DerekWillmott: The specs sheet shows 2.7 megadots on the EVF. This article says 2.3.
Equivalent in a different sense.
This EVF produces resolution of 1280 x 720 pixels which, if you used one red, one green and one blue dot at each pixel, would be 2.7m dots.
This is a field sequential display: it displays red, then green, then blue information, in quick succession, so offers the same resolution as a 2.7m dot display would, but actually only has 1/3rd that many 'dots.'
StevenE: The Sigma 50-150mm F2.8 weighs as much as a full frame 70-200 2.8, and that's a turn off. I might as well carry the FF.
I have owned a Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 (APS-C lens) for many years and it's a great lens, except it doesn't have IS. It's parfocal too, which is great for video!
I'm sorry, I mis-read the original comment (I read it as 'Samsung').
Yes, the Sigma 50-150mm is too big and heavy - it appears to be built in the same body as the current 70-200mm - which totally undermines the point of the lens, in my opinion.
camerosity: You forgot the Nikon Coolpix A. Typical dpreview
Jefftan: I have a question for someone in the knowCan lens filter be used on any of these 3 cameras? RX100 m3, G7X, LX100?thanks
LX100 has a 43mm filter thread. Neither the Sony nor Canon has. Sony offers an accessory to add filters, this may also work with the Canon.
The RX100 III and G7 X both have built-in ND filters.
Mark Chan: I wonder why you didnt't try to put the 35-100mm and 40-150mm f2.8s of the m43 system into this - yes I know you are discussing APS-C, but shouldn't such discourse include m43 too given that the photo quality is now there similar.
There is a section about the 35-100mm F2.8 towards the bottom of the article.
However, probably because it doesn't share a mount with a full frame system, you don't see mFT owners using or asking for 70-200mm lenses.
Knine: I like the fact that you now post equivalents of the focal length and aperture in you camera reviews. I wish that you would carry this over to other reviews like this lens review. Wouldn't the 50-150 be an equivalent of 75-225 on a 1.5 crop factor camera? And, the 70-200 would be 105-300? But more importantly, the F-2.8 would be more like F 3.8. I feel that by not showing these numbers you are perpetuating the sales myth that manufactures exploit. Please keep posting these numbers.
@phazelag - It is unfortunate that 135 film became the default reference point for describing angles-of-view in terms of the focal lengths that offer them. It's understandable, given that format's dominance in the film era, but it's unfortunate in that it appears to (falsely) imply the superiority of one particular format.
Ultimately all formats are a size/image quality (and usually price) balance. If you *only* care about image quality then the larger you can go, the better, and the Pentax 645Z's sensor is 60% bigger than full frame...
It's 2.7m dot *equivalent*.
quezra: "But any cost benefit of buying a 70-200mm F4 rather than an equivalent zoom is lost if you have to buy a full frame camera to gain access to that capability."
... unless there's an A7 in that mix, which you completely forgot about. The 70-200/4 is $100 less than the Fuji and Samsungs, both the A7 body and the FE70-200/4 weighs less than the APS-C versions, so the total system cost is very close against their flagships (X-T1 and NX1), and overall weight is less. And is FF, so for other things is much better. But that would spoil your prose wouldn't it...
The entire article is written about people who already own APS-C and why they would probably be better off with lenses designed for the format they're using.
My point still stands - the 70-200mm F4s are slightly cheaper (including the Sony), but if you need to go out and buy a new camera to use them. You'll notice I only say that there's a cost advantage - I'd have said there was a weight advantage, too, but I remembered the Sony, so didn't say that.
SHood: The new Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 is an interesting lens. It provides the same DOF on m43 as the Samsung and Fuji lenses while providing greater reach. Since it starts at 40mm you are not giving up much at the wide end either. And it weighs only 760g.
It does not provide the same depth-of-field as the Fujifilm and Samsung lenses.
Stand in the same location and shoot with the same framing (both reasonable conditions) and you won't be able to match the depth of field of the APS-C lenses. You will, however, have greater reach.
This article is about APS-C, and how APS-C users have traditionally often had to put up with full frame lenses that aren't necessarily ideally suited to APS-C. This has not been the case with Micro Four Thirds, which is why it's only mentioned in passing.
Almost the entire article is talking about APS-C, so inter-format equivalence isn't particularly relevant. I've added a sentence a the beginning to make this clearer.
Where I do talk about other formats (a reference to 70-200mm F4s on full frame and the 35-100 on Micro Four Thirds, I've mentioned equivalence).
Albert Silver: You are wrong about the cutting costs, since although Canon and Nikon models are priced like Rolls-Royces, you can get fantastic value in the Tamron 70-200 VC, which you have neglected to review, and costs $1499 (checked now on Amazon). DXO has it as the absolute best lens of this kind for the Nikon D610.
I included the Sigma into my tables to show that third-party 70-200 F2.8s can be cheaper - there isn't the page width to show it's also true for the Tamron. The own-brand Fujfilm and Samsung are aiming for Canon and Nikon levels of build and optical quality, so it seemed reasonable to *primarily* compare those prices, while including a third-party lens to show the fuller picture.
But I maintain that, while it probably is very good on the D610, I'd still rather have a dedicated 50-150mm if I were shooting APS-C (the Tamron is 197mm long and weighs 1470g, so it considerably bigger and heavier).
wolfloid: This whole article is based on a very basic misunderstanding. The lenses are the 'equivalents of 70-200 f4 lenses. NOT f2.8 lenses. Depth of field on APS-C at f2.8 is 'equivalent to f4 on full frame. Any light gathering advantage of f2.8 on APS-C is mitigated by the larger sensor of FF, which, if the sensors are of the same quality, will have half the noise of APS-C.
So, the Canon 70-200IS f4 is actually the lens to compare these new lenses with, and that, of couse, is smaller and lighter.
@Wolfloid - there's no misunderstanding on my part. I've added a sentence near the beginning of the article to make clearer that I'm talking about APS-C almost exclusively. I'm not comparing 50-150mm F2.8s on APS-C to 70-200mm F2.8s on full frame - I'm comparing them to 70-200s on APS-C.
I've brought inter-format equivalence up only where it's relevant.
Andr3w: The Pentax 50-135 f/2.8 has been out since 2007 and is very well regarded. Unfortunate that it gets written off because it "doesn't sell very well". Any data to back this statement up? It is the second most rated Pentax lens on B&H.
I can't imaging Fuji or Samsung will sell significantly more anytime soon since Pentax has had a 7 year head start.
My intention wasn't to write it off (I even mention that it's one of the things I look forward to when reviewing a Pentax DSLR).
However, this is an article about the new lenses for mirrorless systems. I tried to acknowledge that such lenses already exist for APS-C and thought I'd given Pentax due credit.
Vignes: I standardise to EF lens. I can use it for FF and crops sensor bodies. Not sure whether I want to collect EF-S lens if lets say Canon went along this path.Companys like Samsung, Fuji, Pentax may develop crop sensor lens but this is where they run into a 'brick wall' when they want to develop FF cameras. They have to re-develop or do what Sony and Nikon does - reduce the MP. Can't see Fuji jumping in FF system, Samsung may do it (they have the money), Pentax may do it to please their customers with legacy lens. Pentax has been saying this for some time but haven't materialised yet.
If you've decided that full frame is the only size/image quality balance you're happy with, then it makes sense to only buy a full frame camera and lenses.
However, the idea that it's the optimal format for everyone is false, at which point the idea of an 'upgrade path' is arguably more of a benefit to the manufacturers than it is to the photographer.
BarnET: Even though the Author did make a note of the equivalence to 70-200mm F4.
He also made a terrible conclusion that these lenses on Apsc save weight.70-200mm F4 lenses are in pretty much all cases lighter then these now F2.8 zooms.
So these lenses do not allow the photographer to save weight at all.
Almost the entire article is written about APS-C.
50-150mm F2.8s are lighter than 70-200mm F2.8s and brighter than 70-200mm F4s (albeit slightly heavier, which is acknowledged, with the actual weights quoted).
There is an aside about full frame (which isn't really the topic), saying that, on full frame the 70-200mm F4 is lighter, cheaper and offers the same capabilities as a 50-150mm F2.8 on APS-C. However you then have to factor-in the cost and weight of a full frame body...
Advent1sam: Seeing as the Panasonic 35-100 2.8 set the trend for a real 2.8 70-200 equivalent in this area and the fact it weighs only 350g and will outperforms the Fuji when mounted on the GH4/Gx7/em1/em5 this is a very biased piece and you should be embarassed DPR! APS and m43 are now neck and neck in performance and to add the comment as a bit of an afterthought/aside is all a bit biased. Samsung Nx1 is unproven in any respect and the Fuji is a little suspect too.
@Advent1sam - Sigma, Pentax and Tokina all offered 70-200mm equivalent lenses for APS-C back in around 2007, so it's not fair to say Panasonic started this trend.
However, since the Panasonic follows the same logic as the lenses I'm discussing (albeit with a different size/image quality balance), I did include it. As such. I'm a little surprised by your criticism.
ryan2007: Did I miss the Panasonic 35-100 mm 2.8, that is a 70-200 equivalent. They were, to my knowledge, the first to do this.
peevee1 - that's also discussed.
Malikknows: Thanks much for this, Mr. Butler. You address evenhandedly a subject many of us are curious about. I do wish you had elaborated on your point here, though:
"The new lens I'm not mentioning here is the Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 Pro. This is because, although in one respect it's a very similar lens to the other ones I'm discussing, its effect on a Micro Four Thirds body is very different."
I'd like to hear your view on exactly what that effect is.
Hi Malikknows - thanks for your comment. I've added a note into that section to stress that the 80-300mm equivalent range makes it a rather different creature. It's the range, rather than the equivalent aperture that makes me think of it as different.
JoEick: This article is very misleading.
If the point of the article is to tell the reader how a 50-150 works similar on APS-C to 70-200 on full frame, then there needs to be more thought put into equivalent apertures.
You need f2.8 on crop to roughly equal f4 on full frame. The Fuji f2.8 zoom has no meaningful size or weight savings over a Canon 70-200 f4.
Until we see more f1.8 and f2.0 zooms for APS-C, there is nothing that compares in light gathering for full frame f2.8.
There is no free lunch when it comes to light, physics, and lenses.
This article is about the lens choices you have *if* you are one of the very large numbers of people who own an APS-C camera , and why it makes more sense (to me) to buy lenses that are designed for the format you shoot. That's why it only talks about equivalent apertures when it's explicitly making comparisons to other formats.
I've added the following sentence, near the beginning, in the hope of clarifying that:
"Like any format, APS-C offers a particular size/image quality balance, so it surely makes sense to seize as much of that size benefit as possible and use lenses designed with this in mind."
Wes Syposz: this is getting sillier all the time, nobody talks about image creation and creativity, the equivalency of F-stop at different format is for calculating DOF and nothing to do with the metering system, if one wants to change the DOF, all one has to do is to change the distance to the photographed subject, problem with so called BOKEH, chose different background, too much silly discussion, reminds me of Monty Python episode Department of silly walks...
That's precisely why the only place it's discussed in this article is where I'm talking about other formats (because that's the only time it's relevant).