Originally posted by nickthetasmaniac The 35-100/f2 and 70-200/f4 may have similar focal length and DoF behaviour, but the 35-200 still lets in 2 stops more light, regardless of format.
I made this comparison for the exact reason that the opposite is true: Both lenses let in the same amount of light (240 mm^2 photon capturing lens surface). And both lenses are excellent wide open already (which is easier at f/4 of course and is the reason why the Zuiko should be more expensive what it is indeed).
This is an endless source of confusion and I published long explainations (search for
lens equivalence and
falconeye). Won't do it again here. So, please don't ask or argue. However, meanwhile I found that there is a similiar essay available which I endorse:
Luminous landscape.
I make posts like this to make people
UNDERSTAND that a smaller sensor can turn out to be more expensive. The smaller sensor can still be a smarter solution (same performance in a smaller package etc.). But I consider it important to understand that smaller does not equal cheaper. Rather, there is a sweet spot for best price performance. A spot which currently is somewhere in between APSC and FF, and moving. BTW, comparing a ED 70-200/2.8 with a hypothetical equivalent ZD 35-100/1.4 makes it even clearer actually because the price of the latter would have to exceed 10k$.