« on: April 11, 2014, 04:07:27 PM »
Now it's time for Sigma to make a sub $1000 f1.8 of equal optical quality.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
If I were you, I'd sell the 7d and 17-55 to get a 6d...
You'll see why after you get your 24-70 ii!
Professionals, please enlighten me. Would not a 24 - 90 2.8 or 28 - 90 2.8 be an "ideal" walk around lens. While I don't shoot full frame, I would imagine a lens of such focal length would be ideal for a general purpose lens given it's 2.8 (as opposed to f4) and is long enough to reach the "ideal" portrait focal length of 85/90mm.
The 24-105 range on f4.0 is actually close to perfect for walk around. Don't know that I've ever really care for the extra reach of the Nikon (24-120) and I suspect that going wider (20-105 or something) would be too hard.
I always wonder who buy such lenses Of course, I would like to try it (on 1dx, which I also do not have ) From practical reasons such lenses are too much expensive as well as I do not know any other application means except for bird photography (which is not paying off).
It would be very interesting to hear from people who own such lenses the reasons why they bought them and where they use them. I am 99% sure that nobody in my country (Lithuania) has such lenses.
Paparazzi love these lenses.. check out the shots of Kate Middleton in her swimsuit on holiday in france,a lens like this was used.. and those shots earned a lot of money..
To LR 5 users, sorry if this was answered before, but is it worth the upgrade from LR4 (besides the better splash screen, mentioned in a prior thread)?