A few words on Equivalence and comparing systems

Started Apr 2, 2013 | Discussions thread
slimandy Forum Pro • Posts: 17,127
Re: A few words on Equivalence and comparing systems

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

BTW, one thing that is not equivalent is the price. The 35-70/2.8 costs more that the 70-200/4 Canon or Nikon, and it is equivalent to 70-200/5.6. This is despite the Canon/Nikon lenses having built in IS. At least it is lighter.

As someone has already pointed out, it is 35~100 and it does have a stabiliser. 'At least it is lighter' is an understatement! It is alot lighter and a lot smaller.

The actual equivalent to the 70-200/4 is the Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0 Zuiko. It is a 3.6 lb monster, vs. 1.67 lb for the Canon, and costs twice as much. So twice the weigh and twice the price for an equivalent lens which cannot even match the performance of its f/4 equivalent.

That's the problem with trying to find a match rather than using the system for what you bought it for in the first place.

I bought a 40~150mm lens that cost me £129. In the US it was only $100. It is light, small, sharp and gets me to 300mm equivalent. It can fit in a coat pocket. Where is the FF equivalent to that?

In case you never realised I'm not expecting an answer!

-- hide signature --


 slimandy's gear list:slimandy's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow