Geez - you\'re bringing up an off the cuff sentence from a post from several months ago? Come on, man. First off, I was not purporting that it was the exact same...I was using shorthand in a forum post to denote that I was waiting for an f/2.8 zoom with the equivalent view of a 70-200mm lens. Yes, you\'re right, in a forum post from several months ago, I should have been more longwinded to express my excitement over a new lens. We discussed that briefly there....it\'s f/2.8...why must it be compared to full frame in all respects? You came in that thread with the inflammatory \"be happy with your 70-200 f/5.6.\"
Have you seen me running around saying I\'ve got a 70-200 f/2.8...no, I call it the 35-100mm f/2.8.
Geez - you\'re bringing up an off the cuff sentence from a post from several months ago? Come on, man. First off, I was not purporting that it was the exact same...I was using shorthand in a forum post to denote that I was waiting for an f/2.8 zoom with the equivalent view of a 70-200mm lens. Yes, you\'re right, in a forum post from several months ago, I should have been more longwinded to express my excitement over a new lens.
Have you seen me running around saying I\'ve got a 70-200 f/2.8...no, I call it the 35-100mm f/2.8.
Feb 03, 2013 at 09:04 AM
Previous versions of Jman13's message #11320806 « “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter »
