Quote:Don't know. But the Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95 looks quite larger. I guess an AF version would be larger.
Quote:Of course, the weight would be higher. It is only 115 grams now. A Canon Ef 35mm f2 weighs twice that much, a more modern Canon EF 35mm f2 IS USM even 3 times as much.
So of course, the lens is light. Not the cause of the system, but the cause of the lens itself.
You can't compare with a 42.5mm lens though, as the aperture of a 42.5mm f1.2 lens is 35.4mm, from a 15mm f1 lens only 15mm ... Again, regardless the technical look at things, it should be a nice little street photography lens.
It seems if one only considers equivalent DOF, a fullframe lens might be smaller than a DOF equivalent MFT lens.
When comparing the Voigtlander 17.5 f/0.95 for MFT and the new FX Nikkor 35 f/1.8 G, the latter is smaller.
The same can be said regarding the Voigtlander 25 f/0.95 vs the Nikkor 50 f/1.8 G.
The new Panasonic 42.5 f/1.2 is longer, but a bit skinnier than the Nikkor 85 f/1.8 G (74x77mm vs 79x74mm) while only corresponding to a 85 f/2.4 DOF equivalent lens.
Finally, one could also compare the Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 vs the Nikkor 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 which would correspond to a 12-42.5 f/1.75-2.25 lens in terms of focal length and DOF capability in MFT land. Again, this lens is shorter than the Olympus equivalent.
All this to say that when considering equivalent DOF, MFT doesn't actually offer a smaller form factor. The diameter of the lenses is generally smaller, but the length is generally longer.
Of course, this is a bit rethorical as one should obviously not choose MFT if shallow DOF photography is of primary interest.