New fast/standard for Micro Four Thirds!

twitch · 05-21-2012, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by nickthetasmaniac

I missed this the first time around - sorry what?

On what planet is a f0.95 slower than an f1.8?

There are a gazzilion posts that explain equivalence, I don't want to rehash them.

nickthetasmaniac · 05-22-2012, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by twitch

There are a gazzilion posts that explain equivalence.

Which is why I'm puzzled that people still think lenses will be magically slower on Micro Four Thirds...

Have you never noticed that the only variables you need when using a handheld light meter are aperture, shutter and iso?

pingflood · 05-22-2012, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by nickthetasmaniac

Which is why I'm puzzled that people still think lenses will be magically slower on Micro Four Thirds...

Have you never noticed that the only variables you need when using a handheld light meter are aperture, shutter and iso?

Likely people are getting exposure and total sensor light collection confused.

Jonathan Mac · 05-22-2012, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by nickthetasmaniac

Not sure what you mean by 'beat it'? The reviews so far seem to think it's very sharp from wide open, and the OMD sensor is awful close to the K-5 in performance... Stick them together and you'll have a pretty high-performance kit...

These are the current fixed f2.8 zooms for APS, and their prices on B&H:

Pentax DA* 16-50/f2.8 SDM - $1499USD
Canon EF-S 17-55/f2.8 IS USM - $1179USD
Nikon 17-55/f2.8G - $1449USD
Sony 16-50/f2.8 DT - $800USD

That puts the Lumix 12-35mm about ball-park, assuming that the Amazon pre-order price will be the normal street-price, which it probably won't.

I'm not sure what you'd expect to pay for a fixed f2.8 with weather-sealing, metal build, in-built IS and outstanding optical quality?

Perhaps half of what I'd pay for one that was suitable for FF. The Panasonic LX5 has an equivalent of a 24-90 f/2.0 - f/3.3 lens on it, but it doesn't cost what that same lens would cost on FF. Why not? Because the much smaller sensor means the optics are far cheaper to produce. Exactly the same applies to APS-C and 4/3ds, but most of the time Panasonic & Olympus do not seem to realise this.

Laurentiu Cristofor · 05-22-2012, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by twitch

I'd never give up my FA31 though. Of course the other reason it costs so much is its a FF wide angle lens with a fast aperture, these are not cheap anyway..

Are you actually using the FA 31 on a digital FF camera?

Laurentiu Cristofor · 05-22-2012, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by pingflood

Likely people are getting exposure and total sensor light collection confused.

twitch just means that the 17/0.95 is the equivalent of a 35/1.9 lens on FF. The FA31 being 1.8 makes it faster (ignoring actual light transmission factors).

Laurentiu Cristofor · 05-22-2012, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Jonathan Mac

The Panasonic LX5 has an equivalent of a 24-90 f/2.0 - f/3.3 lens on it, but it doesn't cost what that same lens would cost on FF. Why not? Because the much smaller sensor means the optics are far cheaper to produce.

Another way of looking at it is that the FF equivalent of the LX5 lens is f/8.6-f/14.19. You get what you pay for

pingflood · 05-23-2012, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor

twitch just means that the 17/0.95 is the equivalent of a 35/1.9 lens on FF. The FA31 being 1.8 makes it faster (ignoring actual light transmission factors).

No, f/0.95 is f/0.95 regardless of what camera it is mounted on.

Here you go, maybe you can go argue with the wiki editors to see if your point of view is accepted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_speed

Or Canon.
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/lens_speed.do

You can't just arbitrarily redefine the meaning of "lens speed" to fit your needs. There is a pretty well accepted definition for it, and that is that the aperture and focal length is what determines it, not the sensor size...

kswier · 05-23-2012, 04:39 AM

I have always thought comparing everything to a full frame camera is a bit silly (it is also Ironic that I called it a full frame camera...as if a M4/3 camera is only part of a frame

). Just think about it. I could compare your full frame camera to a medium format camera, or large format camera, and show that a full frame camera does not provide enough control over depth of field. This difference may be important to some, but not to others. For me the comparison between full frame and M4/3 is irrelevant (full frame is out of the size range I desire and out of my price range). I am more interested in the comparison between M4/3 and APS-C (which I hear is fairly negligible... particularly if you are in the habit of cropping to a 4/3 aspect ratio).

I understand that a full frame makes a good benchmark for comparison, but a full frame camera is not necessarily the end-all of camera formats.

pinholecam · 05-23-2012, 07:08 PM

Very pricey for a f2.8 zoom that covers 24-70mm equivalent, though these are never cheap for any OEM lens.
Personally, m4/3 needs to be cheap/fast/small as a 2nd "forgetable" system. I will stick to my 14/20/45 for now.
The 20 and 45mm are at least 1 stop faster and gives a bit more of that DOF control that m4/3 has less of.

I agree somewhat with an opinion given above that for the cost of the lens, f2.8 light gathering ability aside, its almost like a 18-55 kit lens on K5 when if comes to DOF options/control.

kenafein · 05-23-2012, 07:36 PM

Lots of small image circle lenses command high prices. M4/3s isn't a value system, though many of us would like it to be, it is a compact one. That said, I would rather have primes.

pingflood · 05-24-2012, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by kenafein

Lots of small image circle lenses command high prices. M4/3s isn't a value system, though many of us would like it to be, it is a compact one. That said, I would rather have primes.

There is value to be had. The GF3 was recently sold on amazon with a 14/2.5 prime for $314. A high quality prime on a large sensor compact at that price, I would say that is value.

Doesn't mean all the gear is cheap. But even the 20/1.7 which is outstanding is pretty affordable.

kenafein · 05-24-2012, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by pingflood

There is value to be had. The GF3 was recently sold on amazon with a 14/2.5 prime for $314. A high quality prime on a large sensor compact at that price, I would say that is value.

Doesn't mean all the gear is cheap. But even the 20/1.7 which is outstanding is pretty affordable.

Agreed, I didn't say it was a premium system either. Just like there are deals to be had from all the major DSLR makers, you can get deals for m4/3 too, but they also have pricey premium lenses. That GF3 deal was pretty amazing. I should have got my mom that instead of the $200 Olympus EP-1 + 14-42 kit.

Laurentiu Cristofor · 05-24-2012, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by pingflood

No, f/0.95 is f/0.95 regardless of what camera it is mounted on.

You are talking about lens speed and twitch is talking about lens equivalence. So there is nothing to argue here, just try to understand what other parties are talking about.

pingflood · 05-24-2012, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor

You are talking about lens speed and twitch is talking about lens equivalence. So there is nothing to argue here, just try to understand what other parties are talking about.

You both are using the terms "slower" and "faster" which is plain misleading and incorrect. Lens speed is well defined. Saying that a lens is "slower" or "faster" because of DOF differences is just weird.

05-23-2012, 12:18 AM	#23
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor twitch just means that the 17/0.95 is the equivalent of a 35/1.9 lens on FF. The FA31 being 1.8 makes it faster (ignoring actual light transmission factors). No, f/0.95 is f/0.95 regardless of what camera it is mounted on. Here you go, maybe you can go argue with the wiki editors to see if your point of view is accepted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_speed Or Canon. http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/lens_speed.do You can't just arbitrarily redefine the meaning of "lens speed" to fit your needs. There is a pretty well accepted definition for it, and that is that the aperture and focal length is what determines it, not the sensor size... Last edited by pingflood; 05-23-2012 at 12:28 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Micro Four Thirds Club	Laurentiu Cristofor	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	6168	10 Hours Ago 08:53 PM
comparing adapters for Micro Four Thirds (MFT)	rparmar	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	25	08-09-2011 10:01 PM
Kr/Kx or Micro Four Thirds	snowfreak	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	16	07-18-2011 01:12 PM
Leica 25mm f/1.4 for Micro Four Thirds	jct us101	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	3	06-13-2011 05:46 AM

05-21-2012, 11:57 PM	#16
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Originally posted by nickthetasmaniac I missed this the first time around - sorry what? On what planet is a f0.95 slower than an f1.8? There are a gazzilion posts that explain equivalence, I don't want to rehash them.

05-22-2012, 12:02 AM	#17
nickthetasmaniac Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 2,361 Original Poster	Originally posted by twitch There are a gazzilion posts that explain equivalence. Which is why I'm puzzled that people still think lenses will be magically slower on Micro Four Thirds... Have you never noticed that the only variables you need when using a handheld light meter are aperture, shutter and iso?

05-22-2012, 12:53 AM	#18
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by nickthetasmaniac Which is why I'm puzzled that people still think lenses will be magically slower on Micro Four Thirds... Have you never noticed that the only variables you need when using a handheld light meter are aperture, shutter and iso? Likely people are getting exposure and total sensor light collection confused.

05-22-2012, 01:54 PM	#19
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,887	Originally posted by nickthetasmaniac Not sure what you mean by 'beat it'? The reviews so far seem to think it's very sharp from wide open, and the OMD sensor is awful close to the K-5 in performance... Stick them together and you'll have a pretty high-performance kit... These are the current fixed f2.8 zooms for APS, and their prices on B&H: Pentax DA* 16-50/f2.8 SDM - $1499USD Canon EF-S 17-55/f2.8 IS USM - $1179USD Nikon 17-55/f2.8G - $1449USD Sony 16-50/f2.8 DT - $800USD That puts the Lumix 12-35mm about ball-park, assuming that the Amazon pre-order price will be the normal street-price, which it probably won't. I'm not sure what you'd expect to pay for a fixed f2.8 with weather-sealing, metal build, in-built IS and outstanding optical quality? Perhaps half of what I'd pay for one that was suitable for FF. The Panasonic LX5 has an equivalent of a 24-90 f/2.0 - f/3.3 lens on it, but it doesn't cost what that same lens would cost on FF. Why not? Because the much smaller sensor means the optics are far cheaper to produce. Exactly the same applies to APS-C and 4/3ds, but most of the time Panasonic & Olympus do not seem to realise this.

05-22-2012, 08:05 PM	#20
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by twitch I'd never give up my FA31 though. Of course the other reason it costs so much is its a FF wide angle lens with a fast aperture, these are not cheap anyway.. Are you actually using the FA 31 on a digital FF camera?

05-22-2012, 08:14 PM	#21
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by pingflood Likely people are getting exposure and total sensor light collection confused. twitch just means that the 17/0.95 is the equivalent of a 35/1.9 lens on FF. The FA31 being 1.8 makes it faster (ignoring actual light transmission factors).

05-22-2012, 08:22 PM	#22
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by Jonathan Mac The Panasonic LX5 has an equivalent of a 24-90 f/2.0 - f/3.3 lens on it, but it doesn't cost what that same lens would cost on FF. Why not? Because the much smaller sensor means the optics are far cheaper to produce. Another way of looking at it is that the FF equivalent of the LX5 lens is f/8.6-f/14.19. You get what you pay for

05-23-2012, 04:39 AM	#24
kswier Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 426	I have always thought comparing everything to a full frame camera is a bit silly (it is also Ironic that I called it a full frame camera...as if a M4/3 camera is only part of a frame ). Just think about it. I could compare your full frame camera to a medium format camera, or large format camera, and show that a full frame camera does not provide enough control over depth of field. This difference may be important to some, but not to others. For me the comparison between full frame and M4/3 is irrelevant (full frame is out of the size range I desire and out of my price range). I am more interested in the comparison between M4/3 and APS-C (which I hear is fairly negligible... particularly if you are in the habit of cropping to a 4/3 aspect ratio). I understand that a full frame makes a good benchmark for comparison, but a full frame camera is not necessarily the end-all of camera formats.

05-23-2012, 07:08 PM	#25
pinholecam Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,706	Very pricey for a f2.8 zoom that covers 24-70mm equivalent, though these are never cheap for any OEM lens. Personally, m4/3 needs to be cheap/fast/small as a 2nd "forgetable" system. I will stick to my 14/20/45 for now. The 20 and 45mm are at least 1 stop faster and gives a bit more of that DOF control that m4/3 has less of. I agree somewhat with an opinion given above that for the cost of the lens, f2.8 light gathering ability aside, its almost like a 18-55 kit lens on K5 when if comes to DOF options/control.

05-23-2012, 07:36 PM	#26
kenafein Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Southern California Photos: Albums Posts: 4,082	Lots of small image circle lenses command high prices. M4/3s isn't a value system, though many of us would like it to be, it is a compact one. That said, I would rather have primes.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-24-2012, 02:24 AM	#27
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by kenafein Lots of small image circle lenses command high prices. M4/3s isn't a value system, though many of us would like it to be, it is a compact one. That said, I would rather have primes. There is value to be had. The GF3 was recently sold on amazon with a 14/2.5 prime for $314. A high quality prime on a large sensor compact at that price, I would say that is value. Doesn't mean all the gear is cheap. But even the 20/1.7 which is outstanding is pretty affordable.

05-24-2012, 07:39 AM	#28
kenafein Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Southern California Photos: Albums Posts: 4,082	Originally posted by pingflood There is value to be had. The GF3 was recently sold on amazon with a 14/2.5 prime for $314. A high quality prime on a large sensor compact at that price, I would say that is value. Doesn't mean all the gear is cheap. But even the 20/1.7 which is outstanding is pretty affordable. Agreed, I didn't say it was a premium system either. Just like there are deals to be had from all the major DSLR makers, you can get deals for m4/3 too, but they also have pricey premium lenses. That GF3 deal was pretty amazing. I should have got my mom that instead of the $200 Olympus EP-1 + 14-42 kit.

05-24-2012, 02:52 PM	#29
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by pingflood No, f/0.95 is f/0.95 regardless of what camera it is mounted on. You are talking about lens speed and twitch is talking about lens equivalence. So there is nothing to argue here, just try to understand what other parties are talking about.

05-24-2012, 11:55 PM	#30
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor You are talking about lens speed and twitch is talking about lens equivalence. So there is nothing to argue here, just try to understand what other parties are talking about. You both are using the terms "slower" and "faster" which is plain misleading and incorrect. Lens speed is well defined. Saying that a lens is "slower" or "faster" because of DOF differences is just weird.