Oh, Hi Pete!
Hey all -- longtime Nikon user here (D800E), recently decided to downsize to an E-M5II and a small set of Olympus lenses (including the 12-40 and 40-150). I'm very happy so far with that decision - smaller camera bags, smaller lighter lenses that are still excellent, high res mode when needed, etc.
One thing that has me really confused is the new 300/4 lens. Yes, it's getting great reviews, but I thought the whole point of m43 was smaller and lighter?
Yes. M4/3 gives you the option to go smaller and lighter.
At the cost of less DOF control, more noise and more diffraction blur in most shooting situations (but not shooting situations constrained WRT
both DOF and shutter speed in the range of an m43 lens). This is a cost a lot of people are or should be willing to pay.
My EM1 with 14-150 gives me a walkaround camera which is a fraction of the size and weight of my old D800 with a lens of the same focal length range on it. The latest pro lenses also give you the additional option to go long with extremely high quality glass if you wish.
Even opting for the pro lens options gives a significant saving in weight:
My D800 kit (with vertical grip) consisted of 14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200f2.8, 80-400AFS, Sigma 150 macro and SB910 flash. The kit was so bulky I could only carry it in a camera rucksack and when fully loaded that weighed just under 9kg.
My EM1 kit (with vertical grip) consists of 7-14 f2.8, 12-40 f2.8, 40-150 f2.8, 75-300, 60mm macro and FL600 flash. This fits into a relatively small shoulder bag which when fully loaded weighs just under 3.5kg.
Well of course it is "expected and not confusing" that the Olympus kit weighs a lot less than the listed Nikon kit, for the same reason it is not surprising that the Oly 300mm f/4 weighs about the same as a Nikon or Canon conventional 300mm f/4. The Oly is far less capable. Compare like to like and the size and weight differences become immaterial. In fact you can often get superior performance out of a Nikon (or Canon) kit at similar size and weight of lenses.
If you were to substitute the Nikkor 16-35mm f/4 VR, the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR, the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR and the TC-20E II for the first four Nikkors you listed, you'd find that you had four lenses that covered the same range as the Olympus kit (except 7mm) usually with the option of less DOF, noise and diffraction blur at any given FoV, less need to change lenses because of the focal range overlaps, and higher image sharpness at almost all FoV/DoF combinations (measured in lw/ph) on the D800 than you get with the first four Oly lenses on the E-M1. (Well, maybe not
your D800, Pete. Didn't you say you had a poor copy?) Oh, and the four Nikkor lenses would weigh less in total than those four Oly lenses (by an insignificant amount).
If Nikon bothered to make FF lenses as limited in shooting envelope as even the Oly "PRO" lenses, they'd probably be smaller and lighter. Even Nikon's kit grade lenses like the 24-85 VR, can get superior results on current FF sensors compared to Oly's best on an E-M1. (I don't think the Nikon kit lens on 24MP sensors can quite match an Oly PRO lens on the new 20MP Panasonic body, but it surpasses the Pany when mounted on D8x0).)
Yes, Oly lenses are optically sharper than Nikkors wide open, but when you stop down a Nikkor kit like the 24-85 to equivalent DoF and put it in front of a 36MP FF sensor, the Nikon system usually produces a sharper image. And if you don't stop it down quite so far, it produces less noise and less diffraction blur, which also affects perception of sharpness.
Here are a few numbers for comparison:
Olympus 300/4 PRO: 52 ounces, 93mm wide, 227mm long
Nikon 300/4 AF-S: 51 ounces, 89mm wide, 224mm long
Nikon 300/4 PF VR: 27 ounces, 89mm wide, 148mm long
This is completely as expected and totally NOT confusing. The Olympus and Nikon lenses are very similar dimensions and weights, particularly when you consider the Olympus has IS built in to it. The latest Nikon is not a conventional optical lens and like any Phase Fresnel lens offers significant size and weight savings at the expense of slight image quality restrictions over what is possible with a conventional design.
There will never be significant size advantages with telephoto lenses of similar focal length unless a totally different optical approach is used (e.g. Phase Fresnel). The main saving in size and weight will come with the normal or wide angle focal lengths.
Mostly correct. M43 already offers size and weight advantages in telephoto lenses when those lenses have narrower maximum aperture diameters than FF lenses of similar focal length.
But as I demonstrated earlier. M4/3s continues to offer significant size and weight savings for the system as a whole. It now offers long, wide aperture telephoto lenses as well.
All my dSLR lenses have wider maximum aperture diameter at same FoV as your listed m43 lenses. Since my main reasons for shooting wide open are trying to limit DoF and/or maximize light on the sensor, I have a hard time thinking of m43 f/2.8 lenses as being "wide aperture". They cannot do what I want a wide aperture to do.
)