right now i have a really poor 70-300mm quantaray 4.5-5.6 lens. it's incredibly slow to autofocus, slow, big and heavy. i haven't had it on my camera in about a year.
next is a sigma 18-125mm, 3.5-5.6 general purpose lens. not bad, not great. just there.
the one i usually have on there is a sigma 18:50 2.8. it's fairly fast, but 50mm isn't much in the way of zoom. i had that at devina's wedding, and wasn't able to even get close enough at the chapel for it to be worth doing.
my problem mentally is that at the wide end, 70 just doesn't make me happy. sometimes you want to get something nearby on short notice, and that just won't cut it. i guess the solution there is to carry 2 bodies :)
given all of the constraints you describe, i'd go for the 70-200. i like the comment in the review you linked to about the steak. i'd rather a nice small filet than a huge sirloin :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-10-23 05:31 pm (UTC)right now i have a really poor 70-300mm quantaray 4.5-5.6 lens. it's incredibly slow to autofocus, slow, big and heavy. i haven't had it on my camera in about a year.
next is a sigma 18-125mm, 3.5-5.6 general purpose lens. not bad, not great. just there.
the one i usually have on there is a sigma 18:50 2.8. it's fairly fast, but 50mm isn't much in the way of zoom. i had that at devina's wedding, and wasn't able to even get close enough at the chapel for it to be worth doing.
my problem mentally is that at the wide end, 70 just doesn't make me happy. sometimes you want to get something nearby on short notice, and that just won't cut it. i guess the solution there is to carry 2 bodies :)
given all of the constraints you describe, i'd go for the 70-200. i like the comment in the review you linked to about the steak. i'd rather a nice small filet than a huge sirloin :)