FotoPhreak
11th of December 2003 (Thu), 16:40
I found these quotes on another review/forum site referred to from hear, and was wondering what people thought on the following comments:
1. (Referring to the 17-40 f/4)
Excellent when paired with my 10D. I use it mainly outdoors and it shines there. (Indoors its use is a bit limited by f/4, but then I would get 16-35/2.8L if I was looking for an indoor WA zoom...)
Agree/disagree? If agree, are there any less pricey lense(s) for indoor, mostly people/portrait, photography (I was thinking maybe the 50mm 1.4 or 1.8?!?)?
2.
The 70-200 is great but the 24-70 is disappointing; no better than my 28-135IS lens and compared to the other two 'L' lenses it is soft!
Is this actually true about the 24-70, as I've read else where that this lense is the bees-knees?!?!
3.
Well, I got the 16-35mm, and I came to the conclusion that the 16-35mm is overall a better lens, that provides better pictures, more natural. On top of it you gain 1 stop, you lose the 35-40mm range, but the 17-40 performance above 30mm is average. Conclusion, if you really cannot offer the extra $600 AND you need a wide angle zoom, the 17-40 is ok and the cheapest ticket into "L" lens.
--------------
Just so you know, I am trying to discern what is the best first lense to get when purchasing a DSLR.
Am not made of money, yet would prefer to spend that little bit more to be happy, than spend that little bit less to be sad - hence why only considering L!
(Congrats to converting yet another into the world of L)
1. (Referring to the 17-40 f/4)
Excellent when paired with my 10D. I use it mainly outdoors and it shines there. (Indoors its use is a bit limited by f/4, but then I would get 16-35/2.8L if I was looking for an indoor WA zoom...)
Agree/disagree? If agree, are there any less pricey lense(s) for indoor, mostly people/portrait, photography (I was thinking maybe the 50mm 1.4 or 1.8?!?)?
2.
The 70-200 is great but the 24-70 is disappointing; no better than my 28-135IS lens and compared to the other two 'L' lenses it is soft!
Is this actually true about the 24-70, as I've read else where that this lense is the bees-knees?!?!
3.
Well, I got the 16-35mm, and I came to the conclusion that the 16-35mm is overall a better lens, that provides better pictures, more natural. On top of it you gain 1 stop, you lose the 35-40mm range, but the 17-40 performance above 30mm is average. Conclusion, if you really cannot offer the extra $600 AND you need a wide angle zoom, the 17-40 is ok and the cheapest ticket into "L" lens.
--------------
Just so you know, I am trying to discern what is the best first lense to get when purchasing a DSLR.
Am not made of money, yet would prefer to spend that little bit more to be happy, than spend that little bit less to be sad - hence why only considering L!
(Congrats to converting yet another into the world of L)