>> |
Anonymous
>>243690
yes i am very very lazy.
Should i just get the 2.8 or save $500 or whatever and get a 3.5?
A 2.8 aperture would, of course, let in more light. But still not enough light to take concert photos, or even photos like these ones, am I right? Which means i would primarily be using it outdoors, or in places with good light, or with a flash.
I mean really would a situation ever arise where i'd be like "Fuck, i really wish i had shelled out that extra cash to get a 2.8"?
Also, i dont suppose a 2.8 aperture would be low enough to take good portrait photos, amirite? Plus i hear that portraits taken with a wide angle generally look weird and grotesque.
|