Why not a 12-35 F1.8 - F2.8?

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
JeanPierre Martel
Senior MemberPosts: 2,116Gear list
Re: Why not a 12-35 F1.8 - F2.8?
In reply to Anders W, 9 months ago

Anders W wrote:

JeanPierre Martel wrote:

So let's be back at the original question in this thread: Why not even brighter zooms as the next step in the evolution of our gear?

No reason to go back if we are already there. I tried to answer the original question. You didn't.

Sorry if I misread your reply. Let's look at it. You've said:

The fact that a 12-35/1.8-2.8 for MFT is equivalent to a 24-70/3.5-5.6 on FF with regard to total light on the sensor, DoF, and diffraction doesn't mean that the former can be constructed to be as small, light, and optically good as the latter. From a lens design point of view, the former is a more challenging task than the latter. To get an idea, look at the size/weight of the 14-35/2 for FT versus the Sony-Zeiss 24-70/4 for FE-mount.

The difficulty of going equal with FF increases the faster the FF lens with which we are comparing. For example, there are plenty of f/1.4 primes for FF around. But constructing a matching f/0.7 prime for MFT is a near-impossibility.

In a nutshell, you're saying that making a m4/3 F/1,8-2,8 would be challenging. Fine. But is it impossible? If not (coming back at the original question) why not?

 JeanPierre Martel's gear list:JeanPierre Martel's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +22 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