I hadn't read this thread closely ar first. Now that I have, I'm sort of
amazedthat so many let the following from the original link go by,
"Olympus 150mm ƒ/2 E Series lens (300mm equivalent), compared to the
Canon 300mm ƒ/2.8 IS lens"
Everything else aside, he is comparing a lens with internal IMAGE
STABILIZATION lens to one without it. IS adds considerably to bulk and
weight. Of course, he could make the point with a non IS 300mm Can*n -
but they don't even make one.
Then the Oly is a stop faster, which makes it bigger and heavier than an
f2.8 would be. Now what percentage of the IS difference does that make
up? Check a 300/4 for 4x5. bigger than one for 35mm?
This isn't even apples and oranges, more like elephants and speed boats.
Joel Wilcox wrote:
>Winsor wrote:
>
>
>>He also shows that he is completely confused by viewfinder
>>magnification, field of view and the sensor's crop factor.
>>
>>
Well, I wouldn't say completely confused, only somewhat confused or at
least confusing.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|