smallpeak said:35-100F2.0 3600SGD(NEW).Woth to buy?any comment?thanks!
Hacker said:You won't know what you are missing. Then again, it is very heavy for a walkabout lens.
NMSS_2 said:who is selling cheap? :bigeyes: *checking my burnt pockets* :sweatsm:
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.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.
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.
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 $$$tomcat said:I believe you are referring to the EF 70-200L f/4 and not the 70-200L f/2.8. Check the RRP prices in the Canon site here and see for yourself. At f/2.0, the ZD 35-100 is even brighter than any equivalent zoom lens that Canon has to offer and at not much more too.
nightpiper said:the 50-200mm will be 'competing' with the 100-400mm on the Canon. less the IS, the ZD is still a better lens. :devil:
wonder how much is Hacker letting go his 35-100mm. :think: beautiful lens indeed!! :thumbsup: but i got no $$ to take over... :cry:
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
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' !!