File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
i came.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:02:03 20:56:28Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1024Image Height685
>> Anonymous
>>123042

Was it it?
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
looks very 70-200 F2.8ish
I forget what the PMA announcement / rumor was.

The problem is will it be ridiculously overpriced like their old 70-200 f2.8?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>123051
80-200/2.8 iirc and the old 70-200/2.8 was stunningly awesome so stop complaing you got the quality for the price.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>123057
I'm not complaining, just saying their G 70-200 was $700 more than Nikon or Canon's counterparts.

I've never used the Sony, but have used the Nikon and Canon versions, and have to say I can't imagine it would be 40% better than those.
If it is i'm impressed, but I've never heard anyone (other than you) lay testament to its greatness.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>123064
The minolta one or the sony badged minolta one?
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>123065
Whatever one is priced at $2400 New
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
hey guys, what's going on in this thread
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>123067
The current (ie old one)

This is apparently a 80-400 or 100-400 type zoom so thats why its black (it will be crap but zoomy!)

>>123068
Nothing go back to bed.
>> Anonymous
>>123042

So expensive for such a neat bit of plastic. Pitty its only mountable on those crap Sony cameras.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>123081
0/10
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>123076

In that case...

hey guys, what's going on in this thread
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>123084
I really want to try out one of these to see if its awesome (like everyone says so) or just anoying.

They are constant apreture right?
>> Anonymous
no