580g vs 200g.
(I got the pic from tOP.) Now, the Canon lens (which is excellent, I have it) is designed for a DSLR, which means that the optical design has to compensate for the fact that due to the mirror in the camera, the lens can't get as close to the sensor as it would naturally be. But I'm curious if this fact alone can justify such a huge size/weight difference. (Of course the quality of the Voigtländer lens is to be considered, I have not seen a comparison.)
Update: There's been cast doubt that the picture is exactly to scale. On the picture, the relationship is 1:4 in length, but the numbers given on the site are 1:3.
5 comments:
I'm not convinced that the picture is really to scale. I have the Nokton and just measured the length from front to back as 3.7cm. The Canon is spec'd as a length of 8.6cm. If I just measure pixels on the picture, I calculate that the Canon is about 3.2 times longer than the Nokton, or 11.9cm. That's enough off that I don't really believe the picture.
I should also say that I don't really consider the Nokton particularly good at f/1.4. For comfortable performance, it's really more of an f/2 or f/2.8 lens. Perhaps the Canon is also rather poor at f/1.4, but if not, a more appropriate comparison might be to the EF 35mm f/2.
Good points. tOP is a very reliable size, so I just trusted the picture.
I can confirm that the Canon is a beaut, and as far as I recall even sharp wide open. And I have not confirmed this for the Nokton.
David,
did you count pixels gross or net? I mean did you count from the flange or did you count all that is shown in the picture, i.e. also that which is inside the camera once the lens is mounted?
Christer
What I did was net. From the flange to the front to end. 200 pixels and 50 pixels on the full sized picture after clicking.
No, wait, that was on Mike's site. On the full pic, it's 350 pixels and 95. A 1:3.7 relationship.
Post a Comment