>
>Vesa Perala schrieb:
> >
> > >direct comparison, f/2.8 vs f/3.5 is "a little" unfair. It's a 2/3 stop
> > >difference.
> >
> > I believe in Canon-terminology 3.5 is half a stop slower than 2.8.
> > Just like 4 - 4.5 - 5.6.
> >
> > If it really matters.
> >
>
>May be, but I'm not sure about that. I suspect it's the other way round.
>Canon chose to use 3.5 and 4.5 as "half stops" on bodies which can
>display half stops only because they have a bunch of lenses which have
>these as fastest aperture. If these lenses were really just a half stop
>slower than 2.8 or 4, I can't see a reason why they shouldn't have marked
>them with the correct aperture and also should have used those same values
>in their cameras.
>
>Thomas Bantel
Thomas,
That makes a lot more sense. My first thought would be, if a body cant
display 1/3 stops, then the display should read 4.8 (or 4.9). But I could
see a lot of users with these bodies complaining to Canon that they bought a
4.5 lens and but can only open up to 4.8.
Now, does that mean that the lens is really open to 4.5 or is it 4.8?
Darrell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
