05-21-2012, 10:08 AM
[quote name='Sylvain' timestamp='1337591260' post='18378']
I see your point but on the other hand I think this lens might possibly make the 12mm f/2 slightly redundant.
IMHO, the X 14-42, at least when you have been accustomed to the 14-45, is not very tempting for two reasons : the motor only operations (quite frankly, a bit of a bore, it's too slow) and the worse performances. The size doesn't quite make up for it, for me.
I never really think anymore in terms of equivalence, it's rather about the best you can get within your system.
It's a lens for maniacs, for sure.
[/quote]
Yeah, but regardless of whether you think in terms of equivalence or not - f/2.8 on MFT is not really something for shallow DOF photography. Just low-light.
I see your point but on the other hand I think this lens might possibly make the 12mm f/2 slightly redundant.
IMHO, the X 14-42, at least when you have been accustomed to the 14-45, is not very tempting for two reasons : the motor only operations (quite frankly, a bit of a bore, it's too slow) and the worse performances. The size doesn't quite make up for it, for me.
I never really think anymore in terms of equivalence, it's rather about the best you can get within your system.
It's a lens for maniacs, for sure.
[/quote]
Yeah, but regardless of whether you think in terms of equivalence or not - f/2.8 on MFT is not really something for shallow DOF photography. Just low-light.