|
|||||||
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 6, 2005, 1:55 AM
|
#11 |
|
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73
|
It's sort of like trying to recommend underwear, isn't it? Too many factors to consider with too little info. :roll:
Just using the camera for "snapshots"? Family, zoo, vacations, pets, personal enjoyment, and only want one lens? The Sig 18-125 is probably the best choice for the money. Need sharp, high quality images and want the creativity that control over DOF that a large aperture gives you and still wnat a zoom? One of the faster 2.8 lenses available (my choice was the Sig 24-70 for the moment). Need total DOF and low-light capability? Try a bag full of primes, or at least include two or three to cover a general range of wide, medium and near-telephoto. Thong, bikini briefs, whitie-tighties, or boxers? Only you can decide what fits you best! :O |
|
|
|
May 6, 2005, 2:17 AM
|
#12 |
|
Super Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
|
LOL!!! well put randy... :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
May 6, 2005, 6:34 AM
|
#13 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,599
|
Guys
It's all boil down to is 'IS' worth the extra $400 - if it's not, go for the flexibility of the longer range and spend that extra money on a 70-400 f/4 L or something...  Do you think this photographer need 'IS'?: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/143791 
|
|
|
|
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:11 AM.
