Olympus introduces M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 'Pro' zoom

Don't feed the troll...

Do people think the sole purpose of aperture is DOF? For feffs sake please drop it. I consider having a stop faster for the purpose of achieving exposures over DOF control any day. If the DOF of a m43 vs Apsc vs whatever else is concerning you, go buy a FF camera and end this calculating the equivalents which mean nothing till go go out and actually take some photos. You want DOF? Go buy a Leica with 50/1 lens.

I'd say the Zuiko 12-40 F2.8 is at least in a class above the Sony 16-70 F4. Better IQ, faster, quicker AF and weather sealed completely.

Speed and depth of field is different...

oooh look, another equivalence comment... my surprise-o-meter is registering at 0.1%.

indeed, it's not fast enough. until we have f/-2 on m4/3 we won't be able to take decent photos.

Funny you never heard the Equivalence Police commenting on how brilliant Sigma's 18-35 f/1.8 APS-C lens is, and how it gives the same DOF as all those f/2.8 FF lenses.

same goes for the 17-55 F2.8 is never bright for APS-c since its just a 27-80 f4 on a FF tsk tsk

AND that sumbitch wont fit in my pocket!

Not sure what's surprising. Good ideas are worth copying. I'm sure Olympus didn't invent the digital camera, nor the camera, nor lenses. Of course they're copying.

Apple copied Android's pull down from top because it was a good idea. They're copying Google Now's "time to home" because it's a good (though slightly creepy :P) idea.

Imitate and improve is how you get ahead. There can only be so much brand new ideas... and often those are still copied from nature etc.

@photo nuts - You can use any 90mm macro ever created for any camera system on M43. Like the OM Zuiko 90mm f2. Most people use manual focus for macro anyway...

He must have meant 90mm, not 90mm equivalent- otherwise, the 45 2.8 macro would work.

A 300mm f4 would make much more sense.

There's a four thirds 300 f2.8 prime. It's big and pricey.

insert facepalm here ^

Just hit yourself a little harder with your palm, then you will realise that f2.8=f2.8. Equivalent DEPTH OF FIELD to a FF f5.6 yes, but razor thin depth of field does not equal image quality

Wow, way to miss the painfully obvious sarcasm...

The old ff, apc, m43, 6x6, 5x4, 8x10 focal length/aperture/Dof trope! Why does it someone have to bring this up in every time a company not producing 35mm format camera makes a new lens, it's boring and we all get it. If resolution, depth of field control and in particular narrow depth of field is your main aim, quit promoting micro formats like FF and go out and buy yourself a 8x10 with a 300mm f5.6 standard lens!

Agentul, give up. Some people wouldn't recognize a sarcasm if it bit them on the leg.
Comments must be extremely serious, like announcing an attack on a foreign country or - preferably - informing someone a relative died.
And they must be written in such way that a 6 year old can fully understand it.
Also, this lens only resists to half the sand, cold and sprinkles a FF lens can stand. New equivalence theories here! Equivalent sand, equivalent cold, equivalent sprinkles. Yabokkie will have no end of fun calculating the possibilities.

Whats wrong with NEX cameras ? Most have a lot of metal in their build and the lenses are also all pretty sturdy. Not sure what sort of statement you are trying to make.

@agentul, Leica is a brand of the Jerry's. It's an absolute disgrace, that the Queen continues to ignore this fact!

You skipped right over APS-C to make a point, huh?

Bigger sensor, bigger gear. One size does not fit all.

Bigger sensor, bigger gear, bigger price, bigger ripoff, same visually discernible image quality at sub-mural size print and web outputs.

"You skipped right over APS-C to make a point, huh?"

Well a Nikon 17-55/2.8 costs $400 more and weighs twice as much.

2 Mirrorless Crusader :

You should have really written: "I can buy a huge and heavy 24-70 f/2.8 from Canon/Nikon/Sony for $2500 (and for $1200 from Canon, if you can still find version I) or a lightweight portable 24-80 f/5.6 equivalent from Olympus". Indeed a difficult choice, especially taking into account that for $1200+ you can buy say Canon 24-105 f/4. :)

If you think it's f/5.6 equivalent, take an image with the Olympus lens at f/2.8 and another with a FF lens at f/5.6 at the same shutter speed and ISO and tell me with a straight face that the two images have identical exposure values.

LOL! Nobody in their right mind will buy a f/5.6 standard range zoom, not to mention pay $1k for it.

Good thing this isn't an f/5.6 standard range zoom then.

>24-80 f/5.6 standard zoom
Actually, it's 2.8. The 5,6 is only the DOF equivalent.

@flipmac I think tkbslc was talking about Pentax.

also together with the sensor it's f/5.6 WRT low light performance, and diffraction. Cf. DXO.

Hmm indeed, as you aren't buying a 24-80 f/2.8 now are you, and the price reflects this. Rather than berate DSLR's just be happy m4/3 lens offerings just improved. Both systems are wonderful.

2 Mirrorless Crusader :
> take an image with the Olympus lens at f/2.8 and another with
> a FF lens at f/5.6 at the same shutter speed and ISO

Not the same ISO number of course :). On FF you'll use the corresponding ISO to get properly exposed image (4x higher ISO). Noise, DoF, AoV, and diffraction degradation of the image will be the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format#Sensor_size.2C_noise_and_dynamic_range

If your goals is to get the "same visually discernible image quality at sub-mural size print and web outputs", then why would you get a F/2.8 zoom for FF? Just get a F/5.6, shoot with two stops higher ISO, and hey presto, same visually discernible image quality what DR, SNR, DoF, you name it, is concerned. Or you can be a bigshot and get a Tamron 24-70mm F/2.8 VC and go toe to toe with m43 F/1.4 glass.

The only actual physical parameters in a lens are focal length, and the actual aperture. If you use an 'equivalent' focal length, then you have to use the same 'equivalent' focal length in calculating the aperture ratio. f = 40mm, a = 14mm, f/a = 2.8. feq = 80mm, a = 14mm, feq/a = 5.6.

You can get F/1.4 zooms for m43? And they're portable? If you're satisfied by F/5.6 on FF, and don't need the extra DR andvresolution at base ISO, then you can get the same on m43. But you tried to claim that you'd need a 2400€ F/2.8 zoom for FF to match the Oly, something's that's blatantly false. Oh, and I wouldn't exactly call the D600 stripped down.