Size comparison of FE 4/2470 on A7 vs Olympus 12-40 f2.8 on GX7

Started 7 months ago | Discussions thread
Erik Magnuson
Forum ProPosts: 12,058Gear list
Like?
Re: Doesn't work like that
In reply to Krich13, 7 months ago

Krich13 wrote:

Olympus can compete or even beat the FF setup in macro (a stabilized true 1:1 magnification native 60 mm lens – not bad, eh?)

Not that impressive. Sigma has 150 & 180mm stabilized macros with much more favorable working distances (38cm & 47cm working distances instead of slightly over 18cm) for Sony A, Nikon or Canon mount. Canon has the MP-E lens that goes from 1:1 to 5:1. You can use these on either FF or APS-C sensors since you think smaller is better for macro. Nikon and Canon also have flash systems designed for good macro lighting.

It can even compete on equal foot in portrait subject isolation (provided you can back off far enough) with its 75/1.8 lens against Nikon 85/1.8!

If you back off far enough to get the same framing, you lose the isolation equivalence. DOF increases with distance. For example: FF w/85mm f/1.8 @ 10ft: 0.44ft. MFT w/75mm f/1.8 @ 16ft 0.73ft. And of course FF has the option of 85mm f/1.2 or 135mm f/2 lenses or even 200mm f/2 if you want even less DOF.

Yes, the Nikkor blurs the background a little more – but the 75 is stabilized, and has much better control of longitudinal CA.

If the FF user wants stabilized for this range, his 70-200mm f/2.8 will do better than the 150mm f/3.6 equiv of the Olympus. Much larger but also much more versatile.

There is nothing permanent in this world. Once the pixel pitch becomes significantly smaller than a diffraction spot,

Pixel pitch only has to get close to even which will happen sooner than that.

Olympus 12-40 is intended for the same kind of use as Zeiss 24-70/4. Both are too slow for indoor use without flash.

You underestimate how useful low noise high-ISO can be. Earlier in this thread I posted an action shot in cruddy fieldhouse interior lighting: f/3.5, 1/1000, ISO 3200.  f/4 on a FF sensor is more usable than you think.

Both cover the same range for landscape photography.

Only if you ignore base ISO DR and stitch multiple shots to get the same resolution.

In low-light photography of static subjects Olympus is likely better due to the fantastic efficiency of Oly IBIS -- despite some 2/3 of a stop disadvantage in light gathering.

You seem to forget the Zeiss zoom has OSS -- we'll need to see tests, but the advantage is very unlikely.

Zeiss is a little better in low light for moving subjects. Both are comparable for portrait subject isolation (Zeiss is (equivalently) a stop faster, but it only goes to 70 mm. Oly would provide the same amount of blue as a 70 mm f/4.9 lens – still worse than f/4 but quite a bit better that f/5.6 equivalent rating would suggest) the Zeiss has an advantage there. Olympus has an advantage at close focus…  Similar lenses of similar sizes, what exactly was the point of this thread?

Well some claim the FE lenses are *huge* or that it's unfair to use the Oly 12-40mm  -- you are saying they are similar all things considered which was pretty much the point of the OP.

-- hide signature --

Erik

 Erik Magnuson's gear list:Erik Magnuson's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 450D Sigma SD10 Sony Alpha NEX-5 Nikon D3200 +28 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