|
Re: 85 1.8 and 200 2.8L
In reply to steve88,
3 months ago
|
Depends on what you shoot, of course. If you really need 1.2, then there is no substitute for the 85L, but honestly, how many people really need 1.2? Same for the 135 if you need f2. On the other hand, for the money you are talking about here (about $4k for the 85, 135, and 200), you could get a 70-200 2.8, which is as good or better than any of the primes in the covered focal lengths. You lose one stop to the 135L, and two stops to the 85, (you lose nothing to the 200), but otherwise you lose nothing. You would have the finest lens in the world in this class, and you would save enough money to pick up a fairly nice prime (50 1.4? 85 1.8?) for the other body. And you would still have $1k or so left over so that you could take your wife somewhere nice.
--
WLW
| Post (hide subjects) | Posted by | When | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago |