11-28-2010, 03:19 PM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1290953516' post='4519']
So a 17/18-50/55mm f2.8 lens just always makes more sense. You have f2.8 in the portrait range, and will have f4 at the short tele range (with the Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM, 70-200 f4 L's).[/quote]
No they don't. Again it comes down to intended uses. The f/2.8 zooms are not that wide, nor that long. In my example earlier, the f/2.8 itself is even a disadvantage and the extra zoom range is more important. If you're going to trade away zoom range for aperture, primes start looking more attractive.
So a 17/18-50/55mm f2.8 lens just always makes more sense. You have f2.8 in the portrait range, and will have f4 at the short tele range (with the Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM, 70-200 f4 L's).[/quote]
No they don't. Again it comes down to intended uses. The f/2.8 zooms are not that wide, nor that long. In my example earlier, the f/2.8 itself is even a disadvantage and the extra zoom range is more important. If you're going to trade away zoom range for aperture, primes start looking more attractive.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.