Left lens: 360g, $1,100. Right lens: 1,480g, $2,100.
This is the argument for Micro 4/3 in one illustration if you ask me.
Both lenses have the same angle of view, within the approximations of the aspect ratio.
Plus, as if that weren't enough, the smaller lens will give you more apparent depth-of-field for the same aperture at the same angle of view! That's a huge advantage, since sufficient D-o-F is so often a headache with longer focal lengths.
The smaller lens weighs 357 grams, the larger one 1480 grams, more than four times as much.
No hate for the BBU (big bazooka users). They've got their reasons, and I'm sure they're good. Whatever leavens your loaf. Whatever shizzles your pizzazzle. Whatever shifts your stick.
But I know which I'd prefer to schlepp.
P.S. I really want this lens but I can't justify it. Warning, you could hear about this again.
Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Rob de Loe: "All sound arguments, except the one on the left isn't white...."
robert e: "To put it another way: for around the cost of the bigger lens, one could buy the smaller lens plus a very nice body to keep it on, which package would still weigh less and take up less volume than the full frame lens alone."
James Weekes: Yes, you really, really want it. It is the 12–35mm's big brother. Same image quality, same feel. With these two I shouldn't need another lens, in reality. Curse you GAS."
Nigel Marrington: "Youll be going all misty-eyed when you see one of those old white Canon bazookas, before you turn your toes up. Put one next to your turntable and valve amp, washing machine, toaster and all that other heavy, obsolete inferior junk you never should have got rid of."
David Runyard: "What on earth does 'schlepp' mean? Hold—carry—buy—own?"
Mike replies: I sppelled it with one too many P's—sorry. To carry, lug or drag in a tedious or awkward manner. Origin of schlep
1920–25: Yiddish shlepn to pull, drag, (intransitive) trudge < Middle High German dialect sleppen < Middle Low German, Middle Dutch slēpen (Dictionary.com).
Incidentally, for those of you who enjoy wordplay, you'll want to catch up with linguist and dialogue coach Erik Singer on WIRED. Here he is critiquing the foreign accents of famous actors doing accents in movies (including several actors trying Australian accents). He's very respectful and gentle to actors who do an accent badly (like Michael Caine's "interesting choice") so you sometimes sort of have to read between the lines to know when he thinks an actor is awful.
Wes Cosand: "I was using the Nikon D800 and 70–200ƒ/2.8 for theatrical photography and found that as I aged I simply could no longer hold the lens for a two-hour performance. I purchased exactly the Micro 4/3 outfit in your illustration. It made my continued photography possible."
Jeron: "Ah, good old depth of field. I imagine the Internets went mad over that thought that more D-o-F could possibly be a good thing, and the comment inbox is flooded with very upset messages. The old fashioned idea that a relevant part of the subject should be in focus is vigorously rejected these days."
Dave Karp: "Based on some recent experience, I am questioning whether the benefits of a larger sensor in low light conditions is somewhat overwhelmed by the weight of the larger camera and lens, which makes it harder to hold steady, even with IS. The smaller overall Micro 4/3 package is so easy to handle that I am getting the feeling that the real advantage may go to Micro 4/3. At least for Micro 4/3 vs. APS-C."