---- Peter Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Skip wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Yup, like f2 rather than f2.8. Or to give another example, Olympus
> 300mm f2.8, 3290g, about 4750 pounds, Canon 600 f4, 5300g about 5800
> pounds. Lighter, cheaper and a whole stop brighter. I think I'll rest
> my case there.
>
> Peter
>
Except you should be comparing the 300mm Oly to the 400mm f2.8 Canon, since
both, in your discussion, are on crop cameras. Or compare the 300mm Oly to the
300mm Canon.
As far as f2 vs f2.8 goes, remember, for depth of field, you need the f2.0 to
get the equivalent shallow depth of the f2.8 on the 1.6x crop. No such thing
as a free lunch.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
