1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Size of Panasonic 12-35mm/Olympus 12-40mm

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by New Daddy, Dec 2, 2013.

  1. New Daddy

    New Daddy Mu-43 Regular

    193
    Jan 24, 2011
    I'm about to buy a fast standard zoom (either Panasonic 12-35mm or Olympus 12-40mm). Then their size puzzles me a little. I understand that they are not only fast but very sharp, premium lenses. But even so, I think they are quite chunky, when compared to the Sony FE 28-70mm or even Panasonic's own 35-100mm. I know the Sony FE 28-70mm is f/3.5-5.6 but its focal length is twice as long. (I'm saving up to buy a full frame Sony A7 in the long run to use as a carry-about, low-light specialist camera, not to replace my m4/3 system but to supplement. With the size and weight difference so insignificant, maybe I should skip the fast standard zoom for m4/3 and put that money towards buying an A7 kit.) In the telephoto zoom, Panasonic's 35-100mm gains significant advantage over the corresponding full frame zoom of 70-200mm.

    Does anybody know why such advantage is not observed in the 12-35mm?

    size comparison: http://j.mp/18VOxax
     
  2. STR

    STR Mu-43 Veteran

    222
    May 16, 2013
    ??? The 12-35 is chunky but the 35-100 isn't? The 35-100 is, superficially, a stretched out 12-35. This post makes no sense to me.
     
  3. New Daddy

    New Daddy Mu-43 Regular

    193
    Jan 24, 2011
    For their focal lengths. Compare 12-35mm vs. full frame 28-70mm, and 35-100mm vs. full frame 70-200mm. Take a look at the size comparison. You'll see what I mean.

    If you don't have an answer to contribute, you can stay silent, rather than nitpick and throw in noise.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. mrjr

    mrjr Mu-43 Top Veteran

    518
    Sep 25, 2012
    Sounds like you didn't try very hard. OP is saying the 12-35/12-40 are larger than he expected given their specifications and compared to standard zooms from other systems, whereas the 35-100 is positively anemic-looking comparatively.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. STR

    STR Mu-43 Veteran

    222
    May 16, 2013
    Don't insult me. The burden is on you to clearly explain yourself. Don't ask for help then harp on people when you're being contradictory.

    The question then becomes why would one's expectations were so out of whack. 200/2 is a bigger number than 70/2. The narrow the equivalent field of view, the greater the difference in equivalent focal length when all but image circle is held constant.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    The deciding factor for the size of a zoom lens that covers the wide to normal range is the widest focal length at the short end. In this case, its significantly easier to design small for 28mm than it is to design a 12mm (=24mm). Telephoto focal length only becomes an issue beyond 100mm or so. It's extremely easy to design a 70mm that isn't very long. That's still close enough to the normal range that long focal length isn't an issue. The real challenge in a normal zoom like this is the wide end, not the short end. That's why the 28-70mm is as small as it is. It's only 28mm at the wide end. I would encourage you to put the Sony FE 24-70mm f/4 on the A7 and then do the comparison again. you'll see a much greater difference in size--nearly an inch difference.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. New Daddy

    New Daddy Mu-43 Regular

    193
    Jan 24, 2011
    You clearly don't have an answer either, so please move on. For the record, you insulted me first about my OP. Let's call it even.

    The difference between 12-35mm and 35-100mm is negligible. The fast standard zooms are always significantly shorter and lighter than the telephoto zooms in full frame systems. The difference between 70-200mm & 24-70mm is more than twice the difference between 35-100mm and 12-35mm, if that's what your math is supposed to mean.
     
  8. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    The other thing is that f/2.8 is still f/2.8 in terms of optical ratios and light gathering capability, no matter the format and resulting DoF. Comparing to a variable f/5.6 lens that doesn't go as wide doesn't really make sense. Have a look at the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L - that one is way bigger.
     
  9. New Daddy

    New Daddy Mu-43 Regular

    193
    Jan 24, 2011
    I see. I understand that wide angle for DSLR becomes sizable due to retrofocal design. Without mirror, I thought wide angle for micro four thirds wouldn't have that problem even at 12mm.

    In any event, I'm really surprised at the small size of A7 + 28-70mm considering what it can do. Really mouth-watering.
     
  10. faberryman

    faberryman Mu-43 Regular

    41
    Nov 15, 2013
    Might make sense for you to get the Sony lens for the A7 if you don't mind giving up the extra 1-2 stops of light gathering capability. The larger sensor will probably get you back to even for low light, high ISO situations.
     
  11. Joelmusicman

    Joelmusicman Mu-43 Regular

    90
    Nov 1, 2013
    I agree that no matter how you slice it the A7 with the f/4 lens is pretty amazing. That said, I'm not very thrilled at not having any quality lens options for less than 4 figures. With m4/3 while the lenses certainly aren't cheap, they're somewhat manageable.

    Of course as others have mentioned, we're comparing 2.8 zooms to a 4 zoom.
     
  12. faberryman

    faberryman Mu-43 Regular

    41
    Nov 15, 2013
    Actually we're comparing f2.8 m43 zooms to a f/3.5-5.6 FF zoom. The Sony f4 constant aperture FF zoom is not out yet. It's projected to be larger than the f3.5-5.6 at 2.87 x 3.72" (73 x 94.5 mm) and 15.17 oz (430 g).
     
  13. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    Me, too. It's pretty impressive. Retrofocal designs are still necessary often necessary. They simply tend to be less elaborate retrofocal designs than they would on a DSLR. Lenses for mirrorless still tend to be telecentric in nature that's that issue here. In this case, both the A7 and μ43 are mirrorless, so they're essentially on an equal footing here. And then it comes down to focal length: 28mm vs. 24mm (equivalent).

    Conversely, the challenge of telephoto focal length grows more and more the longer you get, which is why the 70-200mm's are so much bigger than the 35-100mm. The 35-100mm is about as long as you'd expect for just about any zoom that ends at 100mm--a little longer than a 100mm prime. Likewise, 70-200mm zooms are a little (more) longer than a 200mm prime.
     
  14. New Daddy

    New Daddy Mu-43 Regular

    193
    Jan 24, 2011
    You're right. But camerasize.com already has its image in the database. Yes, it will be bigger. About the size of Panny 35-100mm. That's not bad, considering it's f/4 constant zoom.

    http://j.mp/1k3KJFJ
     
  15. shizlefonizle

    shizlefonizle Mu-43 Veteran

    372
    Apr 21, 2012
    Its f4. Still looks fairly small though.
     
  16. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    834
    Sep 30, 2013
    The 28-70 has less range on the wide and tele end(when compared to the 12-40, same at tele as the 12-35) and is two stops slower at the long end, not to mention its a basic kit zoom lens, and optically performance will likely not be on par.

    The CZ 24-70/4 is a much better lens to compare. The CZ isn't a heck of a lot larger, but its a stop slower. The noise performance between the A7 and the latest M43rds sensors is one and a half stops. So you gain one stop narrower DOF, one half stop noise performance, a bit extra DR at base ISO (which is negated by needing to shoot at a higher ISO in low light). Plus you end up with a less responsive camera system (controls, ui, af performance, etc).

    Is the small difference in DOF and noise at high ISO worth it to you? If so, go for the Sony. If not, stick with M43rds.

    Personally I think the Sony with a fast prime makes a lot more sense if you want something high quality for low light, but then the 35/2.8 is fairly slow (15/1.7, 17/1.8 or 20/1.7 will give near identical results), I think they would have been better off with a 35/2... So maybe its best to wait for Sony to fill out their lens lineup? Oh yeah, no IBIS with primes, ouch.

    I was really looking forward the the A7 when rumors were saying it would have IBIS, but with no IBIS, and generally not being as mature/responsive a camera as my em5 and em1, I lost interest.
     
  17. New Daddy

    New Daddy Mu-43 Regular

    193
    Jan 24, 2011
    Sorry. corrected.
     
  18. slothead

    slothead Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 14, 2012
    Frederick, MD
    I was going to say that I didn't understand the question either, but maybe it's because I didn't want to take all the time to try and understand all these posts. So instead, I decided not to post at all - so ignore this post...
     
  19. New Daddy

    New Daddy Mu-43 Regular

    193
    Jan 24, 2011
    I said a full-frame (be it sony or not, but probably will be sony) will compliment my m4/3, not replace m4/3. Having said that, if I'm going to buy into Sony, I think 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 or 24-70mm f/4 is where Sony FF can fully take place of 12-35mm f/2.8. I don't need IS in that focal length range. (I mostly shoot people, and need fast shutter speed to prevent motion blur anyway.) For longer focal length range, m4/3 hands down, since I have no intention of carrying mammoth lenses.

    People are starting to put up A7/A7r images (the most I've found is at FredMiranda), and they are mind-blowingly good.
     
  20. Bokeaji

    Bokeaji Gonzo's Dad O.*

    Aug 6, 2011
    Austin, TX
    Not sure if it's been mentioned, but the sony kit lens has has a few people say it doesn't bring out the shininess of the a7 sensors like the 35/2.8 does. It might be like comparing a 14-42 kit zoom with the 12-35... So me thing to consider in your adventure into the a7 lands. I'd personally wait for the /f4 version in feb(?)