Think the 12-40 f2.8 is big?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by tkbslc, Aug 4, 2015.

  1. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Next time you are feeling like the 12-40 f2.8 or even the 12-35mm f2.8 zoom is a little too chunky, pop on over and check out the newly announced Nikon 24-70 VR:

    http://www.dpreview.com/articles/62...-f2-8-vr-24mm-f1-8-and-200-500-f5-6-fx-lenses

    It's only 155mm long, 88mm around and weighs 1070g. That's actually almost the exact same size as the 40-150 Pro, but 20% heavier.

    So your Pro standard f2.8 zoom on Nikon FX is a little chunkier than the biggest current m4/3 lens. Hope that makes you feel a little better! :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  2. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    It's $2400 too!
     
  3. VooDoo64

    VooDoo64 Mu-43 Veteran

    240
    Jul 17, 2010
    Zagreb - Croatia
    Davor Vojvoda
    but I would like 200-500 f/5.6 on Olympus - and we have nothing after 150/300mm
     
  4. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    500 on Nikon dx is like 375 on m4/3 and we just had the 100-400 semi-announced.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Drdave944

    Drdave944 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    702
    Feb 2, 2012
    I had a 24-70 Tamron for Canon.it had IS and was f2.8 Great lens ,but it was huge, I sold it because was so big. I have no zooms for Canon at normal mag. Canon zooms only used for telephoto work. Can't beat a 70-200 F2.8. Oly 40-150 is a contender.
     
  6. Krigskoen

    Krigskoen Mu-43 Regular

    59
    Jun 10, 2015
    Think the 12-40 f2.8 is expensive? Holy cow, that Nikon is 2399$!!

    I feel a bit better about my 12-40 now..both the price and size ;)
     
  7. VooDoo64

    VooDoo64 Mu-43 Veteran

    240
    Jul 17, 2010
    Zagreb - Croatia
    Davor Vojvoda
    yes but dont forget FF is 4x size of 4/3 so they need 4x larger glass - yes I love my m43 set for all good things he have but that glass is not so big and expensive for nothing - excellent glass/lens must be big and heavy !!
     
  8. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Super Moderator

    Apr 17, 2010
    Near Philadephila
    F2.8 goes a LOT farther on full frame than m43. F4 actually goes a good bit farther on full frame than 2.8 on m43. I'm not much of a zoom guy (which is why I'm OK with the size of a Nikon FF system - small primes minimize the size difference), but my full frame zooms are f3.5 or f4 and not nearly as big as the pro f2.8 zooms. (the Nikon 24-120 f4 isn't that big and is a great focal range - probably similar in size to the Oly 12-60... And my old 75-150 f3.5 is actually quite small (about the size of the Pany 35-100) and is an excellent lens, but is MF only...

    -Ray
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. VooDoo64

    VooDoo64 Mu-43 Veteran

    240
    Jul 17, 2010
    Zagreb - Croatia
    Davor Vojvoda
    yes 24-120 is same size as 12-60 and that 12-60 whitout MMF1 adapter, and 70-200 f/4 is same size or smaller than 50-200, and f/4 is as f/2 on m43 ( in dof but also in ISO so shutter is the same ), i was about to buy that combo - D750 - 50 1.8, 24-120 f/4, 70-200 f/4 ( its same size or smaller than E-M1 + mmf1 + 12-60 + 50-200 ) BUT than i got call from Olympus rep. and now I'am on E-M1 + 12-40 + 40-150 aka PRO set :) now I need 300 PRO and than E-M1 mk2 ;)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. tyrphoto

    tyrphoto Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 25, 2014
    Seoul | NYC
    ㅇtㅈyㅅr
    I've owned/own a Tamron 24-70/2.8, Canon 28-70/2.8L, Canon 24-70/2.8L and a Canon 24-105/4L. All of them dwarf the O12-40/2.8, so personally, I don't get all the whining about how it's too big and too heavy. Sure, if you're coming from a small compact zoom camera, it's huge but in the grand scheme of things, for a "pro" f2.8 standard zoom, it's quite small and lightweight. It all boils down to perspective.

    Same goes for the Olympus PRO wide zoom and tele zoom versus Canon/Nikon equivalents.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  11. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  12. gr6825

    gr6825 Mu-43 Veteran

    277
    Oct 10, 2012
    I am actually surprised the 40-150mm is so large. How does that thing handle on the bodies other than EM-1??
     
  13. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    Maybe it's so expensive because, according to B+H, it's the "first lens of it's kind to feature image stabilization"

    Maybe the Panasonic 12-35 doesn't "feature" stabilization, it just has it.

    Fred
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Even if we want to keep it in the FF family to appease the equivalency folks, Tamron released a 24-70 with VC about 3 years ago.
     
  15. gr6825

    gr6825 Mu-43 Veteran

    277
    Oct 10, 2012
    Tamron ain't got nano coating :hiding:
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  16. Carbonman

    Carbonman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jul 10, 2014
    Vancouver BC
    Graham
    Handles nicely on my E-M10 with ECG-1 grip:

    20019069776_72e7400799_c. Rainy Day Bee by Carbonman_, on Flickr

    19415293603_8a6ec38749_c. Button Lights by Carbonman_, on Flickr
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1