It depends on your photography: UW photography is difficult since `there is always stuff' in your images you don't want to have and the effect gets old really fast. I'd probably get a portrait lens.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Which lens would you purchase next?
- Thread starter SLC Flyfishing
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The 17-35 does have a built-in motor, as despite being a non-G lens, it is still an AF-S lens. Moreover, it is known to develop a squeaking noise that may/may not go away and may contribute to AF motor failure.
re. the 200mm etc suggestion: it was a joke. He seems out to spend £$ rather than meet a specific photography need.
No, I'm out to meet a niche photography need, I have funds coming in (profits from photography sales) and I'm grappling with which niche I should address first. Thanks for the nice words though
SLC
No, I'm out to meet a niche photography need, I have funds coming in (profits from photography sales) and I'm grappling with which niche I should address first. Thanks for the nice words though
SLC
I was just joking, man. Don't take it personally. I like spending money on much less useful things.
You really haven't specified what is most important to you other than filling some niche areas. That above all else should be factoring into anyone's decision above focal length overlaps, etc, etc.
Personally, although the 14-24 has an excellent reputation, I would want it for landscapes. And for landscapes, I consider the ability to use a polarizer essential because it is one filter you cannot duplicate the effects in post. So that makes it a deal killer for me. I already own the 17-35 anyway.
Personally, although the 14-24 has an excellent reputation, I would want it for landscapes. And for landscapes, I consider the ability to use a polarizer essential because it is one filter you cannot duplicate the effects in post. So that makes it a deal killer for me. I already own the 17-35 anyway.
Really, there have been more than a few shots lately that I have taken for a project I'm working on that could have benefitted from a wider lens, that project will run through the end of the year. The portrait lens would just provide a nice specialty lens for some other work my wife and I do. I think that I could get some good use (maybe not a ton of use, but good use) out of either lens. It's merely a matter of priority at this point.
Personally, although the 14-24 has an excellent reputation, I would want it for landscapes. And for landscapes, I consider the ability to use a polarizer essential because it is one filter you cannot duplicate the effects in post. So that makes it a deal killer for me. I already own the 17-35 anyway.
That's why I mention the 17-35. I would probably want to retain the ability to use filters as well. Though I have seen some clever work arounds with the 14-24.
SLC
It's such an odd question, since only you can answer it. How should we know what your priorities are?
I'm not asking anyone to answer it for me, just asking what other people would do and why so I can factor some of that into my decision.
I'll make the final decision when the time comes, make no mistake about that.
SLC