>> |
ac
!!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>243833 >you mean people like ac? 70-200 f/4L IS USM: Much faster autofocus, better build quality, better image quality, a bit under a full stop faster at the tele end; 200mm max, 760g, ~$1100 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM: Slow, not as sharp, worse build quality, $530
So, it would've cost me twice as much. For that price, I would lose 100mm and add 100g to my bag (which already hurts my shoulder after a few hours). I would also get a bit under a stop more speed at 200mm, and (presumably noticeably) better sharpness and contrast and color reproduction. Frankly, the build quality isn't a big issue for me. I'm content with my crappy plastic-body lenses, and I was content with my crappy plastic-body camera.
So the biggest advantage I'd get is better image quality.
Now, think hard, as someone who absolutely *delights* in trolling me: Are you really willing to say that the only thing wrong with my pictures is that the image quality I get from my lens isn't enough? Are you going to go on record as saying that my skillz as a photographer are fantastic, but that I am being held back by my equipment?
|