| Joined: | Thu Apr 12th, 2012 |
| Location: | Sausalito, California USA |
| Posts: | 616 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
I know that more is usually better, but let's put this in perspective.
At what size print would you start to be able to measure the difference??
My feeling is that it would have to be considerably larger than 16x20 for most types of prints. So I'm not too sure this matters in general.
So, Dave... Keep the 24-120 until you see flaws in your prints, then consider trading a couple of your lenses for a down payment on a new one. The pixal peeping can make you crazy!! If you read any of the articles by the folks who RENT lenses, they will tell you there is a major difference in some aspects from lens to lens... Many here have returned a lens because they felt it was not delivering and were happy with the replacement - every lens is a compromise and the 24-120 is a perfect example of that. It is much maligned when compared to primes an the 24-70, but then the 24-70 can't take a shot at 95mm, so which is better when you need that focal length to frame properly?
Don't make yourself crazy...enjoy what you can get from arguably the best sensor in the world today and go from there...
Just my thoughts... Please don't flame me
Tom
____________________
Tom O'Connell
-Lots of people talk to animals.... Not very many listen, though.... That's the problem.
Benjamin Hoff, The Tao of Pooh