on 10/29/03 9:25 AM, B. D. Colen at bdcolen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> The Canon 300 2.8 is $3899 - the 600 f FOUR is $7199 -
> The Nikon 300 2.8 $3499 - the 600 f 4 is $7299
>
> So if you want a "real" 600, it's going to cost you 7K and it's going to
> be an f 4, NOT a 2.8.
>
> Is this about photography, or money? I realize that money dictates
> everyone's ultimate buying choices, including my own. But arguing about
> whether the 300 is a 300 or a 600 and what it should then cost makes
> little sense. It's a 600 2.8 equivalent - and no one else offers that.
> And it's cost, when all is said and done, is quite competitive.
>
> B. D.
Hmmm... to capture a ~1.5-degree HFOV on the E-1 camera I use a 300/2.8
lens.
I want to keep the same fast aperture, but now I use a Canon EOS-10D, which
has a 1.6x multiplication factor for the Canon 35mm lenses... so I use a
(Jim fishes out the calculator, math being a particular strong point... <g>)
375mm f2.8 lens to get the equivalent Horizontal Field of View...
Remember, the multiplication factor doesn't change the aperture at all. Now,
what doe Canon have near a 375/2.8? I think they have a 400/2.8 -- how much
does that one run? That would be the most applicable comparison IMO.
I'm sure that for the Nikon F100 the same kind of equivalent will apply. Its
important not to think of the E-1 lenses in 35mm equivalents, it really
isn't the important factor. Think of them in 'field of view' against
equivalent 'field of view' on other manufacturer's equipment.
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-'s of all sorts, and no OM-oney...
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|