| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/20/2010 01:08:56 AM · #26 |
It's settled. I'm getting the 24-105 f4L. I can use the $350 I'll save toward another lens. I'm going to get the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS for any low-light/wider angle needs. One stop of light on a lens that's proven to be not as sharp and is also bigger/heavier isn't worth $350 extra dollars to me. And that extra stop isn't anything a strobe can't fix.
Message edited by author 2010-06-20 01:23:51. |
|
|
|
06/20/2010 01:13:25 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
You have IS on that 100mm? That explains a lot! You're young and strong - I'm old and shaky. Wanna trade? I'll throw in, oh, I don't know, cookies or something. Storebought, not homemade, but the thought will be there. |
We have that one now too. And it's the new generation IS, working in two planes. It's the bee's knees, I'm telling ya! The cat's meow!
R.
|
|
|
|
06/20/2010 11:39:41 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by kgeary:
It's settled. I'm getting the 24-105 f4L. I can use the $350 I'll save toward another lens. I'm going to get the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS for any low-light/wider angle needs. One stop of light on a lens that's proven to be not as sharp and is also bigger/heavier isn't worth $350 extra dollars to me. And that extra stop isn't anything a strobe can't fix. |
The increased range is what got me. Plus it's lighter for a walkaround and my photography doesn't tend to utilize 2.8 as much. I'm happy with 4.0. |
|
|
|
06/20/2010 12:47:40 PM · #29 |
| 10-22. 24-105. 300 f2.8. thats what i'd get! |
|
|
|
06/20/2010 04:44:03 PM · #30 |
With a full frame sensor.
Three prime lenses.
With any other sensor.
Zooms.
|
|
|
|
06/20/2010 05:01:50 PM · #31 |
I agree with many on the 16-35mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8. A macro lens filter for the 70-200mm is a light and easy way to avoid the need for a dedicated macro lens.
I don't find I miss 35mm to 70mm very much but f2.8 is quite limiting - so I carry and use 85mm f1.2 for wide aperture shots.
The only thing I really miss is something wider (fisheye) in my travel bag.
Message edited by author 2010-06-20 17:02:18.
|
|
|
|
06/20/2010 06:08:58 PM · #32 |
it all depends on what you want to be shooting most of the time...
pj-work, environmental stuff: 16-35
walk-around, variable portraits (headshots, group shots): 24-70
sports (where you're close to the action), portraits, candids: 70-200
sports, portraits, candids (where you might have some distance between you and the subject): 300
regardless, you're better off saving for f/2.8 than buying cheap and upgrading. you also have to consider how much weight you can handle, both in your hands shooting and on your back and shoulders carrying it all around. sometimes you might have to go light.
for grins and variety, i'd suggest a 15 and/or a 50
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/10/2025 06:55:39 AM EST.
