Size comparison of FE 4/2470 on A7 vs Olympus 12-40 f2.8 on GX7

Started Feb 6, 2014 | Discussions thread
Krich13 Contributing Member • Posts: 776
Re: Doesn't work like that

Erik Magnuson wrote:

Krich13 wrote:

Olympus can compete or even beat the FF setup in macro (a stabilized true 1:1 magnification native 60 mm lens – not bad, eh?)

Not that impressive. Sigma has 150 & 180mm stabilized macros with much more favorable working distances (38cm & 47cm working distances instead of slightly over 18cm)

38 and 47 cm are not working distances (not at 1:1 magnification anyway). Those the distance from the focal plane. Working distance is measured from the tip of the lens to subject at max. magnification. The 180 mm lens should have ~25 cm WD, 150 mm macro ~20 cm, 100 mm class 13-15 cm, Olympus 60 mm macro ~10 cm at 1:1.

However, sometimes it is more comfortable to work with insects using a 60 mm than my Tamron 90/2.8 despite the longer WD of the latter: thinner barrel of the 60 macro scares the little critters a lot less. Plus, it has higher effective magnification.

for Sony A, Nikon or Canon mount. Canon has the MP-E lens that goes from 1:1 to 5:1. You can use these on either FF or APS-C sensors since you think smaller is better for macro. Nikon and Canon also have flash systems designed for good macro lighting.

Yep. And those great huge macro lenses and their flash systems stay at home, while tiny 60 mm goes to the field with me. Been there, done that. Besides, I do use my Tamron 90 (Nikon mount) with Olympus when I need more working distance as well as on Nikon. MPE65 is a great lens, but very specialized and hugely expensive.

It can even compete on equal foot in portrait subject isolation (provided you can back off far enough) with its 75/1.8 lens against Nikon 85/1.8!

If you back off far enough to get the same framing, you lose the isolation equivalence. DOF increases with distance. For example: FF w/85mm f/1.8 @ 10ft: 0.44ft. MFT w/75mm f/1.8 @ 16ft 0.73ft.

That is correct, and I mentioned that 85 blurs more. However, the 75 is better corrected, and often produces better-looking portraits.

And of course FF has the option of 85mm f/1.2 or 135mm f/2 lenses or even 200mm f/2 if you want even less DOF.

Been there too. My Canon 135/2 used to stay at home…

If the FF user wants stabilized for this range, his 70-200mm f/2.8 will do better than the 150mm f/3.6 equiv of the Olympus. Much larger but also much more versatile.

Yes, I tried to use Canon 70-200/4 IS (not 2.8) instead of 75/1.8 .. far less keepers (may be because of the Canon inferior sensor) than with Oly 75. Besides, people notice a big white gun pointed at them far more than a little silver 75. I chose Tamron 70-200/2.8 (the old version) for my Nikon setup for its lowest-in-class weight… Still stays at home while Oly 12-40+75 combo goes to the field (I’m not even using the macro much anymore owing to the 12-40 excellent close-up abilities).

Both cover the same range for landscape photography.

Only if you ignore base ISO DR and stitch multiple shots to get the same resolution.

Yes, of course the DR is a huge advantage of FF. I will explore that more with Nikon D610 and with my new Sony no doubt. Resolution – I couldn’t care less. Either of them has more than enough for my needs.

In low-light photography of static subjects Olympus is likely better due to the fantastic efficiency of Oly IBIS -- despite some 2/3 of a stop disadvantage in light gathering.

You seem to forget the Zeiss zoom has OSS -- we'll need to see tests, but the advantage is very unlikely.

I didn’t forget it, but initial reports are very discouraging. I read of reasonable shutter speed around 1/40 s at 70 mm. Recalling that a day before I held 12-40 at 40 mm for 1/3 s and got a sharp photo made me laugh. Either something is very wrong with the 24-70 IS system, or with Sony shutter system or with both.

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