[Brightcolours]

....
Besides that, the Olympus is a sharp lens of course, that is apparent. In FF terms, a sharp, slow 24-200mm f8 lens. A slow lens that weighs 239 grams less than the faster Canon 24-240mm f4-6.3 lens. A slow lens that is weather sealed, and $200 more expensive.

The last 3 lines of the above quote I was referring to.

The Canon is not a faster lens. It just has less DoF on a FF sensor that the Oly on an MFT sensor.

Kind regards, Wim

So, lets see. Saying that the Olympus "is  sharp lens of course, that is apparent" is dissing it?
And saying that in Full Frame terms, it is a sharp, slow 24-200mm f8 lens is dissing it? Or factually stating that it weighs less is dissing? Or more expensive?

In FF terms, the Canon is faster. In FF terms. Try it yourself. To use it with an FF sensor, and use it like a 24-200mm lens, you need to put a 2x TC on it. Guess what the max. f-value will be.

The odd thing is that you fall over the f8 part but not the 24-200mm part. Strange.

And are you saying that 20 years ago rap was not yet there, dude bro? "Diss" is certainly rapper lingo, it originates from Jamaican and AAVE, and has been popularised by rap culture. A bit odd that you think in terms of "disrespecting a lens", I have to say.

The word diss indeed derives from disrespect or disparage, and was originally spelt dis. First record in a dictionary dates from 1905. Those were very early rappers I guess, not-a-bro.

I am harping on about you saying it is an F/8 lens. I don’t care about the FL, as long as it is equivalent, basically in order to determine magnification and/or FoV for a specific lens/sensor combination. However, F/4 is F/4 is F/4, as only the physical aperture determines the effect of optical diffraction. An F/2 lens on a mobile phone with a 7.2 mm sensor diameter is not called an F/72 lens either, and neither does it behave like an optic at F/72 with regard to diffraction effect (at F/72 the resolution would be in the order of a few line pairs per mm).

Regards, Wim

And what does that first record in a dictionary say about its origins? AAVE? And has AAVE been widely used across the whole english speaking population of the world? No.
Meriam Webster notes the 1st known use of "diss" in this meaning to be from 1987. So what did popularise the use of "diss"? Yep. Rap culture. And you still think it is normal to say someone can "disrespect" a lens, dude/bro? 

You appear to have a blind spot. I say that in FF terms, this MFT lens is like a 24-200mm f8 lens. Or: this lens is equivalent to a 24-200mm f8 lens.

Funny thing: you don't care about FL as long it is equivalent. Yet you do (in the wrong way) care about f-value, even though they are equivalent. f4 only means one thing. Size of the aperture. So, the lens has a 100 / 4 = 25mm diameter aperture when set at 100mm. So if we say the lens is equivalent to a 24-200mm FF lens, and the diameter of the aperture of course stays the same (25mm), the equivalent f-value of course is 200 / 25 = f8.

And optical diffraction?  The f-value is NOT there to notate optical diffraction.
First  (in the past) you were objecting to equivalent apertures because of "light per square whatever" (which is totally meaningless). You stepped off that argument to argue... diffraction? Really?

No one calls the f-value of any f4 lens f8, or f33, or f1.2. Not me either. I merely stated (correctly) that this 12-100mm f4 MFT lens in FF terms is like a 24-200mm f8 FF lens. At other times I have formulated it this way: equivalent to a 24-200mm f8 FF lens. That does not make the focal length at the wide end 24mm. Nor does it make the f-value of the lens itself f8. So your rather silly straw man argument of that cellphone lens is just... stupid.

Back to that diffraction which you do not appear to understand very well.

You can notice diffraction softening at the imaging plane. You can notice the loss of sharpness at pixel or at image level.
Lets imagine a 20mp FF sensor and a 20mp MFT sensor with a f8 and a f4 lens respectively. We take a photo with both combinations and compare on pixel level the effect of the diffraction. What do you know, we see the SAME amount of diffraction at pixel level. But pixel level maybe is just for pixel peepers, so we print out both photos at the same size and compare the effect of diffraction at image level. Damnation! Again we see the same amount of diffraction softening. Because the FF pixels are twice the width, and the sensors are twice the width.

So, even in diffraction terms, f4 on MFT is similar to f8 on FF.

And what if we use that MFT lens on FF with a 2x TC? The same diffraction. Again.

Best regards to you, Dude/Bro/Homie. And I won't go disrespecting yo mama, so we ok, rite? ;-)

dude
/d(j)uːd/
Learn to pronounce
INFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN
noun
a man; a guy (often as a form of address).

bro noun
\ ˈbrō \
plural bros
Definition of bro
US slang
used as a friendly way of addressing a man or boy

homie
/ˈhəʊmi/
Learn to pronounce
nounINFORMAL•US
an acquaintance from one's town or neighbourhood, or a member of one's peer group or gang.