sjms wrote: TooManyShots wrote:
Is only $1100. Not a bad deal for a S lens. 24-70 f2.8s is better but near $1k more.
isn't that always the way? having the so called best stuff doesn't necessarily make one automatically the best. the great philosophical conundrum of consumption or the appropriate tool for the job one does.
one can buy a f2.8 lens at 2x the price and then shoot at f5.6 85-90% of the time. Hmmm. this must that angst i have been told i bring upon some here
Not sure it a great philosophical debate. You get the 2.8 for the other 10-15% of shots. If you shoot above 4 all the time the others will do just fine. Choices are good.
I have the 24-120 preordered. Then the 2.8 went on sale for $300 off. So I picked up the 2.8 as at that price difference the speed means more to me than the extra reach. For others, the extra reach may be more critical.
