>>3767545You mean like that 150-400mm $7.5k lens that was just announced thats equivalent to f/9?
Or the $1000 12-35mm 2.8? (5.6 equivalent)
Or the $1400 42.5mm 1.2? (2.4 equivalent)
Or the $1700 50-200mm 2.8-4? (4-8 equivalent)
Or the $1200 to $1600 bodies?
The Fuji 18-55mm 2.8-4 is $700 4-5.5 equivalent, partly faster than the 12-35mm
The Sony 24-70mm f/4 is $700, and there’s no equivalent in MFT as you’d need a 12-35mm f/2.
The Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is $880 and 2 stops faster the 12-35mm f/2.8 with ISO performance taken into account.
The Sony 85mm 1.8 is $550, almost a fucking third of the cost of the 42.5mm and it’s faster, better, and it’s even a little bit lighter.
Canon has the f/11 super telephoto primes which are sharp. Sony has the 200-600mm.
Sigma has the 100-400mm 5-6.3 for $949 - faster than the 50-200mm
The Olympus 17mm 1.8 is almost $500. Samyang has the great 35mm 1.8 which is 4x as fast for $400.
Not only does MFT have no actual equivalent lenses for the most part to compensate for sensor size, the competing lenses are often way more expensive, Maybe the only exception is the 100-400mm lens, Canon has that covered in their sharp 800mm f/11 though, just not a zoom. However the 100-400mm is not even out yet so it’s never been available, and less of a edc lens and more a special or niche lens.
