Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Hancock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 2:07 AM
Subject: EOS re 1.6X telephoto
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
By that logic, then the 2x sensor of the Olympus cameras should produce
lenses that are even smaller, lighter and cheaper, but that doesn't follow.
Oly 35-100 f2.0(35mm equiv. 70-200 f2.8): 1650g, 96.5mm x 213.5mm, 77mm
filter size and $2199.95
Canon 70-200 f2.8: 1590g, 86.2 x 197mm, 77mm filter and $1699.99.
See, other things enter in to the equation.
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
