Wide angle (to normal) magic. Long lenses, not so much.

Started Apr 21, 2013 | Discussions thread
Rod McD Veteran Member • Posts: 5,990
Re: Wide angle (to normal) magic. Long lenses, not so much.


I tend to agree, but it's a personal view - it really depends on how you value small size, balance, and weight and also the size of your overall kit.  It's the reason I posted the concurrent thread titled "Anyone else think the X system needs a longer prime".  Zooms are incredibly versatile, and tele-zooms more so than WA zooms, but they're simply bigger.  I'd like to see a small ultra sharp X mount AF lens of around 100/2.8 added to the range.  In the meantime I've got a legacy Pentax 100/2.8 I will try.

If you look through the posts on the DPR News page in response to the release of the 55-200 you'll see some similar comments about the size  and weight of the lens.  OTOH you'll also see quite a few people just aren't worried about the size of their kit at all.  I don't quite 'get' this - surely the advantage of mirror-less is the reduction in kit size from a DSLR?  If people buy an X camera and multiple lenses, whatever they saved from their DSLR by having a smaller body isn't going to be as significant in the whole equation.  Put it this way - if they're using the same case, they've gained very little indeed.

Cheers, Rod

 Rod McD's gear list:Rod McD's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Olympus Tough TG-4 Fujifilm X-T1 Voigtlander 90mm F3.5 APO-Lanthar SL II Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +10 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow