EOS Re 1.6X telephoto

[Peter Hancock]

Skip wrote:

>By that logic, then the 2x sensor of the Olympus cameras should produce

>lenses that are even smaller, lighter and cheaper, but that doesn't
follow.
>Oly 35-100 f2.0(35mm equiv. 70-200 f2.8): 1650g, 96.5mm x 213.5mm, 77mm

>filter size and $2199.95
>Canon 70-200 f2.8: 1590g, 86.2 x 197mm, 77mm filter and $1699.99.
>See, other things enter in to the equation.

Yup, like f2 rather than f2.8.  Or to give another example, Olympus
300mm f2.8, 3290g, about 4750 pounds, Canon 600 f4, 5300g about 5800
pounds.  Lighter, cheaper and a whole stop brighter.  I think I'll rest
my case there.

Peter

--
The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by
charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA.  Privileged/Confidential Information may
be contained in this message.  If you are not the addressee indicated
in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such
person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone
and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is
prohibited and may be unlawful.  In such case, you should destroy this
message and kindly notify the sender by reply email.  Please advise
immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email
for messages of this kind.

*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

[Henning Wulff]

>Skip wrote:
>
>>By that logic, then the 2x sensor of the Olympus cameras should produce
>
>>lenses that are even smaller, lighter and cheaper, but that doesn't
>follow.
>>Oly 35-100 f2.0(35mm equiv. 70-200 f2.8): 1650g, 96.5mm x 213.5mm, 77mm
>
>>filter size and $2199.95
>>Canon 70-200 f2.8: 1590g, 86.2 x 197mm, 77mm filter and $1699.99.
>>See, other things enter in to the equation.
>
>Yup, like f2 rather than f2.8.  Or to give another example, Olympus
>300mm f2.8, 3290g, about 4750 pounds, Canon 600 f4, 5300g about 5800
>pounds.  Lighter, cheaper and a whole stop brighter.  I think I'll rest
>my case there.
>
>Peter

You're comparing a 300mm lens to a 600mm lens and coming to the
conclusion that the 300 is smaller and lighter?????

What's wrong with this picture? :-)

A quick look at Canon's offerings shows that their 300/2.8 IS is 2550
gm, so even with stabilization a lot lighter than Olympus' offering.
And it covers the full 24x36 and of course covers the smaller formats
as well. So you have the Canon lens, a truly outstanding optic and
which has IS as well, against Olympus' 300 which is designed to only
cover 12x18 and which weighs a lot more. Seems that Canon has already
optimized the weight.

Also, I'm glad that I don't have to deal with either of those lenses,
'cuz I don't really want to have to haul around eve a 4750 pound
lens. :-)

If you want to compare lenses that give equivalent angles of view;
yes, lenses for smaller sensors can be and are smaller. If you want
to compare focal lengths, the lenses and sizes are equivalent no
matter what format they're designed for.

Remember also, the 35-100 f/2 Olympus lens is just that: a 35-100. It
is not a 70-200. It's hard to compare the Olympus 35-100 to anything
else as other manufacturers don't have 35-100's that are f/2.

--
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@...
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

[Skip Middleton]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Hancock" <p.j.b.hancock@...>
To: <eos@...>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 9:39 AM
Subject: EOS Re 1.6X telephoto


Skip wrote:

>By that logic, then the 2x sensor of the Olympus cameras should produce

>lenses that are even smaller, lighter and cheaper, but that doesn't
follow.
>Oly 35-100 f2.0(35mm equiv. 70-200 f2.8): 1650g, 96.5mm x 213.5mm, 77mm

>filter size and $2199.95
>Canon 70-200 f2.8: 1590g, 86.2 x 197mm, 77mm filter and $1699.99.
>See, other things enter in to the equation.

Yup, like f2 rather than f2.8.  Or to give another example, Olympus
300mm f2.8, 3290g, about 4750 pounds, Canon 600 f4, 5300g about 5800
pounds.  Lighter, cheaper and a whole stop brighter.  I think I'll rest
my case there.

Peter

Except you should be comparing the Oly 300mm f2.8 to the Canon 400 f2.8.
Yes, it's smaller, marginally, lighter, marginally and cheaper ($6000 vs.
$6500), but not by that much, relatively speaking.  And both Oly lenses lack
IS, which both Canon lenses have.  Plus, remember, to get equivalently
narrow DOF, you need a larger aperture on a smaller sensor.
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************