View Single Post
  #6  
Old 23rd November 2018
drmarkf's Avatar
drmarkf drmarkf is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 5,512
Thanks: 346
Thanked 487 Times in 407 Posts
Likes: 2,138
Liked 1,247 Times in 711 Posts
Re: Lenses: relative length & diameter

BTW the huge mount diameters in both the new Nikon and Canon full frame systems are necessary to meet the market demand for faster and faster lenses (one or other of them has an f0.95 50mm on the horizon, which is going to be huge and will weigh a ton). Never mind that real photographers are rarely going to need gear like this (and the Nikon hasn’t even got eye-detect AF, I believe, so most normal people won’t be able to get them in focus for portraits at full aperture, anyway).

As ever, people may regret what they’ve been asking for.

Since the bayonet end of the matching lenses are going to have to be large and heavy, this is going to work against them producing compact lenses, so Olympus may maintain more of a size advantage than many commentators have spotted.

The Sony EF full frame bayonet is much narrower and has apparently needed some optical compromises to cover the sensor, but this has allowed them to build more compact lenses (although looking at the new 400 f2.8 you’d wonder).
__________________
Regards,
Mark

------------------------------
http://www.microcontrast.com
Too much Oly gear.
Panasonic 12-32, 12-35, 15. Laowa 7.5.
Assorted legacy lenses, plus a Fuji X70 & a Sony A7S.
Reply With Quote