Maybe ... I don't know. But, the Olympus Zuiko 21/2.0 was for full frame, weight but 250 grams or so, and used 55mm filters. Compare that to the A20/2.8 or even the K20/4.0. The Pentax M20/4.0 was quite a bit smaller and lighter than its predecessor. The pentax M85/2.0 is substantially smaller than the Leica 90/2.8 Elmarit, and the Leica Tele-Elmarit 2.8 is smaller than either. The Pentax M35/2.0 is substantially smaller than the K35/2.0.
So, why couldn't a modern 14mm be a lot smaller than an earlier 15mm? Shel > [Original Message] > From: Digital Image Studio > > True - however, it's faster as well as smaller and lighter. If one were to > > consider that it's wider as well, an argument can be made that the lenses > > are getting smaller. I'm sure a 14/2.8 made in the days of the 15/3.5 > > would have been larger and heavier than the 15mm, or a 15mm/3.5 made today > > might be both smaller and lighter than the earlier 15/3.5 > > It's only smaller because it isn't designed to cover the same AOV as a > full frame 35mm lens (a very big design consideration), a 14/2.8 for > FF would be huge. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
