Well i wish someone would have told me that when i spent £5000 on a 400mm VR F/2.8 when the 80-400mm would have been just as goodA £2000 lens won't do any better than a £200 one, it's down to you not the lens gear envy more than need is why many want these expensive lenses
I think that the image quality obtainable with lenses is such that it is very rare to be able to demonstrably show that a particular lens is dramatically better than another of the same focal length/range. Most of us would admit that we probably do not get get the maximum quality obtainable and, therefore, it is worth striving to improve on that before splashing out on a diffeent lens.
Yes, but thats besides the point, you made a 100% incorrect silly sweeping statement and then you go onto suggest those who dont use it professionally have more money that sense, i dont need the actual model car i drive (i bought it with the proceeds of the sale of the 400mm lens) , heck most of us only need a Nissan Micra to go about our daily business but do most of us drive Nissan Micras, people make their choices based on what they can afford, what they want, and what they need, not just the latterDo you earn from it?
Then dont, simple.It's hard to justify spending that much for a hobby
I think you've just clarified my point ) I've seen too many people with expensive kit and still take crap pictures. Some go on about this lens, that lens when most the time there's little or no difference and will all do the same thing if used properlyYes, but thats besides the point, you made a 100% incorrect silly sweeping statement and then you go onto suggest those who dont use it professionally have more money that sense, i dont need the actual model car i drive (i bought it with the proceeds of the sale of the 400mm lens) , heck most of us only need a Nissan Micra to go about our daily business but do most of us drive Nissan Micras, people make their choices based on what they can afford, what they want, and what they need, not just the latter
You genuinely dont have a clue about Nikon DX designated or FX designated lenses do youAll this fx dx lenses is a lot of nonsense designed by nikon and canon equivalents, they will all work just as well on any camera, just with nikon some lenses won't auto on d3/5000 series, all you have to consider is crop factor
Well i cant disagree on the highlighted point you make but can with the rest.I think you've just clarified my point ) I've seen too many people with expensive kit and still take crap pictures. Some go on about this lens, that lens when most the time there's little or no difference and will all do the same thing if used properly
No actually I'm saying it doesn't matter whether it's a dx or fx and simply pointing out that the entry levels won't take lenses without motors in them,some people rule out dx lenses on FF which is ridiculous
Yes sorry going off thread I'll shut upWish I'd never asked about the 24- 85 now
Sorry have to disagree results I've seen cut out the vignette,you get centre sharpness where it matters
trueMy opinion on this problem is why spend the extra time cropping where you can get it right first with a FX lens.
Wish I'd never asked about the 24- 85 now
I'm still considering the 24-120 f4 or this lens for my D3/D700. Need a light weight lens for travel instead of my work horse Nikon 28-70 f2.8
And you end up with the correct FOV as the lens intended, no point in shooting with a 24mm lens with bad vignette then have to crop to get rid of Vignette and end up with what a 50mm lens would have seen and also lose half your pixelsMy opinion on this problem is why spend the extra time cropping where you can get it right first with a FX lens.
And you end up with the correct FOV as the lens intended, no point in shooting with a 24mm lens with bad vignette then have to crop to get rid of Vignette and end up with what a 50mm lens would have seen and also lose half your pixels