Bjorn, if you think the 70-200 f2.8 is to short why are you buying it?
There's quite some reasons for that actually. The superb image quality
of the lens, which is simply uncomparable to other telezoom lenses made by Sony. The brightness
of it, F2.8 is not only good for low-light situations, also for blurred backgrounds. The SSM
in the lens is something you do not want to live without once you've used it (WARNING: popo, I'm pretty sure you'll want to buy the Zeiss 24-70mm, that SSM is sooooo great). It's extremely fast, precise, quiet. The feel
of the lens. When you're holding such equipment, you feel more challenged to get creative, at least I do. You think: hmmm, I bought this lens for such a lot of money, I'd better make good use of it. The looks
of the lens are something I like too, but that's not something that would convince me to buy the thing.
The reason why I'd buy the lens is because I want to buy high quality lenses from now on. My passion for photography is still growing, and I feel that if I buy a lower-end telephotozoom lens, I'd want to replace
it in a relatively short time. The lens' 200mm focal length is short, but at this moment I'm used to even less, and so it will be a relief getting to 200mm. Also, the IQ is good enough for cropping
smaller parts of the image. And, with the whole buy-good-lenses-from-the-start idea, a fixed focal length telephoto is already on the list. I'm curious to see what the other upcoming prototypes are. A 400mm F4 would be best, F2.8 is out of my league (for some years at least).
I'm sure the 80-400mm, which I assume it will be, not sure of course, will be quite expensive too. From the looks of it, it will be Zeiss, so that will mean a higher price. The price of Nikon's version is about €1250,- here in Holland. If the Sony version has SSM, high quality glass and is as bright as Nikon's version (F4.5-5.6), it will probably be even more expensive than that. But it will be a great lens, that's for sure.
- Bjorn -