Sigma lenses are only "good enough" IMO which isn't actually good enough for what i am doing these days.
|
Originally Posted by sameerrao
|
Originally Posted by nthfinity
the more i read about the F2.8 70-200 vs. F2.8 70-200 IS, the more i wonder if the IS is really the right option...
I'm trying to figure out just which lens i ought to get first... but I think Is is nearly a must in what i shoot mostly
|
Why is IS a must? Use a tripod or shoot with faster shutter speeds. The F2.8 non-IS gives you a lot of latitude to use really high speeds.
I wanted one, but it meant an additional $600 investment over a non-IS lens. Photography is just a amateur hobby to me and I need to watch my expenditure here - it is very expensive hobby  |
what IS does that I cant is this:
Improve low light shots
create sharper panning shots ( i love panning shots)
elminate shake that a tripod is too tall for some of the shots I do, or not tall enough
IS really is amazing, i highly recomend you at least go to your local camera store and check it out.. .its frickin witchcraft!
|
Originally Posted by SWT
yeah but if you look close the focus points are diff. so of course the left image is "blurry" around the eyes. the one on the left appears to be more towards the cats ears where as the right image is more at the eyes. :bah: just my opinion. still better then what i have |
actually, some lenses (like sigma/quantaray) aren't nearly as sharp even in perfect focus