i was going to, but not enough reviews from people, or sample images etc etc
that plus a 17-40, 24-70, and a fish would make life grand. but not enough data for me, and its only 1800 for a refurb one
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSXRJJordan
Quick answer - you're going to end up spending a grand to be happy.
I've never owned any Sigma lenses, but have shot them and there are only tiny differences (besides resale) from Canon's non-AF/IS stuff. For AF/IS, you gotta go Canon to get all the perks (so the pros tell me).
I've got the L-series 300mm and on the full-frame 1DSmk3, I find that I'm always trying to get closer - then I remember I'm shooting 20+mp, and cropping is the name of the game.
I'd say go big (fixed focal length) if you can afford it. It costs a fucking lot to go big focal length telephoto.
|
its not that bad, you can get a 500 5.6 for cheap. its hte 2.8s and 4s that are a grip. i thought about primes, but the problem is the tracks here, you cnat really use a fixed focal. all the spots to shoot form are on the incoming end of S turns, or a straight pretty much. not too conducive to a 300 or a 400 prime honestly. I figure if i run a 100-300 and keep a 1.4x handy, i can cover damn near everything, and still have the focal length of the 100-400. ILl keep my 70-200 of course as well, for like zoo shots and kids soccer etc etc.
But yeah, im still doing my research. my 100-400 was on backorder from ritz camera (kille rmilitary discounts) so i cancelled it until i can make up my mind.
im seriously open to any zoom lens up to 2000.00