I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true

Started Nov 8, 2013 | Discussions thread
Bmoon Regular Member • Posts: 291
Re: I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true

Great Bustard wrote:

Bmoon wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

The fact of the matter is that 200mm f/2.8 on APS-C most nearly compares to 300mm f/4 on FF in terms of AOV, DOF, and total amount of light projected on the sensor for a given shutter speed.

And with this cuts to the point why would someone the cropped 200mm f2.8 to a FF 300mm 2.8

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here -- are you saying it's why someone chooses a 300 / 2.8 on FF over a 200 / 2.8 on crop? To maximize the advantage of the larger format? Sure. No real point in using a larger format just to get photos equivalent to what a smaller format could do. That said, there are advantages of a 300 / 4 on FF over a 200 / 2.8 on crop.

Half my post was lost ? I guess I should have reviewed  before hitting post

Why would some compare the cropped 200 f2.8 to a FF 300mm 2.8 and complain that the FF lens was heaver when performance and application of the 2 lenses are vastly different, it would be better to compare it to a 300 F4

I personal would put up with the added weight of the 300 2.8 having the ability to stop the lens down one stop while still capturing the same image is a benefit to how I like to shoo,t most 300 2.8 I have shot with are amazing around F4

 Bmoon's gear list:Bmoon's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Pentax K10D Nikon D3X Nikon D300S Pentax K-5 +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow