Well as long as this is going on...
Nikkor 70-300/4.5-5.6 G AF with 13 elements in 9 groups, 2.9" dia. x
4.6", no AFS motor, no VR, 1.03 lbs, $125.
Nikkor 70-300/4.5-5.6 G with 17 elements in 12 groups, 3.1"dia. x
5.6", built in AFS motor, VR, 1.6 lbs, $480.
Nikkor 70-300/4.0-5.6 ED with 13 elements in 9 groups, 2.9" dia. x
4.9", no AFS motor, no VR, 1.14 lbs, $295.
Not much of a hit at all in the weight department for much better
focusing, and VR and 4 additional lens elements providing,
presumably, better correction.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On May 8, 2007, at 8:41 AM, Jeff Keller wrote:
>
> Not as a dramatic example as Moose provided but an apples to apples
> comparison is the 70-200/2.8 C*non lens
>
> NonIS: 2.8 lbs 7.6" x 2.3" $1148
> IS 3.5 lbs 7.7" x 3.4" $1700
>
> Tamron SP 80-200/2.8 1359g -> 3.0 lbs. (for OM from Piers' provided
> translation)
>
> -jeff
>
> On 5/7/07, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I was making a different comparison. I am very happy with my Tamron
>> 28-300 Di. It produces excellent images, but it would be nice to have
>> IS. The Canon 28-300 IS weighs FOUR times as much and is considerably
>> larger (and costs a LOT). A tiny bit faster at the long end and
>> slower
>> as the wide end. You can also see why I am considering the 100-400,
>> lighter and cheaper than the 28-300.
>>
>> Lens Tamron XR Di Canon L Canon L
>> Speed f3.5-6.3 f3.5-5.6 4.5-5.6
>> Focal Len. 28-300 28-300 100-400
>> Length Min 3.3 7.2 7.4
>> Max 6.5 7.2 7.4
>> Diameter 2.9 3.6 3.6
>> Weight 420 1,670 1,361
>> Lbs 0 3 3
>> & Ozs 15 11 0
>>
>> Moose
>>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|