----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Hancock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 9:39 AM
Subject: EOS Re 1.6X telephoto
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 Oly 300mm f2.8 to the Canon 400 f2.8.
Yes, it's smaller, marginally, lighter, marginally and cheaper ($6000 vs.
$6500), but not by that much, relatively speaking. And both Oly lenses lack
IS, which both Canon lenses have. Plus, remember, to get equivalently
narrow DOF, you need a larger aperture on a smaller sensor.
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
