Reading mode: Light Dark

Why are m43 lenses not much smaller than some APS-C?

Go to last post
A

APCUser

Well-known member
Messages
101
Reaction score
14
I have recently had the chance to play a bit with a friend's OM EP-7, and I really liked it. However, I looked into some of the lens options, and it seems to me that, for the same 35mm equivalent focal length, many M43 lenses are basically the same size as many Sonys APS-c, despite the different crop factor (2.0x vs 1.5x)

For example:

the Sony 35mm F1.8 prime lens is 45mm long, and the Zuiko 25mm F1.8 is 42mm

The Sony 16-70mm F4 is 75mm and the Zuiko 12-40mm F2.8 is 84mm (the Zuiko is faster, but, still)

I start to see some differences with non-particularly fast tele lenses, like:

The Sony 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 is 108mm, while Zuiko 40-150mm F4-5.6 is 83mm

Is the explanation that faster lenses are always bulkier and longer? Even so, shouldn't m43 lenses be smaller anyway?

Please note, this is just curiosity - I'd like to understand what I am missing, and what the physics and technicalities behind it are.
 
Perhaps need to dig deeper WRT design (elements, groups, exotic elements, internal zoom, weather sealing, focusing, OIS) and performance parameters (MTF edge and center, aberrations, distortion, coma, astigmatism, flare, vignetting, etc.).

Parsing dimensions and weight reveals nothing about how a lens performs, much less compares against options B and C. Deep-dive technical tests can help sifting through the vast heaps of options.

Except for Fuji, APS lines are becoming afterthoughts as makers shift their efforts to 135 format cameras and lenses. Just how things are working themselves out and I do not see a good future for further growth of the format. For now, m4/3 is still growing.

If possible, get to a brick and mortar store with both m4/3 lines. You will learn pretty quickly if it's for you.

Cheers,

Rick
 
JNK 100 said:
You should also remember that an MFT f1.8 is not as fast as f1.8 APS-c.

Aps-c systems have evolved and left M43 behind in my view.
Click to expand...
You mean in terms of depth of field? You multiply by the crop factor to calculate the equivalence, right?

But in terms of how much light hits the lens, is f1.8 the same regardless of the crop factor?
 
APCUser said:
I have recently had the chance to play a bit with a friend's OM EP-7, and I really liked it. However, I looked into some of the lens options, and it seems to me that, for the same 35mm equivalent focal length, many M43 lenses are basically the same size as many Sonys APS-c, despite the different crop factor (2.0x vs 1.5x)

For example:

the Sony 35mm F1.8 prime lens is 45mm long, and the Zuiko 25mm F1.8 is 42mm

The Sony 16-70mm F4 is 75mm and the Zuiko 12-40mm F2.8 is 84mm (the Zuiko is faster, but, still)

I start to see some differences with non-particularly fast tele lenses, like:

The Sony 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 is 108mm, while Zuiko 40-150mm F4-5.6 is 83mm

Is the explanation that faster lenses are always bulkier and longer? Even so, shouldn't m43 lenses be smaller anyway?

Please note, this is just curiosity - I'd like to understand what I am missing, and what the physics and technicalities behind it are.
Click to expand...
Age, corrections, and the choices the designers make, all go into making a lenses size what it is.

From a layman's perspective.
 
JNK 100 said:
You should also remember that an MFT f1.8 is not as fast as f1.8 APS-c.

Aps-c systems have evolved and left M43 behind in my view.
Click to expand...
Once again, misinformation prevails. ƒ1.8 is identical on every sensor as aperture (and exposure) is independent of sensor size. How many times does this need to be repeated?!?!?!?

Bottom line—a hand held light meter gives only 1 exposure, say ƒ1.8 at 1/250. Set ANY CAMERA from phone to 4x5 (if they made ƒ1.8 lenses!!) at that exposure and it would be correct for ALL of them at the same ISO.


Terry
______________________________________
The essence of place — the art inherent in nature.
www.luxBorealis.com
 
APCUser said:
JNK 100 said:
You should also remember that an MFT f1.8 is not as fast as f1.8 APS-c.

Aps-c systems have evolved and left M43 behind in my view.
Click to expand...
You mean in terms of depth of field? You multiply by the crop factor to calculate the equivalence, right?

But in terms of how much light hits the lens, is f1.8 the same regardless of the crop factor?
Click to expand...
same intensity, but less total light, so more noise.

use the crop to find the equivalent f stop, its more comparable in terms of image quality, but OTOH, f/1.8 on any sensor will allow the same light intensity for your AF, so if you're good with that sensor sizes performance envelope, you can shoot the same pics as any other sensor at f/1.8 just with more noise (if compared to bigger sensors).

imo aps-c is similar to mft, ie it has its flaws, fuji AF, sony lack of lenses, and fuji are the only ones that really take it seriously imo, everyone else is looking to trade you up to FF down the road, fine if thats your plan too, but sucks in general.
 
Now, to answer your question . . .

Generally speaking, M43 lenses, particularly from OM System and Panasonic-Leica tend to be higher quality lenses in terms of both optics and lens construction. APS lenses tend not to be.

M43 lenses also tend to be faster than APS lenses. At least there are far more faster options available for M43 than for APS, without considering 35mm sensor lenses.

APS lenses are designed to keep costs down. The majority of M43 lenses are built for higher-end users and expectations.

Also, far more M43 lenses have a higher Ingress Protection rating (e.g. IP53) against water and dust. This may add slightly to the size of the lens, though I can’t say for sure.

There are always exceptions to any rule, but generally speaking, this is why.


Terry
______________________________________
The essence of place — the art inherent in nature.
www.luxBorealis.com
 
You would expect lenses that are roughly equivalent to be roughly the same size. The 16-70/4 has a slightly larger range and aperture than the 12-40/2.8, but a much larger minimum focus distance.

The 25/1.8 is equivalent to a 35/2.4 APSC lens. By the time you get to f1.8, primes are starting to get larger. That means the MFT lens has less of an advantage from its smaller aperture diameter. Again the MFT lens has a slightly shorter minimum focus distance.

Looking at reviews, the Sony 35/1.8 E isn’t quite as good optically as the Olympus 25/1.8.

The idea that smaller sensors mean smaller lenses comes from comparing non-equivalent lenses.

MFT does have a selection of excellent smaller lenses. Sony has focussed on small gear, especially premium lenses.

Andrew
 
Skeeterbytes said:
Perhaps need to dig deeper WRT design (elements, groups, exotic elements, internal zoom, weather sealing, focusing, OIS) and performance parameters (MTF edge and center, aberrations, distortion, coma, astigmatism, flare, vignetting, etc.).

Parsing dimensions and weight reveals nothing about how a lens performs, much less compares against options B and C. Deep-dive technical tests can help sifting through the vast heaps of options.

Except for Fuji, APS lines are becoming afterthoughts as makers shift their efforts to 135 format cameras and lenses. Just how things are working themselves out and I do not see a good future for further growth of the format. For now, m4/3 is still growing.

If possible, get to a brick and mortar store with both m4/3 lines. You will learn pretty quickly if it's for you.

Cheers,

Rick
Click to expand...
Like you Rick and most others, should I care what size M4/3 lenses are? In fact there are many Chinese MF lenses made for the aps-c image circle and also re-mounted in M4/3 for use on that system. To all extents and purposes they are the same size as the built aps-c lenses.

When I mount my big-lump PL 200/2.8 on my M4/3 body I don't question the fact that this sweetest and most capable lens might in fact be larger than some aps-c image circle lenses.

To restrict the M4/3 mount to only tiny lenses because this is thought "proper" is going to signal the complete death of M4/3 as a system. Relegated to cheap, small, and nasty the M4/3 system will quickly die.

In fact when I am in maverick mood I have been known to fit the PL 200/2.8 on a GM5 body just to show that it can be done - and to impress those that wish to keep M4/3 physically small and suggest that they should remove their horse-blinkers from time to time.
 
@Tom, take it easy. Mine was just curiosity. I wasn't saying nor implying anything about the superiority of one system vs another. I was just curious if there was a specific reason.

I have often heard that one of the advantages of m43 is that the lenses are smaller, for the same 35mm equivalent focal length. I am not sure that's often the case. This doesn't mean that the system doesn't have its merit, nor that the lenses are poor quality, of course, but, again, I was curious if there was a specific reason.

In answer to the question of who/why should care, lens size is a factor for my very specific use case - that of a non-professional who often uses his camera for family occasions and family vacations. In these contexts, a smaller lens may have its advantages - again, in my specific use case, but of course everyone is different etc etc.

More specifically, I have a sony a6000 which is about 10-11 years old, and a couple of Sony prime lenses. I started to look into the m43 lens range precisely because I really liked a lot playing with the OM EP7. Had the lenses been smaller than in the Sony range, I might have considered getting an EP7 and 1-2 lenses, but I'm not sure about that.

I should also add that I bought one of the first Panasonic m43 cameras when it first came out and I absolutely loved it. Some of my best photobooks were shot with that camera. I sold it for other reasons
 
Last edited:
APCUser said:
@Tom, take it easy. Mine was just curiosity. I wasn't saying nor implying anything about the superiority of one system vs another. I was just curious if there was a specific reason.

I have often heard that one of the advantages of m43 is that the lenses are smaller, for the same 35mm equivalent focal length. I am not sure that's often the case. This doesn't mean that the system doesn't have its merit, nor that the lenses are poor quality, of course, but, again, I was curious if there was a specific reason.

In answer to the question of who/why should care, lens size is a factor for my very specific use case - that of a non-professional who often uses his camera for family occasions and family vacations. In these contexts, a smaller lens may have its advantages - again, in my specific use case, but of course everyone is different etc etc.

More specifically, I have a sony a6000 which is about 10-11 years old, and a couple of Sony prime lenses. I started to look into the m43 lens range precisely because I really liked a lot playing with the OM EP7. Had the lenses been smaller than in the Sony range, I might have considered getting an EP7 and 1-2 lenses, but I'm not sure about that.

I should also add that I bought one of the first Panasonic m43 cameras when it first came out and I absolutely loved it. Some of my best photobooks were shot with that camera. I sold it for other reasons
Click to expand...
Is there anything like the 12-45/4 or 35-100/2.8 or 40-150/4 in Sony APSC? Optically excellent, solid build, close focus for the f4 zooms and weather sealed.

A
 
Is there anything like the 12-45/4 or 35-100/2.8 or 40-150/4 in Sony APSC? Optically excellent, solid build, close focus for the f4 zooms and weather sealed.

There is a Sony 16-70mm F4 which is roughly the same length as the Zuiko 12-45. Don't know if the optical quality can be deemed comparable.

Not sure about the others

FWIW, two m43 lenses which seem interesting are the Panasonic 12-35 F2.8 and the Zuiko 12-40mm F2,8. I don't think Sony has a real equivalent. Tamron and Sigma have something similar, but not stabilised.
 
ahaslett said:
APCUser said:
@Tom, take it easy. Mine was just curiosity. I wasn't saying nor implying anything about the superiority of one system vs another. I was just curious if there was a specific reason.

I have often heard that one of the advantages of m43 is that the lenses are smaller, for the same 35mm equivalent focal length. I am not sure that's often the case. This doesn't mean that the system doesn't have its merit, nor that the lenses are poor quality, of course, but, again, I was curious if there was a specific reason.

In answer to the question of who/why should care, lens size is a factor for my very specific use case - that of a non-professional who often uses his camera for family occasions and family vacations. In these contexts, a smaller lens may have its advantages - again, in my specific use case, but of course everyone is different etc etc.

More specifically, I have a sony a6000 which is about 10-11 years old, and a couple of Sony prime lenses. I started to look into the m43 lens range precisely because I really liked a lot playing with the OM EP7. Had the lenses been smaller than in the Sony range, I might have considered getting an EP7 and 1-2 lenses, but I'm not sure about that.

I should also add that I bought one of the first Panasonic m43 cameras when it first came out and I absolutely loved it. Some of my best photobooks were shot with that camera. I sold it for other reasons
Click to expand...
Is there anything like the 12-45/4 or 35-100/2.8 or 40-150/4 in Sony APSC? Optically excellent, solid build, close focus for the f4 zooms and weather sealed.

A
Click to expand...
One bonus of the Sony E mount is access to a wide range of third party AF zooms and primes as well as the usual manual focus options.

You can pick lenses on both mounts with no alternative, in the other the Sigma 10-18mm F/2.8 does the same job as a m43 7.5-14mm F/2.14 , it has some degree of weather resistance, gets good reviews , takes filters natively , is half the weight of the 7-14mm F/2.8, at current UK prices it is £450 cheaper .

https://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/

The 7-14mm pro will win on build quality but it's field curvature after very extensive correction is very high

opticallimits.com

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO Review - OpticalLimits

Traditionally a professional zoom lens system is supposed to consist of a gang of three core lenses – an ultra-wide-, standard- and medium-tele lens with a max aperture of f/2.8. Over at Canon and Nikon there have been generations of these lenses already. However, Olympus is the very first...
opticallimits.com
 
Last edited:
- Weather sealing increases lens size. And a better WS results in a larger lens than a not-so-good WS. And m43 is particularly proud of having some of the best WS in the industry.

- The electronic components and the focus/aperture motors (for a given speed and accuracy) are dictated by technology. And technology is the same for all lenses. Hence it affects the size of smaller format lenses proportionally more, than it does larger format lenses.

- Other desirable features like manual focus clutch or aperture rings or lens buttons/switches also add to lens size, and do so proportionally to a greater degree than on larger format lenses

The smallest AF lenses in m45 are the non WS P14/2.5 and the P20/1.7, and their size is limited by the electronics, the motors, the mechanics for the focus movement, not by the size of the glass elements inside. And this despite the 20 being the slowest AF lens in the system, and none of the two having buttons or focus clutch or an aperture ring:

53b72f21da1f40178f16e556ba81e36f.jpg


Proof of the pudding, purely manual M43 lenses without AF, without WS, can be made considerably smaller especially in diameter. For example the SLRmagic UWA 8/4.0 does not even cover the full mount flange diameter of our cameras:

0d2e1c0e67de4cc0a821b28971085b49.jpg
 
Last edited:
cba_melbourne said:
- Weather sealing increases lens size. And a better WS results in a larger lens than a not-so-good WS. And m43 is particularly proud of having some of the best WS in the industry.
Click to expand...
Would basic weather resistance , which boils down to O-rings and tight seals really make that much difference . I appreciate that the highest end weather resistance with gaskets at several points through the lens etc may be more challenging than the smallest lenses would allow . I think an o-ring at the front and at the rear would probably suffice for all but the most abusive treatment of our poor lenses.

I suspect it is much about lens pricing and categorisation as any limitations on size

The Nikon Z 26mm F/2.8 is pretty small but has weather resistant build, no such thing as a weather sealed lens for any current ILC

https://alikgriffin.com/nikon-z-26mm-f2-8-review/

c0ee3279c1224a8c8ff0932bda662f35.jpg

cba_melbourne said:
- The electronic components and the focus/aperture motors (for a given speed and accuracy) are dictated by technology. And technology is the same for all lenses. Hence it affects the size of smaller format lenses proportionally more, than it does larger format lenses.

- Other desirable features like manual focus clutch or aperture rings or lens buttons/switches also add to lens size, and do so proportionally to a greater degree than on larger format lenses

The smallest AF lenses in m45 are the non WS P14/2.5 and the P20/1.7, and their size is limited by the electronics, the motors, the mechanics for the focus movement, not by the size of the glass elements inside. And this despite the 20 being the slowest AF lens in the system, and none of the two having buttons or focus clutch or an aperture ring:

53b72f21da1f40178f16e556ba81e36f.jpg


Proof of the pudding, purely manual M43 lenses without AF, without WS, can be made considerably smaller especially in diameter. For example the SLRmagic UWA 8/4.0 does not even cover the full mount flange diameter of our cameras:

0d2e1c0e67de4cc0a821b28971085b49.jpg
Click to expand...
--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post
 
Last edited:
James Stirling said:
ahaslett said:
APCUser said:
@Tom, take it easy. Mine was just curiosity. I wasn't saying nor implying anything about the superiority of one system vs another. I was just curious if there was a specific reason.

I have often heard that one of the advantages of m43 is that the lenses are smaller, for the same 35mm equivalent focal length. I am not sure that's often the case. This doesn't mean that the system doesn't have its merit, nor that the lenses are poor quality, of course, but, again, I was curious if there was a specific reason.

In answer to the question of who/why should care, lens size is a factor for my very specific use case - that of a non-professional who often uses his camera for family occasions and family vacations. In these contexts, a smaller lens may have its advantages - again, in my specific use case, but of course everyone is different etc etc.

More specifically, I have a sony a6000 which is about 10-11 years old, and a couple of Sony prime lenses. I started to look into the m43 lens range precisely because I really liked a lot playing with the OM EP7. Had the lenses been smaller than in the Sony range, I might have considered getting an EP7 and 1-2 lenses, but I'm not sure about that.

I should also add that I bought one of the first Panasonic m43 cameras when it first came out and I absolutely loved it. Some of my best photobooks were shot with that camera. I sold it for other reasons
Click to expand...
Is there anything like the 12-45/4 or 35-100/2.8 or 40-150/4 in Sony APSC? Optically excellent, solid build, close focus for the f4 zooms and weather sealed.

A
Click to expand...
One bonus of the Sony E mount is access to a wide range of third party AF zooms and primes as well as the usual manual focus options.

You can pick lenses on both mounts with no alternative, in the other the Sigma 10-18mm F/2.8 does the same job as a m43 7.5-14mm F/2.14 , it has some degree of weather resistance, gets good reviews , takes filters natively , is half the weight of the 7-14mm F/2.8, at current UK prices it is £450 cheaper .

https://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/

The 7-14mm pro will win on build quality but it's field curvature after very extensive correction is very high

https://opticallimits.com/micro-four-thirds/olympus-m-zuiko-digital-7-14mm-f-2-8-pro-review/
Click to expand...
I love having choices.

A
 
APCUser said:
Great explanation, thanks!
Click to expand...
One more thing. We know that in m43 the majority of consumers are not prepared to pay premium price for small premium cameras. Think GM1, GM5, PenF, none were sales successes. They could not recover the R&D expenditure.

There is no reason why this should be different with lenses. Consumers just expect a premium lens to have a certain heft and WS and many features. They would not like to pay as much (or more) for a very small lens. Yet, miniaturizing lenses can cost as much in R&D investments, than the making of miniaturized bodies. And larger formats have much bigger market shares, hence can share these costs over larger lens production batches.

Do we think Panasonic sold enough 14/2.5 lenses at recommended retail price, to cover what it cost them to make the smallest and lightest AF lens in the system? I am not sure. And many here wrinkle their nose at the IQ of this lens, despite it being outright fantastic for it's size and the 55g it weighs. Just like they wrinkle their nose at the 20/1.7 AF speed, despite it having a fantastic IQ for it's size.

Just like with cameras lenses too: very small size and low weight means that some compromises are necessary.
 
Last edited:
APCUser said:
I have recently had the chance to play a bit with a friend's OM EP-7, and I really liked it. However, I looked into some of the lens options, and it seems to me that, for the same 35mm equivalent focal length, many M43 lenses are basically the same size as many Sonys APS-c, despite the different crop factor (2.0x vs 1.5x)

For example:

the Sony 35mm F1.8 prime lens is 45mm long, and the Zuiko 25mm F1.8 is 42mm

The Sony 16-70mm F4 is 75mm and the Zuiko 12-40mm F2.8 is 84mm (the Zuiko is faster, but, still)

I start to see some differences with non-particularly fast tele lenses, like:

The Sony 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 is 108mm, while Zuiko 40-150mm F4-5.6 is 83mm

Is the explanation that faster lenses are always bulkier and longer? Even so, shouldn't m43 lenses be smaller anyway?

Please note, this is just curiosity - I'd like to understand what I am missing, and what the physics and technicalities behind it are.
Click to expand...
I don't think there are any APSC 90mm f1.8s that are anywhere nearly as tiny as the Olympus/OMS 45 f1.8. There are more examples both supporting and refuting your argument. Only the lens designers or a professional, careful analysis of the lens' design can answer your question, anything else is speculation.

I do know that neither Olympus nor Leica (Panasonic's mentor and partner) have ever been particularly conservative with lens element counts.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Should Panasonic produce Rangefinder Style APS-C cameras and AI designed APS-C lenses for L-mount?
Replies
7
Views
18K
Photongraphy
P
D
E-M10 mark IV + manual lenses - first impressions coming from Pentax APS-C
Replies
0
Views
5K
DavidJ7
D
Z
New Sony APS-C A6500 owner
Replies
2
Views
11K
New Wrycuda
N
R
Is there still room for APS-C or DX?
5 6 7
Replies
136
Views
52K
Roland Stuttgart
R
S
A Comparison of MFT and APS-C Systems
6 7 8
Replies
150
Views
55K
faunagraphy
faunagraphy

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top