We obviously approach the world from different viewpoints. You're
talking about depth of field and I'm talking about brightness. DOF
never even entered into my mind for comparison.
Chuck Norcutt
Jeff Keller wrote:
> With the four thirds sensor being half the size of the full frame 5D,
> to get the same shallow DOF the lens has to be opened up a full stop
> more than the equivalent field of view lens on the 5D. So a 24-105 f4
> would pretty much accomplish the same thing as a 14-54 f2.8 (other
> than ease of manual focus). The weight of the big C*non lenses is
> something I've been reluctant to test out first hand. Depending upon
> what shows up at PMA, that may change.
>
> -jeff
>
> On 10/12/06, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>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
>>>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|