but I am not unwilling to spend on the lens... if there exists a lens that does 28-300mm and is nice and light and image-clear then I would (save up for it) buy it at 2k?Originally posted by ckiang
The reason why I said that is, too many people spend $4k on DSLRs and unwilling to spend more for a proper lens and get a superzoom instead. And becoz we tend to view digital pix at 100%, all the flaws become very obvious.
On film cameras, where you simply print 4Rs at the lab, it may not be that bad.
read canon got a usm 28-200.. is it good? got ftmf?