[thxbb12]

I totally agree that with a UWA zoom aperture size does not matter. I like how everybody seems to want to troll, but you never have seen me argue about that an UWA should have a big aperture or that FF is needed for UWA.

 

About the 45mm f1.8... If one is looking for a portrait prime, one is not looking for a f3.6 lens, to be honest. That someone who has a MFT camera already may consider it is another matter. There is a reason why you don't find 90mm f3.6 lenses, on FF, and also not many 150mm f3.6 lenses.

In the 1960's and 70's there used to be 135mm f3.5 lenses that were quite popular, but with photography having become more affordable and lens technology having made big strides, things have moved on.

 

With 300mm, aperture kinda always matters. People who can't afford big aperture tell themselves it doesn't matter, people who earn their money with making images, have a different perspective.

 

Your post was about shallow DOF and tiny size: "a small form factor while having the ability to use shallow DOF" hence me poking a little friendly fun at that. Your reaction was all about how aperture does not matter?

 

1) Shallow DOF

I agree that f3.6 is not very sexy in the FF world. However, it might be sufficient for many people. I still believe it's a good portrait option. Now, there is shallow DOF and shallow DOF. If one wants razor thin DOF, FF is the only way to go. However, not every portrait photographer will shoot their FF lenses at f1.4 or f1.8 and f3.6 might be totally fine. Compared to regular slow zooms, a tiny 90mm f3.6 is very attractive. I still believe quite a few photographers would be interested in a small 90mm or 150mm f3.6 lenses for FF. If you want more shallow, the Fuji 35mm f1.4 + a X-T10 body offers something that simply doesn't exist in the FF world. The Fuji 18mm f2 is minuscule and the 14 f2.8 is also very small while being bright. Again, nothing matches those in FF. And don't forget to take the dimensions of the whole package.

 

2) Long zooms

I wasn't talking about pro photographers taking wildlife shots. Of course, these need >= 400mm f2.8 or f4 lenses and they don't care much about size/weight. I was thinking more about people who need reach for travel, landscape, and occasional wildlife shots. In this context a f4-5.6 MFT zoom is totally fine. The paramount here is portability. In the FF world there is simply nothing small that covers the range > 100mm. Again, FF doesn't have anything that covers the 300mm range that's close to the Panasonic 45-150mm, regardless of the aperture.