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

Started Apr 2, 2014 | Discussions thread
s_grins
s_grins Forum Pro • Posts: 12,359
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.

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

Cheers

S.

-- 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