Alright, few of them just won themselves few days of vacation. There's no need to congratulate a new thread.

Getting left behind just because you don't own ALL the lenses will not make you the worse photographer in this world.

Getting left behind cause you waste most of your time dreaming when will you able to afford this, why some people can afford this, why are you still with kit lens this and that bla bla instead of using that precious time to improve on your shots will certainly make you one of the worst photographer in this world.

This post has been edited by vikingw2k: May 9 2010, 04:14 PM

Owning a A900 wouldn't make your the best photographer compared to when you are owning a lousy 16-80 kit lens. To me, doesn't matter how many lenses you own or use. The main concern is it shouldn't be a measurement tool to determine whether you are left out in photography or not.

Why not?

It's not a constant aperture lens and the highest aperture available is only f3.5.
It protrudes when it zooms.
It's not weather sealed.
It doesn't have SSM.
It's pricy.

I will take CZ 24-70 f2.8 SSM anytime than this overpriced plastic feel 16-80.

---

Added on May 9, 2010, 4:54 pmIndeed. When I first hold it in my hands. I was like wtf, pay so much for such a cheapo build. I was expecting the same feel like when I use my friend's CZ 24-70.

This post has been edited by vikingw2k: May 9 2010, 04:54 PM

Obviously you will feel your lens is superb cause you are owning it. It's a common mentality to many. Once you move up to a better one, you will then realize how good it is.

Which is why, IMO, I would rather stay with a Tammy 17-50mm f2.8 and take the leap straight to CZ 24-70 rather than go somewhere in the middle and yet still stuck with a non constant aperture lens like what my friend did.

Chunkier? I doubt that. Their size is almost the same and in fact, Tammy is lighter than CZ16-80. Tammy's build quality problem? I suppose it depends and not all are like that. Just like moo's 16-80. Certainly not all 16-80 are loose like that right?

This post has been edited by vikingw2k: May 9 2010, 05:24 PM

It's available for Sony mount.

This post has been edited by vikingw2k: May 9 2010, 05:42 PM

Oops, I read too fast. I meant the first version. Second version is not available for Sony which is why I'm confused why albnok put it into the weight comparison between 16-80 and Tammy.

To me, the differences isn't that significant. Which is why I rather go for the previous version before making a bigger leap.

Trading your 1680Z for Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is a joke unless you don't mind losing to depreciation. Since you already bought your CZ1680, just live with it. I was only saying that given a choice, I would rather stick to a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 rather than CZ1680 and make a bigger leap in future. Either that or I would rather stay with my SAL18-70 considering the CZ1680's price VS performance isn't that justifiable.

---

Added on May 9, 2010, 5:57 pmNo, it would be better if you could post the pictures here instead of linking.

This post has been edited by vikingw2k: May 9 2010, 05:57 PM

Seriously I guess you don't know what yourself are mumbling about other than trying to barge in to provoke people. We were discussing about CZ1680 vs Tammy 17-50mm f2.8 and CZ24-70 and here you are going way off topic mentioning about people worrying about gear and than output? Also, I did mentioned 'given a choice, IMO' and I believe those clearly stated that it was my on opinion that I would prefer to upgrade to Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and straight to CZ24-70 rather than going to CZ1680. Did I ask everyone to just jump blindly to CZ2470 and all other lenses are junk? I didn't right? Stop poking your nose and making a fool out of yourself when me and several others are discussing and comparing in a proper manner

Someone quitting Alpha and selling his Tammy 70-200mm f2.8. That would help you to save up a little.

http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/1425441

Upgrading is a lame excuse unless he's keeping his flashguns and full frame lenses, Kinda obvious isn't it?

This post has been edited by vikingw2k: May 17 2010, 01:50 AM

The bigger magnification ratio the more zoom. Example 5:1 ratio.



Any pictures?

Someone selling his Tammy 70-200mm f2.8. Pretty good for stage performance. Discard the 100mm f2.8. It's pretty useless for stage performance.

Yesh especially to macro kakis. Bigger magnification ratio will bring you to another world of macro instead of the common macro shots that you see. Anyway for starters, you might wanna get ya hands on Raynox filters.

LOL, smart fella. I didn't bother to mention which lens also la. Don't want to poison him kaw kaw but you go and mention it.

The priority goes to which is more suitable for event shooting. Obviously Tammy is a better choice. If you want light weight might as well just shoot with 50mm.

The Tammy gives you the flexibility that you'll need to zoom in and out which is crucial to cover an event.

Buy that lens, set it to 5:1 ratio. Snap it.

Raynox is a toy compared to that lens. The magnification ratio is far behind. Kitlens confirm far far away la

Nah, you can't set in the camera.

Sharing something extraordinary. Of course not by me la.

That's not an aphid la. That's a mosquito sucking blood.

This post has been edited by vikingw2k: May 17 2010, 03:58 PM

One of the forumers. Crazy bugger.

This is bolehland, anything boleh happen.