I suppose it depends on how much really wide angle stuff you're likely to shoot. I'd be tempted to go for better quality and take a few steps backwards (unless it's cliff edge or something!
)
I was blown away by the 50-200 as all I had to compare it to was the 40-150 and 70-300 (which is just a re-badged Sigma and hence not very good) and, while I definately noticed the "loss" of 100mm on the long end, it was sooo much better.
I only used the 12-60 for an hour or so but the shots were pin sharp, the AF was much faster than the 14-42 and the f/2.8 was a real bonus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianpinion
I know Flake would say with the 2x crop sensor diffraction will be a bigger issue at small apertures, so I could only be limited to a max of f/10 with either.
|
Yeah she would. It's all down to the pixel pitch!
