UWA rediculousness

Started Mar 17, 2012 | Discussions thread
OP dnercesian Contributing Member • Posts: 560
Re: UWA rediculousness

Ranamo, try not to be a tool mate. And while I rarely have to clean a sensor, it still happens from time to time. I make a living with my gear, so it sees a lot of use.

I really like the new 15mm, but no way am I paying 3K for one. That is just absurd to me considering the existence of the 14-24. I secretly harbor ill will and hope that lens doesn't sell well, just because I am disgusted by the pricing. Oops, guess it's not a secret anymore. Honestly, I still think it will do well with cinema guys and gear heads with loads of expendable cash.

A 3rd body is not an option. Not that I don't love the idea, but I just figured out the best way to deploy my 2 body combo. I am not going back to the drawing board any time soon. Plus, then I'd really complain about carrying too much gear. I love the all primes route, but this is the same reason I would never consider it. Really do like primes though.

If Nikon would reboot the 17-35, maybe a 16-35 2.8, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I agree though that my suggested approach would likely not work. It would actually more than likely cause Nikon to do something stupid in retaliation, like a 70-200 f/4. Why Nikon?

Pixelless - Now that is the question of the year for me. Which would bother me more? I'm going to lose sleep over that one.

The 24-70 seems like a good bang for the buck actually, simply because I am not overlapping focal lengths, although I have never used the 35-70 focal lengths, so I don't know if I't would be worth it for me, and I'd have to switch lenses and perhaps lose a shot if I needed ultra wide in a pinch.

Oh well.

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