>> |
Macheath
>>36385
To be honest, I'll admit that the L lens designation is influencing my decision a little. But I think my reasons for wanting those two lenses come from realizing that the lenses I currently own are genuinely lacking.
No matter how you try to spin it, the Tamron 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 will not get you the same results as the Canon 17-40 f/4L. I really want to be able to shoot a little wider than the Tamron is letting me. The 50mm f/1.8 has its uses too, and it's relatively cheap at $75.
I'm not really offended, but even though you're not explicitly condemning me, you're insinuating it. I'm at a position where the people who shoot with old, cheap film cameras think that I'm buying what I'm buying because I believe that expensive equipment will cover for poor technique (even though that's the case with IS) and the rich kids with 20/30D and better say I'm limiting my camera's potential by buying cheap equipment. I see truth in both arguments but I'll do what I want. I'm not going to be pretentious and use a Holga to show I'm creative with low quality equipment, nor will I buy a $3000 body and $1000 lenses just to be able to brag that I have them. I care more about what people say about my pictures than my equipment.
|