I have the following:
17-35 f/2.8D AF-S
24-70 f/2.8G AF-S
70-200 f/2.8G AF-S
85 f/1.4D AF-S
300 f/2.8G AF-S VR
400 f/2.8D AF-S I
Of these, the most used are the 24-70 and 400, though it could be because they're my most recent acquisitions. The 17-35 and 85 used to make up most of my shooting, with the 70-200 and 300 doing sports duty, but the 24-70 has been a little more convenient as a carry-around lens for spot news stuff (more reach), and the background separation using the 400 is just unreal. The 70-200 is a good general purpose lens, but I find myself using it less and less.
Occasionally I think about getting rid of some of these lenses, but I think I'd miss them too much...
Quote:
|
Though if anyone other than Thom Hogan were to say something negative about the 200-400 VR, they'd be immediately verbally assaulted on certain forums which shall remain nameless.
|
Tom Swanaman and I have observed similar things to Thom with that lens, though Tom ended up discovering he had a lemon. In practical usage I don't see much of an issue (other than the f/4 max aperture), but the other prime exotics definitely outperform it, as they should.
Quote:
|
The 200-400 f/4 is a great lens, but I am not sure about plopping a TC on it.
|
The TC-14E/II gives workable results if you stop down to f/8. TC-20E/II is soft even at f/11-13 at most lengths and focusing distances.