17-55 or 24-105?

Started May 24, 2006 | Discussions thread
OP SuvoMitra Contributing Member • Posts: 850
Re: Light and inexpensive?

Robert Deutsch wrote:

SuvoMitra wrote:


let's me get away with the relatively light, versatile and
inexpensive 100-400.

Versatile, yes, but light and inexpensive?? I guess it's all
relative. I have one of these, but I'd describe it as heavy and
expensive The Sigma 55-200DC is what I'd call light and


Yes, it is relative, I guess. But if you consider the options for bird photography, the 100-400 and similar cost/sized 400 f/5.6 are in fact the light and inexpensive ones. The better specified 400mm or longer primes are at least 3 times the price, and, apart from the 400 DO (which is still heavier), at least twice the weight. The Tamron 200-500 is a bit lighter and quite a bit cheaper, but it doesn't have IS or USM. The Bigma is cheaper but noticeably heavier with no IS. So, for birding with x1.6 bodies, the 100-400 or the 400 5.6 are indeed the lightest and cheapest workable options. My point was simply that a 1.3 kg, effectively 640mm lens with IS and x4 zoom is an impossible dream in the FF world.
Suvo Mitra

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow