meanwhile

"Just crop to 40mm"

Not the same.

Love one of these in 40mm.

Photoshop has supported filter plugins for over 20 years. *shrug*

The comments on this post are caused by the headline, not the software.

"For 4/3 to be FF, there ..."

So then your definition is wrong. Thank you.

Yes, you would continue to say that, and continue to be wrong. According to your definition, Olympus 4/3 cameras are full frame cameras. They aren't.

Bring on the rugged X100.

What's really needed is a sensibly-priced Panasonic version of this camera.

Noir, that would mean all cameras are full frame.

I think you had a typo in your URI. This is DPReview, you are looking for PDReview (Pedantic Digital Review).

"I prefer traveling with f/4 zooms. I still get great quality, but with lighter weight than f/2.8 zooms."

Yep. Except for this one.

So you expect more from DPR commenters than you do from your elected officials. Interesting.

DPReview is an international site. Expect international perspectives. The sooner you accept that, the happier you'll be.

Phil, maybe you got lost. This isn't Reddit.

"And the benefit of f/4 is that you typically get a lighter, more portable, less expensive lens."

Yep. How does that apply here though?

Why would a non-pro want a lens that is slower, double the price, heavier, bigger, and needs larger and more expensive filters?

I think Chris might have been annoyed by the weather, and the build of this lens. You have to "Serenity now" past the build (and the ugly font) to just let the images do the talking with this lens....

So go waste the people's time in posts for whatever brand those are and leave us alone. Thanks.

"LOL! You do not own that lens either."

Yes, I'm afraid that I do. Purchased from Georges in Sydney. What is wrong with you? Do better.

"Same for the clueless trolls."

Self-awareness is great, well done. I don't think you are clueless though, just pointless. Spam commenting posts about a lens you don't own, and for a system you...