Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by NOR*CAL, May 23, 2008.
Optical glass can cost $1,000 for 2.2lbs .
I wonder what makes canon and Nikon ones more expensive than say, Sigma or Tamron. Is it just a name or is it actual quality of the glass.
I like how after she cleans the one lens, she lays it right down on the table
wtf 216mm f 1/2... whats that for?
The former probably has better: glass, diamond cuts, construction, and polishing time. Or maybe it's just a placebo effect
The table is made of kittens.
In for answer, cause I can actually afford a Sigma 24-70 2.8
I have that 24-70... I like it a lot. I'm curious how much better the Nikkor version is though and if its worth the extra $1300 premium over mine.
I'm sure its a little of both. I can tell w/ my 24-70 wide open at 2.8, some pictures come out a little soft compared to my 70-200 VR. Not that they're in the same category, but the Nikon one feels like it takes crispier pics.
I just don't know about the pricing on some Nikon stuff.
Hows the sharpness? It won't matter for me since I need a body upgrade before I can use it, but lens prices don't exactly shift a bunch over time, and I'd be buying both at the same time as an upgrade to my puny d40. (waiting for the d80 replacement)
its a sharp lens. It "says" to be a Macro on the box, but I guess I haven't really messed w/ it to see how it is close up. I use it a lot more for walk around lens than my 18-200. And it usually stays on my camera as a primary lens for weddings and such.
i like this one better
The Canon video set looks a lot more refined.
damn, that shit is crazy
how a repost is made