Olympus 12-40 easily beats the Canon 17-55 at f/2.8 (but not when stopped down).

Started Nov 3, 2013 | Discussions thread
LTZ470 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,926
Re: If you have experience

ultimitsu wrote:

LTZ470 wrote:

Pany 7-14/4

exact equivalent doesnt exist because no one would buy a 14-28 F8 lens. Tokina 16-28 is very close in overall FOV but 3 stops faster, all for less money. Then there is 14-24 or Samyang 14 F2.8 if you must have 14mm FOV.

Both very soft at f/2.8...

Not sure which "both" you were referring to. 14-24 is very sharp at F2.8, so sharp it made nikon's 14mm prime redundant.

16-28 isnt as sharp at F2.8, but plenty sharp enough for the situations you would use F2.8, certainly far better than any m43 at 16mm FOV at F2.8, let alone non-exstant F1.4.

The samyang could be soft, I cannot say, I was never interested in that lens. But you are comparing it to 7-14 F4, so by the time you stop the samyang down to F8, I am pretty sure it blows the panny at F4 out of water.

Oly 40-150/4-5.6

Oly 75/1.8

80-200 F2.8, but that is an overkill.

compare to Panny 35-100 photozone.de

1, anders asked for 40-150 + 75/1.8, why are you bringing in 35-100?

2, do compare 35-100 on pz.

The old nikon beats the panny 2.8 vs 2.8, blows it out of water 5.6 vs 2.8, all for 500 USD less.

Not from what I see on photozone.de....you're obviously talking about a different lens...

Nikkor AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED

Pany 100-300/4-5.6

Prove it…lets see your shots...

What do you want me to prove exactly?

The shots that you are claiming are better...but you won't, cause someone will post something to match it from m43...

Oh yeah, the "FL control" argument. Lets put it this way. If you actually shoot anything fast moving with long lens, a Canon 70D + 400 F5.6 or 100-400L is much more powerful in practice than any m43 body with any m43 telephoto lens.

Lol…compared to what, I have owned the Canon 7d and 100-400..HUGE and CUMBERSOME,

size and weight is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion. if you are really into BIF or other wildlife photography, 70D + 400/5.6 is one of the lightest set ups that can give you near pro-grade results.

and not that great…at $2500+

It depends on the age of 100-400, earlier ones werent very good, newer ones has tighter tolerance, several people in 550D and 7D forum have shown great results from this lens, check mailman88's images.

TOO HUGE and too LARGE without the camera...main reason I dropped mine, pain in the ar$e to carry and to use...100-300 Panny much better or FZ200 with TC...

and a 400 f/5.6 for $1340…a m43 100-300 is much much cheaper...

Of course it is, it is a much much lesser lens. despite its age and 1350 price tage, 400 F5.6 is still one of the best value BIF lens, easily one of the sharpest at 400mm, only beaten by canon's own 400 F4 and F2.8. easily one of the fastest AF 400m, matched only by other canon 400mm primes.

But given its age, it is pretty easy to find very well maintained second hand examples for way less money.

TOO HUGE and TOO LARGE...specialized length, no fun hiking or biking with these lens, much less the cameras that go with them...

Most folks buy m43 for size and convenience…and the IQ is very comparable to 7D...

I am talking about 70D, 7D is a 4 years old camera.

This one:

"The Canon EOS 70D delivers the smoothest Live View focus we've seen in a traditional D-SLR, but it can struggle to lock that focus in dim light."

-- hide signature --

--Really there is a God...and He loves you..
FlickR Photostream:
Mr Ichiro Kitao, I support the call to upgrade the FZ50.
I will not only buy one but two no questions asked...

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