10-25-2012, 08:57 AM
[quote name='thxbb12' timestamp='1351108890' post='20711']
However, I keep thinking they could have made it more compact. As it is, I still find it fairly large (although much lighter than its 2.8 counterpart).
[/quote]
How do you figure this?
The dimensions on the old 70-210 f4 are:
Approx. 76.5 mm dia. x 156 mm extension from flange
Weight: Approx. 760g
13 elements in 9 groups
New 70-200 f4
Approx. 78 mm dia. x 178.5 mm extension from flange
Weight: Approx. 850g
20 elements in 14 groups.
So with VR III and 7 more elements (and 5 more groups) it's only 90g more and 22mm longer.
Of course if you are a lens designer (for Canon or Zeiss) then I apologize in advance.
However, I keep thinking they could have made it more compact. As it is, I still find it fairly large (although much lighter than its 2.8 counterpart).
[/quote]
How do you figure this?
The dimensions on the old 70-210 f4 are:
Approx. 76.5 mm dia. x 156 mm extension from flange
Weight: Approx. 760g
13 elements in 9 groups
New 70-200 f4
Approx. 78 mm dia. x 178.5 mm extension from flange
Weight: Approx. 850g
20 elements in 14 groups.
So with VR III and 7 more elements (and 5 more groups) it's only 90g more and 22mm longer.
Of course if you are a lens designer (for Canon or Zeiss) then I apologize in advance.