Why I am not getting rid of my 40-150 F2.8

Phocal wrote:

Wallybipster wrote:

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Nice! Background mountains are illuminated "just so."

Despite an absurd amount of overlap in my lens collection (as in probably ten or so lenses that share a chunk of its range) there are things the Pro zoom do for me none of the others can. Mine's not going anywhere, but I probably should weed out some of the redundancy.

Yeah, I sold my 150mm F2 to finance the 40-150 initially, and I don't regret it much, just because of the amount of versatility I gained, even if I do miss the little tuna on occasion.

Not sure I could ever trade my Little Tuna for the 40-150. Now, I will eventually get the 40-150 (for shooting sports as it is a bit faster then my 50-200 SWD)...but it is not even in the same class as the 150mm ƒ2.0 optically.

You know, I don't think in terms of sharpness, the 40-150 is really significantly different from the little tuna, as far as what I've seen from shooting with both.  The only thing I miss is F2, and amazing OOF rendering.  But I also gain so much versatility, better functionality, and compactness.  Since I very often found the 150 too short for what I really wanted to do anyways, it wasn't a hard decision, though if I were in the same position now, I suppose I would keep both because I could afford to.

"Bluebird day?"

A bluebird day is when it's calm, cloudless, and serene.... We don't get too many of them. Here's an example that wasn't from yesterdays climb, but was the exact same kind of day.

Cheers,

Rick

-- hide signature --

Equivalence and diffraction-free since 2009.
You can be too; ask about our 12-step program.