- Messages
- 1,412
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If I get 6 numbers right in tonight's lottery they'll have sold a couple more!Interesting technical achievements, of course, and essential for some types of photography. But I wonder how many £12k lenses either company sells?
Thousands of them. Sports agencies all around the world.Interesting technical achievements, of course, and essential for some types of photography. But I wonder how many £12k lenses either company sells?
I think that they ship with a standard hood and it's the short hoods that are optional accessories.Of note that caught my attention was that the lens hoods are optional accessories ?
I think he means how many individual people buy itThousands of them. Sports agencies all around the world.
We're never happy are we, I wish Nikon made Canon's 400mm f4I wish Canon made 500m 5.6 Nikon equivalent...
They'll come out soon, don't worry.
I wish Canon made 500m 5.6 Nikon equivalent...
They'll come out soon, don't worry.
We're never happy are we, I wish Nikon made Canon's 400mm f4
The lens hood is included.There is an option shorter lens hood available.Maybe the lenshoods weigh in at a 1Kg and, because they're not included, is why they're 1Kg lighter
It does (or can). Moving the heavier flourite elements backwards will reduce their diameter and possibly the thickness.......
....Simply moving the glass around inside does not reduce weight.
I have not seen any explaination as to how Canon have achived this massive reduction in weight. And it is a massive reduction. Canon and Nikon brougt in new 400mm f2.8's only a few years back that were super light in comparison to the older models and explainations were given as to how the weight reduction had been achived.
But with this new lens I cannot find any explaination as to how this kilo reduction has been achived. Simply moving the glass around inside does not reduce weight.
One has to wonder if compromises have been made. Especially when canon are not saying how the reduction has been achived!
When Nikon released the latest 500mm f4 E that was around 800g lighter than the precedcessor. I noticed the filter had been reduced from 52mm to 40.5mm so the area near the lens mount must be thinned than it was.I have not seen any explaination as to how Canon have achived this massive reduction in weight. And it is a massive reduction. Canon and Nikon brougt in new 400mm f2.8's only a few years back that were super light in comparison to the older models and explainations were given as to how the weight reduction had been achived.
But with this new lens I cannot find any explaination as to how this kilo reduction has been achived. Simply moving the glass around inside does not reduce weight.
One has to wonder if compromises have been made. Especially when canon are not saying how the reduction has been achived!
I have not seen any explaination as to how Canon have achived this massive reduction in weight. And it is a massive reduction. Canon and Nikon brougt in new 400mm f2.8's only a few years back that were super light in comparison to the older models and explainations were given as to how the weight reduction had been achived.
But with this new lens I cannot find any explaination as to how this kilo reduction has been achived. Simply moving the glass around inside does not reduce weight.
One has to wonder if compromises have been made. Especially when canon are not saying how the reduction has been achived!
What is the significance of this post? Where does it expalin how the reduction in weight has been achived?
because moving the elements backwards means they are reduced in diameter. a smaller diameter means they weigh less than if they were further forward because they are physically smaller (a good example as a comparison is the difference in size and weight between a dinner plate and a side plate).What is the significance of this post? Where does it expalin how the reduction in weight has been achived?
As Rob has said, smaller elements due to them being further back in the lens, they're newer and more efficient too, and a reduction in weight of the IS. That and the lighter build. Did you read the post at all?What is the significance of this post? Where does it expalin how the reduction in weight has been achived?
I did read the post but you are guessing as you don't know if the lenses are not thicker.As Rob has said, smaller elements due to them being further back in the lens, they're newer and more efficient too, and a reduction in weight of the IS. That and the lighter build. Did you read the post at all?
I did read the post but you are guessing as you don't know if the lenses are not thicker.
Knowing is better than guessing.
Canon have not said how they have reduced the weight. If it is by reducing the size of the elements I would prefer them to tell me rather than become involved in speculation.