Quote:
Originally Posted by UdubBadger
I mean if I go for the 70-200 2.8 then I could always just upgrade my 50mm to the 1.4 but like everyone says its not that big of an upgrade.
So what does everyone think?
70-200mm 2.8 L (non IS) and the 50mm 1.4 = about $1600 total (leaves me $400 for a new bag and nice tripod.
or
70-200mm f4 L (non IS) and 50mm 1.2L = about $2000 total unless I can find some good lightly used deals
|
Perhaps you should start another thread cus the OP is gonna kick ur ass for taking over his thread.
On a serious note, I don't know if you really
need the 50mm 1.2L. I mean I don't know of too many people with it and IMO you probably won't need anything more than 1.8/1.4. I don't know though- you have to try everything out and pick the lenses that are right for your style.
As for the 70-200mm, the F/4.0 is the sharpest of the bunch but the difference is only noticeable if you pixel peep. So if you need/want to use the 70-200mm 2.8 for concerts, I would recommend going with the IS version. Unless you will always have a monopod/tripod on you, IS is helpful in such situations (unless you're able to use a fast enough shutter speed). Of course it's more expensive but you should always have it and don't need it than the other way around. Besides, you could always sell it and buy a 2.8 non-IS later.