Upload & Sell: Off
| Re: Which way to go? |
85 1.8 vs 85 1.2
I see a lot of people recommending 85 1.8 against 85 1.2. Honestly, I have been looking at pics taken with 85 1.2 on FF and they are GORGEOUS! That was the primary reason for considering the lens. Has anyone used both lenses? Is the difference incremental or is it significant?
Tamron 90 vs Canon 100 IS
I do some amount of macro work but I am happy with tamron. I do not use macro a lot so can not justify spending $$$ for the upgrade.
16-35 vs 17-40
I enjoy landscape work the most and would not like to sacrifice anything on this front. I agree that I do not need 2.8 for landscapes. I was only looking at 16-36 for the improvement in sharpness over 17-40...or is it only theoretical? will anyone notice the difference looking at a picture on a 21 inch monitor?
I was also looking at Nikon 14-24 for landscapes.
70-200 F4 IS
In the last year or so, I have never picked up this lens. When I go for landscapes, I tend to go wide. When I want to shoot portraits, I usually pick up 50 1.4. So I guess I will not find much use of this lens even in the future.
Same with 24-105. pretty slow for portraits and not wide enough for landscapes.