Where is the "sweet spot" for m43 lenses?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Andym72, Mar 4, 2014.

  1. Andym72

    Andym72 Mu-43 Veteran

    330
    Mar 4, 2013
    Reading, UK
    Do you think it is:

    - More reach with shorter focal lengths from the telephoto lenses because of the smaller sensor?

    - Tiny wide and normal lenses (particularly the primes) that pair nicely with the smaller m43 bodies?
     
  2. b_rubenstein

    b_rubenstein Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 20, 2012
    Melbourne, FL
    You really need a Neither choice.
     
  3. alex66

    alex66 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    715
    Jul 23, 2010
    Optimal for me 12-50mm or 24-100 in old lens especially with small primes and the pancake zooms makes for a high quality small sized kit.
     
  4. BobbyTan

    BobbyTan Mu-43 Top Veteran

    560
    Dec 26, 2013
    Long Beach, CA
    Size. All good things come in small packages. Having said that, I am getting all the PRO lenses plus the Nocticron. No, I wouldn't call these petite lenses but they are still far smaller and lighter than FF or APS-C DSLR lenses. That's where my sweet spot is - compact size.
     
  5. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    And the 'both' option.

    The 'sweet spot' depends on what your goal is. For me, it's the 'goldilocks' all-round package - small primes for fun and discretion (14/2.5, 20/1.7, 25/1.8, 45/1.8), and compared to FF small 'normal' zoom (although the A7r + 24-70 is nipping at the 12-40's heels in terms of size at least), and also really great telephoto reach in a compact package. The 100-300 or 75-300 are not tiny, but they're small for the amount of reach they have. I've gone for the much heavier (twice as heavy, twice as big) 50-200 43, but that's still about 30% lighter than a Canon 100-400 (equivalent focal range on a FF DSLR, which is what I used to shoot wildlife with), and has a light more light gathering capacity (f3.5 at the long end, f2.8 at the short, vs 5.6 and 4.0), and plays nice with a teleconverter which adds only a tiny amount to weight and length, and turns it into a 140-560/4.0-5.0 supertelephoto. Which at today's second-hand prices is also significantly cheaper than the Canon lens.

    So, yeah, Overall, it's the ability to choose between something like a GM-1 with a 12-32 or 45/1.8 (tiny, stealthy) and a gripped E-M1 with an adapted 43 lens that still provides at least decent AF performance and excellent optical performance. And both share what is essentially the same sensor, and lenses. That's something that's far more pronounced for MFT than for any other interchangeable lens camera system that I'm aware of.