4 ms·

> Wide angle prime: Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 7.5mm f/3.5 rectangular fisheye, 8mm f/3.5 Panasonic, 12mm f/2.0 Olympus The focal lengths are there but the aperture

> Wide angle prime: Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 7.5mm f/3.5 rectangular fisheye, 8mm f/3.5 Panasonic, 12mm f/2.0 Olympus The focal lengths are there but the apertures are narrower than the most common full-frame wide-angle primes, e.g. 14mm f/2.8 or 24mm f/1.4. This means less light, and also, as discussed elsewhere, a much wider minimum depth of field on the m4/3 lenses, due to the smaller sensor. (I meant to say 'fast wide-angle primes' in my original post, my mistake). > Long working distance macro: Olympus 60mm f/2.8, working distance 7.5" for 1:1 image My understanding was that 7.5" was the MFD (the distance from the film/sensor to the subject), not the MWD (the distance from the front element to the subject), on this lens, but I haven't used it. This review seems to suggest a working distance of 90mm (~3.5 inches) at 1:1, but it may also be wrong: http://savazzi.freehostia.com/photography/olympus60mm.html http://savazzi.freehostia.com/photography/olympus60mm.html If it does have a working distance of 7.5" at 1:1 that's very respectable -- up there with a 150mm, and not far below a 180mm full-frame macro. > Fast super-telephoto: 100-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Panasonic Again, the focal lengths here are good, and it's a zoom (try finding a 200-600mm zoom lens of any aperture for a full-frame camera), but the aperture is again a bit disappointing when compared to something like a 400mm f/2.8, both in terms of the amount of light it lets in and how shallow the depth of field is. Don't misunderstand me -- there are a great range of lenses for both m4/3 and Sony NEX cameras, which cover the popular focal lengths and produce stunning results. They're also usually a lot cheaper (that Panasonic telephoto is around $600, vs. around $10,000 for a 400mm f/2.8 full-frame lens) and a lot lighter. But if you've already spent $10,000 on a 400mm f/2.8 for your full-frame camera (and are making money from it), you're probably going to want a lens that will give similar results before you go mirrorless, which I think was the author's point.

Stratoscope 13y ago
Thanks very much for the insightful info, just what I was looking for. I expected that there would be much better full frame lenses, was just curious to know what the state of the art is. Yeah, I had the working distances confused on the 60mm macro: I just tested mine and it focuses to about 3.5" from the lens, 7.5" from the focal plane. I agree completely with your conclusion: it's all about tradeoffs and which works best for your needs. I've sure been delighted with the m4/3 lenses I have, and the size and weight and low cost figure into that. But of course if I needed more light gathering and shallow depth of field and were using it to make money it would be a different story.

Stratoscope 13y ago

Thanks very much for the insightful info, just what I was looking for. I expected that there would be much better full frame lenses, was just curious to know what the state of the art is. Yeah, I had the working distances confused on the 60mm macro: I just tested mine and it focuses to about 3.5" from the lens, 7.5" from the focal plane. I agree completely with your conclusion: it's all about tradeoffs and which works best for your needs. I've sure been delighted with the m4/3 lenses I have, and the size and weight and low cost figure into that. But of course if I needed more light gathering and shallow depth of field and were using it to make money it would be a different story.