where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Getting all philosophical now huh?
In a way yes, because it's not practical to lug it everywhere you go.
In fact, if you really wanna go that route then my 3.2 megapixel Nikon Coolpix 3700 from 2004 or so is my best camera, because it's small enough for me to take everywhere and even takes videos, which my D40 can't do.
What good is a 200mm f/2.0 when you can't carry it wherever you want?
Edit- in fact, it's from 2003, according to DPReview. :D
Right On!
My first digital camera was actually the Coolpix 3100 and it is probably the most pocketable photographic equipment I own.
Yeah, seriously. The Coolpix 3700 even does time lapse! Let's see the D40 do that straight out of the box!
And it's so cheap, I don't mind bringing it everywhere with me. I mean, at this point, the memory card is the most valuable part of the camera. Which means I usually get shots of what I want, as long as it's bright out and not moving really fast- because the startup time is about 2-3 seconds. :D
"and yes, a long zoom can be versatile, I carry my 4 lenses on me and I often have to change, it takes some time, but its the cost of having fast lenses are good price, I simply couldn't shoot with ƒ/3.5 - 5.6 so I prefer having to change lenses all the time."
I agree with this. Now when I do birding shoots, I will be carrying two bodies with me; The D300 with the 300 prime on it and the D90 with the 70-200 attached. The second set up will be for those grab shots of birds that suddenly appear closer than my main subjects which may be some distance away. I also did this with a recent for fun photo shoot I did. I kept the 70-200 on the D300 and the 12-24 on the D90. I have a slingshot backpack so getting to the gear is quick and easy and I'm lazy at times.
alphanikonrex - I have to disagree with You, 200/2.0 is a great lens, and one day I hope to have it in my camera bag as it gives You a huge potential of having a 400/f4 lens for a fraction of price, and at the same time allows You to get this great bokeh You can't easily obtain with a telephoto lens. OTOH I have to agree, that it's not a lens for everyone. as for 400/2.8 it's also a great lens if You do wildlife or sports
gentoo - that's what I started to do once I got d90, I use it with my 70-200 and mount 24-70 on d200, that gives me a lot of flexibility
So you are one of the people who actually needs stuff like that, eh?
On second thought, I'm sure I would be able to make room for it if actually purchasing one became a reality.
But my point is that the 200mm ƒ/2 is a speciality lens. You would be using the 2x teleconverter which kills image quality. Wouldn't you prefer a real 400mm ƒ/4? Instead of us going out and buying the speciality stuff, which is what Nikon wants, lets all threaten to switch to the C-word unless they offer us some slower and more affordable lenses that actually are "good" (for our purposes).
If you want a 400mm ƒ/4, consider the 200-400mm ƒ/4. Of course you'll have more flexibility, and no degradation of image quality. On B&H the 200-400mm ƒ/4 only costs about $500 more than a 200mm ƒ2 plus TC.
LOL, after I made the post a B&H ad popped up above it.
Yes Nikon need to do some work on F4 lenses
Pete
alphanikonrex - sure it will kill the image (at least to some point), but this doesn't change the fact that I would love to have this lens one day for it's bokeh, and I agree with You that it's a very special, even more, very exotic lens.
bmxdad - I would love to see a 400mm f4 prime from nikon and a new 300 f4 with VR and nano coating with a price around $2k
A bad lens is one you don't carry and have available for use. Otherwise there is no such thing. A plastic lens or a pinhole camera can take a beautiful picture.
You must log in to post.
