07-15-2011, 06:27 PM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1310732226' post='10045']
Well, the 400/5.6L is not exactly popular. The 100-400L IS is.
I reckon the popularity (and also performance) of the zooms (70-200G, 70-400G) is also the reason why Sony
didn't bother with the 200mm G and 400mm G anymore. The primes remain superior optically though.
[/quote]
Now manufacturers only sell large FF zooms or large FF primes. But I think small primes are a better compromise: draw less attention, lighter to carry, good optically (easier to design). I often take around my Minolta 28/2 & 100/2 instead of Zeiss 24/2 & 85/1.4 simply because they are twice smaller and almost as sharp.
Carrying the A900 with the 28/2 or 35/2 is actually lighter than an APS-C body with a bright APS-C wide-angle lens. But the upcoming Zeiss 24 for NEX might make me change my mind.
Well, the 400/5.6L is not exactly popular. The 100-400L IS is.
I reckon the popularity (and also performance) of the zooms (70-200G, 70-400G) is also the reason why Sony
didn't bother with the 200mm G and 400mm G anymore. The primes remain superior optically though.
[/quote]
Now manufacturers only sell large FF zooms or large FF primes. But I think small primes are a better compromise: draw less attention, lighter to carry, good optically (easier to design). I often take around my Minolta 28/2 & 100/2 instead of Zeiss 24/2 & 85/1.4 simply because they are twice smaller and almost as sharp.
Carrying the A900 with the 28/2 or 35/2 is actually lighter than an APS-C body with a bright APS-C wide-angle lens. But the upcoming Zeiss 24 for NEX might make me change my mind.