07-23-2012, 10:51 PM
[quote name='nsandersen' timestamp='1343080635' post='19573']
Well those are the lenses I had! To get below 27-28mm with a standard zoom and to get to ~500mm reach with good sharpness and build, I am not sure what else there is or was at the time for APS-C?
Sure, people have commented on my lens choice before, but that is what works for me. I am not interested in both a normal and an ultrawide zoom - my ideal standard zoom would be the Olympus 22-44mm equivalent, but it doesn't exist for micro 4/3. Likewise, I don't find the standard 70-200 range long enough on APS-C or 4/3, thus the larger/heavier lens.
[/quote]
Well, at the time you got the G3 there was the 15-85mm IS already, if you feel you need a standard lens wider than 27mm ~FF equivalent... But that is only a little bit lighter than the 16-35mm f2.8.
A Sigma 17-50 OS is only a little bit less wide, but weighs about the same as the Canon 15-85, so again only about 50 grams to save.
A Tamron 17-50mm would be the way to go to keep the DSLR kit light.
Obviously though there is a bigger saving to be made with the tele. A Canon 70-300mm IS USM or Tamron 70-300mm VC weight quite a bit less than that Sigma 100-300mm.
Of course, you still will win weight wise with the G3 setup. It is not a really much smaller set up though. I would personally prefer the light DLSR set up with such a relatively small size and weight difference. You still need a similarly big bag and I do value the OVF and bit beefier grip and PD AF.
I do see the attractiveness of a tiny camera with big sensor, but it can only be tine with a specific lens. Which limits its alroundness.
Well those are the lenses I had! To get below 27-28mm with a standard zoom and to get to ~500mm reach with good sharpness and build, I am not sure what else there is or was at the time for APS-C?
Sure, people have commented on my lens choice before, but that is what works for me. I am not interested in both a normal and an ultrawide zoom - my ideal standard zoom would be the Olympus 22-44mm equivalent, but it doesn't exist for micro 4/3. Likewise, I don't find the standard 70-200 range long enough on APS-C or 4/3, thus the larger/heavier lens.
[/quote]
Well, at the time you got the G3 there was the 15-85mm IS already, if you feel you need a standard lens wider than 27mm ~FF equivalent... But that is only a little bit lighter than the 16-35mm f2.8.
A Sigma 17-50 OS is only a little bit less wide, but weighs about the same as the Canon 15-85, so again only about 50 grams to save.
A Tamron 17-50mm would be the way to go to keep the DSLR kit light.
Obviously though there is a bigger saving to be made with the tele. A Canon 70-300mm IS USM or Tamron 70-300mm VC weight quite a bit less than that Sigma 100-300mm.
Of course, you still will win weight wise with the G3 setup. It is not a really much smaller set up though. I would personally prefer the light DLSR set up with such a relatively small size and weight difference. You still need a similarly big bag and I do value the OVF and bit beefier grip and PD AF.
I do see the attractiveness of a tiny camera with big sensor, but it can only be tine with a specific lens. Which limits its alroundness.