why a FF 17-55mm F2.8 lens ?? That wouldnt be normal usage on FF. maybe a 24-70 would. ----------------- J.C.O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -----------------
-----Original Message----- From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Bill Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 12:33 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: K5 RAW file size - yow! On 05/02/2013 10:17 AM, George Sinos wrote: > On another topic, as much as everyone talks about FF cameras, I wonder > how many are thinking about the size of the lenses. I'm not thinking > of the old manual focus lenses that the residents of this list love so > much. I'm talking about lenses that will actually sell today and make > money for pentax. There is a pretty big size and weight penalty. I'm > not sure if Pentax has magic lens design skills unknown to N and C > designers, but I doubt it. > > I would invite anyone who thinks FF is a good idea to handle a D4 with the 17-55/2.8G lens. Combined weight is slightly under two kilos, or just over four and a quarter pounds, and the combination is massive in size. Holding it felt more like a Pentax 6x7 with the 135mm macro lens mounted than a 35mm format camera for size and weight. This is the future when Pentax goes the FF route. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
