wrong comparison, I said using APS lens of same focal length as FF lens makes sense when using a APS camera (istd). Someone claimed that they would never buy APS type lenses and I was pointing out the advantages to them.
You would only have to compare the size weight and cost of two 14mm lenses one FF, and one APS to see what I was talking about. JCO -----Original Message----- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 8:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: M42 ultra-wide ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: M42 ultra-wide >I think the APS sized lens makes sense for one > thing, the widest lenses, under 20mm. The reason > is they would be much smaller and less expensive > than ones designed to cover full frame 35mm and > theretically they could also be sharper and more > contrasty because far fewer elements would be > needed to cover the APS angle vs, the full frame > angle of the same focal length. You might want to rethink that, based on products that are on the shelves. The DA 14mm f/2.8 offers APS sized coverage in a lens with 12 elements in 11 groups. It takes a 77mm filter is 3.3 inches in diameter, 2.7 inches long, and weighs 14.8 oz. This lens has approximately the same angle of view as a 20mm lens has on 35mm. The FA 20mm f/2.8 has 10 elements in 9 groups, uses a 67mm filter is 1.73 inches long, 2.75 inches in diameter and weighs in at 9 oz. The APS coverage lens is substantially larger and heavier, and has more glass than it's equivalent lens coverage in full frame 35mm. I realize this is one example only. William Robb
