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

Started 7 months ago | Discussions thread
stevo23
Senior MemberPosts: 3,594Gear list
Like?
Re: i will not buy this lens
In reply to Erik Magnuson, 7 months ago

Erik Magnuson wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

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.

Look at the filter diameter: 58mm vs. 67mm. That's enough glass diameter to make a difference. No one makes a 70-200mm f/5.6 -- the closest would be the Nikkor 55-200mm AF-S VR f/4.5-5.6 which weighs 335g. While that's a DX lens, Canon had a 55-200mm EF lens (no IS) that was about the same size, so a 70-200 f/5.6 FX is plausible except there is no demand.

The other big difference with the 35-100 is vignetting:

All designs are compromised and panasonic allowed extra vignetting to shave size.

-- hide signature --

Erik

Dude - you're taking this waaay too seriously. Most M43's owners will be more than happy with the sub-standard performance of said  lenses. Of course it's not an exact comparison.

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