Think the 12-40 f2.8 is big?

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

  1. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Legend

    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 Legend

    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 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    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 Subscribing Member

    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 Legend

    • 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 Legend

    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 Subscribing Member

    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
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.