Yes from a view of field point you are right, however you might use the 150mm F2 more like the 200mm F2 from a shooting point of view.
If dimensions don't really give you a sense, then why did you title your original post "How big is the 150mm f/2?"
of where one would need a 300mm equivalent lens at low-level angle, and if they do, how tripod collar would hinder it. Would it be like shooting macro?
For FF, would raising ISO leave the shutter speed as high? It seems it would, but I am not sure now. And then if you max out on a bright sunny day, could you still slow the shutter down on 4/3rds? I mean without over-exposing the shot? Again something tells me it is not always possible, can you expand on the subject?
Probably? But to be equivalent would not Oly need to be a F/1.4 and not F/2?
You still manage to fail as a photographer. Your meaningless FF vs. 4/3 rants prove useless in these otherwise helpful debates. Why don't you share some images which prove your point? The case you're speaking of exists once in a photographer's lifetime.
This is true and there is no way around it.
I actually compared E-620 + 150/2 vs. D700 + 300/4 and aside from DR and noise difference they were hard to tell apart (both wide open). There were still some problems (because of E-620 strange ISO-settings) so I didn't post the results, but I will once I sort them out.
Don't we all?
I think you have mistaken me for someone else. I was not clear on what the poster said, so I responded with question, to keep the debate (debate?) helpful.
I have no point to prove, that's the whole point. So I asked.
Now you got me all but confused, what case was I speaking about?
I often remove the collar so it would not bulge the lens up when in a bag. More often I put it upwards, till when it is needed again, i.e. the lens is used. So you shoot 50-200 with ex25 from hand? I would not even trust the most of the tripods for it. Sure wow.
Indeed.
Agreed.
My bad, I did not think of APS-C for some reason. I think the comparisons above were also made against FF. But then I would say for 300/2.8 on APS-C the 150 is a tad too short on 4/3rds, don't you know
.What I am not comparing is the intensity of light, but total light methinks would be about the same through 2.8 on FF as 1.4 on 4/3rds. Or not?
When all summed up, really, how does it do it?
True. But is it a sole reason to buy F/2 lens, so it can be stopped down? On a bright sunny day I often see F/2.8 scratching 1/8000 shutter limit, especially when photographing back-lit subjects, like flowers and such. Would not F/2 be outside this limit then?
The Nikon 200mm f/2 is an inch longer and a pound and a half heavier than my Tokina 300mm f/2.8. This is my 150mm f/2 next to the Tokina:
I use the 50-200mm and EX-25 hand-held for butterfly stalking and it is a great combination (thanks to the effectiveness of IS).
someone posted a comparison shot on these forums between an E-3 + 150/2 vs a D700 + 300mm/4, there was very little to choose between them, found the thread
...on what you mean by "usability in low light". In terms of noise, FF has two stops better noise performance than 4/3, so, for example, f/2 ISO 400 on 4/3 and f/4 ISO 1600 on FF will result in the same noise, so the equivalence holds in terms of DOF, noise, and shutter speed.
Pretty common really. This was taken with the 150 F2 + 1.4 TC,
You want less DOF then a 150mm @ F2?
--
