[Brightcolours]

[quote name='x_holger' timestamp='1314629152' post='11138']

<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.

[/quote]

They are not technical at all. They touch on the two NON-technical aspects of lenses... the field of view they offer and the size of the opening of the optics. The two things one notices in the photos, so very very practical...

[quote name='x_holger' timestamp='1314629152' post='11138']

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

[/quote]

It is a wide angle lens with 84 degrees field of view (diagonal, on 4/3rds). Aperture: f / 2 = 6mm.

Compared to a Canon EF 24 mm f2.8: This is a wide angle lens with 84 degrees field of view (diagonal, on 135 format). Aperture: f / 2.8 = 8.6mm.

[quote name='x_holger' timestamp='1314629152' post='11138']

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.

[/quote]

Why is the effort important here? Is it not the result that counts? Anyway, the equivalent would be a 24mm f4, not a 24mm f2.

[quote name='x_holger' timestamp='1314629152' post='11138']

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

[/quote]

Klaus says that it only makes sense to compare the resolution figures and vignetting results directly when tested on the same camera body. He sticks with that. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />