oklaphotog
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,093
- Reaction score
- 648
The 14-35 any day of the week, if the OMD has a grip on it. There is no comparison between those lenses optics wise. The 12-35 is a turd in comparison. The 14-35 may be big, but it is F2.0 which means a better shutter speed for many which is important.
I think a more valid comparison would be the 12-60 vs. 12-35. The 12-60 has more range, is far better optically, and in between in size. There is also the 14-54.
But lets go in a different direction. What about the 300/2.8? it's a fraction of the size of a 600/4 on FF. A 600/4 on FF is just as goofy size wise as a 300/2.8 would be on an OMD w/grip. But the whole package would be MUCH smaller.
It seems people always compare normalish types of lenses when it comes to m4/3 and size. The reality is that m4/3 doesn't have a huge size advantage over small entry level aps-c dslr bodies and small primes. Yeah it's smaller and lighter than the dslr equiv, but both are not heavy or big enough to be a burden. Where 4/3 and m4/3 really shine size wise is ultra tele and ultrawide. it's the extreme focal lengths where things start getting truly big and heavy.
I want something fairly fast with good AF-C tracking ability that can use lenses like the 50-200, 300/2.8 etc. I don't care if it uses OVF or EVF. I want the ability to use these lenses that are better than anyone elses, on a body that has good noise control and DR, which the OMD's sensor system has.
The HG and SHG lenses are the best that exist from anyone. I've always wanted to use them. Now that 4/3 sensors have performance that is good enough for most all uses... They shouldn't abandon these awesome pieces of glass. Except for the exotic Oly primes like the 12,45, and 75mm lenses, there isn't anything for m4/3 that comes close to the better 4/3 lenses. The 75-300 Oly and Panny 100-300 lenses are a joke in comparison to something like the 50-200 and the 50-200 is a fair bit smaller than a 100-400L.
