Telecentricity in Micro Four Thirds.

Started Oct 30, 2013 | Discussions thread
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 18,329Gear list
Like?
Re: Thanks for the info ...
In reply to alatchin, 11 months ago

alatchin wrote:

I agree that you can't compare the 12-50 and the 12-60 as if they were the same thing. The first is a kit lens with modest optical ambitions and the 12-60 is a fairly ambitious standard zoom.

In cases where we try to keep the level of ambition reasonably constant, I am inclined to think (without knowing for sure since so little in the way of good and directly comparable evidence exists) that the MFT lenses perform about as well as their closest FT counterparts but are nevertheless smaller. There are at least three reasons why they can be smaller and nevertheless perform similarly: The reduced flange distance of MFT (reducing the need to use retro-focus designs), the use of software correction (which adds another degree of freedom in lens design), and the increased use of various kinds of special glass elements (which makes it possible to achieve the same degree of correction of optical aberrations with fewer elements).

As examples, I would point to the following reasonably comparable MFT versus FT pairs:

Olympus FT 7-14/4 versus Panasonic MFT 7-14/4

Fair example, and wides are definitely a strength for m43rds

Olympus 12-60/2.8-4 versus Olympus 12-40/2.8 (the latter reaching less far at the long end but also being faster)

Again starting at the wide end I imagine that created an advantage (along with the other points)

Olympus FT 14-42/3.5-5.6 versus Panasonic X 14-42/3.5-5.6

Pansonic FT 14-150/3.5-5.6 versus Panasonic 14-140/4-5.6

Olympus FT 35-100/2 versus (the yet unreleased) Olympus MFT 40-150/2.8 (the latter reaching further at the long end but being slower)

This would be better compared to the 50-200 in my mind. And one stop faster can mean a big size difference

OK. Perhaps the 50-200 would be even more comparable in this case. Not as fast towards the long end but longer. Remains to be seen what the dimensions of the 40-150/2.8 will eventually turn out to be and how well it will perform relative to the 50-200.

Olympus FT 8/3.5 FE versus Panasonic MFT 8/3.5 FE

True enough.

Panasonic Leica FT 25/1.4 versus Panasonic Leica MFT 25/1.4

I have both, I will make a comparison

That would be interesting, yes.

Olympus FT 25/2.8 versus Panasonic MFT 20/1.7

Again, I am not saying there are no good lenses in m43rds or that they do not show a size advantage, but that there are good reasons.

Yes, and I agree with you that in some cases, at least part of the reason has to do with the level of ambition and the max aperture. However, the point I tried to make is that these are not the only reasons. There are also the three I mentioned.

The wides will show most of this size savings, I doubt we will see quite so much in the tele end.

We agree on that too.

The 40-150 looks slightly smaller than the 50-200 but has less range... Same story with the 12-60.

Aside from that, nothing. I quite enjoy the m43rds lenses and am in a quagmire of selling my 43rds gear and getting the 12-40 and 40-150 (f2.8) or just getting the E-M1. The focus of the E-M5 has spoiled me and anything less than instant can be irritating.

-- hide signature --

“You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” -Ansel Adams
blog.alatchinphotography(dot)com

 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