peterm1
31st of August 2003 (Sun), 22:18
Hi, I currently use a 10D with the following lenses:
80-200mm L f/2.8
35mm f/2
50mm f/1.8 mkI
24-85mm f/3.5-4.5
1.4x teleconverter
I love the 80-200 L, so everything is set over 80mm.
I started with the 24-85, and because I wanted results that looked as good as my 80-200, I bought the faster and sharper 35 f/2 and 50/1.8.
Now I am wondering if instead of all these lenses under 80mm, can I find one (or 2) lenses that cover this range with great results?
I can sell my 24-85, 35 and 50 lenses and get a 28-80 2.8 or something like that.
Or, I can keep my 35mm and 50mm lenses and get a 17-35 or 17-40 or something like that. I don't have $1000 to spend on a lens, but if I could find an older used model that was several hundred dollars I would sell my 24-85 and maybe one of my other lenses. For example, I bought a beat-up copy of the 80-200mm L lens for under $500 and it performs beautifully - I didn;t need a state of the art 70-200 L for $1500.
On the other hand, I can just get a 20mm 2.8 so I would have 20, 35 and 50 primes, which would cover most of my shooting situations under 80mm. But then I have to keep changing lenses, so if I could find a zoom that could come close in fastness, sharpness and color it might be preferable.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Peter M
80-200mm L f/2.8
35mm f/2
50mm f/1.8 mkI
24-85mm f/3.5-4.5
1.4x teleconverter
I love the 80-200 L, so everything is set over 80mm.
I started with the 24-85, and because I wanted results that looked as good as my 80-200, I bought the faster and sharper 35 f/2 and 50/1.8.
Now I am wondering if instead of all these lenses under 80mm, can I find one (or 2) lenses that cover this range with great results?
I can sell my 24-85, 35 and 50 lenses and get a 28-80 2.8 or something like that.
Or, I can keep my 35mm and 50mm lenses and get a 17-35 or 17-40 or something like that. I don't have $1000 to spend on a lens, but if I could find an older used model that was several hundred dollars I would sell my 24-85 and maybe one of my other lenses. For example, I bought a beat-up copy of the 80-200mm L lens for under $500 and it performs beautifully - I didn;t need a state of the art 70-200 L for $1500.
On the other hand, I can just get a 20mm 2.8 so I would have 20, 35 and 50 primes, which would cover most of my shooting situations under 80mm. But then I have to keep changing lenses, so if I could find a zoom that could come close in fastness, sharpness and color it might be preferable.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Peter M