O osu9400 Leading Member Messages 639 Reaction score 6 Location US Nov 1, 2011 #21 Why not the Cz 16-80? It's a better price and has some range flexibility. Is the I.Q. not good?
T trainerKEN Senior Member Messages 1,599 Solutions 3 Reaction score 2,258 Location Vancouver, CA Nov 1, 2011 #22 osu9400 said: Why not the Cz 16-80? It's a better price and has some range flexibility. Is the I.Q. not good? Click to expand... for portraits? IMO primes is the way to go and let you "legs" be the zoom. If he had asked for a "walk-around" lenses then maybe the 16-80mm or even the new 16-50mm f2.8 But he said "Outdoors portraits" just my .02
osu9400 said: Why not the Cz 16-80? It's a better price and has some range flexibility. Is the I.Q. not good? Click to expand... for portraits? IMO primes is the way to go and let you "legs" be the zoom. If he had asked for a "walk-around" lenses then maybe the 16-80mm or even the new 16-50mm f2.8 But he said "Outdoors portraits" just my .02
