There is no magical size/weight advantage

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
iamthenewguy
Contributing MemberPosts: 849Gear list
Like?
Re: Magic is veeeery expansive ;)
In reply to IVN, 9 months ago

The reason you can't compare 70-200 f2.8 to 35-100 "f2.8" is because the latter has f5.6 equivalent aperture.So either you compare a 70-200 f2.8 for (m)FT with a FX lens, or you compare 35-100 f1.4 with a 70-200 f2.8 FX. Which of the letter do you think would be larger?

I don't like getting involved with these equivalency debates because there are just too many ways to make one's point. For example, your above statement is true and false. It's true if you are talking about the DoF equivalency between the two lenses but you didn't state that. It's false if you talking strictly about aperture because, using your terms, it's physics. Regardless of format, the aperture the manufacture writes on the lens (if they are to be trusted) is the actual aperture, which I'm sure you know is just a formula.

The bottom line for me is that I know I'm not getting the equivalent DoF of DX or FX equivalent lenses, but my lenses with equivalent FOV's to those formats makes are smaller and more portable.

 iamthenewguy's gear list:iamthenewguy's gear list
Nikon 1 V2 Nikon 1 Nikkor VR 30-110mm f/3.8-5.6 Nikon 1 Nikkor 10mm f/2.8 Nikon 1 Nikkor 18.5mm f/1.8 Nikon 1 Nikkor VR 6.7-13mm f/3.5-5.6 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow