Quote:
Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif
If you know your preferred ranges, the situations you're in, and your style of shooting, then the choices are very limited or make themselves pretty clear.
My thoughts are 70-200 2.8 IS is big, white, heavy, doesn't have the best quality, and is the most expensive so I'm not a fan of this lens. If you are a working pro, sure this'll cover more situations.
16-35 2.8 II, I don't use that much wide angle so can't justify that plus it's not the best wide angle either. The Nikon 14-24 is the best there. I don't feel like spending that much on a lens which is just good.
So it depends if you want to have convenience vs. better quality. I care more about quality though.
Convenience.
16-35 f/2.8 II
24-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8 IS
Better quality,
Nikon 14-24
Canon 35 1.4
Sigma 50 1.4
Canon 85 1.8
Canon 135 2
Canon 200 2.8
Canon 70-200 f4 IS. This is the best of the 70-200.
|
Interesting. I'm glad to hear your thoughts on this.
I certainly not a working professional but do intend on making some money in the upcoming future through photography. I'll probably not give up on my future engineering career to pursue photography, but I would like to make enough to pay off the gear I want/need.
First, off I'm wondering why you'd recommend the 70-200 f4 IS over the 70-200 f2.8 IS. Monetary issues aside, I figured the 2.8 would at least be as sharp (if not sharper once you got around the f4 mark) and would work better in low light situations.
I think you're absolutely right about the 14-24 besting the 16-35, but the marginal difference isn't going to convince me to sell the Canon gear I do have and switch to Nikon.
I will probably agree with you for the most part and say I do care about quality more than convenience, but carrying around and/or owning that amount of primes just doesn't seem feasible or reasonable for my needs.
I've seen lots of images from the Canon 85 1.8, but honestly can't tell much of a difference between them and images taken with my 100 2.8. Along the same lines, there's not much difference between the 135 2.0 and my own 100. No doubt there is a difference there, but to my eyes at this point in the game, it's a marginal one.
Anyway, I'd love to hear more of your thoughts (or anyone elses!) if you would like to share more. Sorry if I come off as argumentative, that is not my intention. I'll just spending spending a large sum of money so I'd love to hear as many ideas, thoughts, justifications as possible.
.