4/3 has no focal length advantage-correct him if he is wrong

Started Nov 15, 2008 | Discussions thread
genotypewriter Veteran Member • Posts: 4,846
Re: IF you want

Rriley wrote:

genotypewriter wrote:

Rriley wrote:

Oh btw, some Zuiko lenses are heavier than the 35mm counter parts.

and they would be pro lenses right?

Pro lenses incorporate something that might be intangible to outsiders
....a quality build.

Well I've used some of the oly "pro" lenses, 150 2, 300 2.8, 90-250... heavy, slow and good for securing tents in windy camp sites.

heh lets look at that...

150/2, (300 EFL) 1350g v/s 300/2.8 IS 2.550g

No... it's like a 300 f/4.

300/2.8, (600 EFL) 3290g v/s Canon EF 600mm 5,360g

Point 1: No again, it's like a 600 f/5.6

Point 2: A 300mm lens is a 300mm lens. The canon version has in-lens IS, fast USM, 4 additional elements and 2 more groups over the zuiko and is still 750g lighter. That's the joke here.

90-250/2.8 (180-500 EFL) 3270g v/s well you dont actually have one
there, what about a slower non IS 500mm/4 prime at 3,870g

Point 1: It's like a 180-500 f/5.6... the 200-400 f/4 VR is the same weight and price

Point 2: A 500 f/4 is only 1 stop slower but has 2 or more stops of a noise advantage.

... heavy, slow and good for securing tents in windy camp sites.

v/s heavier slower canon lenses, just think, you could have a bigger
tent with those canon lenses..., now i see why you have them

Oh please... so all those white lenses that deliver results are actually dressed up zuikos I guess.

In pro use, there is less need for being lightweight, it is a lesser
consideration against the rest of the featureset and quality required.

No so... a lighter lens can be handheld much more easily... oly
doesn't deliver here the way it said.

speaking of handholding, i see all these wishes for IS in canon
bodies over at the canon forum.

It's always best if one knows what they're talking about. Yes, Canon users do wish in-body stabilisation... but not instead of in-lens stabilisation. There's a big difference there, did you know?

Certain lenses like the 85 1.2 have massive amounts of glass moving around inside and so in-lens stabilisation is infeasible with such designs. So instead of no-stabilisation, it's better if there's any stabilisation.

So i guess i would have to agree with
you here, the Zuiko lenses are lighter for the same FL, and easier to
handhold b/se of that and the fact that there is a choice of bodies
that have IS.............thanks for your support !

Olympus lied when it said they're making lighter, fast focusing lenses. Apart from being much heavier than their 35mm counterparts (e.g. zuiko 300 2.8 vs. canon 300 2.8 IS), Oly also makes them with bigger apertures to compensate for the sensor noise which in turn makes the lenses twice and four times as heavy as they should be.

GTW
--
http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
vor
vor
BJL
BJL
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow