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

Started Apr 2, 2014 | Discussions thread
jennajenna Senior Member • Posts: 1,462
Re: Why not a 12-35 F1.8 - F2.8?

Anders W wrote:

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 doesn't mean that the former can be constructed to be as small, light, and optically good as the latter. From a lens design point of view, the former is a more challenging task than the latter.

Hold on there Anders, What are you saying - that a 2.8 on a m43 is "equivalent" to 5.6 on full frame ON THE QUANTITY OF TOTAL LIGHT COMING IN?

Do you mean it's the "same" - first off the word equivalent is a lawyers word. It's either the "same" or "not the same".

But back to what you said - I was informed that 2.8 on m43 lets in the SAME amount of light as 2.8 on a full frame. The difference is in depth of field and difrraction; but mainly depth of field.

Now it seems you are suggesting total light comes into a m43 less at the same aperture as bigger sensors.

Can you clarify.

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