Upload & Sell: On
| p.3 #3 · Best wide landscape lens - the winner is... |
I have a tendency not to make any sense. Sorry if it was confusing. My wife tells me this all the time.
Your statement doesn't make sense to me because I have a D800 and want many of the capabilities it brings to the table (including high ISO DR, ISO 100 DR, viewfinder quality, etc. etc.), but many times I am very weight/volume constrained. Hence I want lenses that are not overly large or heavy, but still maintain a high level of IQ. It's the lenses that take up by far the most volume and contribute the most to overall weight of my bag. Sometimes I take lenses that have a bit compromised IQ just for the weight/volume (my 20/2.8D for instance).
The 70-200/4 that I purchased was due solely for weight/volume even though I have the 70-200/2.8VRII.
I would love to have a 14-24/2.8, but most of the time it would sit on the shelf due to size and weight. Hence I take my 16/3.5 and occasionally 17-35/2.8AFS. The 18-35AFS VR is a prime candidate to replace the 17-35 due to weight and size alone IF it has good enough IQ.
I also have a m43 camera/lens (GH-2 + 12-35/2.8), but it's no substitute for a D800 .
So you may find it odd that someone complains about weight, but has an FX DSLR, but I find it quite reasonable because I understand their issue.