07-29-2010, 07:41 PM
[quote name='obsoquasi' timestamp='1280350831' post='1373']
It was suggested, that you buy the 55-250mm. Don't do that, this lens isn't worth the plastic it is made out of. Okay, maybe that was a little to harsh a judgement - it's not a REALLY bad lens. [/quote]
I don't know if you realized it, but I was trying to stick to a budget in my advice. Besides that, this lens is opticlally quite good actually. The build isn't that of an L, but I know many peopel who are very happy with it.
That is a good combo, but possibly leaves out an UWA requirement within budget.
Could you maybe expand this a little further? I don't entirely get what you are trying to say here.
For portraiture that actually is a good range. Short standard to short tele. Group portrait to head shots.
Kind regards, Wim
It was suggested, that you buy the 55-250mm. Don't do that, this lens isn't worth the plastic it is made out of. Okay, maybe that was a little to harsh a judgement - it's not a REALLY bad lens. [/quote]
I don't know if you realized it, but I was trying to stick to a budget in my advice. Besides that, this lens is opticlally quite good actually. The build isn't that of an L, but I know many peopel who are very happy with it.
Quote:But once you have tried the 70-200mm F/4, you will ask yourself, why you didn't buy that in the first place. Personally I'd go for a 17-55mm and the 70-200mm F/4.
That is a good combo, but possibly leaves out an UWA requirement within budget.
Quote: I have a feeling that we will see some improvements in the ultra-wide to wide-angle segment, that will be compatible to FF.
Could you maybe expand this a little further? I don't entirely get what you are trying to say here.
Quote: I personally use a EF-S 10-22mm (which I find great, if maybe slightly unsharp), an EF 24-70mm F/2.8 wich (on a APS-C) is "okay" for portraiture on APS-C, but really has an odd range there (38-112mm),
For portraiture that actually is a good range. Short standard to short tele. Group portrait to head shots.
Quote:and two 70-200mm IS (F/4 and F/2.8) which I love both, but would probably stick to the F/4 if pressed, because F/2.8 isn't really that much different. That's to say, if with F/4 you didn't get enough light, chances are, F/2.8 won't be enough either. But the F/4 is sooo much lighter!Agreed, but F/2.8 does give additional possibilities with regard to DoF. Also, bokeh on the F/2.8 is better than on the F/4.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....