Jostein wrote:
> So basically, you're talking about one _specific_ selection of > high-quality zoom lenses from Canon to match the zooms available in > the 645 system? Basically, yes. It is the development of zoom lenses that has made the 645 system fully competitive to high-end 35mm. The Canon L lenses doen't exclusively consist of prime lenses in this focal lenght area. Almost everyone buy zoom lenses; usually those 2.8 lenses as their optical quality is comparable to primes. Prime lenses for 35mm these days are mostly restricted to ultra fast speciality optics not very comparable to anything in medium format. Almost everyone I know of outdoor photographers who use high-end Nikon or Canon gear use a set of those 2.8 lenses. And they are indeed of the size, weight and cost of Pentax MF (645). > My initial reaction here was to your broad, but brand-specific, > statement "The 645 lenses are no more expensive (or larger) than > high-end Canon lenses." But are they? Granted there are about three lenses in the 645 line-up that are much larger and more expensive than comparable Canon lenses but thats about it. They are all telephotos and I have no arguments with those who thinks that long telephoto works better for 35mm; even better for APS sized sensor cameras. Have you ever lookedd at Canon lenses in a camera shop? I get amazed everytime. I can swear the Elan II is approacvhing the 645 in size and most L-lenses are larger than the lenses I'm used to, and I use MF. I friend has an EOS-1n with booster and with the 80-200/2.8 lens I can hardly lift the thing. A Pentax 645NII with the 150-300 look small in comparison. P�l
