Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 Closed

views
     
jameslow
post Oct 23 2007, 11:41 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
285 posts

Joined: Oct 2007


QUOTE(Victor3010 @ Oct 17 2007, 07:34 PM)
but is it worth paying more for a 300mm but with a small aperture??
*
although it's small aperture, with the vr function, i can shoot sharper pictures during low light compare with my 80-200mm f2.8.

and 70-300vr definately worth to buy if you have budget, 55-200 very plastic feel.

my comment to you is since you so young, and you don't target on birding or nature life, 55-200vr is enough, if you think 200mm can't reach the object, i would say, sometimes 50-500mm also can't reach. Teleconverter definately not compatible with these 2 lenses, AF will be out.

if you don't mind, buy second hand 55-200vr + a new flash, at least you can sell it off without big lost when you have bored with it and change to 70-300vr or 70-200 f2.8 vr + teleconverter tongue.gif

another strong recommendation is to buy 18-200vr or 18-200os (if there is hsm)

This post has been edited by jameslow: Oct 24 2007, 11:29 AM

 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0139sec    1.35    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 23rd December 2025 - 12:00 PM