A few words on Equivalence and comparing systems

Started Apr 2, 2013 | Discussions thread
forpetessake Veteran Member • Posts: 4,892
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.

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.

What the release of smaller lighter DSLRs in recent years indicate is that we are going to see a slower lighter FF lenses in the future. The low end market shows the willingness to trade performance for weight. Something like FF 70-200/5.6 can be made very small and light, theoretically lighter than Panasonic 35-100, probably longer at 200mm, but if the lens is collapsible it's a non-issue. And since the price of such lenses would be a fraction of Panasonic, they could be sold in millions.

In the past slow lenses were not requested by the market, now with the sensor technology improving so much and the sensor prices falling, that will be a reality. As it is always the case in technology, silicon drives away glass and metal and manual labor.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow