I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true

Started 8 months ago | Discussions thread
GossCTP
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,028
Like?
Re: I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true
In reply to nicholo89, 8 months ago

nicholo89 wrote:

I know I might get some flak for this, but I was just curious about this debate so decided to check out the olympus site.

I know it's not FF, but if the logic is that bigger sensors mean bigger lenses, then it should also be concluded that aps-c lenses will be bigger/heavier than m43.

For a given f stop, the 4/3 lenses are smaller. The issue as I see it, is that people bought into a smaller format, and then wanted to get the same shallow DOF and lower noise that the larger formats did. So then Olympus created beasts like the 35-100 f/2. Over 3.5 lbs and $2500. Certainly a masterpiece of a lens, but in terms of DOF and noise, a 70-200 f/4 on FF would be equivalent and weigh in at just over a lb. Price for a Canon L 70-200 f/4 is running around a grand right now.

I think that f/4 is a sweet spot for lenses right now, regardless of format. Few lenses don't improve in some fashion until being stopped down at least that far. That's my main gripe with micro 4/3. They have super compact slow zooms and top dollar f/2.8 zooms. Higher quality, moderately sized and priced f/4 zooms just aren't there. And if you need a faster lens than f/4 most of the time, you are probably better off with a larger format - up to FF anyway.

-- hide signature --

Through the window in the wall
Come streaming in on sunlight wings
A million bright ambassadors of morning

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