----- Original Message ----- From: "P�l Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I've said it before: The 645 lenses are no more expensive (or larger) than high-end Canon lenses.
Excuse me, P�l, but you statement will not be more correct by repetition. It's still plain wrong. Your persistence in defending the 645 system is admireable, but please stick to the truth.
Take a versatile lens like eg. 200mm for 35mm format, which has an AOV of about 12 dergrees. The corresponding lens in the 645 realm would be a 300mm.
The Canon alternative is not only smaller, but also half the size and LESS than half the price of the Pentax 645 equivalent. If you compare equal focal lengths instead, the difference is less but still in Canon's favor for everything except weight.
Prices from B&H:
Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM (USD 659.95) Filter Size: 72mm f/Stop Range: 2.8-32 Minimum Focus Distance: 1.5m Magnification: 1:6.3 Angle of View: 12 Degrees Groups/Elements: 7/9 Length: 137 mm Maximum Diameter: 83.2 mm Weight: 765g
Pentax FA645 300mm f/4 ED (IF) (USD 3,399.95) Equivalent 35mm Focal Length: 200mm Angle of View @ Infinity13.5 degrees Filter Size: 77mm Elements/Groups: 8/8 f/Stop Range: f/4 - 32 Minimum Focus Distance: 3m (9.8ft) Dimensions: 207.5 mm x 83 mm LxW Weight: 1490g
Pentax FA645 200mm f/4 (IF) (USD 849.95) Equivalent 35mm Focal Length: 120mm Angle of View @ Infinity: 20 degrees Filter Size: 58mm Elements/Groups: 6/5 f/Stop Rangef/4 - 32 Minimum Focus Distance: 1.5m (4.9 ft) Dimensions: 119 x 74.5mm (4.69 x 2.93") L x W Weight: 670g (23.6 oz)
Jostein
