>> |
Anonymous
>>242594 Just bought the body, haven't gotten any decent lenses for it yet. Gotta scrape up the grand for a 80-200 2.8 like the one I had to sell a few years ago. Picked up the 55-200 because I heard it was a decent buy, and Samy's had 'em refurbished for $169. Figured it was worth it for that little money.
The 55-200 isn't all that horrible for a cheap lens, though. Certainly better than anything off-brand I've used, and pics are decently sharp. VR works well, too, and focus is fast enough. It looks stupid on the camera, but it takes fine pictures, and that's all I care about. It's also small and light, which means I can transport and swap it easily, unlike a real professional telephoto.
Besides, the three I posted there came out decently enough, and they were shot on a dirt-cheap piece of Tamron shit.
Honestly, I think the lens quality complaints that come up over so many lenses are only an issue for "art" photographers, who demand absolutely perfect image quality at huge sizes. My stuff is mostly action, and I go into it with the knowledge that it'll never need to be blown up, as the target is online posting, and print publications, where even a cheap lens will exceed the quality of the printing presses. (Besides, I don't expect to get any two-page spreads any time soon, I'm happy if I managed to get a three inch wide pic in a one-page race report or news article.)
|