UWA rediculousness

Started Mar 17, 2012 | Discussions thread
Joe P Doyle
Regular MemberPosts: 428
Like?
Re: UWA rediculousness
In reply to SNRatio, Mar 18, 2012

4) 17-35 (old faithful) - Giving up a little IQ, but have the 2.8, great build, great focal range, and that comfort level you have when, you know, you've already been there...

5) Urinate in the gas tank of every Nikon executive's cars until they make me a superb 14-35. While they are at it, they can make it a 12-35, throw in VR, and do my laundry.

4 and 5

This is exactly what i did, it's really annoying either way. The 14-24 is stellar but i need up-to 35mm, the 17-35 is not so hot at 17mm, but great from 20mm onwards.
Filters argh....

Had the 24-70 not impressed with the two copies i had at the 24mm end.

So in the end settled back to 17-35, which may or may not get an upgrade in the future to Nano etc.

Good luck with the OCD, I'm happy to be back with my workhorse lens that almost does it all

Now just need to stop lusting over 24 1.4
--
Joe
http://www.pbase.com/joed
http://www.jofoto.co.uk
Wedding Photographer

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow