How big would a 100-200 f2.8 m43 OIS be?

Started Nov 12, 2012 | Discussions thread
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 18,724Gear list
Like?
Re: How big would a 100-200 f2.8 m43 OIS be?
In reply to jim stirling, Nov 13, 2012

jim stirling wrote:

rkeller wrote:

MAubrey wrote:

The Olympus 50-200mm is slightly smaller than 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses...yes, I know different physicαl requirements...but that's the lens I want in μ43.

I second that motion!

Just as a comparison of a translation from 4/3 to m4/3:

Specs for the 4/3 Zuiko 70-300mm f/4-5.6:

  • 14 elements in 10 groups
  • Front element rotates
  • Filter size: 58mm
  • 127mm x 80mm / 5.0 in. x 3.1 in.
  • 620g / 21.8 oz

Specs for the m4/3 M.Zuiko 70-300mm f/4.8-6.7 (~1/3 stop slower):

  • 18 elements in 13 groups
  • Rear element focusing
  • Filter size: 58mm
  • 116mm x 70mm / 4.57 in. x 2.76 in.
  • 430g / 15.2 oz

Significant size differential, 30% weight savings. If a m4/3 version of the 50-200mm f.2.8-3.5 achieved a similar weight reduction, we could expect something in the 700 gram/25 oz. range (4/3 is 995 g/35.1 oz).

That's less than half the weight of the CaNikon 70-200 f/2.8 1.5kg/3.3 lb behemoths. And with longer reach. [Yeah I know: DoF, equivalency, etc.].

With the very high MP D800, I am not so sure that the longer reach is really a significant advantage anymore. These two shots ,quick snapshots , not rigorous test by any means are taken with the FF lens at 105mm and the mFT lens at 103mm { 206mm equivalent AOV }. I used base ISO on both cameras and flash to remove any impact from higher ISO.

This screen capture shows what the full frame looks likes from both cameras:

D800-GH2 frame.

This is a 100% crop from both cameras and if anything the D800 has more detail, the only 100mm focal length mFT lenses I have at the moment are the 100-300 and the 14-140 used here as the shot looked better than the 100-300. I have the 35-100 on order and will try it again , as it will hopefully be a bit better. It was just a quick comparison to see what difference the 36MP means in action.

100% crop from both cameras

The original RAW files are available here:as Dpreview's gallery seems to do some odd stuff , the D800 colour is also more accurate in this shooting scenario.

http://www.mediafire.com/?dmw7884nls2z9yh

http://www.mediafire.com/?d8qj9i4ln265n23

Hi Jim,

Much here depends on the quality of the lens used. Note than an MFT lens should (and often does based on what the test data at our disposal tell us) resolve twice as well as an FF lens on a per mm basis in order to go equal on a per-image-height basis. This, in turn, would mean that a cropped FF image shot at 100 mm would be at a disadvantage relative to an MFT image shot at 100 mm even if the pixel count for the two is the same (which it isn't in this case; the D800 is 36, not 64, MP).

It surprises me that you say you find the 14-140 preferable to the 100-300 on the MFT side in this test. The 100-300 should, for pretty obvious reasons, do better than the 14-140 towards its long end. Which lens did you use on the D800? The 105/2.8G micro? And at what aperture were the two lenses shot?

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +21 more
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