Luke said:Noone really need that sort of coverage...
i mean from 28! to 300!!!!!ksmattfish said:Well, except people who photograph sports, wildlife, or anything further away than across the street. It's a big world, and the majority of it is far away from the photographer. A long zoom can come in handy.
consider:Tiberius said:28-300 can be a very convienient range. It's a 10x zoom and allows for minimum switching of lenses (and thus minimum dust getting on the sensor, etc.) - Certainly, if your life's work is making the best photos possible, you might stick to the more expensive f/2.8 optics, for for a consumer/amature lens, a wide zoom angle is incredibly useful.
As far as "Pros don't use zooms".....this may have been true twenty years ago, but except for some of the incredibly long focal length ones like the 600mm f/4, I don't know many pros (I define pros as "people who make their living taking pictures") who use primes for a significant portion of their work any more.
yeah true, very ture, but thats not what im saying. I'm saying noboday needs that type of range, and using pros as examples. Im saying why buy a zoom, when for the same amount you could get 2 faster better quality lenses. That is, if you want to improve. Otherwise, if you're just shooting as family record/snaps sorta thing, then get a zoom.Digital Matt said:A person who is considering buying one of those two lenses obviously cannot afford L glass, and would benefit from consumer zooms, so to say that anything less is not worth considering, is stupid.