On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:34:08AM -0400, John Francis wrote: > On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 07:19:45PM -0700, Tim Bray wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 3:10 PM, paul stenquist <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > With the 12-24, 16-50, > > > 50-135, and 60-250, I'm prepared for almost anything. > > > > Especially physiotherapy. I know some good chiropractors too if you > > need a referral. Primes are back-friendly, and none of us are getting > > younger. -T > > Hah. Try walking around the track for an afternoon lugging a couple of > bodies with (battery grip), an 80-200/2.8, a 300/2.8, and the 250-600. > Just the 250-600 probably weighs more than all the lenses Paul lists.
12-24 430g 16-50 600g 50-135 765g 60-250 1040g ============ Total 2835g That's only a little over half the weight of the 250-600 (5400g). In fact the 300/2.8 alone, at 2970g, outweighs Paul's collection, while the 80-200 adds another 1510g. As the 300 demonstrates, the combination of focal length and maximum aperture costs weight, even if you stick to primes. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
