>> |
Anonymous File :-(, x)
I use both on a daily basis, and when I need to be conspicuous or need the lighter load, I just leave both and take the 50mm f/1.4.
I shoot sports sometimes, and also cover events that happens around town, much like a freelance photog, while it's not giving me monies, but it gives me good practice to have a PJ kinda eye. I cut my teeth handholding an 80-200 f/2.8 and when I had the chance to switch with a mate, I took it. Any of these lenses can take a good banging, heck, I've knocked the 17-55 against doors while walking around without me worrying about it, dropped the 80-200 and popped off the hood, but otherwise it was fine. But if you feel like babying your lenses, any of the other brand F-mount lenses would do. For instance, Sigma's HSM 70-200 is fucking snappy, and their 17-50 is pretty damn good.
Picture quality wise though, you can't go wrong with the Nikkors 2.8s. Hell, even just blindly shooting from below and having the AF point at the center would yield a good picture with my 17-55.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D80Camera SoftwareVer.1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern610Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:10:08 12:26:19Exposure Time1/20 secExposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, Auto, Return Not DetectedRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastHardSaturationHighSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknown
|