Shorter optics are bulkier in MF, longer optics are not, and the deciding point is usually around 200-300mm. The size exception is where they neck down to meet the mount (as 35mm mounts are notably smaller). In fact the 35mm version should be slightly longer in most cases (to cover the difference in Register).
-Adam Jostein Øksne wrote: > Point about front element taken, but the front element is not THE > single factor in deciding the weight of a lens. > I have five lenses for the 645 system, and all of them are heavier, > and bulkier, than their K counterparts. > > Jostein > > On 9/2/06, Digital Image Studio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>On 03/09/06, Jostein Øksne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>Then tell me, guys, >>>Why are the medium format optics so much larger for corresponding >>>focal lengths and max apertures? >> >>The long lenses aren't, I had a 400/4 for my 67, it didn't taper much >>as the back end used the external bayonet but the front end was no >>bigger than a 400/4 in any format. >> >>-- >>Rob Studdert >>HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA >>Tel +61-2-9554-4110 >>UTC(GMT) +10 Hours >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ >>Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 >> >>-- >>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>PDML@pdml.net >>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
