mm. You will hardly find FF lenses with that resolving power, since they then would need to be adequate for a (not even existing) 80 MP FF sensor. The compact FF lenses you mention are usually meant for 24-36 MP FF sensor cameras. So they would only be adequate for 6-9 MP MFT sensors but look soft/mushy on 16-24 MP MFT sensors.
I do know Sigma remount a handful of primes. I made a video about their lenses recently. But that's just a handful of prime lenses. They never bothered trying to do anything with their telephoto lenses which is where I think they could have really made the most money out of remounting. Not to mention they barely marketed their MFT lenses. I worked for a marketing agency and 3 of my biggest clients were camera stores located throughout Florida (this was back in 2016-2018) and Sigma never gave them any deals, prints, or any marketing material for their MFT lines of lenses. BUT they DID help promote their other lenses (this is mostly aimed at the 16, 30, and 56mm lenses they never really helped promote those specific lenses for any of their mounts for whatever reason) I didn't realize the Full Frame resolution thing needing to be higher for MFT. That is SO interesting! Thank you for that!
@AlpacoFilms Yes, the problem exists with APS-C lenses on MFT as well, but is not as pronounced. APS-C sensors have 165% of the surface area of MFT sensors, so an APS-C lens that is adequate for 20 MP MFT sensors needs to adequately resolve for 32 MP APS-C sensors, such as the one of the Canon EOS M6 Mark II and EOS R7. Typically, only newer APS-C lenses will meet these requirements, others at least need to be stopped down. (The problem is mitigated somewhat by the fact that the center of a lens resolves better than the corners, and MFT crops into the center of an APS-C lens.)
@AlpacoFilms This is the reason why FF lenses can be cheaper than professional MFT lenses and still perform as well or better, as long as you stay at the lower end of FF sensor resolutions (i.e. avoid 60MP and the like). A 24 MP FF camera requires only 50% of the lens resolving power needed for a 24 MP MFT camera (in lp/mm; in dots/mm² it's even only 25%), and is also much more forgiving of optical flaws in the glass. At the same megapixels, MFT literally crops and enlarges 200% into the glass [i.e. reads 2x2 pixels where an FF sensor only reads 1 pixel], so this is only logical.
I will say that the Pana/Leica 100-400 m4/3 lens is crazy compact considering the competition. I'm not honestly sure how they do it. Not only is it smaller than the Olympus and Sigma, but the only 100-400 I can find that's smaller is the RF 100-400/5.6-8.0, and it's both slower and not weather sealed.
So true! I am impressed with Panny's ability to design some of these lenses! All more impressed with Canon's foray in their designs as they actually have a few that's pretty compact for Full Frame
Size is strange. For example my Pentax HD DA55-300 is shorter and just fractionally thicker than my Olympus 75-300 which has smaller max aperture and less range. Image output is very comparable and I can attach that Pentax lens to my Oly body via adaptor, so it was easy to do direct comparison.
It really is strange! Panasonic has similar lenses as Olympus and some of those are smaller. So I KNOW they can make them smaller while maintaining speed!
I've also wondered why MFT and Fuji don't buy SLR lens designs and add a focal reducer to the back and rebrand it. Imagine the sigma 150-600 f5-6.3 contemporary with a 0.71x for fuji and a 0.56x for MFT. It would become a 106-426mm f3.5-4.5 with a 0.71x and an 84-336mm f2.8-3.5. They're very attractive focal ranges and apertures and won't be too expensive for the companies to develop.
@@Wildridefilms a TC (or reducer) generally degrades the image. A TC on a fast lens is usually no better than a purpose built one of the length you need. Been there ...
@@jeffslade1892 it doesn't have to be better than a purpose built lens, it just needs to match it. Without the TC, you get much more light when you don't need the reach. I will always go for a shorter but faster lens.
Sigma are part of the MFT consortium and could make their lenses with fully compatible MFT mounts, if they wanted to. They do make some MFT lenses. The original Bigma APO 50-500mm F4-6.3 EX DG HSM was Olympus four thirds fit (E-Volt etc), with the 4/3-MFT adapter it is electrically compatible with MFT cameras. It makes a noise like a coffee grinder trying to AF. There was also the "Sigmonster" APO 300-800mm F5.6 EX DG HSM in four-thirds fit, unobtanium. The problem with adapting other-make lenses to MFT is that electrical connection. Some like Canon can AF after a fashion (badly), most will be MF. It would take Sigma to change the adapter for full compatibility, they do know how to do that. And then there is the Panasonic Leica 100-400 f/4-6.3 for £999 (new, less used) or the PL100-400ii for £1500, which do offer Dual2 stabilisation, which except for three Olympus Sync-IS (e.g. their IS-Pro 150-400) is far better than any other-make stabilisation system, the Ollie 100-400 will not Sync-IS nor Dual.
long time i used the bigma 50-500 mm f6.3 with both e620 and e5, lens is still working but i have to use it with current mirrorless with adaptor and AF is not good. i really with something similar can be made for m4/3. it was heavy with no IS. really no need for in sync IS just make it a bit lighter, for that reach a tripod is a must IMHO, the price was also fabulous. or just give us an updated version of the 100-400 mm 6.3 with in-sync IS.
I am so glad to hear you say, "focal length is the focal length." I still hear other channels suggest that there is a zoom effect when when using any given size lens. Very good video!
What you don’t understand is that yes that is a 100mm-400mm f/5-6.3. However the “Angle of View,” “Depth of field,” and “Compression are not equivalent to a full frame lens at those measurements. Therefore, those measurements are deceitful and misleading.
Sorry, but only Chinese manufacturers had or have intrest in m43. For Sigma, Tamron, Voigtlander (Cósima), Samyang/ Rokinon and Viltrox all of this Japanese manufacturers are focused on FF and APS-C. The m43 market is very small.
Very true, this is more of a wish they would type of thing. Heck Sigma pulled out for that reason. However, if they had decided on converting some of their telephoto lenses I think it would have been different. Telephoto lenses sell much more than the primes for MFT.
A Canon 300mm f/4, if designed for M4/3 would be significantly smaller, because the lens is covering a much smaller sensor. Angle of View, Depth Perception and compression are completely different when compared to full frame. If your assertion of “focal length makes no difference” between the two formats, then you’d be able to mount a OM lens onto a full frame Canon if adapted and have full sensor coverage. For example, if I mount a Full Frame lens onto a medium format camera, I would NOT get full sensor coverage.
@@AlpacoFilms what you didn’t measure are the glass elements. The OM 300mm f/4 will not have have enough coverage of the FF Sensor. That’s why Speed Booster are a thing.
@@AlpacoFilms My OM 12-40mm f/2.8 is not the same size as my Canon 24-70mm f/2.8. Not sure what you are missing here. Even if my Canon lens was a f/5.6, it still would have larger elements than my OM 12-40mm…. Because it has to cover a FF sensor. 🤦♂️
@@thinkingape7655 this is true, but if you look at the actually layout internally. The groups are placed in different spaces. A lens boosters or adapter isn't needed at all. What would happen is the rear elements would be redesigned and the internal elements distributed slightly enough to accommodate.
Hello, I saw your RUclips channel. ( Alpaco Films) Your channel has many videos but not enough views and subscribers. I found some issues with your channel. Your channels are not SEO-optimized and do not have good titles, descriptions, keywords, and Thumbnail. You should optimize your channel, then your channel will grow fast and you will achieve your target. Example: SEO score is very low, no perfect title - description - no SEO-friendly tags added, no social media sharing Platform, and some in your RUclips channel Settings are not correct. Because of this, your video is not reaching the people who are interested and you are not getting enough views, likes, and subscriptions Many problems for which your video views and subscribers are not good. As a result, your video views are not affected. You need SEO for your RUclips channel immediately. As a video SEO expert, I look forward to your response. I can help you grow your RUclips channel Thank you
Sigma did this in the past - offering all their APS-C mirrorless primes with MFT mounts - but announced their withdrawal from the market, apparently due to poor sales. Most Chinese manufacturers of manual focus APS-C mirrorless primes (7Artisans, TTArtisan, Meike, etc.) already offer MFT mount versions of their lenses.
The problem with full-frame lenses on MFT is that they need much higher resolution (in lp/mm) for MFT sensors with their smaller pixels. A 20 MP MFT sensor requires an optical lens resolution of 150 lp/mm. You will hardly find FF lenses with that resolving power, since they then would need to be adequate for a (not even existing) 80 MP FF sensor.
The compact FF lenses you mention are usually meant for 24-36 MP FF sensor cameras. So they would only be adequate for 6-9 MP MFT sensors but look soft/mushy on 16-24 MP MFT sensors.
I do know Sigma remount a handful of primes. I made a video about their lenses recently. But that's just a handful of prime lenses. They never bothered trying to do anything with their telephoto lenses which is where I think they could have really made the most money out of remounting. Not to mention they barely marketed their MFT lenses. I worked for a marketing agency and 3 of my biggest clients were camera stores located throughout Florida (this was back in 2016-2018) and Sigma never gave them any deals, prints, or any marketing material for their MFT lines of lenses. BUT they DID help promote their other lenses (this is mostly aimed at the 16, 30, and 56mm lenses they never really helped promote those specific lenses for any of their mounts for whatever reason)
I didn't realize the Full Frame resolution thing needing to be higher for MFT. That is SO interesting! Thank you for that!
@AlpacoFilms Yes, the problem exists with APS-C lenses on MFT as well, but is not as pronounced. APS-C sensors have 165% of the surface area of MFT sensors, so an APS-C lens that is adequate for 20 MP MFT sensors needs to adequately resolve for 32 MP APS-C sensors, such as the one of the Canon EOS M6 Mark II and EOS R7. Typically, only newer APS-C lenses will meet these requirements, others at least need to be stopped down. (The problem is mitigated somewhat by the fact that the center of a lens resolves better than the corners, and MFT crops into the center of an APS-C lens.)
@@pxperimenter this is all so fascinating! Thank you for saying this! I had NO idea!!!
@AlpacoFilms This is the reason why FF lenses can be cheaper than professional MFT lenses and still perform as well or better, as long as you stay at the lower end of FF sensor resolutions (i.e. avoid 60MP and the like). A 24 MP FF camera requires only 50% of the lens resolving power needed for a 24 MP MFT camera (in lp/mm; in dots/mm² it's even only 25%), and is also much more forgiving of optical flaws in the glass. At the same megapixels, MFT literally crops and enlarges 200% into the glass [i.e. reads 2x2 pixels where an FF sensor only reads 1 pixel], so this is only logical.
@@pxperimenter I love how only in RUclips communities like you can learn so much! Thank you!
I will say that the Pana/Leica 100-400 m4/3 lens is crazy compact considering the competition. I'm not honestly sure how they do it. Not only is it smaller than the Olympus and Sigma, but the only 100-400 I can find that's smaller is the RF 100-400/5.6-8.0, and it's both slower and not weather sealed.
So true! I am impressed with Panny's ability to design some of these lenses! All more impressed with Canon's foray in their designs as they actually have a few that's pretty compact for Full Frame
Size is strange. For example my Pentax HD DA55-300 is shorter and just fractionally thicker than my Olympus 75-300 which has smaller max aperture and less range. Image output is very comparable and I can attach that Pentax lens to my Oly body via adaptor, so it was easy to do direct comparison.
It really is strange! Panasonic has similar lenses as Olympus and some of those are smaller. So I KNOW they can make them smaller while maintaining speed!
I've also wondered why MFT and Fuji don't buy SLR lens designs and add a focal reducer to the back and rebrand it. Imagine the sigma 150-600 f5-6.3 contemporary with a 0.71x for fuji and a 0.56x for MFT. It would become a 106-426mm f3.5-4.5 with a 0.71x and an 84-336mm f2.8-3.5. They're very attractive focal ranges and apertures and won't be too expensive for the companies to develop.
We use long lenses for their length. Adding a reducer would be nugatory. The Ollie 150-400 does have a built-in 1.25x TC making it 500mm.
@@jeffslade1892 You can always add teleconverters to fast lenses to make them longer
@@Wildridefilms a TC (or reducer) generally degrades the image. A TC on a fast lens is usually no better than a purpose built one of the length you need. Been there ...
@@jeffslade1892 it doesn't have to be better than a purpose built lens, it just needs to match it. Without the TC, you get much more light when you don't need the reach. I will always go for a shorter but faster lens.
Sigma are part of the MFT consortium and could make their lenses with fully compatible MFT mounts, if they wanted to. They do make some MFT lenses. The original Bigma APO 50-500mm F4-6.3 EX DG HSM was Olympus four thirds fit (E-Volt etc), with the 4/3-MFT adapter it is electrically compatible with MFT cameras. It makes a noise like a coffee grinder trying to AF. There was also the "Sigmonster" APO 300-800mm F5.6 EX DG HSM in four-thirds fit, unobtanium.
The problem with adapting other-make lenses to MFT is that electrical connection. Some like Canon can AF after a fashion (badly), most will be MF. It would take Sigma to change the adapter for full compatibility, they do know how to do that.
And then there is the Panasonic Leica 100-400 f/4-6.3 for £999 (new, less used) or the PL100-400ii for £1500, which do offer Dual2 stabilisation, which except for three Olympus Sync-IS (e.g. their IS-Pro 150-400) is far better than any other-make stabilisation system, the Ollie 100-400 will not Sync-IS nor Dual.
So true! Panasonic does a great job with their lenses!
long time i used the bigma 50-500 mm f6.3 with both e620 and e5, lens is still working but i have to use it with current mirrorless with adaptor and AF is not good. i really with something similar can be made for m4/3. it was heavy with no IS. really no need for in sync IS just make it a bit lighter, for that reach a tripod is a must IMHO, the price was also fabulous.
or just give us an updated version of the 100-400 mm 6.3 with in-sync IS.
Bigma! Hilarious! I'd love to see a newer 100-400! But I do wish it was just a hair faster. Not for Bokeh, but for speed!
I am so glad to hear you say, "focal length is the focal length." I still hear other channels suggest that there is a zoom effect when when using any given size lens. Very good video!
What you don’t understand is that yes that is a 100mm-400mm f/5-6.3. However the “Angle of View,” “Depth of field,” and “Compression are not equivalent to a full frame lens at those measurements. Therefore, those measurements are deceitful and misleading.
People have a hard time hearing the truth. For some reason it doesn't make any sense to them.
Sorry, but only Chinese manufacturers had or have intrest in m43. For Sigma, Tamron, Voigtlander (Cósima), Samyang/ Rokinon and Viltrox all of this Japanese manufacturers are focused on FF and APS-C. The m43 market is very small.
Very true, this is more of a wish they would type of thing. Heck Sigma pulled out for that reason. However, if they had decided on converting some of their telephoto lenses I think it would have been different. Telephoto lenses sell much more than the primes for MFT.
A Canon 300mm f/4, if designed for M4/3 would be significantly smaller, because the lens is covering a much smaller sensor. Angle of View, Depth Perception and compression are completely different when compared to full frame. If your assertion of “focal length makes no difference” between the two formats, then you’d be able to mount a OM lens onto a full frame Canon if adapted and have full sensor coverage. For example, if I mount a Full Frame lens onto a medium format camera, I would NOT get full sensor coverage.
The Olympus 300mm f4 is literally similar size as the Canon. I even made a representation of the sizes. With the measurements.
@@AlpacoFilms what you didn’t measure are the glass elements. The OM 300mm f/4 will not have have enough coverage of the FF Sensor. That’s why Speed Booster are a thing.
@@AlpacoFilms My OM 12-40mm f/2.8 is not the same size as my Canon 24-70mm f/2.8. Not sure what you are missing here. Even if my Canon lens was a f/5.6, it still would have larger elements than my OM 12-40mm…. Because it has to cover a FF sensor. 🤦♂️
@@AlpacoFilms but I agree I wish OM would produce larger aperture zoom lenses. I want a true 600mm f/4. Then I’ll pay $5,000+ for it.
@@thinkingape7655 this is true, but if you look at the actually layout internally. The groups are placed in different spaces. A lens boosters or adapter isn't needed at all. What would happen is the rear elements would be redesigned and the internal elements distributed slightly enough to accommodate.
The market is not going after a slice of the pie that is less than 5%...and shrinking. It would be an economic disaster for them to do what you ask.
Oh I know! It's more of a wish.
@@AlpacoFilms That's much more reasonable...😄
Go Bruins!
Hell to the Yea!
Hello,
I saw your RUclips channel. ( Alpaco Films) Your channel has many videos but not enough views and subscribers. I found some issues with your channel. Your channels are not SEO-optimized and do not have good titles, descriptions, keywords, and Thumbnail. You should optimize your channel, then your channel will grow fast and you will achieve your target.
Example: SEO score is very low, no perfect title - description - no SEO-friendly tags added, no social media sharing Platform, and some in your RUclips channel Settings are not correct. Because of this, your video is not reaching the people who are interested and you are not getting enough views, likes, and subscriptions
Many problems for which your video views and subscribers are not good. As a result, your video views are not affected.
You need SEO for your RUclips channel immediately. As a video SEO expert, I look forward to your response.
I can help you grow your RUclips channel
Thank you
No thank you.
@@AlpacoFilms Ok Tnx
@@AlpacoFilms Thank a lot