Hallo, the 2.8/300 has a filter size of 112 mm and it is longer as 250 mm. So, it has the same size as a 2.8/300 for 35mm systems. So, where is the advantage, in size or price?
This system will flop, because you cannot use slide film with the lenses (there is no camera for it) and Sigma or Tokina will not build lenses for it, because the costomer base is far to small. Regards R�diger >on 03.03.03 17:42, Bruce Rubenstein at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Sure, go compare slow, consumer grade lenses to fast pro grade ones. If >> those Olympus lenses were scaled to 35mm applications they would have 72 >> - 77mm filters. I do agree that the Olympus will not be successful with >> typical Pentax buyers. This is not to say that they won't sell a lot of >> cameras. >> >So even if such a lenses for 35 mm would have 72mm filters (let's say, >relatively cheap Sigma 28-105/2.8-4), there is little, so little difference >to 67 mm in Olympus. I do not deny, that this lenses are created with >professionals in mind, but I only wanted to show, that these lenses are not >as small as they were supposed to be, that's it. > >-- >Best Regards >Sylwek > > >
