About That 25-300mm f/2.8 You Wanted
I get an email or text about once a month asking me if I think Canon, Nikon, or some other photo manufacturer will ever make something like a 24-300mm f/2.8 zoom lens. I’m usually gentle with those people, because I realize that a lot of people truly believe that if they want something badly enough, someone could make it for them. Occasionally, someone exhibits the Dunning-Kruger Effect and tells me that they know it’s a plot on the part of the manufacturers to make us buy multiple lenses instead of just one that could do everything.
I had another one of those emails a few days ago, so I thought it might be interesting to show everyone what a 25-300mm f/2.8 would (approximately) look like. We don’t actually have a photo lens of that specification, but our video friends do: The Fujinon 25-300mm T3.5. (For those who don’t know, f is a calculated value, T is actual light transmission. Most f/2.8 lenses are T3.5 to T3.8.)
The Fujinon is a PL mount lens, so I’m afraid you won’t be able to adapt it to your 5DIII or D810. If you really want to, though, you could buy a PL modified Canon 7D camera and use this as your walk-around lens.
About How Big is that?
The lens is in a video housing, so that makes it a bit larger than an SLR designed lens of the same specifications would be. But it’s 16 inches long, which wouldn’t change much if it were an SLR lens. That’s more than twice as long as a Canon or Nikon 70-200 f/2.8. It’s just about an inch longer than a Nikon or Canon 500mm f/4 lens.
Those of you who shoot with filters might be unhappy with the 135mm front element, and that wouldn’t be any different if it was a photo, rather than video lens.
It weighs in at 18.5 pounds. To compare with something most people have handled, the Nikon and Canon 70-200 f/2.8 lenses weigh in at about 3.5 pounds. Even the Canon 600mm f/4 IS weighs only 8.7 pounds. The Nikon 600 f/4 VR is closer, at 11.5 pounds.
Granted, some of the Fujinon’s weight comes from it’s video housing, zoom, and focus mechanism. From comparing video and photo versions of nearly identical lenses (from Canon and Zeiss) we could figure the Fujinon in SLR dress would weight 2 or 3 pounds less, so we’ll be charitable and say that it could probably come in no heavier than a Nikon 600 f/4.
So, for those of you who are still lusting after a 25-300 f/2.8 lens, it is available for purchase. It will run you about $44,000, but hey, you’ll save on all those other lenses it will replace.
Roger Cicala, Aaron Closz and Darryl Bolin
Lensrentals.com
October, 2014
48 Comments
Joachim / CH ·
GREAT lens, great article and the title, I’m sure, will be fixed in no time. I miss 10mm 😉
KyleSTL ·
Thank you, Roger, for adding sanity to the online world lacking in it most of the time. Your reference to the Dunning-Kruger Effect is awesome. I’m sure most know of the idea of this effect, but I’m sure a small minority (myself included) knew it had a scientic name and research behind it. Roger, your work is highly informative, entertaining and appreciated.
Lee Saxon ·
I bet it being varifocal would shave off another pound or two. On the other hand I’m assuming this version doesn’t cover FF35…
Joel B. ·
It’s important to note that the Fujinon only projects a 31.5mm image circle. 8-perf 35mm (“full frame” 35mm stills) requires a minimum of a 43mm image circle, so a lens for them would be even bigger. APS-C users would be okay using the Fujinon since they only need an image circle about 29mm in diameter to cover the corners.
Joe Gunawan ·
I’ll take the Angenieux Optimo 24-290mm T2.8 (constant f/2.5!). Only costs around $85-90K =D
http://www.angenieux.com/zoom-lenses/cinema-portfolio/optimo-24-290.htm
Ian ·
…and the King of the Nikon chess set shudders in fear…but you forgot to mention what shrinking this to m4:3 would do…
Oskar Ojala ·
There is only one but: according to B&H, the lens has an image circle of only 31.5 mm, a far cry from the 43.3 mm needed to cover full frame. It should be ok for crop sensors though.
Ben ·
But what about the boooooooooooookeh? :p
Kevin Purcell ·
“On the other hand I’m assuming this version doesn’t cover FF35…”
It does. The PL mount is 54mm in diameter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arri_PL
The main sillyness of the 24-300 f/2.8 requirement is “large sensor support”.
For a lens targeting a smaller sensors the lens would be smaller (linearly) and much lighter (dropping a bit slower than the square of the focal length ratio — most of the barrel is air except for the slabs of glass).
Perhaps for type 1″ sensors it would work out? And, yes, there is an existance proof for that idea: the Sony RX10.
Of course for 300mm equivalence the RX10 would need to be a bit bigger but it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility.
Kevin Purcell ·
I’ll take the “It does” comment back.
It will cover full frame from Academy format 35mm (4-perf) not the 8 perf (doubled) still 35mm.
This lens covers “Super35 4 perf” image circle (that’s a just a bit bigger than APS-C).
But I think that rather makes Roger’s initial point! Just imagine how big a 42mm image circle lens wouild be 🙂
mrc4nl ·
Ive seen old f1.2 zooms from fuijion/fujinon (whatever the name)
though i wont expect premium IQ out of those lenses.
A ·
Probably be better off adding a picture of kit zoom lens #1 alongside the Fuji monster.
I think (hope!) that most people who know what the 70-200 f2.8 looks like (and costs and weighs), would know better.
No, I know, I’m dreaming aren’t I 😉
Roger Cicala ·
A, I was thinking of all the people who don’t want to carry a “huge” 70-200 f/2.8 lens 🙂
Nqina Dlamini ·
At around 8Kg your trpod options are a bit limited. Forget about a monopod.
Kevin Conelly ·
I (and a few colleagues) are really curious: Can you publish some measurements? And some of a Zeiss Master Prime? We do of course know that the price tags on these are a result of more than just optical quality, but it would still make for an interesting comparison to photo lenses. Pretty please?
Roger Cicala ·
Kevin, our optical bench won’t hold anything this large, I’m afraid.
Chris B ·
Er…nice article putting wants and expectations in perspective, but who shot the image of the guy holding the lens using, what, f/1.4 making the main subject – the lens – out of focus? Perhaps beyond testing and renting lenses which you guys do a great job of, perhaps practicing USING the lenses wouldn’t hurt. Sorry I couldn’t help myself commenting when I saw that shot… 🙂
Roger Cicala ·
Chris, that would be Darryl. He’s a repair tech, not a photographer. You’d be surprised (well, maybe you wouldn’t after looking at the pictures) how many people who work here aren’t. Less than half the staff are experienced photographers or videographers, and during the day most of them are doing customer support or inspecting equipment, so we end up handing a camera set on full auto to a packer, programmer, or repair tech and telling them to take a picture. On our priority list, taking care of equipment, getting the orders filled, and giving customer support come first. These articles are fun, but not a priority.
Aaron Bradley ·
When I used to work in a video production house (20 years ago), I was curious how these monstrous video lenses compared optically to their lesser photo brethren. I always assumed that they would have less angular resolution because of how coarse the sensors were (720×486 on a 2/3″ sensor used to be a big deal). Of course, high def finally rolled in, and not mentioning all those esoteric cinema lenses lurking in PL land that I never got to play with, resolution requirements skyrocketed.
So my question to the man with the equipment, the means, and (hopefully) the time: how optically good are these 18.5 lb hunks of glass?
A ·
Roger: LOL; you’re one step ahead, as usual!
brandon ·
i think kevin is showing signs of Dunning-Kruger.
I’m with Aaron in wanting to see the performance of these lenses, but i expect they are nothing really out of the ordinary for normal photography needs. Roger did some stuff a while back with high priced lenses in a 50mm showdown and if i remember correctly they were fine. not amazing good, not bad, but fine.
Chris B ·
Roger –
Point well taken. And I hope you take my comment as made in good spirits! 🙂
//Chris
Roger Cicala ·
Absolutely, Chris. I had a lot of fun telling Darryl he’d made the big time and was now an object of online discussion 🙂
Lasse Beyer ·
@Chris: Too bad modern cameras only have face recognition and not lens recognition as an AF mode 😀
Wally ·
A comparison of what a video lens adds in terms of size and weight. A Zeiss CZ 70-200 T2.9 in F-mount compared to a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. Note: the CZ is a compact zoom in video terms, but does cover FF.
Zeiss Nikon
Length 250 mm 206 mm
Diameter 95 mm 86 mm
Weight 2.8 kg 1.5 kg
Price $20,000 $2,400
So a little longer, a little larger in diameter, a lot heavier and a lot more money for the video version.
Samuel H ·
If the bench can’t, maybe imatest will work?
Speed ·
Canon announced a 50-1000/75-1500 mm (built in 1.5 teleconverter).
Canon has bolstered its cine-servo lens line-up with the new CN20x 50 IAS H E1/P1 high performance, ultra-telephoto zoom lens for sports and nature TV production. Delivering superb 4K image quality and exceptional creative control, the CN20x 50 IAS H E1/P1 is the first lens to combine a built-in 1.5x extender, class-leading 20x magnification and a removable servo drive, with a native 50-1000mm focal range that extends to a huge 75-1500mm.
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/canon_unveils_cn20x_50_ias_h_e1_p1.do
Hold on to your wallets.
Branko Collin ·
That Canon is available for EF mount, weighs 6.6 kilograms (which is [WEIRD_AMERICAN_POUNDS]) and has a transmission range (if that is the word) of T5.0 at the wide end to T13.35 at the long.
Mike ·
The weight is dominated by the size of the front element, which in turn depends on the (maximum) focal length and max. aperture.
It would have been more adequate to place the lens next to a 300/2.8.
Steve ·
I’m holding out for the EF 14-500mm f2.0
I could shoot anything with that sucker !!! 🙂
Carl ·
You should have shot a picture of it next to the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8! Then it wouldn’t look so big :)…Let’s see one of you hold it out supporting its front end with only one hand!
Honestly I would be happy with a 45-150mm f/1.8 with IS, that AF’s as fast as the fastest lenses. That seems be very doable and not too large or heavy, and the range would be truly perfect for most portraiture and low light short telephoto imaging (would definitely take the place of both a 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8…other than for very wide angle shots.)
It might be expensive…but I doubt it would need to cost as much as the EF 200-400 f/4. And seems like it could weigh about 5 pounds, or possibly less.
Taildraggin ·
I still don’t know what I don’t know, but now it is comforting to know that I will not ever know.
Silv ·
Ok, it’s humongous, but is the image quality not atrocious?
I guess the small premium in comparison to a 35mm superzoom is in part reflected in the image quality 😉
LeGO ·
Thanks for the laughs Roger.
The 300mm f/2.8 long end of the zoom ensures that a 25-300mm f/2.8 lens will be a monster. But how about showing something a zoom lens within the realm of possibilities?
I am thinking about a much more manageable shorter focal length for the long end. , e.g., instead of a 3x f/2.8 zoom, a 4x zoom 24-100mm f/2.8, or even a 5x zoom of 24-120mm f/2.8. The Olympus m4/3 40-150mm f/2.8 shows how a 3.75x zoom with a substantial long end would like with a m4/3 sensor. How would such a zoom look like with a wider short end and a shorter long end on an m4/3 sensor, such as a 12 to 60mm f/2.8 for m4/3? How about a 24-120mm f/2.8 for a “fullframe sensor”?
An alternative lens would be a wider-opening zoom. Given my good experience with the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, I am looking forward to the rumored “fullframe” Sigma 24-70mm f/2.0. An enlarged “fullframe” 18-35mm f/2.0 would also not be a bad idea.
Can anyone model how these lenses would look like even as just a simple drawing?
Kevin Purcell ·
LeGo: You can make a rought guess the size and weight by scaling existing lens.
A stop faster? The diameter increases by 1.4x and weight increases by 2x (the lenses are discs so sacling roughly as the square of the diameter).
Do you really want a full frame Sigma 24-70mm f/2.0?
Would you carry it around?
I could see an APS f/2.0 16-47mm (24-70mm equivalent) being around the same weight and size as the full frame 24-70mm f/2.8. People might use that but the weight is a cost. If you really want the focus seperation/bokeh use a lighter prime and change lenses.
LeGO ·
Kevin: Thanks for commenting and for your suggestions.
A stop faster will be easier to implement in a lens with a shorter focal length than with a lens with a considerably longer focal length. To illustrate, the exit pupil of a 24-70mm f/2.0 in the 70mm end would be 35mm while a 70-200mm f/2.8 in the 200mm would have an exit pupil of at least 71.5mm. That’s quite a considerable difference in the exit pupil despite the 70mm being f/2.0 and the 200mm being f/2.8.
The difference in size and weight would be far more pronounced when working with a longer focal length. I know better than to ask for a one-stop faster lens with a considerably longer focal length whenever I switch from my 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom to my 200mm f/2.0 prime. =)
A 24-70mm f/2.0 would still be quite manageable and yes, I would carry it around. I seek such a lens not just for a shallower DOF and bokeh but primarily for it being brighter and thus requiring a stop lower in ISO setting. Video shooting does not always allow one to use a low shutter speed unlike stills. A quick replacement of lenses is always an option or even possible when shooting continuous video so a zoom such as the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.0 would be very handy for such use. As I always use a tripod with me, the bigger size and heavier weight of a 24-70mm f/2.0 lens is not such an issue even for extended use. But even when used handheld, hand holding a 24-70mm f/2.0 would not be such an issue as I am quite used to handholding my 70-200mm f/2.8 for extended periods of time.
Carl ·
I think a 24-70 f/2.0 would weigh at least 1/2 pound less than a 70-200 f/2.8, and would also be shorter…thus less front heavy. And like I said, a 45-150 f/1.8 would probably weigh the same, or possibly less, than the current 200 f/2.0 prime (certainly under 6 lbs, and possibly under 5…or if it were a “DO”, perhaps 4 or less).
Would I carry the 24-70 f/2.0 around? Like where, at a pro shoot where I needed it, or at a day long travel destination with a lot of hiking involved? I doubt anyone would use it for that, but all you need is a good strap or other support device. Those are getting better, although there are some strap companies that throw their weight around and put others out of business.
Anton ·
Haha, funny.
But what is the sensor size is Fuji made for?
Peter ·
All silliness aside, I’d love to see some even eyeball tests of sharpness. Size and weight is one issue, but the bigger one is image quality. Even 4k video needs a lot less than a 16MP still. A lot of the video lenses are obnoxiously bad when used for stills since they don’t need it. My impression was that, historically, fast long zooms were more limited by optical abberations (which increase with both zoom and speed) than by cost/size/weight.
But it looks like a new lens, claims to do 4k, and we’ve had a lot of recent progress in optics.
Even a few sample test shots would say a lot.
Tom Reichner ·
I think more than 2 to 3 pounds could be shaved off of a photo version of this lens. Why do I think that? Because most of the photographers who want a 25-300mm f2.8 want just that – they are not asking for a t2.8, the f2.8 is what they are after. There is usually about 2/3 of a stop between “f” and “t” values, and we all know what a huge, enormous difference 2/3 of a stop can mean with respect to size and weight.
As someone who uses the original Canon 400 f2.8 IS, at almost 13 pounds, as his everyday “walkaround” lens, I do not really see much of a problem with a 25-300mm lens being the same approximate size and weight. What do I usually use when I am not using my old, heavy 400 f2.8? My Sigmonster – the 300-800mm f5.6, which is larger, and just as heavy. A 25-300mm would fit right into my arsenal!
MPNavrozjee ·
I can just imagine the reactions of subjects if a tourist tried to use this as their walk-around lens.
Long ago, a friend of mine borrowed by new Rollei medium format SLR and the attached 150mm lens and walked around mid-town Manhattan taking pictures. The first human he attempted to snap with this obtrusive combo politely told him that he, the subject, would feed my friend the camera and lens the moment the shutter went off.
MPNavrozjee ·
I can just imagine the reactions of subjects if a tourist tried to use this as their walk-around lens.
Long ago, a friend of mine borrowed by new Rollei medium format SLR and the attached 150mm lens and walked around mid-town Manhattan taking pictures. The first human he attempted to snap with this obtrusive combo politely told him that he, the subject, would feed my friend the camera and lens the moment the shutter went off.
Ian ·
So, what do you have to say about this company’s offering?
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon-28-300mm-f3.5-5.6g-ed-af-s-vr
Roger Cicala ·
I say f/5.6 is not f/2.8. For example, the aperture (light opening) at 300mm for f/5.6 is 53mm. For an f/2.8 it is 107mm, more than twice as wide. That basically means all the glass in front of the aperture has to be MORE than twice as wide as it would for the Nikon 28-300mm.
Then there’s the image quality part, but that’s a much longer discussion.
Ian ·
So, what do you have to say about this company’s offering?
https://www.lensrentals.com...
Roger Cicala ·
I say f/5.6 is not f/2.8. For example, the aperture (light opening) at 300mm for f/5.6 is 53mm. For an f/2.8 it is 107mm, more than twice as wide. That basically means all the glass in front of the aperture has to be MORE than twice as wide as it would for the Nikon 28-300mm.
Then there's the image quality part, but that's a much longer discussion.
Penny Carlson ·
I see 5 years have gone by and no one has come up with a solution. Tamron did just come out with a 35-150mm f/2.8. It is fairly heavy and still won’t go as wide or as long as you would need for say architecture and wildlife respectively. It’s probably really nice for portraits though.
Penny Carlson ·
I see 5 years have gone by and no one has come up with a solution. Tamron did just come out with a 35-150mm f/2.8. It is fairly heavy and still won't go as wide or as long as you would need for say architecture and wildlife respectively. It's probably really nice for portraits though.