On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:07:39 -0000, "Peter Hancock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
>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. I think it's hard to compare lenses like that. Differences like build quality etc can make a huge difference you can't appreciate in just the raw specs above. Plus, the zoom range beyond 150 always makes a much longer, bigger lens that is obviously going to be heavier and use a larger filter. But I do understand where you're coming from there. And let's not forget newer technology and plastics etc can produce a lighter lens even on the same design, so it's just hard to compare, the 50-150 obviously is a much newer tech and that's one reason why it's lighter. But of course Sigma designed it for the 1.6x format which is looking for lighter and cheaper lenses, so that was their goal making it. It's little wonder it turned out that way. And it would be great to have optimized lenses for the 1.6x format in real Canon L lenses, but I can understand the amount of research and money developing them might not pay off for Canon. After all, Canon has the full frame DSLRs. You might want to look into the Olympus lineup, I think they are getting more serious about the smaller sensor and lens lineup. -- Jim Davis, Owner, Eastern Beaver Company: http://easternbeaver.com/ Motorcycle Relay Kits, Modulator Kits, Powerlet, Centech, Posi-Lock, Parts. 1988 K100RS SE ABS in Japan. 1991 ST1100 in America. STOC#6327, IBMWR, KBMW * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
