You neglected to note John's comment on lens speed. The Canons at f/4
and f/4.5-5.6 don't compare very favorably to both Zuiko's f/2.8-3.5.
That's why in my response I tried to find lenses that could cover the
full range at a constant f/2.8. You can do it but it takes three lenses
instead of two and a pack burro to carry it all around.
Of course, the 5D can handle a couple more notches on the ISO dial so a
stop or two slower on the aperture is more readily handled.
Chuck Norcutt
Jeff Keller wrote:
> C*non 24-105/4 + 100-400/4.5-5.6 ?
>
> Probably DOF options would be as good with the FF C*non as the Zuiko
> due to the format size. C*non has the ISO advantage, so exposure
> shouldn't be an issue.
>
> Oh ... there was a mention of actually being able to carry the lenses.
> OK advantage to the Zuikos. Actually the 24-105 doesn't look too bad
> for weight.
>
> -jeff
>
> On 10/12/06, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>You're right about only two lenses for the equivalent of 28-400 and both
>>are 2.8-3.5 so they're pretty good on speed. I had gotten used to doing
>>the equivalent of 28-200 with the Minolta A1's 2.8-3.5 lens. I thought
>>long and hard about this weight and lens change issue before throwing in
>>the towel on 4/3's.
>>
>>Chuck Norcutt
>>
>>John Gettis wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I feel the same way about the E-500. I like the fact that I can carry the
>>>camera and 2 lenses and be covered from 28mm-400mm. I don't think you can
>>>do that with any other system and have the lenses speed the Olympus lenses
>>>have. Now I could be wrong on that but don't think so Just my 2 cents
>>>worth
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|