pwm2 wrote in post #3392833
Which is exactly what I already wrote about half a thread back:
In short - Canon already sell a 200/2.8.
That is one side of the coin.
Which is exactly what I already wrote about half a thread back:
In short - Canon already sell a 200/2.8.
That is one side of the coin.
and your subsequent statements make it appear that you weren't listening to yourself.
pwm2 wrote in post #3392833
The other side of the coin is that I claim a lens could be made cheaper/lighter if all the lens elements where not optimized for giving a high-quality image on a ff sensor.
Yes, I'm quite aware that it is easier to make a tele lens with little distorsion than it is to make a wide-angle lens. But I would really like an example why a lens built for a narrower light path would not be possible to build lighter/cheaper.
Plese observe, I have never said it should be possible to make the lens for half the prize, or something like that. I have only claimed that there is waste to have a lens that is built to project an image circle for a ff sensor.
I have also claimed that even if there where such tele lenses available, I would not be interested in one, since that would lock me harder into crop bodies.
The other side of the coin is that I claim a lens could be made cheaper/lighter if all the lens elements where not optimized for giving a high-quality image on a ff sensor.
Yes, I'm quite aware that it is easier to make a tele lens with little distorsion than it is to make a wide-angle lens. But I would really like an example why a lens built for a narrower light path would not be possible to build lighter/cheaper.
Plese observe, I have never said it should be possible to make the lens for half the prize, or something like that. I have only claimed that there is waste to have a lens that is built to project an image circle for a ff sensor.
I have also claimed that even if there where such tele lenses available, I would not be interested in one, since that would lock me harder into crop bodies.
There are a number of EF-S and other crop lenses out now. Take a look and find a crop lens and the closest FF lens of the same focal length and aperture and compare them. I'll start.
Canon 55-200 f/4.5-5.6 EF $209 310 g. - Sigma 55-200 DC f/4-5.6. $149, 310 g. Tamron 55-200 Di II f/4-5.6 $179 300 g. And you're paying the Canon premium on that.
Or take the case of a FF lens and its "crop" equivalent.
Sigma 28-300 f/3.5-f/6.3 DG $279 490 g. Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 XR Di Asph 420 g. IF $399 - Sigma 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 DC $379 405g. Tamron 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II Asph. IF $389 423 g. Yup. Huge savings there!
