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

Started Nov 8, 2013 | Discussions thread
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true

Joe Pineapples wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

RedFox88 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Then there is the reach aspect. I use 200mm/2.8 on APS-c whereas the same reach on FF would require 300/2.8. Whole both are FF lens, the 200/2.8 is considerably smaller with same metal build and weighs only a third (about 750g).

No, you would need 300mm f/1.8 on 35mm to compare to 200 f/2.8 on aps-c. That 300mm lens doesn't exist and would be very big, very heavy, and very, very expensive!

Nope. Try again.

Well, they do say that Albert Einstein wasn't very good at arithmetic; but both of you seem to be struggling with basic multiplication and division here. A 200mm f/2.8 lens on an APS-C camera will have very similar performance to a 300mm f/4 lens on a FF camera...


Good to know you can do basic multiplication and division, and that you were eager to demonstrate your capability. The argument, however, isn't about that... so move to a class on reading comprehension instead.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 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