I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true

Started Nov 8, 2013 | Discussions thread
Promit Senior Member • Posts: 2,009
Re: I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true

The older 4/3 lenses you picked were widely panned for their size, and rightfully so. Olympus picked a smaller format and reaped little or no benefit from it.

The current m4/3 lenses are very small though, and it's a combination of three things:

  1. Smaller format
  2. Small flange distance
  3. Software correction

It's all of those, together, plus a bit of modern design technique, that gives m4/3 lenses their size and weight advantage. Leaving distortion and CA in the capture and fixing them in software means less glass elements and lighter glass elements. The small flange distance reduces the need for retrofocal designs.

Keep in mind that a lot of the compact old lenses for SLRs were built for much less exacting standards of film. Lower resolution, MUCH less "pixel peeping", less well corrected designs with more flaring, often no autofocus, distortion, vignetting, not to mention no need for telecentricity.

 Promit's gear list:Promit's gear list
Sony a77 II Sony Alpha a7R II Sony a99 II Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX +7 more
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