25th January 2002, 11:46 AM
25th January 2002, 11:05 PM
25th January 2002, 11:06 PM
26th January 2002, 12:02 AM
Wow...tt's my working range...man...I'll be first in line to get it if they really do release that lens
However the fairly large zoom range would have me skeptical about its quality with respect to the 28-70L which I presume it would replace. We wun have another dud like the 17-35 L I hope? :P
Anyway I think IS is optional for such a focal length..will be nice to have but I hope they wun implement it else I'd have to shell out 800-1k more for it haha
, Fuji X
and Leica M
Systems | Need more good pictures to justify gear
26th January 2002, 02:19 AM
Hmmm... it looks like Canon made some noise about it and Delta has pulled it off their list. Someone also posted in the dpreview forums that he called Delta up to confirm the existence of the lens, see
1st February 2002, 10:21 AM
The 28-70 f2.8L weighs about 900g so I wouldn't expect the rumoured 24-105 f2.8L to weigh anything lesser. Lenses of this weight and this range is stable enough and should not require IS. I sure hope they have IS on the 70-200 f4L though.
1st February 2002, 11:24 AM
1st February 2002, 11:48 AM
Is the 24-105 an L lens or DO lens? The first message on this thread suggests that its L.
1st February 2002, 12:48 PM
2nd February 2002, 10:10 AM
3rd February 2002, 11:20 PM
That would really make my day provided that the lens cost less than 3k. Maybe 2.5k...?
4th February 2002, 01:23 AM
Unlikely Zapp... seeing as the 28-70L without bells and whistles is already almost 2.5k. But you can hope!
4th February 2002, 09:18 AM
I was quite surprised that the new 16-35 is going for less than $2.5k. However, I was quoted by a shop for $2.8k.
4th February 2002, 10:38 AM
4th February 2002, 08:03 PM
Needless to say, I won't step into that shop ever again but not for the over quote. Its over another trade in deal. That shop was downright dishonest.