> Fast zooms were a big deal in film and early digital days. We associate them
> with serious/pro photographers because they are big, heavy and pricey and
> because they were bread and butter lenses for many actual pros.
(major snip)
I'll play this one a different way. Let's say that I'm photographing a
wedding. I want consistancy between images and will nail down as many
settings as possible. Shooting aperture priority mode is one of the
most common things that wedding and event photographers will do. If
you have a variable aperture zoom, that means you are limited to an
aperture so deep as to essentially be worthless. I agree about the
high-ISO performance and everything, but if I'm also using flash, the
backgrounds will be so variable between shots that it creates a
post-processing nightmare as well as a loss of exposure continuity
throughout the album.
I really hate variable aperture zooms. I've been using them throughout
the digital era, but that doesn't mean that I like them. I'd rather
stick a prime lens on the camera than have to deal with a variable
aperture zoom. I can stand F2.8-4.0 variable aperture, but F2.8 to
F6.5 is a bridge too far. For one thing, you lose all the goodness of
controlling the DoF at longer focal lengths, and the other thing is
that with telephoto settings, I'm generally shooting farther
distances. With flash photography, those longer distances require more
flash power. It's all a spiral downward into a big stinking hole. As
it is impossible to use aperture-priority, you're better off just
sticking it on P (professional?) mode.
For the hobbiest and vacation traveler photographer, it doesn't matter
one whit, so variable aperture lenses are just peachy.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|