A lens of equivalent, not equal, focal length would be notably smaller. Compare
that 4/3 300 against a 600 for the OM. There's your savings per relative
perspective.
Mickey
----- Original Message -----
From: Pandionhalietius@xxxxxxx
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] size of the 4/3 E-system lens size 300/2.8
In a message dated 3/2/2003 3:50:56 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wincros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>.... BUT while the lens may be smaller compared to the equivalent SLR
>lens, one of the main selling point of the OM system to *me* is the
>small size. While I have only held the E-20 for a few minutes, my
>recollection is that the body is pretty large, comparable to most
>wonderbricks.
>
>Ah well....
>
>// richard
The filter size of the new Olympus 300/2.8 is 112mm so it is the same size as
the Tamron and Tokina 300/2.8's and appears to have the same body size. I
don't see any size saving at all.
I was hoping for something smaller. Hope it is light though!
John
|