>> |
Blackadder
!!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>112853
He seemed interested in the wide end, has the longer end covered by the excellent zoom and the 24-105 isn't wide on a crop body. That and the fact it's not got a very wide aperture. Not as fast as the one he mentioned in the OP and I suggested. It's a bit too much of a compromise in my eyes. The 24-70 2.8 would be better if he had to go that route, but it's still not going to give a wide view on that body and lacks the IS.
The 17-55 works very well on the crop body. 27-88 if you think of the "FOV crop" compared to 35mm sizes. A very workable range and the optics are very good for a zoom.
If you want one lens to do everything while you walk about then you may as well get the 18-200 like Ken Rockwell suggests. I think you're better off getting the shorter range ones and working with the limitations. People used to manage with FFL lenses before (especially the standard or 'normal') and still can.
Buy a lens with a specific purpose in mind for it, rather than because you don't know what you are taking pictures of and want something that might do everything or anything as you wander vaguely hoping to think of something to take pictures of. That's the realm of tourists.
If he has a specific use for that lens, whatever that lens may be, then that is always the ideal lens for him, naturally.
Personally I think he'd be better buying ONE lens now and learning to use it before moving on. Splurging like this rarely gives the best results.
Oh, and I like the 2.8 zooms. :)
|