03-12-2012, 11:32 AM
[quote name='Sammy' timestamp='1331539981' post='16593']
While optically acceptable this lens features a rotating front element, provides no IS, and Photozone was pretty cynical about its mechanical properties: "The build quality of the lens is terrible - in comparison with a Coke PET bottle the Coke shines in this respect." If I would have been a Canon user back in my APS-C days I probably would have seriously considered it though because of its lowish weight. Life is full of compromises.
[/quote]
Of course, it features a rotating front element and has no IS. Why was I giving it as an example, though? To show its size and weight for FF. IS will not make it more heavy, really. Nor will a different focus design where the front element will not rotate.
My point was just that tele lenses do not get much smaller for 4/3rds and MFT. No doubt, the Panasonic lens will be a nicer lens in many respects.
While optically acceptable this lens features a rotating front element, provides no IS, and Photozone was pretty cynical about its mechanical properties: "The build quality of the lens is terrible - in comparison with a Coke PET bottle the Coke shines in this respect." If I would have been a Canon user back in my APS-C days I probably would have seriously considered it though because of its lowish weight. Life is full of compromises.
[/quote]
Of course, it features a rotating front element and has no IS. Why was I giving it as an example, though? To show its size and weight for FF. IS will not make it more heavy, really. Nor will a different focus design where the front element will not rotate.
My point was just that tele lenses do not get much smaller for 4/3rds and MFT. No doubt, the Panasonic lens will be a nicer lens in many respects.