[iwantMarkII]

16-35 F2.8L II VS 17 -40 F4L ?

24-70 F2.8L VS 24-105 F4L IS ?

小白IS VS 小小白IS?

比D意見..買邊支..

[kester]

16-35 II, and a 70-200 f4 IS loh. since i dont use tele that much hehe. =p

[iwantMarkII]

Kester,thz for ur idea
why u would choose 70-200 f4 is nei?

[tploh]

Wide = 17-40 f/4 = f/2.8 is not used very often. Save some $$$.

Std = 28-70 f/2.8 (old) = No need 24 since have 17-40 already. IS is not used very often but f/2.8 good for potrait.

Zoom = 小白IS ( if you use f/2.8 often ), 小小白IS ( if you travel often )

[mk07]

17 -40 F4L +24-70 F2.8L !

[pongyee]

咁問即係俾得起錢。

夠力拎就大三元。

[kester]

Hi hi, I wantMk2, I chose 16-35 Ver 2 because I heard(from you and other forums' prediction) it's canon's breakthrough with its always "weaker" ultra wide zoom. And I always use 16-35 that range when I travel(though I am using a 10-22 now with the 30D and 400D mostly to simulate that effect poor me). I think the standard range(24-70) I dont use much. It looks too standard, just for my personal taste. I can live with 35-70 that range.

I would spend most of my money on a good ultra wide zoom(if there's one on earth). little money on the 70-200 F4 IS(so cheaper is better as long as its L) and forget about the standard, it looks just too standard, man. hehe. unless you want a standard life. =p

portraits with short depth of field is boring to death.

[iwantMarkII]

小白景is深多d彈性,但係我唔明,開到咁長range唔係實做到淺景深la 咩?

另外,有人說小小白表現(最少某方面)好過小白is,是否真的?
如果係咁梗係買小小白啦,又輕咁多