Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsunami
Same with the big retailers in the Netherlands.
Spoiler:
True (off-topic) story...
"See, this Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 lens has a much bigger range and higher aperture range than this Canon 24-70 f/2.8L."
- "Then why is the Canon about 5 times more expensive?"
"Uh... Because it's a Canon. You're just paying for the brand."
Let's just say the Canon is like waaay up there in the clouds with regard to better brightness, sharpness, focusing speed, build quality and camera compatibility when compared to the Sigma. It stomps the Sigma twice, and then spits on it for good measure, especially in sharpness. Mind you, Sigma has some great stuff in their line-up, for good prices. This 17-70 is good enough for the money it costs, but it can't hold a candle to a 24-70L.
It may be just me, but I think it's a very bad practice to "go Apple" on this one. What purpose does it serve to NOT give a device a distinct name? In the photography world, Leica started to do the same after more than 50 years. Their new camera is just called "M". (All previous ones were called M2... M9.)
I think it's stupid. Amazon should have just called it the Kindle Paperwhite II. |
Totally agree. They called the K1 "the Kindle". Then the K2, K3, and K4S and K4B were also called "the Kindle" at one time or another. They only produced one Touch, but naming this year and last year's Paperwhite the same is just as confusing.