You brotherhood guys are really into this "big is little" thing aren't you! Good try, but you can't convince me that 4.5kg = 2 lbs. I would say you are off by about a factor of 5? Of course, why let simple math get in the way of enlightenment? ;-) Especially at this time of night.
Stan > From: "Oliver Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 22:15:18 -0500 > Subject: Re: Another 67 Arrival > > Hey Bruce. > > The lens is handholdable - it's weight and dimensions aren't too far off the > 55-100, which I always hand-hold (up to about 1/60). . ... > > 55-100 = 1,210g (replaces) > 55[725g] 75[560g] 90 [485g] 105[590g] = 2360g > 90-180 = 1160g (replaces) > 90[485g] 105 [590g] 165 [835g] 200 [795g] = 2705g ... > Now, add a touch of glass...Add on a 2x tele, and I have 55 - 360 in three > lenses > 2xtele 560g > 55-100 1210g > 90-180 1160g > ===== > 3030g > Plus Prism, Body > + 1660g > ===== > 4690g = 4.5k = 2 lbs > > > My path to enlightenment :) > > Olvier - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
