1
|
Re: Thom on dx again..Valid points.
In reply to Tianium,
7 months ago
|
Tianium wrote:
knightmelodic wrote:
Tianium wrote:
BUT.
Nikon is useing the FX lens lineup to pad out the DX lens selection but this does NOT address the DX advantages of size and price.
The two glaring admissions are a 16-50mm f2.8 VR and a 50-150mm f2.8VR.
I can do without the first but would dearly love the 2nd.
Have to stick with my Sigma 50-150, and feeling squeezed/pushed.
Come on Nikon!!!!!!
Darin
Well, good glass is good glass. If it works on DX and FX, so much the better.
I really don't see why the current Nikon line-up won't fit your needs. Nikon's f/2.8s are based on their 'holy trinity' supposedly the only glass a photog would need to carry. At the short end is the 10-24 f/2.8 then 24-70 f/2.8 then 70-200 f/2.8.It looks like you may need a shorty. Is the 18-55 an answer for you? It's f/3.5-6.3 though. That might do it. And I agree about Hogan, what's wrong with this guy?
All big heavy and expensive, and not necessarily the correct focal range on DX.
18-55 LOL.... A fantastic replacement for a 50-150mm f2.8 VR. Yeah right...
PS and its f5.6 at the long end.
Darin
All big and heavy except the 10-24 f/2.8, which doesn't exist.
I find Thom makes reasonable points and the people he upsets sound to me like fan-boys - and I am someone happy staying with DX.
| Post (hide subjects) | Posted by | When | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 months ago | |||
| 7 months ago | 2 | ||
| 7 months ago | 2 | ||
| 7 months ago | 4 | ||
| 7 months ago | |||
| 7 months ago | |||
| 7 months ago | |||
| 7 months ago | 2 | ||
| 7 months ago | |||
| 7 months ago | 2 | ||
| 7 months ago | |||
| 7 months ago | 1 | ||
| 7 months ago | |||
| 7 months ago | 1 |
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
