Quote:I have nothing against MFT (except that personally I do not like the 4:3 aspect ratio and EEVFs).
f1.2 of this lens does not allow for shooting in lower light conditions than f2.4 on FF. One can change ISO settings and the exposure times will be similar. Lens equivalence is not that hard to understand.
Dissing is a word used by wannabe rapper youth, isn't it? I am critical of silly products, like a very expensive 25mm f1.2 lens which is nothing more than what a 25mm f2.4 lens would be on full frame 135 format. Simply for the price it will have (based on what the 25mm f1.8 costs). I am similarly critical of lenses like the Meyer Optic 100mm f2.8 for instance, for which they ask @1500. For a 100mm f2.8 FF lens. Or the silly prices they ask for the Zeiss 55mm f1.4 Otus. Or the Nikkor AF-S 58mm f1.4 (very high price for what is a pretty simple lens).
Been a bit busy, little time to reply, so hence a little late.
First of all, I never had a problem with lens equivalence. I do understand it, but to me it is besides the point - I select a camera for a specific goal. Regardless of the camera one shoots, an F/1.2 lens brings more light to the sensor than an F/2 lens, and therefore there will be less noise, for that particular sensor, apart from potential other benefits, like more possibilities regarding shallow(er) depth of field. That the F/1.2 equivalent of an MFT lens is twice the focal length at twice the aperture number, is neither here nor there. You can't compare the two. It only says something about the FoV and the DoF. The sensor size says something about noise, as does iso, but that is sensor related, not directly lens related.
The problem with pricing is always that it becomes exponentially higher with relatively small improvements, and similarly, with relatively low production numbers. The design and manufacturing cost of such lenses plus the investments required to produce them become rather high in this regard, and that influences the retail price. hether you'd want to spend the money on such a lens or not, is up to the individual. You may find it expensive, and decide not to go for it, and someone else who is looking for specific qualities is happy to pay for those.
As to the word "dissing": I have lived and worked in English speaking countries for 15 years, until 1998, and the word dissing was a normal word from a vocabulary POV even back then. Nothing to do with rappers.
BTW, unless my only cameras were MFT cameras, I personally would not buy F/1.2 lenses or faster for MFT either, unless I would have a very specific goal in mind. F/1.4 probably yes. I don't need very fast MFT lenses, as in those cases I will gladly use a Metabones adapter and my fast Canon glass. 3x as heavy as the actual MFT equivalent, but then, I don't need it often, so I can live with that.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....