Shade
Well-known
Probably he meant the dof. Not actual technical crop.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I guess that would depend on what you want out of the format. If you are looking at a small stand alone system then the 12/2 is an asset. You still don't have the DOF of a 24/2 on FF if it matters to you. Can you live with iso 800 considering the EP has in body IS? How large do you want to print? I have written this format off as far as using legacy lenses from another system because of the 2x crop factor, I like my wides wide. So I guess it depends on what you want out of the format and what you are willing to tolerate as far as compromises go.
Bob
Shade
Well-known
Im planning to add an extra lens on my setup. Do you think I should get the 12/2 or 20/1.7? I have the 45/1.8 already and m9 with 35/2 and 50/1.4.
Shade
Well-known
Wrong post, sorry.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I'd say the 12/2. Since you already have a 35mm focal length which is not too different than 40mm.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
What I don't get is the "rule" that says the dof is equivalent to f/4 just because the sensor has 2x crop.
Where is the proof for this? And by 'proof' I mean pictures, not someone who just postulates on his blog.
I can understand if they say f/2.8 instead of f/4.
Shade
Well-known
Well, let me try to explain it this way.
Hypothetically you are using the 12/2 at the m4/3 which equals to the fov of a 24mm lens. Your subject is 3m in front of you.
On full frame, the 12/2 will still be a 12/2 and to get the same 24mm fov like the m4/3, you'd need to move closer to 1.5m to get it.
And we all agree that the closer you are the shallower the dof.
And I think its a rough estimation of the exact dof of the 12/2 = 24/4 (dof and fov speaking only). I read there was an article about it somewhere. But the crop applies to the dof also, not only the fov. The light gathering ability stays the same.
However, if you use the 12/2 on fullframe but crop it digitally later to get 24mm fov, and you stand at 3m from your subject, then the dof stays the same. But you get a wider fov that you can crop around.
Imho.
Hypothetically you are using the 12/2 at the m4/3 which equals to the fov of a 24mm lens. Your subject is 3m in front of you.
On full frame, the 12/2 will still be a 12/2 and to get the same 24mm fov like the m4/3, you'd need to move closer to 1.5m to get it.
And we all agree that the closer you are the shallower the dof.
And I think its a rough estimation of the exact dof of the 12/2 = 24/4 (dof and fov speaking only). I read there was an article about it somewhere. But the crop applies to the dof also, not only the fov. The light gathering ability stays the same.
However, if you use the 12/2 on fullframe but crop it digitally later to get 24mm fov, and you stand at 3m from your subject, then the dof stays the same. But you get a wider fov that you can crop around.
Imho.
Shade
Well-known
I finally bought the 12/2!
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I understand the reasoning behind it.
What I'm doubting is that the DOF on this lens would be *two full-stop* deeper at f/2 compared to a 12/2 lens on a full-frame (good luck finding one).
Show me pictures. I've read some articles about this also, none of them has the proof in pictures.
Shade
Well-known
Unfortunately I cannot show pictures my friend. As I do not have an adaptor for my M to m4/3, and the test would be extremely technical. I would need to measure the dof and the background and forground distances and do a stop down and then retake the picture and then crop it and so on.. I'll wait for someone else to do it hehehe..