[quote name='Sylvain' timestamp='1312310773' post='10352']
But the lenses aren't terribly reassuring... And that Zeiss surely looks like it needs a diet but I'm staying cautious as pictures always tend to magnify objects with me. Size size size...
[/quote]
I think there's also a bit of a misconception here regarding the potential sizing.
MFT lenses are not really smaller than their FT counterparts. Just take the
Olympus 14-42mm (classic) vs Panasonic 14-42mm
Olympus 40-150mm (classic) vs Olympus 40-150mm
Even the Oly 70-300 (classic, a relabeled Sigma full format lens) is not any bigger than the Pana 100-300mm.
Those MFT lenses that are substantially smaller are either pancakes or smaller because they are underdesigned.
Consequently NEX lenses will barely be smaller that conventional Alpha DT lenses.
Or in other words - NEX lenses will always be bigger than MFT lenses anyway (exceptions apply, of course).
The latter isn't even 100% correct - assuming you got lenses with the same depth-of-field potential the size will be the same. Thus you'd think of the Zeiss 24/1.8 as a MFT 18mm f/1.2. Frankly I doubt that this one would be any smaller. Just think of the Voigtlander 25/0.95 (equiv. to a 33mm f/1.3 - take the Sigma 30/1.4 DC as a reference).
But the lenses aren't terribly reassuring... And that Zeiss surely looks like it needs a diet but I'm staying cautious as pictures always tend to magnify objects with me. Size size size...
[/quote]
I think there's also a bit of a misconception here regarding the potential sizing.
MFT lenses are not really smaller than their FT counterparts. Just take the
Olympus 14-42mm (classic) vs Panasonic 14-42mm
Olympus 40-150mm (classic) vs Olympus 40-150mm
Even the Oly 70-300 (classic, a relabeled Sigma full format lens) is not any bigger than the Pana 100-300mm.
Those MFT lenses that are substantially smaller are either pancakes or smaller because they are underdesigned.
Consequently NEX lenses will barely be smaller that conventional Alpha DT lenses.
Or in other words - NEX lenses will always be bigger than MFT lenses anyway (exceptions apply, of course).
The latter isn't even 100% correct - assuming you got lenses with the same depth-of-field potential the size will be the same. Thus you'd think of the Zeiss 24/1.8 as a MFT 18mm f/1.2. Frankly I doubt that this one would be any smaller. Just think of the Voigtlander 25/0.95 (equiv. to a 33mm f/1.3 - take the Sigma 30/1.4 DC as a reference).