There is no need for a DX equivalent of a tele lens.theRBK said:Who knows...Nikon might introduce a 50-135 DX 2.8 with VR... would be DX equivalent of 70-200 2.8 VR ;p
There is no need for a DX equivalent of a tele lens.theRBK said:Who knows...Nikon might introduce a 50-135 DX 2.8 with VR... would be DX equivalent of 70-200 2.8 VR ;p
Well. The range just became something like 100-300, which is also quite useful. If you don't need f/2.8, there's the 24-120, which gives you an equivalent 36-180. But for that range, I would rather take the 18-200 DX.theRBK said:well, it may or may not be DX, but that range would give us same coverage as the 70-200, which has been useful through the ages... would also cover the gap between 17-55 and 70-200 lens... DXing it might just reduce the size of the lens, especially if it were to be constant 2.8...![]()
hazta said:I know dat Tokina will b releasin itz 16-50 f/2.8 n 50-135 f/2.8 somewhere diz comin September... :thumbsup:
Errz said:not dec?
cikgoo said:depending on exchange rate, i think malaysia selling this VR2 for RM2500
novello76 said:Wasted man. I was in KL, at a shop at Sungei Wang, they quoted RM2580, which works out just over $1100. If i had cash then, would have bought.
wcsiaw said:How much roughly is max photo selling?![]()