Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?

Started Jan 6, 2013 | Discussions thread
Dennis
Forum ProPosts: 13,315
Like?
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?
In reply to NikonManSoCal, Jan 7, 2013

NikonManSoCal wrote:


I will most likely get primes with the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VRII ....

Interesting choice.  When I was doing nature photography (that's slowed down to almost nothing since my daughter was born 10 years ago and I transitioned to a people photographer !) I liked using a WA zoom and tele primes.

My reasons was that at wide angles, the difference in what's included in a landscape shot with a slight FL (FOV) tweak was signficant, and thought it more important to get the composition close in camera and avoid cropping later.  Of course, a lot of that was on film, but still, I'd rather take the very slight IQ hit associated with a zoom over the hit from cropping.  I stop down enough for landscapes that wide open performance of zooms isn't an issue, and I'd rather not pay a premium for fast WAs when I have no need to shoot them fast.

OTOH, while I do shoot some landscapes at tele settings, many tele shots are more about magnification than FOV - a subtle difference, but I believe that with WA/landscape shots, being precise about what's in/out of the frame is critical, while with wildlife, it's more about filling the frame, and it's generally ok to get close.  I'd miss the FLs between 14 & 24mm much more than I'd miss the FLs between 100mm and 200mm. The other rationale for tele primes was lens speed, which was more important when shooting slide films between ISO 100 and 400 and it is on a DSLR today.  I'd probably be more inclined to use a pair of zooms providing coverage for landscapes, and then worry about the tele end for wildlife separately.

If I didn't need to go too long on the tele end, I'd probably consider something like 16-35/50/70-200 plus TCs for a nice nature kit.  Right now, I have little use for such a WA zoom and prefer a wide-to-portrait zoom.  16mm would even be overkill for me - I had a 17-35 in my film days and only remember a single "keeper" shot at 17mm.  Prior to that I had a 21-35 and found 21mm very useful.  Now I'm content with 24mm (equivalent) as my wide lens, but would probably look to go wider again if I got back into nature photography.

- Dennis

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow