Henning wrote: >I believe I explained why there's no point and no >advantage to designing telephoto lenses for >smaller senor cameras.
>No size advantage. No weight advantage. No cost >advantage. Just a smaller market. >The 'wasting half the light' argument doesn't >fly. All long lenses could cover larger areas, >but are baffled to avoid too much extraneous >light bouncing around. For the smaller sensor >sizes tighter baffels could be installed, but the >EF lenses are already well baffled, so that isn't >going to gain you much. OK, I guess I simply don't understand the optics. Nevertheless, it's clear that if you simply compare like for like in terms of equivalent reach, the small format is lighter, smaller and cheaper: Sigma 70-210 f2.8, full frame: 1345g; 86.6 x 184mm; filter 77mm; price 620 pounds Sigma 50-150 f2.8, digital sensor: 770g; 76.3 x 135mm; filter 67mm; price 450 pounds I know which I'd rather carry. As I originally said, Pentax have also announced two new upmarket long zooms for digital. It'll be interesting to see whether Canon hold their line. Peter -- The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
