35-100F2.0 3600SGD(NEW). Worth buying?


Status
Not open for further replies.

zuikoku

New Member
May 11, 2006
403
0
0
#2
ZD 35-100 mm f/2 is one of the finest ever lens produce by Olympus.
Worth to buy ! I bought cheaper than yours..
 

Hacker

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2005
4,239
1
0
Cyberspace
#4
smallpeak said:
35-100F2.0 3600SGD(NEW).Woth to buy?any comment?thanks!
You won't know what you are missing. Then again, it is very heavy for a walkabout lens.
 

zuikoku

New Member
May 11, 2006
403
0
0
#5
Hacker said:
You won't know what you are missing. Then again, it is very heavy for a walkabout lens.
Yup, Slightly heavier than Canon EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS or Nikkor 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR.
This is not walkaround lens imo..

PM me for the better price...
 

kraterz

New Member
Mar 10, 2002
204
0
0
Visit site
#12
Walau leh! I wish oly drop the price a bit so that it can give canon and nikon some good competition. The canon 70-200L f/2.8 is less than $2K new and 1.4-1.7K second hand.
 

tomcat

Senior Member
Nov 7, 2003
5,515
11
0
63
Visit site
#13
kraterz said:
Walau leh! I wish oly drop the price a bit so that it can give canon and nikon some good competition. The canon 70-200L f/2.8 is less than $2K new and 1.4-1.7K second hand.
I believe you are referring to the EF 70-200L f/4 and not the 70-200L f/2.8. Check the RRP prices in the Canon site here and see for yourself. At f/2.0, the ZD 35-100 is even brighter than any equivalent zoom lens that Canon has to offer and at not much more too. ;)

http://www.canon.com.sg/digitalcamera/lenses_specs.html#zoom
 

ykkok

New Member
Feb 24, 2004
532
0
0
#14
Yes, what tomcat said is right.

Anyway, for that budget, why don't you consider 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 ?
About the same weight and size as C 70-200 f4 L but with longer reach.

Excellent optical quality and it's fast and light enough for travel.

Oly is trying to give something new rather than duplicating what others have already offer.

35-100mm f2.0 is one kind of lens, superb.
 

nightpiper

Senior Member
Oct 20, 2003
2,152
0
0
#15
ykkok said:
Yes, what tomcat said is right.

Anyway, for that budget, why don't you consider 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 ?
About the same weight and size as C 70-200 f4 L but with longer reach.

Excellent optical quality and it's fast and light enough for travel.

Oly is trying to give something new rather than duplicating what others have already offer.

35-100mm f2.0 is one kind of lens, superb.

the 50-200mm will be 'competing' with the 100-400mm on the Canon. less the IS, the ZD is still a better lens. :devil:

wonder how much is Hacker letting go his 35-100mm. :think: beautiful lens indeed!! :thumbsup: but i got no $$ to take over... :cry:
 

wind30

Deregistered
Mar 14, 2004
2,927
0
0
#16
ya man. After switching to nikon setup, the 50-200mm is THE lens which I missed. The nikon 70-200mm is so heavy with less reach. On the good side, there are cheaper super Wides on nikon mount (third party lens)
 

kraterz

New Member
Mar 10, 2002
204
0
0
Visit site
#17
tomcat said:
I believe you are referring to the EF 70-200L f/4 and not the 70-200L f/2.8. Check the RRP prices in the Canon site here and see for yourself. At f/2.0, the ZD 35-100 is even brighter than any equivalent zoom lens that Canon has to offer and at not much more too. ;)
No I am referring to the f/2.8L. List price $3.1k is a joke, who pays list price? Street price for the f/4L is little over $1K (gray market). Anyway, ZD 35-100 :drool: if I had the $$$
 

ykkok

New Member
Feb 24, 2004
532
0
0
#18
nightpiper said:
the 50-200mm will be 'competing' with the 100-400mm on the Canon. less the IS, the ZD is still a better lens. :devil:

wonder how much is Hacker letting go his 35-100mm. :think: beautiful lens indeed!! :thumbsup: but i got no $$ to take over... :cry:
True if we compare with a film or full frame body, but on a 1.6x factored body, 70-200mm f4 becomes 112-320mm f4.

However, if compare to full frame, 50-200 is capable to maintain f2.8 up to 90mm. It's like 100-180mm f2.8 ! Imagine the size and weight 70-200mm f2.8 L vs '100-180mm f2.8' !!

So, 100-400mm f2.8-3.5 i think is more versatile than 112-320mm f4, in terms of speed and reach.

With an 1.4x tele-conv, 50-200mm becomes 140-560mm f4.0-5.0
 

Dec 4, 2004
747
0
0
Medieval Period...
#19
ykkok said:
True if we compare with a film or full frame body, but on a 1.6x factored body, 70-200mm f4 becomes 112-320mm f6.4.

However, if compare to full frame, 50-200 is capable to maintain f2.8 up to 90mm. It's like 100-180mm f2.8 ! Imagine the size and weight 70-200mm f2.8 L vs '100-180mm f2.8' !!

So, 100-400mm f2.8-3.5 i think is more versatile than 112-320mm f6.4, in terms of speed and reach.

With an 1.4x tele-conv, 50-200mm becomes 140-560mm f4.0-5.0
Sorry ykkok some correction. in red
 

nightpiper

Senior Member
Oct 20, 2003
2,152
0
0
#20
ykkok said:
True if we compare with a film or full frame body, but on a 1.6x factored body, 70-200mm f4 becomes 112-320mm f4.

However, if compare to full frame, 50-200 is capable to maintain f2.8 up to 90mm. It's like 100-180mm f2.8 ! Imagine the size and weight 70-200mm f2.8 L vs '100-180mm f2.8' !!
ya, i was comparing it to FF in my mind, sorry didn't put it down. since Oly 2x crop is compensated by the 2x more optical rez, so to be fair, any 35mm lens shud also be used on FF for comparison. i was looking at 100-400 on the Canon & 50-200 on the Oly. the lack of CA & very low distortion & faster speed (even at F3.5) make the ZD a better lens.

the 2 reasons if i were to get the Canon 100-400 wud be the DOF & maybe the IS, no other reasons compelling enuf to skip the ZD50-200.

merciless knight: how come become F6.4? care to share? :)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom