In fairness to Flickr, there are many many forums that have the full compliment of fucktards.\u00a0 Some of the fucktards run the sites.\u00a0 Anyway, a quick browse on the forum side of flickr (ie group questions).\u00a0 A familiar scene unfolds.<\/p>\n
Person:\u00a0 I’m looking for a lens, I have a<\/p>\n
17-40<\/p>\n
50mm<\/p>\n
70-200<\/p>\n
Fucktards:\u00a0 Best look at the 24-70 f\/2.8 nothing better.<\/p>\n
Right, they are correct.\u00a0 It’s a great lens, but the fucktards seem content to just state get the best lens without regard to what the original poster requires. \u00a0 On an Apple forum with a photography page someone wanted a 70-200, so the usual 70-200 f\/2.8 IS brigade start up again.\u00a0 The 70-200 f\/2.8 is top bollocks.\u00a0 However it’s top bollocks price, but the tards never really seem to understand that.\u00a0 Plus a I pointed out, twice the price and weight of the f\/4.\u00a0 To which a ‘of course it is, it can shoot in half the light’ bollocks post appeared.\u00a0 Yes I know it fucking can, I do know what a lens does.<\/p>\n
However tards of the day belong to two flickr posters<\/p>\n
One suggesting his beloved EF-S 17-55 IS will be his first choice on a full frame body ‘if’ he upgrades, because of the lack of IS on the 24-70.<\/p>\n
Another 17-55 IS owner claiming it’s a much better lens than the 24-70.<\/p>\n
Anyway, rant over.\u00a0 Time for bed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In fairness to Flickr, there are many many forums that have the full compliment of fucktards.\u00a0 Some of the fucktards run the sites.\u00a0 Anyway, a quick browse on the forum side of flickr (ie group questions).\u00a0 A familiar scene unfolds. Person:\u00a0 I’m looking for a lens, I have a 17-40 50mm 70-200 Fucktards:\u00a0 Best look … <\/p>\n