Andrew Fildes wrote:
>............ But Canon held hard
>to the 'full frame' lens for a long time, partly because they had an
>advantage in designing a wide throat and shallow body for the switch
>to EOS auto-focus in the late eighties. That's why they can do faster
>lenses cheaper and why almost anything fits them with an appropriate
>and simple adapter.
>
>
Whoever was responsible for that design should get a big special bonus.
>There was a claim that the 24-85mm had been upped in resolution for
>use on APS as it appeared as a new lens at the same time as the
>bodies - and it was 'acceptable' given the greater enlargement ratio.
>On a 35mm body it is far superior to the standard nasty consumer
>zooms but it is four times the price as well - I recommend it to
>beginners.
>
Just what I was with the 300D, first, and only EOS body. I think it's a
good lens for the 1.6x sensors. I thought the price was right too, $193
in essentially new condition with caps and hood.
>However, if you used the panoramic feature on the EOS IX,
>then the limitations were shown as the enlargement ratio was far
>greater on a 10x4 print of a section of the APS frame.
>
Yeah, that was hard on most APS lenses.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|