Hi Dr. Focus,
Bill did, in fact, say the following:
> You are right, I haven't tried it and I've been intrigued with the
> thought
> of a 35mm equiv. 300mm f2.
I just had to put the matter straight, that's all :-) There is a reason
why the OM 250/2.0 weighs 4kg... And the only 300/2.0 ever made was a
> $10,000 Nikon, which weighed 6kg+ if I recall correctly.
I otherwise really have no intention to contest your statement,
a FourThirds 150/2.0 is indeed equivalent in DOF to a 300/4.0.
Thus, to anybody using the OM 300/4.5 on 35mm, the ZD 150/2.0 will be
a dream,
with even shallower DOF possible.
On 25 Sep 2009, at 2:10 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> No one here claimed that a 150/2.0 on 4/3 was equal to a 300/2.0 as
> concerns depth of field. The comparison was to a 300/4.0. In that
> comparison, 150/2.0 on 4/3 vs. 300/4.0 on 35mm the DOF is, in fact,
> identical. I invite you to compare for yourself using any
> conventional
> DOF calculator while being sure to adjust the size of the CoC by a
> factor of 2 between formats.
>
> Dr. Focus
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|