Orestis.Ch wrote:
It seems that we all want better lenses with higher quality optics for the same price as the old ones. Although this is possible for the camera bodies , due to the fact that they are more similar to a computer unit, i'm so sure about the same happening with glass. If we want a glass to be able to resolve 30-40mp then i'm afraid we'll have to pay the price that comes with it.
Those who find 17-40 good enough will save their $$. Those who want more, will pay more.
Sorry for the off-topic but :
what's with this Zeiss 21 F2.8 ?
I really don't get why people love it so much. I would rather have a TS-E 24 MarkII for that kind of money, or a 24F1.4 II if i wanted large aperture...Show more →
I am not sure why you are asking me this, especially since you snipped out the part of my post where I said I was happy with my Canon 16-35 II and saw no reason to get a Zeiss 21.
ragebot wrote:
I am not sure why you are asking me this, especially since you snipped out the part of my post where I said I was happy with my Canon 16-35 II and saw no reason to get a Zeiss 21.
You got me wrong. I wasn't asking particularly you, i just saw your reference to that lens and wanting to know more about it, from all members who might know how good it is.
I'm pretty sure i'll be just as happy with my 16-35 II when it gets in my bag
