Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="rocketman122" data-source="post: 285287" data-attributes="member: 14443">shooting a lens at 7.1, almost any lens will be great. theres many reasons why a "more expensive lens" is better. more expensive doesnt mean anything. a 50 is not expensive and can out rez a good majority of nikons lenses. by editing in HDR,  you gave a bad example to prove your point. and again, at 7.1 every lens can be great. pro lenses are useable at 2.8 where amateur/prosumer lenses have to be stopped down a bit to get the same sharpness. bokeh is better, color is better, sharpness..you name it, its better. build quality is better, faster AF(on the whole). there's a polished quality look that pro lenses give that your kit lens cant. its usually prosumers who feel "yea, my $100 18-55 is just as great as the $1000 17-55 AFS..whats all the fuss about"  I was like this when I started out. but I knew I wanted the pro 2.8 zooms. problem was that nikons top lenses were selling for $1400 vs sigma at $800 (70-200) but when youll get serious and more devoted to photography, you will realize why better glass creates better images. in the hands of a talented photographer. an example from my walk around with my lady. IM not a macro photog at all. not sure why the hell I felt like shooting flowers, but on the way back to the car I saw these wild flowers. everyone usually shoot down at flowers, so I thought Id get low and try something else. no color correction. just contrast/levels as itts not as contrasty as I would have liked. dont look at the composition, look at the quality of the render. the bokeh. you can see depth. lighting was overhead and harsh. still a nice picture. funny but the first one was shot 180º to the other about 20' spread between them. [ATTACH]80465[/ATTACH][ATTACH]80466[/ATTACH]</blockquote>

Verification