-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Leaving m43 for full frame
- Thread starter NZ Scott
- Start date
You have a really nice m43 collection. I'd suggest keeping at least part of it on your adventure with FF. I find m43 and FF complement each other well and I'm sure you will miss m43 for some tasks if you sell everything.
--
http://www.leonardas.net
Last edited:
NZ Scott
Veteran Member
I think the macro and fisheye are two lenses I’d miss on full frame - I don’t think I could justify the cost of replacing them.
However, I no longer have an m43 body that is in full working condition so there’s little point in keeping the lenses.
S
S
If you haven't come across these guys https://phillipreeve.net/blog/fe-lenses-sony-comprehensive-independent-guide/ they are pretty solid and landscape biased.
This https://merely.xyz/lenses/ is a work in progress but you can sort the columns. Sorting by weight might be useful for you.
As a general rule any Sony more than 3 years old is either not that good, too expensive new for what it is, or heavier than its replacement. GM mk ii lenses are first class and expensive. G lenses can be optically excellent but focus slower than GM lenses (ie not full A1 fps in CAF-Tr). ZA lenses are older and only worth it if you like their character and buy used. The Zeiss Batis and Loxia lenses have character but are a mixed bag optically - pretty much like the ZA ones.
If you shoot landscape, the Sony 20/1.8 G is very well regarded for astro. The Loxia 21/2.8 has character and does wonderful sun stars (but is hard to handle). It can take a long time sorting through all the options deciding which lens is best. "Which 35mm?" is the famous Sony question with a set of well-worn answers. Lots of people like the Samyang 35/1.8 as light, cheap and good. I hated both copies of mine and swapped for the Sigma 35/2.
Andrew
I don’t really see the argument, tbh, regarding what you shoot and how an upgrade of GM5 is needed but not available.
regardless, I’m in the process of supplementing my setup with a Sony A7RV. The recent BILD Expo sale was an opportunity for me to bite.
I get 2 focal lengths in one body, so if I use the Sony 20/1.8, I also get a 30/2.7 in the same body with MP to spare.
I am also planning a cutoff around 100mm Ff FL. Though I may consider 150mm (Tamron 35-150/2-2.8). Though that’s a heavier lens.
My use case is really for planning for an upcoming trip next year, where I am desiring planned shots around sunrise and sunset. I feel I will likely need the extra light gathering capability of the FF. Now whether I can get up and around at 3-4am to maneuver to these spots, we’ll, that’s a desire and hopefully I can manage that in a foreign country.
Alson Tamron lenses are pretty light and relatively inexpensive for the optical quality and wider apertures. Plasticky, but light, and TBH not any different than many of my PL primes. My Oly Pro primes and zooms are different but also quite expensive.
where I am getting a bit stuck is on Zooms vs Primes. For M43, I tend to pack a bunch of primes and one or two general zooms. 8-25/4, 12-100/4, 14-140, and 1.7/1.4/1.2 primes.
For FF I am seriously considering just 2.8 zooms and might skip some primes, at least for now. But the 20/1.8 and the 85/1.8 seems like good buys. I haven’t decided on GM lenses yet, not sure I want that type of cash for little gain optically.
NZ Scott
Veteran Member
Messier Object
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 13,909
- Solutions
- 15
- Reaction score
- 14,947
”fool frame” ?
Been there, done that. I’m a dual system user.
You might want to check your assumptions again. My S5 with the Sigma 35mm f/2 is a LOT larger and heavier than my former G85 with the 17mm f/1.8. You could always go for the 45mm f/2.8, or another system with “true” pancakes, but you’ll either pay through the nose or lose some features. For instance, the 26mm f/2.8 Nikkor has a weird FL and is horribly expensive, whereas the Canon 28mm f/2.8 has no sealing and is 100% plastic (also, the IQ is pretty meh).
A 135 system will limit you mostly to f/2 or f/2.8 primes, if you value compactness, and it’ll still be larger and heavier.
This is where you make the real gains with a larger sensor. The Z5/6/7 with the 24-70mm f/4 are only a little larger than an OM-1 with the 12-40mm f/2.8, offer better raw image quality and also a stop more light gathering, for example. My S5 with the 20-60mm blows my former G9 with the 12-35mm f/2.8 out of the water (granted, I owned the old version of that lens, but still). Something like the Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 is simply unimaginable in MFT, a zoom that starts at f/1 and doesn’t require a wheelbarrow to cart around! But to be worth to you, you really have to want to use those zooms, because there ain’t no 12-32mm pancake to fall back on. You can get lenses with a shorter range and larger size, but no true equivalents.
It sounds to me like you should sample an inexpensive 135 body, maybe through renting or purchasing an older model. There’s plenty of inexpensive-ish options now, like the Sony A7III, Nikon Z5, Panasonic S5 and Canon RP.
no it is not . not all systems are large and heavy as panasonic S .
look here:
https://camerasize.com/compact/#858.928,913.383,902.951,ha,t
and here:
https://camerasize.com/compact/#858.928,913.383,902.951,ha,f
What is wrong with f2 on full frame? But anyway ,these primes are small and light, 120-280g :
F1.8:
Samyang 24mm ,35mm, 45mm,75mm.
Sony 35mm ,50mm, 55mm.
F2.5
Sony 40mm ,50mm .
F2.8
Sony 24mm ,35mm
Samyang 18mm ,24mm ,35mm
Tamron 20mm ,24mm ,35mm
Sigma 45mm ,90mm
Last edited:
James Stirling
Forum Pro
AF extension tubes are available for most mounts and give both a compact and inexpensive way to get into close up shooting taking up little space in the camera bag. There are also a number of extreme UWA and fisheye lenses from third party makers. Most are manual focus but does that matter at these kind of focal lengths
NZ Scott
Veteran Member
Sony A7C with Samyang 35/2.8 is 594g.
G85 with 17/1.8 is 625g.
The Samyang lens gets very good reviews and gathers more light than the 17/1.8.
S
--
-------------------------------
My Flickr stream:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottkmacleod/
Last edited:
The advantage of M4/3 lenses is they still use glass than some plastic elements in their lenses which is why some FF lenses aren't that heavy in comparison.
Stick with M4/3; not even EOS-M system have lenses that fully utilize thier latest sensor.
Stick with M4/3; not even EOS-M system have lenses that fully utilize thier latest sensor.
NZ Scott
Veteran Member
James Stirling
Forum Pro
They are not even close to equivalent
the actual equivalent to the 14-140mm m43 lens would be a 28-280mm F/7-11, though it makes little sense to me either to find the slowest FF lenses to try and match m43 size . Or alternately find the fastest largest and heaviest m43 lenses to try and compete with FF--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post
NZ Scott
Veteran Member
The nearest equivalent might be the Sony 24-240 f3.5-6.3.They are not even close to equivalent
It weighs 100g more, but gathers a stop more light.
S
Or alternately find the fastest largest and heaviest m43 lenses to try and compete with FF
--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post
--
-------------------------------
My Flickr stream:
NZ Scott
Veteran Member
Samyang has greatly improved its quality control, according to the latest reviews.
S
D
David
Guest
Please go to Photons to Photos website and you will see scientifically that on an uncropped FF sensor and an APS-C cropped FF sensor of the same tech, the DR is reduced and the noise is increased. When in APS-C crop, you are essentially narrowing the Field Of View, thus increasing the FL by 1.6x to get equivalent FOV if a Canon RF full frame lens or a Canon RF-S lens is used. For example, if a Canon R5 is used in its uncropped mode of 45MP, then a RF 100-400 has a FL of 100-400mm and a DR and noise of a full frame sensor. But in APS-C crop mode, you get roughly 17MP with the R5, but the 100-400 lens now turns into an effective 160-640mm lens due to the narrower Field Of View. The FL of the 100-400 does not change, only the FOV or AOV of the crop changed. Now if you normalize that 17MP back to 45MP, you will see more noise, because you are enlarging whatever noise you have in the original image. More shadow noise, less DR. This is what Bill Clair’s Photons to Photos shows. So, if you want 600mm FL uncropped with the Canon R5 to get full frame IQ, you need to use the full frame RF 600mm f/6.7 prime lens or the more expensive and larger full frame RF 600mm f/4. If you use the RF100-400 to get the 640mm equivalent FL, then you are cropping the R5’s 45MP to get that, which results to a 17 MP image. Basically with MFT, the 20MP is a crop of a 80MP full frame sensor with all things equivalent for easy comparison sakes and that is why a 100-400 Pany or Oly lens gives us the equivalent 200-800mm Field Of View. Field Of View and Focal Length are 2 different things.
Last edited:
The 24-240 is not a good lens. The tamron 28-200 is much better and starts at f2.8 .The nearest equivalent might be the Sony 24-240 f3.5-6.3.They are not even close to equivalent
It weighs 100g more, but gathers a stop more light.
S
--Or alternately find the fastest largest and heaviest m43 lenses to try and compete with FF
--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post
-------------------------------
My Flickr stream:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottkmacleod/
Anyway ,I see less benefit with big zoom on a small body.
James Stirling
Forum Pro
I had the very small 35mm F/2.8 when I was in Sony land and it was a remarkably good performer given its size weight and cost . There are a number of raw samples from it available from DPreview.
Rokinon 35mm F2.8 AF sample gallery: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
I think that whilst sample variance is of course a reality it can be somewhat exaggerated There is also a lot of variance in the quality and testing methodologies on a number of sites
There are multiple reviews available for the wee Samyang with overall a very positive take. Bearing in mind this tiny { 86g} £200 lens is equivalent to a m43 17.5mm F/1.4
Roger Cicala of lens rentals possibly the best resource for multi system reviews available stated in this review and I quote verbatim
Lens Rentals | Blog
"Micro 4/3 lenses, in general, have a lot of sample variation. Why this is I can’t say"
Though there are a veritable cornucopia of 35mm lenses available in FE mount from the tiny F/2.8's to rather more hefty in size and weight beasts such as the Sigma 35mm F/1.2
--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum