Re: Photography
Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2017 8:23 am
fresh new paint had to take some shots
And don't cheap out and get the f4 version. f2.8 is also a must.Mikey wrote:70-200 is a general must for any photographer.
Well we could also just go 85 f/1.2, 135 f/2.8 and 200 f/2!barrington314 wrote:And don't cheap out and get the f4 version. f2.8 is also a must.Mikey wrote:70-200 is a general must for any photographer.
I had an f2.8, sold it and got an f4. It's just so much smaller and easy to carry around that I can't justify the extra cost. If you have a body with good ISO capabilities, you're good imo. Also it could just be my copy, but I find the f4 a lot sharper, and it's extremely good wide open.barrington314 wrote:And don't cheap out and get the f4 version. f2.8 is also a must.Mikey wrote:70-200 is a general must for any photographer.
If you want to shoot SX events in the US, then the f4 doesn't cut it.sapelgas431 wrote:I had an f2.8, sold it and got an f4. It's just so much smaller and easy to carry around that I can't justify the extra cost. If you have a body with good ISO capabilities, you're good imo. Also it could just be my copy, but I find the f4 a lot sharper, and it's extremely good wide open.barrington314 wrote:And don't cheap out and get the f4 version. f2.8 is also a must.Mikey wrote:70-200 is a general must for any photographer.
True, didn't think of that. I guess it depends on what you're using it for, I never needed the f2.8.Ddavis wrote:If you want to shoot SX events in the US, then the f4 doesn't cut it.sapelgas431 wrote:I had an f2.8, sold it and got an f4. It's just so much smaller and easy to carry around that I can't justify the extra cost. If you have a body with good ISO capabilities, you're good imo. Also it could just be my copy, but I find the f4 a lot sharper, and it's extremely good wide open.barrington314 wrote: And don't cheap out and get the f4 version. f2.8 is also a must.