Another happy 35-100 owner

Started Nov 7, 2012 | Discussions thread
Allan Brown Senior Member • Posts: 2,361
Re: Another happy 35-100 owner

CharlesB58 wrote:

Allan Brown wrote:

I'm sure this is a good lens but is it worth the price. Other than it being f2.8 I don't think it is any better than my 45-200.

Here are a couple taken with my 45-200 at 200mm, 1600ISO, wide open (f5.6) OOC jpeg just resized down.

I am not trying to start a fight, just saying that unless you really need f2.8, there are other options.


I do a lot of concert, theater and powwow photography. For me, the difference between 2.8 and 5.6 is the difference between a shot I delete (because of too much subject blur) and a shot my clients like. So the lens is definitely worth the price for me, and one of the lenses contributing why my equipment upgrade path is pretty much remaining with 4/3 and m4/3 (especially with the future release of the Panasonic 150 f2.8).

Those are situations where I would use faster lenses - primes. Why be limited to f2.8? What's wrong with f1.4 or f0.9? Even f1.8 is better for low light. The 150 f2.8 sounds interesting and is why I use my old Nikon 105 f2.5 even though it doesn't AF.

On the other hand, I'm intrigued with how often people declare lenses like the 35-100 f2.8 or the 75 f1.8 to be overpriced. Those who do so must either: A-have no real understanding of what affects the price of a lens, especially when it comes to aperture size and overall construction. B-Don't compare prices to comparable lenses from other manufacturers.

Well, I never said it was over priced, I asked if it was worth the price.

For the price of that one lens, I can buy another body and one or more fast primes.

I am not a "prime" fanboy as I have a set of zooms as well as several primes.


Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow