Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's

Started Feb 13, 2014 | Discussions thread
stevo23
Senior MemberPosts: 6,432Gear list
Like?
Re: i will not buy this lens
In reply to Erik Magnuson, Feb 13, 2014

Erik Magnuson wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

You will have to move to M43 to get any significant improvement in weight / bulk. I think it will be hard to do otherwise in full frame.

An MFT 70-200mm f/4 would be the roughly the same size weight. As would an MFT 35-100mm f/2 which would be equivalent in FOV and total light.

Panasonic's 35-100 2.8 weighs 13 oz. Not quite the same light, but close enough for a valid comparison. The Olympus is ridiculous. Most folks aren't looking for exact equivalents, just decent approximations. This is the only strength M43 has left in my estimation - smaller, lighter. It has to have some tradeoff for the lost in image quality.

In general, I'm in agreement that we're up against general physics and a super light, super small 70-200 is just not going to happen with current processes.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Sony Alpha 7 Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow