Little piece on lenses
johnf at panix.com
Sun Oct 18 00:48:49 EDT 2009
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:34:08AM -0400, John Francis wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 07:19:45PM -0700, Tim Bray wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 3:10 PM, paul stenquist <pnstenquist at comcast.net> wrote:
> > > With the 12-24, 16-50,
> > > 50-135, and 60-250, I'm prepared for almost anything.
> > Especially physiotherapy. I know some good chiropractors too if you
> > need a referral. Primes are back-friendly, and none of us are getting
> > younger. -T
> Hah. Try walking around the track for an afternoon lugging a couple of
> bodies with (battery grip), an 80-200/2.8, a 300/2.8, and the 250-600.
> Just the 250-600 probably weighs more than all the lenses Paul lists.
That's only a little over half the weight of the 250-600 (5400g).
In fact the 300/2.8 alone, at 2970g, outweighs Paul's collection,
while the 80-200 adds another 1510g. As the 300 demonstrates,
the combination of focal length and maximum aperture costs weight,
even if you stick to primes.
More information about the PDML