lwliam: Nooooo!~ They stink, stonk, stank the entire mile, ugh. but your shots almost made them seem tolerable, lol. I guess the 2470 would have been the ideal lens for travel if using a FF huh?

but im not using FF.. if i was on FF, i couldnt use the 1118 then... and i'd need a 17-35... :dreams:

This post has been edited by lwliam: Sep 21 2010, 09:52 AM

lwliam: just to check with you. would 1635 or 2470 serve you better during travel? wat i'd like to know is, how many percent was shot with 1118 and also 2470 during your trip?

If you're on FF then a 24-70mm will be sufficient. If you're on APS-C then the 16-35 will come in handy. I went travelling with my A850 during the day I would have the Minolta 24-85mm f3.5-f4.5 on and at night the 50mm prime will be on. That's all I need.

hard to say, it really depends on location.. daytime where sightseeing with landscape and indoors with huge expanse, it'd be the 1118... 24-70 for picking out details and ppl shots..

night time walking around and food shots will be my 24-70... so i'd say the ratio will be about 6:4, more on the 24-70..

feel like setting a fund for the 16-35 >_< RM54xx..i guess can buy it in 4 years time? =X

+111111 i support

by that time maybe already got 16-35 V2 f2 or something.

1635 and 2470.. Hears that 2470 is sharper...

my trip spam...

#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


This post has been edited by cjlai: Sep 21 2010, 11:04 AM

@cjlai: ur trip where?

OT: have u tried those in the cheras night market?

did anyone see a33 in any of the sony center (not sonystyle)?

While we're on the topic of lenses, I'd like to check with you guys because this is what I feel about premium F2.8 lenses eg CZ1635, 2470, 70200G.

While their output is somewhat better than non-premium lenses, I think that their weight detracts the photographer a bit. Furthermore, they cost an arm and a leg too.

Some may say it is a matter of getting used to it but I think that having lenses which are lighter will let the photographer concentrate on the shooting than being bogged down by a heavy lens.

Anyone here feels that way?

U mean taman connaught one? that one sucks! worst CTF i've ever tried....

like you said...its more about getting used to the weight..

but looking at sony..i won be surprised if they can come out with a new 24-70 with the same or better optics, but remain the same size and weight with my tammy.

not so much on the weight... and output is not only 'somewhat better', its a heck lot better

underwater world

#7


#8


#9


#10


#11


#12

The weight is a real consideration for me. I mean of course the IQ of the Zeiss lenses are better but I'm opting more for primes which will come close. Of course you can't really get the laser sharpness, micro contrast and the Zeiss colors but primes weighs a lot less and far more easier to lug around. The primes costs less too. Heck even the new Zeiss 24mm f2 will cost less than the existing Zeiss zooms!

That's the reason I have a 20mm prime (this will have to do for the moment until can find the funds to get the Zeiss 24mm f2) plus the 50mm prime. These 2 lenses can replace the 24-70mm and they weigh less put together than a single 24-70! Plus I have the option to go down all the way to f1.4 on the 50mm

I'm looking to get the 85mm f2.8 SAM too. That's another lightweight lens that can stay in the bag all the time.

ok, not so smelly this one.. FOUR pictures of delicious yummies..











This post has been edited by lwliam: Sep 21 2010, 11:37 AM

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. In fact, I reckon that the CZ24 and 85 on a FF would be an amazing pair, though they cost more than one 2470 though.

---

Added on September 21, 2010, 11:43 am

75% of the images are very appetizing and the remainder makes me Really Hungry.


This post has been edited by Strik3: Sep 21 2010, 11:43 AM