Well, if portability is an issue I'd opt for the 100mm and the 200mm. I wouldn't bother with the 85 or 120, cause they're too close to the 100. I'd go for the zoom if flexibility was most important (and in "overt" photojournalism - i.e. when you're not bothered that your subject knows you're there). Still, if you don't have the need for autofocus and the 2.8 speed, the Series 1 Vivitars 70-210/3.5 should do well - the second one (with the 62mm filter thread) is supposed to be smaller than the first one, but even the latter isn't that big (sure it's not an M135/3.5 but not a Tokina ATX 2.8 either).
Just my two cents, Łukasz -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: New lens got me thinking Just picked up a mint SMC M100/2.8 and it got me thinking. (Anything to get my mind off this Digital discussion) I've always had a craving for an 80-200/2.8. They are certainly convenient and very high quality lenses. Problem is, they are big, heavy and very expensive. So I was thinking. Would I rather go out with my miniature 100/f2.8, my 200/f2.5, and maybe the 120/f2.8 or the 80/f2, as opposed to lugging out the 80-200/f2.8. Certainly there would be less changing of lenses with the zoom. But, if you're like me, you often end up using the zoom more or less at its two extremes most of the time — At the 80 end or the 200 end. Not a lot of in between stuff. In fact, I usually end up at the long end wishing for more. The zoom seems like overkill if you're mostly using it at around 80 or 100, surely the 80/f2 or the 100/f2.8 is a better choice. And it's even pretty big at the 200 end compared to say the 200A*/f2.8 or the older 2.5. Maybe I'm better off without the 80-200/f2.8. Just some food for thought. What do you think????? Vic
