Why not a 12-35 F1.8 - F2.8?

Started Apr 2, 2014 | Discussions thread
JeanPierre Martel Veteran Member • Posts: 3,076
Re: Why not a 12-35 F1.8 - F2.8?

Anders W wrote:

superstar905 wrote:

You are probably right. Can you explain in simple terms, or perhaps point me to a resource?

The fact that a 12-35/1.8-2.8 for MFT is equivalent to a 24-70/3.5-5.6 on FF with regard to total light on the sensor, DoF, and diffraction

In the XIXth Century, big Daguerreotypes needed long exposure time in order to collect enough light.

Even taking account the influence of the total amount of light on the picture noise, most of m4/3 users couldn't care less that the big FF sensors need more light than m4/3 sensor because they are bigger. That's their problem.

What we care about is the amount of light per mm2 on our sensor: a 12-35mm F/1,8-2,8 m4/3 lens will take a picture exactly as bright as a 24-70mm F/1,8-2,8 FF lens (not F/3,3-5,6). The angle of view and the brightness of the picture will be the same.

In other words, it will be the same photo except for the depth of field, bigger with a m4/3 lens. For FF users, that's an handicap: for me that's a huge advantage, especially in close-up photography.

If we look at the evolution of m4/3 lens, it goes in two opposite directions: brighter and heavier pro lenses on one side (F/2,8 zooms and F/1,4 primes for examples), and smaller and sharper consumer lens on the other (Lumix 12-32mm zoom, for example).

So let's be back at the original question in this thread: Why not even brighter zooms as the next step in the evolution of our gear?

 JeanPierre Martel's gear list:JeanPierre Martel's gear list
Olympus E-M5 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Leica Nocticron 42.5mm Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 Pro +23 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow