02-06-2012, 06:21 PM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1328551190' post='15547']
Simply put: a 150mm macro lens makes sense. A 200mm tele with large aperture makes sense. A 135mm with large aperture makes sense. All for different purposes. This one is not any of those. Not an ideal portrait lens, not an ideal large aperture tele, not a macro lens.
[/quote]
Brightcolours, please take no offence but I can see where Joachim's post came from. Comparing apple and pears. It's a bit hard to see your point when you compare its separation qualities to a 200mm f2 (5500 USD) or even a 200mm f/2.8- it seems you're often thinking and judging MFT in absolute terms rather than inside a new system within its new constraints.
As for the target group, yes, it's not a FF 135mm f/2 equivalent either but within the MFT system, it's going to be the widest-at-this-focal-length lens, something I think many will find valuable.
Simply put: a 150mm macro lens makes sense. A 200mm tele with large aperture makes sense. A 135mm with large aperture makes sense. All for different purposes. This one is not any of those. Not an ideal portrait lens, not an ideal large aperture tele, not a macro lens.
[/quote]
Brightcolours, please take no offence but I can see where Joachim's post came from. Comparing apple and pears. It's a bit hard to see your point when you compare its separation qualities to a 200mm f2 (5500 USD) or even a 200mm f/2.8- it seems you're often thinking and judging MFT in absolute terms rather than inside a new system within its new constraints.
As for the target group, yes, it's not a FF 135mm f/2 equivalent either but within the MFT system, it's going to be the widest-at-this-focal-length lens, something I think many will find valuable.