for the photographers
Mar. 20th, 2006 10:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Would you rather have:
The f/2.8 allows for much lower light/faster shooting. The 80-400mm gives you that much more reach. (Assume that, optically, the lenses perform roughly equivalently, e.g. roughly same levels of vignetting, distortion, softness at certain ends/apertures, etc...)
(Why isn't this a poll? Not only do i want to know which folks would prefer, i want to know the whys : )
- a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens
- an 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens
The f/2.8 allows for much lower light/faster shooting. The 80-400mm gives you that much more reach. (Assume that, optically, the lenses perform roughly equivalently, e.g. roughly same levels of vignetting, distortion, softness at certain ends/apertures, etc...)
(Why isn't this a poll? Not only do i want to know which folks would prefer, i want to know the whys : )
no subject
Date: 2006-03-20 11:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-20 11:38 pm (UTC)Of course, the 70-200 f/2.8 is more expensive than most of the other lenses i'm flipping around between - and the teleconverter is going to be another $100-300 on top of that. (I'm thinking i'd want to pair up lens mfgr and teleconverter mfgr).
The other downside to a teleconverter is then i lose the 70-140mm range when i've got the teleconverter on - which is the advantage of an 80-400mm.
So many variables, so little time (part of why i'm brain dumping about all of this so out loud).
no subject
Date: 2006-03-20 11:44 pm (UTC)(I didn't think i'd be happy with a 3rd party lens - but supposedly the higher end lenses from the 3rd parties (sigma, tokina, tamron) actually don't suck - and this lens was cheap enough to grab and play with and resell if i didn't like it - cost me what it would take to rent the equivalent L lens for 2 weeks : )
no subject
Date: 2006-03-21 01:34 pm (UTC)Oooooo please bring camera toys when you come. Hopefully I will have a 30D to play with then!