09-10-2013, 05:09 PM
@Brightcolours:
I am very much aware of FF-equivalence, but thanks for pointing it out (again)
The point I was trying to make was that this lens let's you do things that other zooms in the system don't (except the 12-35/2.8). If f/2.8@ISO3200 is (good) enough, which it usually is with the OM-D, there is no need for a bigger sensor, except for shallow DOF. Once you reach this point, I think that FF-equivalence -in terms of noise performance- becomes less important and other aspects become more important for a cross-system comparison.
So when I said that it doesn't do the lens justice, I meant that dismissing this lens as a 24-80/5.6 only considers relative aspects, when absolute aspects might also be important to note.
Of course you could also use a f/4 lens on APS-C, or a f/5.6 lens on FF, but then... you're not using an OM-D
We could argue whether diffraction starts to become noticable at f/5.6 or f/4, but the point is that this lens should outresolve all other Olympus standard zooms at the long end.
I am very much aware of FF-equivalence, but thanks for pointing it out (again)
The point I was trying to make was that this lens let's you do things that other zooms in the system don't (except the 12-35/2.8). If f/2.8@ISO3200 is (good) enough, which it usually is with the OM-D, there is no need for a bigger sensor, except for shallow DOF. Once you reach this point, I think that FF-equivalence -in terms of noise performance- becomes less important and other aspects become more important for a cross-system comparison.
So when I said that it doesn't do the lens justice, I meant that dismissing this lens as a 24-80/5.6 only considers relative aspects, when absolute aspects might also be important to note.
Of course you could also use a f/4 lens on APS-C, or a f/5.6 lens on FF, but then... you're not using an OM-D
We could argue whether diffraction starts to become noticable at f/5.6 or f/4, but the point is that this lens should outresolve all other Olympus standard zooms at the long end.