what are your requirements for a lens? super sharp? travel friendly? longest range u can get?

i'd rate these from top to bottom for a travel lens..

55-200 tele kit lens
70300G tele lens
70400G tele lens
70200G f/2.8 tele lens

You must first identify your need for any lens of any focal length. Having more does not necessarily mean better. Ask yourself these questions:

1. How often do you shoot in telephoto focal ranges (more than 100mm) ?

2. Why do you need (as opposed to want) a telephoto lens in the range of 300mm and above (do you do birding? shoot animals in their natural habitat? shoot sports?)

The 70-300mm and 70-400mm lenses are strictly for use outdoors in the open and for long range subjects. You will not find many uses for them shooting people inside buildings. They have considerable weight and if you don't identify your needs for one then you might just find the lens sitting inside your drybox more than attached to your camera. A paperweight that costs more than RM 3k is not a wise financial move.

kuro0314: What exactly do you intend to shoot with the 70-400mm?

hahaha, if his vacations are mostly at beaches, then i absolutely understand

Your Alpha's Super Steady Shot reduces vibrations only in the captured image. Check the pictures you take in playback mode and see if they also have camera shake. If not then your hands are good enough lo But I agree, it can be difficult to compose the shot with all that shake... And I really wish Sony put SSS into the NEX cameras! 

BTW your font and bad typing makes your posts very difficult to read...

and WHY u opt to go for 70300, or 70400? if you REALLY wish up upgrade your lenses, why not upgrade your kitlens instead? Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 perhaps?

---

Added on February 14, 2011, 11:49 am

maybe u can use the 70400, then set up a hide and camouflage it so ppl wont know you're stalking

kuro, you have your canon 70-200 L why buying duplicates?

kuro0314 : If your 55-200mm stays off your camera most of the time then the same can be said to either the 70-300mm or the 70-400mm that you are going to buy. You are just not going to use it much.

Things WILL get worse for the new lens as it would be considerably HEAVIER than your 55-200mm lens to lug around. Imagine going out 10 times and lugging the heavy telephoto with you and then come home to find that you have used the lens to take only 5 pictures! Guess where the lens will end up the next time you go out? Yup! The dry box.

My honest advise to you:

If you have that amount of cash to spend and is itching to spend it then go for the 16-35mm Zeiss (if you are on APS-C) or the 24-70mm Zeiss (if you are on Full Frame). Forget about telephoto for now.

If you die, die also must have a telephoto lens then the 85mm Zeiss (for APS-C) or the 135mm Zeiss (for FF) will ease your gear lust and prove more usable than a 70-300mm/70-400mm lens.

very nice. an average joe would have gone canon as well for lens sharing. since you can afford all, i would say go for it. buy all those lens, it would be beneficial for Sony community if there is any TT for lens poisoning from you.

@shootkk
and why would you suggest 16-35mm on ASPC ah? 16-80mm no good?

since you use kit lens most of the time n would like to have fast focusing, have you thought of CZ 24-70 SSM???

btw, is Sigma HSM comparable to SSM in Sony?

kuro0314, I would think that the SAL1635Z is an overkill on the A300.... but that is just me.  The SAL1680Z DT would be more suitable. But if you do have fullframe in your mind as future upgrade, then the SAL1635Z is indeed a good option to consider. You simply losing too much wideness for the price you paid for the SAL1635Z. The telephoto range on the other hand benefits from the psuedo-extended range due to the crop factor. 300mm becomes 450mm and 400mm becomes 600mm on aps-c!!! 

evilhomura89, Yes, Sigma's HSM is comparable to Sony's SSM in terms of its concept of operation. (Canon's equivalent will be the USM and Nikon's will be the SWD). btw, Sigma's 24-70 F2.8 HSM is also a very nice lense if the SAL2470Z is considered as being too expensive.