Prime lens comparision, Mirrorless compacts (NX, Nex, M43)

So, as I've been looking into the various compact mirrorless options out there, I've compiled a list of 35mm/FF equivalent focal lengths and apertures for each of the main 4 companies. I've also included size(rough), and price.

This is calculated on the basis that APS-C gives you a 1.5x crop and 1 stop wider DOF, and M4/3rds gives you 2.0x crop and 2 stops wider DOF. Please correct me if this is wrong, and I can update the spreadsheet.

I would also be interested in adding any more rumored lenses from Oly/Pana/Sony, I've got the three rummored Samsung primes, which look fairly likely to be released at this point. Or if I'm simply missing any primes.

Some interesting observations:

A. Samsung's 30mm 2.0 lens gives a roughly equivalent crop(45 vs 50) and aperture as Panasonic's much more expensive 25mm 1.4.

B. Same for Samsung's 16mm vs Oly's 12mm, the Samsung also has a larger equivalent aperture as well, again for much less money.

C. Samsung has the same amount of pancake prime lenses as Oly and Panasonic combined. So much for the notion that M4/3rds gives you smaller lenses. With a 4th (55mm) in production.
D. Sony's prime lens lineup is sad.

To me, when considering a compact mirrorless system, primes and more specifically pancake primes are the most import factor. Actual focal length and aperture is also extremely important. I know this isn't the case for everyone, but I figured some like minded people may find this entertaining.

I don't see the Pana/Leica 45mm f2.8 Macro on the list.

Hi,

Thanks for the effort. I think this is a worthwhile exercise. However...

I find columns B & C not particularly useful, and misleading (partially just plain wrong). Wouldn't it have been better to form a single column and list the 24x36 equivalent focal length and aperture (for equivalent DOF)? That way we could skim down the column and compare all lenses easily. The way you have set up your table, we use either column C or D depending on whether the camera is m43 or APS-C, and the other column is, I am afraid to say, just rubbish.

Regards,

Geoff.

Geoff-san said:

Hi,

Thanks for the effort. I think this is a worthwhile exercise. However...

I find columns B & C not particularly useful, and misleading (partially just plain wrong). Wouldn't it have been better to form a single column and list the 24x36 equivalent focal length and aperture (for equivalent DOF)? That way we could skim down the column and compare all lenses easily. The way you have set up your table, we use either column C or D depending on whether the camera is m43 or APS-C, and the other column is, I am afraid to say, just rubbish.

Regards,

Geoff.

Click to expand...

Could you please explain how the information there is wrong, misleading, and rubbish? Its not really that helpful to just say something is wrong, without an explanation as to why.

I see what you're saying about only listing the FF equivalent numbers, I'll look into doing that as it should be less cluttered.

Here, this should make it a lot more readable. Also added Panasonic 45mm macro.

EarthQuake said:

Could you please explain how the information there is wrong, misleading, and rubbish? Its not really that helpful to just say something is wrong, without an explanation as to why.

The FF equivalent information is clearly listed in column A, the entire dataset is in relation to FF. So the Samsung 30mm 2.0 lens, would be a 30mm 2.0 lens on fullframe. Unless I'm not understanding your suggestion?

Click to expand...

Hi EarthQuake,

It was just some constructive criticism, that's all. I shall explain.

You have listed the actual focal lengths and maximum apertures in column A which is fine. (If you call that full-frame I'll leave that up to you.)

It would be useful to compare the focal lengths and max apertures (for DOF reasons) directly, so you have created columns B & C. However the labelling of them is misleading. The column headed M4/3rds is actually the 24x36mm (some would say full-frame) equivalent of the Olympus and Panasonic lenses you have listed, though this column is garbage for the APS-C lenses (it has no meaning).

Similarly the column headed APS-C is actually the 24x36mm equivalent of the Samsung and Sony lenses, and is garbage for the M4/3rds lenses (as it again has no meaning).

You should have made just one column from Samsung and Sony column C and Olympus and Panasonic column B and headed it something like "24x36 equivalent focal lengths and apertures for DOF".

Regards,

Geoff.

The new list makes more sense, and definitely shows that Samsung has a really strong lineup of lenses, at least on paper. They also seem to perform well in the real world. It's the main reason I invested in the NX system.

EarthQuake said:

So, as I've been looking into the various compact mirrorless options out there, I've compiled a list of 35mm/FF equivalent focal lengths and apertures for each of the main 4 companies. I've also included size(rough), and price.

This is calculated on the basis that APS-C gives you a 1.5x crop and 1 stop wider DOF, and M4/3rds gives you 2.0x crop and 2 stops wider DOF. Please correct me if this is wrong, and I can update the spreadsheet.

I would also be interested in adding any more rumored lenses from Oly/Pana/Sony, I've got the three rummored Samsung primes, which look fairly likely to be released at this point. Or if I'm simply missing any primes.

Some interesting observations:

A. Samsung's 30mm 2.0 lens gives a roughly equivalent crop(45 vs 50) and aperture as Panasonic's much more expensive 25mm 1.4.

B. Same for Samsung's 16mm vs Oly's 12mm, the Samsung also has a larger equivalent aperture as well, again for much less money.

C. Samsung has the same amount of pancake prime lenses as Oly and Panasonic combined. So much for the notion that M4/3rds gives you smaller lenses. With a 4th (55mm) in production.
D. Sony's prime lens lineup is sad.

To me, when considering a compact mirrorless system, primes and more specifically pancake primes are the most import factor. Actual focal length and aperture is also extremely important. I know this isn't the case for everyone, but I figured some like minded people may find this entertaining.

Click to expand...

I don't see the point of the 20mm pancake- considering only f2.8 aperture, it's kind of redundant in its focal length and doesn't offer much advantage.

I notice a lot of the Samsung lenses you posted were rumored ones from a lens roadmap for 2012, aka not released yet. maybe next year you can post this; for now Samsung is still behind M4/3, not to mention they don't have nearly as many zooms so it's not like M4/3 is on equal footing with Samsung in terms of lens offerings.

But yes, Samsung is looking to be a solid player.

jj74e said:

EarthQuake said:

So, as I've been looking into the various compact mirrorless options out there, I've compiled a list of 35mm/FF equivalent focal lengths and apertures for each of the main 4 companies. I've also included size(rough), and price.

This is calculated on the basis that APS-C gives you a 1.5x crop and 1 stop wider DOF, and M4/3rds gives you 2.0x crop and 2 stops wider DOF. Please correct me if this is wrong, and I can update the spreadsheet.

I would also be interested in adding any more rumored lenses from Oly/Pana/Sony, I've got the three rummored Samsung primes, which look fairly likely to be released at this point. Or if I'm simply missing any primes.

Some interesting observations:

A. Samsung's 30mm 2.0 lens gives a roughly equivalent crop(45 vs 50) and aperture as Panasonic's much more expensive 25mm 1.4.

B. Same for Samsung's 16mm vs Oly's 12mm, the Samsung also has a larger equivalent aperture as well, again for much less money.

C. Samsung has the same amount of pancake prime lenses as Oly and Panasonic combined. So much for the notion that M4/3rds gives you smaller lenses. With a 4th (55mm) in production.
D. Sony's prime lens lineup is sad.

To me, when considering a compact mirrorless system, primes and more specifically pancake primes are the most import factor. Actual focal length and aperture is also extremely important. I know this isn't the case for everyone, but I figured some like minded people may find this entertaining.

Click to expand...

I don't see the point of the 20mm pancake- considering only f2.8 aperture, it's kind of redundant in its focal length and doesn't offer much advantage.

I notice a lot of the Samsung lenses you posted were rumored ones from a lens roadmap for 2012, aka not released yet. maybe next year you can post this; for now Samsung is still behind M4/3, not to mention they don't have nearly as many zooms so it's not like M4/3 is on equal footing with Samsung in terms of lens offerings.

But yes, Samsung is looking to be a solid player.

Click to expand...

IMO The point of the 20mm is simply choice, I think choice is generally a good thing. I would prefer 16mm, 24mm and 35/40mm over 16/20/30 though.

Aas I stated I would love to add some rumored lenses for other brands too, as all these systems are fairly immature, and investing into a system like this you've got to look at what is coming down the pipe in the future.

I think if we only look at Samsung's released primes they still have an excellent lineup, there isn't really an area you can point to and say one of the other 3 are miles ahead IMO. For instance, there isn't a fast 35mm equiv or 200mm equiv for M4/3rds currently, even though there are more M4/3rds lens, a few of them are pretty redundant as well. So even if you're not considering those lenses, Samsung stacks up well. The Oly 45mm 1.8 is a very attractive lens that Samsung doesn't really offer yet though. The 55mm 1.8 if it turns out to be true, would seemingly be a good match for it however.

So yes, its easy to say I'm counting rumored lenses and that makes Samsung look better than it actually is, and yes, that is accurate. However I would love to add some rumored lenses from the other 3, if anyone has any links, I just haven't been able to find the information myself.

Again, only counting pancakes, Samsung has the same number as the two M4/3rds manufactures combined. As stated in my original post, with a compact mirrorless system pancakes are the most important type of lens to me.

I'm personally not interested in zooms, if I'm going to use a large zoom lens, I might as well just shoot with my Sony APS-C DSLR. But I'm sure there is interest from other people on that front, and you're more than welcome to write up a comparison of zoom lenses.

Geoff-san said:

Geoff-san said:

Could you please explain how the information there is wrong, misleading, and rubbish? Its not really that helpful to just say something is wrong, without an explanation as to why.

The FF equivalent information is clearly listed in column A, the entire dataset is in relation to FF. So the Samsung 30mm 2.0 lens, would be a 30mm 2.0 lens on fullframe. Unless I'm not understanding your suggestion?

Click to expand...

Hi EarthQuake,

It was just some constructive criticism, that's all. I shall explain.

You have listed the actual focal lengths and maximum apertures in column A which is fine. (If you call that full-frame I'll leave that up to you.)

It would be useful to compare the focal lengths and max apertures (for DOF reasons) directly, so you have created columns B & C. However the labelling of them is misleading. The column headed M4/3rds is actually the 24x36mm (some would say full-frame) equivalent of the Olympus and Panasonic lenses you have listed, though this column is garbage for the APS-C lenses (it has no meaning).

Similarly the column headed APS-C is actually the 24x36mm equivalent of the Samsung and Sony lenses, and is garbage for the M4/3rds lenses (as it again has no meaning).

You should have made just one column from Samsung and Sony column C and Olympus and Panasonic column B and headed it something like "24x36 equivalent focal lengths and apertures for DOF".

Regards,

Geoff.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your explanation, looking back at it now I see how confusing it was and you're right, it didn't really make any sense. There was some logic going on in my head there that made sense to me, but It didn't translate into the spreadsheet.

I wanted to provide a look at what X lens would be, in FF terms, on either APS-C or M4/3rds, that was the logic there, but obviously that's not particularly useful as well as overly complicated and that thought process wasn't communicated either.

are you drunk in fact when you use the olympus 12 mm F2 if you count light with a sekonic it will SAY YOU :F2 !!! so what are this crazy counts?
just for lost time and internet band?

I think you need to break out FF equivalent FOV and DOF into separate columns. To say, for instance, that the Olympus 45 1.8 is equivalent to a FF 90 3.5 is misleading. It has a FOV equivalent to a 90 mm FF lens, a DOF equivent to a FF 90 3.6, but the light-gathering ability of the 1.8 lens it actually is.

EarthQuake said:

Here, this should make it a lot more readable. Also added Panasonic 45mm macro.

Click to expand...

Also, your chart doesn't take into account the primes made for m4/3 by third-party lens makers. These range from what are basically rebranded CCTV lenses with integral m4/3 mounts to high-end manual primes. Offhand I don't know who has compiled such a list, but I bet it exists.

Some omissions I can name are the Panasonic 12.5mm 3D lens and the manual Nokton 25 0.95, as well as budget lenses like the SLRMagic 25 and 35mm lenses and the toy lomo lens in m4/3 mount.

I believe there's a Holga and a couple of other third party MF lenses for NX, too. Saw an interesting Fisheye on ebay... And of course all the mirrorless cams have a full assortment of legacy adapter mounts. I can see why OP would keep the list to AF native mount stuff.

ZZ9 said:

are you drunk in fact when you use the olympus 12 mm F2 if you count light with a sekonic it will SAY YOU :F2 !!! so what are this crazy counts?
just for lost time and internet band?

Click to expand...

mmm... the same misconception.

The aperture is (roughly) a measure of photons per second per area. If you double the time you double the number of photons. If you double the area, you also double the number of photons.

for the picture, you need photons,so and "f2" per se is not particularly useful for comparisons, that's why when you compare different areas, you use an "equivalent f number".

sensibill said:

I believe there's a Holga and a couple of other third party MF lenses for NX, too. Saw an interesting Fisheye on ebay... And of course all the mirrorless cams have a full assortment of legacy adapter mounts. I can see why OP would keep the list to AF native mount stuff.

Click to expand...

Right, I'm not interested in doing this for MF lenses, then I would need to compile a list of the thousands of legacy 35mm MF lenses as well, as as far as I know, most of the c-mount/converted c-mount lenses aren't exclusive to one system or another.

So I will stick to AF lenses, first party, third party(sigma, tamron, etc) but not MF lenses that you can use on most/any system(s).

ZZ9 said:

are you drunk in fact when you use the olympus 12 mm F2 if you count light with a sekonic it will SAY YOU :F2 !!! so what are this crazy counts?
just for lost time and internet band?

Click to expand...

As noted in my first post, the aperture is included for depth of field considerations. Maybe you should read up a bit on depth of field vs sensor size if you dont know the difference between an F2 lens on M4/3rds and an F2 lens on APS-C or 35mm/FF sensor.

jgardia said:

The aperture is (roughly) a measure of photons per second per area. If you double the time you double the number of photons. If you double the area, you also double the number of photons.

for the picture, you need photons,so and "f2" per se is not particularly useful for comparisons, that's why when you compare different areas, you use an "equivalent f number".

Click to expand...

Maybe a better expression would be photons per pixel? Given the same number of mega-pixels, an "f2" lens would be collecting more light per picture element on a larger sensor than that of a smaller sensor. Sometimes, smaller sensor cameras attempt to compensate by reducing the resolution (say 10MP). And sometimes larger sensor cameras give up some of their advantage to gain resolution (e.g. 20MP in NX200 and 24MP in NEX-7). Good image processing can minimize the hit, but from what I can see, the tradeoff is there.