Is the 12-35 really worth over 3x more? (MFT charts)

Started May 22, 2012 | Discussions thread
Senior MemberPosts: 1,065
Re: Look at it like this
In reply to fabgo, May 23, 2012

fabgo wrote:

Danel wrote:

Latest versions priced at Adorama:

Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 $1886.95

Sony CZ 24-70 f/2.8 $1998.00

Canon 24-70 f/2.8 $2299.00

And, none of those lenses are stabilized (well the Sony is via IBIS I guess)!

The Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 has stabilization. Now, I know it is a smaller lens and thus uses less materials, but it is also priced at $1299.99, which is a relative bargain if you think about it. There, now does everyone feel better?

I don't think this is a valid comparison. The 12-35/2.8 is for all practical purposes equal to a 24-70/5.6 zoom for full frame 35mm. That's the kind of depth-of-field that you get, and there is no speed advantage, as full-frame 35mm has a two-stop ISO advantage (everything else being equal).

Well, yeah, but here's the thing - everything else is never equal. Your 'for all practical purposes' comparison really only applies if you enlarge your picture to a size where the difference becomes noticeable (see, I learned something!). Which just means that you can blow up the m43 pics to a size that is just a bit smaller than your FF files. I would venture that most people never find themselves in that predicament.

Equivalence is true - it is just becoming less and less relevant.


Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow