12-14-2011, 12:11 AM
[quote name='boren' timestamp='1323816755' post='13722']
By that definition you should rule out f/4.0 lenses and only look at f/2.8 ones... or rule out f/2.8 lenses and only look at f/2.0 ones... and so on and so forth...
What is your benchmark that makes f/4.0 lenses worthy of purchase but not ones starting at f/5.6?
[/quote]
Boren, there really isn't missing anything in what I posted. Even the "benchmark" lies in my posts. I stated the use case for which I'd like to see an improvement, that is getting at least an equal or wider aperture than f/5.6 on the tele end. It's here, it's also in the existing MFT lenses line-up. That's why I think going the other way with a slower lens at that same long end is less than desirable.
By that definition you should rule out f/4.0 lenses and only look at f/2.8 ones... or rule out f/2.8 lenses and only look at f/2.0 ones... and so on and so forth...
What is your benchmark that makes f/4.0 lenses worthy of purchase but not ones starting at f/5.6?
[/quote]
Boren, there really isn't missing anything in what I posted. Even the "benchmark" lies in my posts. I stated the use case for which I'd like to see an improvement, that is getting at least an equal or wider aperture than f/5.6 on the tele end. It's here, it's also in the existing MFT lenses line-up. That's why I think going the other way with a slower lens at that same long end is less than desirable.