There is no magical size/weight advantage

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
Paul Pasco
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,344Gear list
Like?
Re: There is no magical size/weight advantage
In reply to olyflyer, 6 months ago

olyflyer wrote:

Paul Pasco wrote:

Physics is physics but a smaller image circle can make a significant difference in the overall design and size of a lens, particularly on the wide end of the spectrum. Compare these two for example: Samyang 10/2.8 APS-C: 86mm diameter, 77mm long and 580 g. Nikon 10/2.8 CX: 55.5mm diameter, 22mm long and 77g. Of course these have totally different equivalentfocal lengths but their actual focal lengths are the same. So I guess in this case at least there is a huge size and weight advantage, if not a magical one.

Yes Paul, but when you enter special area then physics actually change. A fish eye lens can not be compared with a normal lens, just like a macro can not be compared with a non-macro.

Never the less, you are right that there are significant differences up to normal or short macro, but longer the focal length the less the difference is. Remember that most of the differences are in the flange back distance (no need for the FT-1) and the smaller rear elements. The difference for the front element is zero, the total tube diameter can be a bit less for an N1 lens due to a bit smaller parts after the front elements.

The Samyang lens in question is rectilinear not fisheye, in case you aren't aware.

-- hide signature --

Regards, Paul
Lili's Dad

 Paul Pasco's gear list:Paul Pasco's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28 Nikon D50 Nikon D300 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon 1 J1 +14 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