Who cares? It's the images that count.
Brilliant photographers in the 1950s made images that are far superior to many of today's photographers using cameras and lenses far worse than anything made today.
Haha... I would never complain that any photographic equipment is too cheap.
Even if it is, the collective cost is astronomical!
Wah ... Jed, say liddat, now I thinking of sambal hae bee crispy ikan billis sandwiches!
Anyways, my response was a tongue in cheek to Prime's comment. I wonder if he instead meant to say, 'Brilliant photographers in the 1950s, using cameras and lenses far worse than anything made today, produced images that are far superior to many of today's photographers'.
Last edited by Dream Merchant; 4th May 2010 at 11:29 PM.
I dont think the 24-70 is too cheap. In fact i think its too expensive. I probably feel this way because i buy my hardware with my own money.
Everybody wins when good lenses like the 24-70 gets cheaper, not more expensive and 'exclusive'.
I think the focal range is a little off for a crop body, not enough on the wide end. But add IS to it, mount it on a FF body and you would have a killer setup (though expensive)
I'm just a hobbyist so i'll be sticking with my setup for some time yet
What is TOO CHEAP for you?
Actually, think the Canon one is quite OP..The Sigma and Nikon are value and good len.
ZY workshop - "Even Better Than You Are": Full Day Wedding services
am using a 24-70 on a cropped sensor (D90 for that matter). I'm rather comfortable with the range (i see myself using the 55-70mm range often as well). True enough at times (not often though) when i'm doing landscape, i wished i've a tokina 11(-16mm), but there are 101 ways to cover a feature, just make do with what one have lor, i mean who doesn't want a 2mm-500mm f1.2 that can do macro?
Last edited by ethany; 6th May 2010 at 08:18 PM.