The primary reason for putting the collar on the lens is that the lens is large enough that supporting the camera is mechanically unsound. That isn't the case with most 200mm lenses (80-200 FA* and monsters like Nikon's 200mm f2 VR are exceptions).
-Adam Tim Øsleby wrote: > Yep. But in digital age 300mm is 200mm. (Before somebody snaps at me; I know > this is not correct, strictly speaking). > So according to this logic the longest lens should have tripod collar. > > > Tim > Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul > Stenquist > Sent: 21. september 2006 02:39 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: 3 New DA* USM lenses > > They don't appear large enough to require a tripod mount, certainly > not the 50-135. And I don't think Pentax has ever used a tripod mount > on a lens shorter than 300mm. > Paul > On Sep 20, 2006, at 8:35 PM, David Savage wrote: > > >> At 07:00 AM 21/09/2006, Lawrence Kwan wrote: >> >>> 3 New DA* lenses announced: >>> >>> http://www.pentax.co.jp/english/news/2006/200646.html >>> http://www.pentax.co.jp/japan/news/2006/press-image/200646-05.jpg >>> >>> PENTAX-DA* 16-50mm F2.8ED AL[IF] >>> PENTAX-DA* 50-135mm F2.8ED [IF] >>> PENTAX-DA* 60-250mm F4ED [IF] >>> >>> Available in March 2007 >>> >> So where is the tripod mound on the 50-135 & 60-250? >> >> Are they removable of are we just [EMAIL PROTECTED] outa' luck? >> >> Dave >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
