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

Started Apr 2, 2014 | Discussions thread
s_grins Forum Pro • Posts: 12,053
Re: Why not a 12-35 F1.8 - F2.8?

MAubrey wrote:

JeanPierre Martel wrote:

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 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.

...except depth of field and noise. Noise is dictated by total light, not density of light.

Beyond that, it isn't really a handicap. The vast majority of shooting conditions there's sufficient light to use a smaller aperture. What's a handicap is being force to stop down a μ43 lens when f/1.4 is the DOF you want but you can't use it because the mid-day sun is too bright...conditions where f/2.8 on FF would have been perfectly fine. Now...if μ43 actually started providing good low ISO, that'd be solved, but we're stuck with ISO200 and fake ISO100.

-- hide signature --


Your gallery does not confirm that you're stuck with ISO200. I saw lots of fine shots



-- hide signature --

Camera in bag tends to stay in bag...

 s_grins's gear list:s_grins's gear list
Panasonic G85 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Sigma 30mm F2.8 EX DN Sigma 60mm F2.8 DN Art Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-140mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH. / Power O.I.S +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow