|
Originally Posted by stmoritzer
|
Originally Posted by TT
Yes, I tested it at the store, seems fine, but quite expensice. For now the price of the 17-40 is really a good deal for what it offers, and well, in an year time or so I could sell it for a good price and upgrade to 2.8 if I really want to, or just wait some more and get the 24-70 2.8L to fill the gap between it and the 70-200
|
24-70 is quite a big zoom range, a friend of mine ( 3/4-pro with a D200) didn't recommend me to buy a lense with that much zoom range.. the 17-40 sound good! |
Most pro-photographers talk about a 3x zoom as the maximum to be able to have a pro-grade lens, so 24-70 still falls within these limits, and the 24-70 2.8 lens from Canon is still an L-lens, so it should be good.
Even the 24-105 IS should be rather good, it also costs around 1000 Euro, so it would better be good no ? But it doesn't have enough wide angle for photographing cars on an event.
Mega-zooms like the 18-125 or the 18-200 from Tamron or Sigma have a problem with decent sharpness, they are nice walk around lenses and don't require you to re-mortgage the house for, but I wouldn't buy them anymore ... great to start with, but after a while you encounter their flaws like poor AF speed, which is really annoying when taking panning shots on a circuit, only a good USM or HSM lens will be able to track a moving race car.
Mark