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

Started Nov 8, 2013 | Discussions thread
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: Understand why the earlier 4/3 lenses were so large, and the current ones aren't

CharlesB58 wrote:

TrapperJohn wrote:

For a more accurate size comparison, use the µ43 size optimized lenses like the 45 1.8, 75 1.8, 12-40 constant F2.8, 12-35 constant F2.8, 20 1.7, 17 1.8, etc... they are very small for what they can do.

The m43 size benefits comes from its crop factor, just as a camera with 1/2.3" sensor can deliver a 35-600mm (equiv) f/2.8 zoom range, again due to crop factor. But, we could also compare lens sizes and weight by focal length (not equiv.).

Minolta 35-105 f/3.5-4.5 N, a full frame lens for example, was 60mm long, with 55mm filter size and weighed 290g. Whereas, Panasonic 35-105 f/2.8, a m43 lens, is 100mm long with 58mm filter size and weighs 360g. The Panasonic, of course, offers constant f/2.8 zoom which would account for the size gains but the point is ultimately with focal length itself, rather than equivalent FL.

Bad comparison. The Minolta lens doesn't have an af motor inside, whereas the Panasonic zoom does. It's not weather sealed. And that constant, larger aperture is a huge difference.

Try again...

Neither would play a significant role in size/weight.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 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