Ok here it goes.... Size: 80x175mm long, Weight: 1050g, Filter size 67mm... (really 5.7apt)... The 380mm was to avoid 77mm.... or even 72.
Why: 60-250 with 2-3 fewer elements from short end and constant aperture change to variable aperture....
Sounds odd, but envision a 60-250 DA* with a 1.4tc on it, subtract redundant mount length, simplify zoom for variable aperture and focal length redux...
If the engineers do it right, it could be 1cm shorter than the 60-250 and lighter. Look at the Siggy 120-400, 1/3 thinner and 1/3 shorter... (APS-c) benefits
and "Red Ring" not DA* Gold....
Last edited by GlassJunkie; 03-26-2014 at 03:13 PM.