Little piece on lenses

John Francis 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.

  12-24   430g
  16-50   600g
  50-135  765g
  60-250 1040g
  ============
  Total  2835g

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 mailing list