1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

What would it be?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by sprinke, Feb 23, 2012.

  1. sprinke

    sprinke Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 5, 2011
    Pasadena, CA
    A lot of pro portrait photographers use a 70-200mm constant f/2.8 lens.

    What would that correspond to in :43: terms?

    Obviously 35-100mm, but what about the max aperture? Not sure how to figure that out.

    (I know this lens doesn't exist for :43:, but I was curious what it would take.)
  2. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    If you want similarly shallow depth-of-field, it would have to be f/1.4 to match the 70-200/2.8 on a full-frame sensor.

    • Like Like x 1
  3. dre_tech

    dre_tech Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 31, 2012
    Maybe you already know this, the 24-70 & 70-200 equivalents from Panasonic are supposed to be coming sometime, hopefully this year.

    In the mean time you could look at the Olympus 45mm f/1.8. It's a very nice small prime at a good price point.

    Edit: I see from flickr that you have the 45 f/1.8, are you looking for a longer focal length?
  4. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Max aperture is max aperture. There is no "equivalent" for it.

    The Zuiko 35-100mm f/2 is a very good choice for portraits. The m.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8 is also a good portrait lens, but that all depends on how tight you compose. It'll work well for a full bust or more, not so good for a headshot. I would prefer the m.Zuiko 75mm/1.8 for both bust shot and headshot, but that one's not out yet. ;)  Full body shots could be done well with the m.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8, but also with the Leica 25mm f/1.4 Summilux or Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 Nokton. If you have enough space then generally the longer the focal length the better. Get too close for the crop you're shooting and you may get unflattering perspective distortion. However, too long and you could run out of space to move or you may make lighting more difficult (ie, a fill flash on a bracket may get too far, or maybe if you're using optical triggers you may get too far to fire reliably).

    So what kind of portraits do you intend on taking, and in what kind of setting? That would be a much more pertinent question than asking about "equivalent" lenses for an ill-equivalent system.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    Divide the aperture by the crop factor to get equivalent depth of field.
  6. sprinke

    sprinke Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 5, 2011
    Pasadena, CA
    This is the answer I was looking for.

    I'm not really that concerned about replicating the same thing in :43:; I was just curious. I've got the 45mm f/1.8, and like it just fine. The PanaLeica 25mm is starting to look tempting now too.
  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.