I had to grin at myself at Doris' comment "It is too easy to become
technically obsessed." Too true :-). As much as we all enjoy a bargin, I
don't think any of us shy away just because something is expensive. A candy
shop I frequented had a rather large sign over the cash register that said
"Good candy isn't cheap. Cheap candy isn't good." Methinks that philosophy
applies to more than candy.
As a fairly hard core speed lover, I find that speed is of very little value
to me in the shorter focal lengths - in general. However, in the longer
telephotos, I would not be without it. However, this is clearly
attributable to my passion for motor sport. F/2.8 is very expensive in a
300mm lens. If I could get f/2 I think I'd go for it. Stop shooting
Formula One or NASCAR, the Oly 300 f/4.5 would be just fine.
The one thing I do like about the faster optics is the viewfinder is so
bright, making focus with these tired old eyes a little easier. But the
same result can be realized with a bright focus screen. Much less expensive
than the difference between a 35mm f/2.8 and f/2.0 for example.
I guess that one (more) reason mileage varies.........
John P
>>On Sun, 26 Jul 1998, Giles wrote:
>>
>>> I have no problem with using expensive gear.
>>
>> Me neither, it's the weight and clumsy handling of the heavier
>>optics that I try to avoid unless it's a necessity. It is too
>>easy to become technically obsessed.
>>
>>> For each of the focal lengths, the fastest lens is the best in terms
>>> of flexibility of use and outright performance. You get what you pay
>>> for.
>>
>> With all due respect, I do not buy this generalization. The history
>>of photography does not bear it out. The best-remembered images weren't
>>made with the most expensive equipment. When you're shooting in
>>available darkness, the weight of a 24/2.0 is easy to justify, but
>>if you're on a tripod, or in good light, it is nothing but extra
>>weight.
>> "All f/2.0" may be the ticket for you, but there are many ways and paths
>>in this medium. If you are making fantastic images with what you use,
>>congratulations. But one f/ stop does not fit all, and for many of us,
>>the weight of the hardware is a considerable factor. Even Galen Rowell
>>speaks of often leaving his 400/2.8 at home, and taking the 400/5.6
>>due to weight considerations --- and he is in exceptional physical
>>shape. Whatever works...
>> *= Doris Fang =*
>>
>>
>Not only that, Galen Rowell has gone on at length sometimes over the
>superiority of a slower lens for outdoor photography. The fewer and smaller
>lens elements actually increase the versatility of the lens because of the
>ability to shoot in any direction and worry less about flare.
>
>Winsor
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|