on 3/2/03 4:06 PM, Pandionhalietius@xxxxxxx at Pandionhalietius@xxxxxxx
wrote:
> In a message dated 3/2/2003 3:50:56 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> wincros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
>>> .... BUT while the lens may be smaller compared to the equivalent SLR
>>> lens, one of the main selling point of the OM system to *me* is the
>>> small size. While I have only held the E-20 for a few minutes, my
>>> recollection is that the body is pretty large, comparable to most
>>> wonderbricks.
>>>
>>> Ah well....
>>>
>>> // richard
>
> The filter size of the new Olympus 300/2.8 is 112mm so it is the same size as
> the Tamron and Tokina 300/2.8's and appears to have the same body size. I
> don't see any size saving at all.
> I was hoping for something smaller. Hope it is light though!
> John
>
Yes, but its not a '300mm' lens, its a 600mm lens. That lens produces the
same image magnification as a 600mm lens for 35mm format... compare the size
of this 4/3 system 300/2.8 to the 600/4.0 Nikon or Canon lenses for 35mm
format. It's much less than 1/2 the size.
Those who have seen a 600mm lens for 35mm format will appreciate the huge
(pun intended) difference in size for the same image magnification. I bet
Mike Veglia, Mike Butler and Stephen Scharf are looking very closely at
this...
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-'s of all sorts, and no OM-oney...
my 600mm lens is the size of sawed-off 1lb coffee can... but its only f8.0
:-(
< 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 >
|