Drab said:
150 on DX?Wow. I can't even imagine.
I'd love a sample if you're not shy. If you are I understand.
Me? shy? heh! .. i will put up a new thread :-)
Touring Europe and can only take one lens,...what's your choice?
(55 posts) (26 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
heartyfisher said:
Me? shy? heh! .. i will put up a new thread :-)Ha! I like my lenses either long and fast, or short and wide (and fast). I generally take two kinds of shots:
1. Wide-angle, with nominal-to-deep, depth-of-field.
2. Telephoto, with minimal depth-of-field.That's why I have absolutely no use for an f/5.6 105mm lens (as in the 18-105mm VR kit lens I have waiting to list on Ebay).
Posted 2 years ago # -
Drab said:
I'm finding the variety of opinions here quite fascinating . . . Everything from 70-200 for landscapes vs 17-50 for landscapes, vs 35 on DX being too wide.Yup! Fascinating!
Drab said:
Clearly we have quite the mix of "traditionalists" and what I can only describe (with my limited understanding of the phenomenon) as nuevo telephotoists."Nouvaeu Telephotoists." I like that. I think part of the reason why I see so many amateur photogs with D-whatevers strapped around their necks with only an AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens mounted, is due to the perception of the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 as a "sexy" lens. It's fast. It's expensive. And, it's big and LONG (I think that says it all!).
I do think the 70-200mm f/2.8 is sexy. It's especially sexy when used for what it's designed. But, just as sexy, I think, is having a 35mm f/2.0, or 85mm f/1.8 on your D-whatever, and getting close enough to your subject to compose an interesting shot. Sure, that's not always possible, practical, permissible, or easy, but that's part of the art, technique, and challenge of photography--positioning your camera exactly where it needs to be to compose the ideal frame for your particular field-of-view, and by deliberately and consciously determining the precise degree of exaggerated, or foreshortened perspective, suitable for that shot. In my opinion, THAT'S photography!
Drab said:
I don't wish to call out names, but I would really like (perhaps new thread?) some explanation from those proposing ANYTHING longer than 50mm equivalent as their one lens. It just flies in the face of everything I was ever taught..Right there with ya, Drab.
Posted 2 years ago # -
studio460 said:
Right there with ya, Drab.About 3 months ago, I only took my 105mm macro thinking shooting flowers. Once I arrived there, there was a fantastic Chinese lantern exposition and I got so frustrated with my lens choice. Lucky enough for me, it was easy to go back the next day but that though me a lesson about bringing only a long lens. I will never go anywhere without my 24-70 or at least primes in that range.
Posted 2 years ago # -
That is the problem with threads such as this. Everyone has a different shooting style and taste. No one can really suggest a lens without really knowing the poster. We also all have different opinions about what one would need or want in most cases. I haven't used my 35 1.8 in a while now. I keep my 18-200 on all the time, but it fits what I shoot...obviously covering just about anything other than macro and super tele and it isn't fast.
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
