Comparing Olympus 4/3lenses to FX "Full Frame" offerings

Started 8 months ago | Discussions thread
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,510
Like?
Re: Oh?
In reply to Ian Stuart Forsyth, 8 months ago

Ian Stuart Forsyth wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

dave gaines wrote:

This thread and my OP is about the lens options, not equivalency. I'm comparing the best HG and SHG Olympus lenses to what is available from Nikon in FX. I'm clearly writting about finding Nikon f/2.8 that will perform as well as Olympus HG and SHG lenses. I'm comparing the best lenses of one brand to the best of another.

OK. But you said:

"Don't bother looking for anything like a 50-200 mm f/2.8-3.5 in FX for close to the same price. You'll need the 200-400 mm f/4 for US$6750."

No, the 200-400 / 4 on FF is like a 100-200 / 2 on 4/3, not like a 50-200 / 2.8-3.5. The 70-300 / 4-5.6 on FF (equivalent to a 35-150 / 2-2.8) is a lot more like a 50-200 / 2.8-3.5 on 4/3 than is the 200-400 / 4 VR.

The 200-400 is more like the 90-250 2.8 and the odd thing is they are nearly the same weight and cost go figure

Imagine that -- roughly the same focal range and roughly the same maximum aperture diameters (400mm / 4 = 100mm, 250mm / 2.8 = 89mm) make for nearly the same weight and cost.  Who'd have thunk it? 

More seriously, it doesn't always work out so cleanly, as there's a lot more to it than just focal length and aperture diameter, but it was a nice coincidence, nonetheless.

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