|
|
Post by john101477 on Sept 11, 2009 16:27:19 GMT -5
 weather your a Nikon or Canon lover you can appriciate these two fine lenses. While Canon has dominated the market with their superb glass, Nikon has made leaps and bounds in this department with there 70-200mm lens. Sports, portrait, and nature photographers love these lenses for their low light capabilities, and the near perfect images it can give them. weight is an issue with both in the field but for me the benifit of having the lens along is worth it. Cost is also a factor as both go for around $1800- $2000. not cheap but well worth it. I, as a Nikon user love my 70-200mm. It has let me shoot in situations that would normally be impossible with lenses like the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6. which I also have. |
|
|
|
Post by NCPhotoTrekker on Sept 11, 2009 22:27:48 GMT -5
These two are really great lenses, and they are well worth the money for what you get. I would love the Canon for my portraiture, but since most of what I do is landscape work, I value weight over speed. The f/4 is much lighter, just as sharp (actually tested sharper in one test I read), and slightly smaller which all makes it a better choice for landscape work.
Its all too easy to fall into the myth that faster is better. Considering that most of my landscapes are shot at f/11 or smaller, an f/2.8 really doesn't matter to me. However, for the depth of field and shutter speed the f/2.8 can't be beat, and to add IS really makes this a winner for those that need the performance.
I guess its kind of like this....
You wouldn't drive a top fuel drag car to the grocery store, and you wouldn't race the Olds station wagon.
|
|
|
|
Post by john101477 on Sept 12, 2009 12:02:55 GMT -5
hey now lol I know of a pretty fast Olds station wagon lol. Edit: HAAAA yeah I miss spelled pinnacles, what the heck  |
|
