[Guest]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1314615026' post='11135']

Mein lieber Gott <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> , go out and take some pictures people! Reading this post can make your head spin. Whatever the testers say, part of it is pbjective, but some of it has to be subjective. Let it be!<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' /> Klaus and Makus, you are saints! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[/quote]



<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



Same thoughts.



I think that aproaches like a 12mm F2 lens for mFT is equivalent to a 24mm F4 lens for 24x36 are very very technical and one-sided.



It's a wide-angle lens with 84 degrees field of view, F2. It's just that.



Nobody here knows how much effort it takes to make a 12mm F2.0 lens for mFT in comparison to a 24mm F2 lens for 24x36.



Didn't you say that it only makes sense to compare lenses within the same camera system, Klaus? So stick to that!



And considering a comparison between mFT lenses there is something strange here happening.

I had them both, the Panasonic 2.5/14 and the Olympus 2.0/12 and the Olympus is way sharper at the borders and in the edges than the Panasonic.



But the test figures don't indicate this.

You can even see it in the sample photos that the Olympus lens is sharper.



So there is something wrong with your mFT tests in my opinion. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />