If we look at Canon lenses as an example and consider equivalent
pairs of lenses, the USM ring servos do add some increment of bulk
and weight in many cases (not all). Pricing is higher for some
equivalents and not for others. The fact that the majority of their
quality lenses are designed for 24x36mm film also adds bulk, weight
and price, so it's hard to see exact equivalents.
I don't see how additional bulk, weight or price takes away options,
however. Once the option is available, you can choose to use lenses
without in-lens focus servos in the Pentax line where you don't
really have that option in the Canon line.
Godfrey
On Mar 20, 2006, at 11:24 AM, Juan Buhler wrote:
I might be wrong, but wouldn't an usm motor add to the price, bulk and
weight of the lenses?
j
On 3/20/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How so? If they design the lenses and the new mount to be compatible,
it adds an option not subtracts one.
Godfrey
On Mar 20, 2006, at 10:51 AM, Juan Buhler wrote:
I hope that doesn't happen.
There are a few of us who couldn't care less about auto focus. If I
want ultrasonic motors in my lenses I know which brand to buy. If
Pentax goes that way, I see it as having yet one less option
available.
j
On 3/20/06, Sylwester Pietrzyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
K.Takeshita wrote on 25.02.06 19:44:
OTOH, I do not believe Pentax abandoned FF lenses altogether. We
still need
fast tele (200/2.8, 300/2.8 etc etc) and I just cannot imagine,
Pentax
being so well recognized as a superb lens maker as well, simply
drop out of
normal lens biz. I think the recent lens road map is really for
the digital
compatibility particularly on the wider end.
Well Ken, if my (quite reliable) source of Pentax information is
right -
then new DA f2.8 lenses will have built-in AF motor (I guess
ultrasonic one)
and that would be a reason to change whole line of long lenses ;-)
--
Juan Buhler
Water Molotov: http://photoblog.jbuhler.com
Slippery Slope: http://color.jbuhler.com
