03-11-2012, 08:37 PM
[quote name='Sammy' timestamp='1331497313' post='16570']
Well, 4/3 started with the promise to allow for smaller cams and lenses, which was obviously never realized. One can only shrink a DLSR body to a certain extent and a weight of around 500 gram appears to be the lower limit for 4/3 as well as for (low-end) APS-C DSLRs. To make things really small was never a design priority for 4/3. Accordingly, Olympus produced some truly big and heavy and expensive 4/3 lenses, among them the 35-100mm f/2.0 you mentioned.
MFT is a very different proposition though. Getting rid of the mirror box put size/weight considerations back into the focus of the designers. While there are very good fast and small primes for MFT around fast ("high-endish") zooms are still missing. Olympus said that they didn´t bother with fast zooms for MFT yet they but may do so if they think there is a market for it. Afaik, Panasonic is going to offer a 35-100mm f/2.8 zoom this year. Based on the shown prototype featuring a 58mm filter thread I predict a size of just 65x80mm at a weight of less than 500 (or even 400) gram. Panasonic claims that they are making considerable progress in the production of large aspherical lens elements, which reduces the need for much more complex multi-lens systems, to facilitate smallish but fast lens designs. I have admittedly no idea whether that´s just marketing talk. Maybe the final specs of the announced 35-100mm f/2.8 zoom will give us more insight into this.
[/quote]
Still, a 35-100mm f2.8 lens for MFT means a 70-200mm f5.6 lens for 135 format ("FF") and a 47-133mm f3.7 lens on (1.5x crop) APS-C.
To give you an idea:
Canon EF 55-200mm f4.5-5.6 USM II.
Filter size: 52mm. Weight: 310 grams. Size: 70x97mm.
Sigma 55-200mm f4-5.6 DC.
Filter size: 55mm. Weight: 315 grams. Size: 72-87mm.
Not exactly big and heavy either.... Yet more than equivalent on FF (specs wise... I am saying nothing about lens performance here, for obvious reasons).
Well, 4/3 started with the promise to allow for smaller cams and lenses, which was obviously never realized. One can only shrink a DLSR body to a certain extent and a weight of around 500 gram appears to be the lower limit for 4/3 as well as for (low-end) APS-C DSLRs. To make things really small was never a design priority for 4/3. Accordingly, Olympus produced some truly big and heavy and expensive 4/3 lenses, among them the 35-100mm f/2.0 you mentioned.
MFT is a very different proposition though. Getting rid of the mirror box put size/weight considerations back into the focus of the designers. While there are very good fast and small primes for MFT around fast ("high-endish") zooms are still missing. Olympus said that they didn´t bother with fast zooms for MFT yet they but may do so if they think there is a market for it. Afaik, Panasonic is going to offer a 35-100mm f/2.8 zoom this year. Based on the shown prototype featuring a 58mm filter thread I predict a size of just 65x80mm at a weight of less than 500 (or even 400) gram. Panasonic claims that they are making considerable progress in the production of large aspherical lens elements, which reduces the need for much more complex multi-lens systems, to facilitate smallish but fast lens designs. I have admittedly no idea whether that´s just marketing talk. Maybe the final specs of the announced 35-100mm f/2.8 zoom will give us more insight into this.
[/quote]
Still, a 35-100mm f2.8 lens for MFT means a 70-200mm f5.6 lens for 135 format ("FF") and a 47-133mm f3.7 lens on (1.5x crop) APS-C.
To give you an idea:
Canon EF 55-200mm f4.5-5.6 USM II.
Filter size: 52mm. Weight: 310 grams. Size: 70x97mm.
Sigma 55-200mm f4-5.6 DC.
Filter size: 55mm. Weight: 315 grams. Size: 72-87mm.
Not exactly big and heavy either.... Yet more than equivalent on FF (specs wise... I am saying nothing about lens performance here, for obvious reasons).