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

Started Nov 15, 2008 | Discussions thread
Rriley
Rriley Forum Pro • Posts: 21,846
Re: IF you want

genotypewriter wrote:

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.

its 2.8 in terms of absolute exposure, without considering 'narrower dof', this isnt an equivalence issue, if you cancel the ticket on absolute exposure, you lose stops that give FF an advantage, you cant have it both ways

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

cancel that, if it isnt 2.8 you just lost FF advantage in stops

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.

yes bs/e YOUR system requires IS, Olympus gives you a choice of IS bodies

the systems are different, again you want to go FF you take the fall on what it can and cant offer

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

and its a full mile shorter in FL, you need 180-500, not 400

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

a lens doesnt have noise advantage, a body does, you agian what to cut it both ways, you want equivalence in lenses and you want to disregard absolute exposure elsewhere. F2.8 is F2.8 in terms of exposure on any system

... 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.

hey listen dink, you are the one that decided to denegrate Zuiko lenses

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?

the difference plainly is that with IS you have stabilisation on every lens, "did you know?". And there are stabilised lenses from Panasonic but not in these FL

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.

heh! and if you had IS it would be stabilised..........but you dont ! ha!

thats a system limitation bespoke, you dont seem to hold your own system as one having limitations yet you know what they are, to quote you earlier
"oly doesn't deliver here the way it said", well FF doesnt deliver here buddy

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

they dont need to be lighter at the same FL, you pick up a lens for what it does, not what it weighs against something else. Those lenses you quoted are clearly lighter than FF in the same FL, thats what it means...

(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.

heh, there you go playing both ways again, and they reach twice as far, you clearly cant add up sport. Is there room here for the mathematically challenged (?)

plainly what 2x suffers is 2 stops additional noise
but what it gains is 2x the reach, it really is as simple as that...

alternately look at it this way

you can take probably most of the MF lenses that will fit on 5D etc (FF) and use them on a 4/3 body, it will have twice the reach and half the dof. Use the same lens on 4/3rds and you get less dof

-- hide signature --

Riley

no one notices the contrast of white on white

 Rriley's gear list:Rriley's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Olympus E-3 Olympus E-5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 +1 more
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