Do we still "need" fast lenses ?

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
jfriend00 Forum Pro • Posts: 12,367
Re: Do we still "need" fast lenses ?

nigelht wrote:

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

Landscape photographers often carry equipment longer distances, so they may be served better with lighter lenses.

After running up and down a sideline with a borrowed 300 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8 I don't think that action photographers would mind lighter lenses either...

Once or twice is fun. After that I'd just as soon use a crop camera and shorter lenses...

Perhaps until you're then doing it at a night game where the additional light that larger sensor collects makes a material difference in your IQ.  Or when you start to miss that nice subject isolation you got with the 300 f2.8 on the FF.  Crop cameras aren't without their compromises too. But, you're free to choose which compromises you'd rather live with.

FYI, when I first got my 70-200 f/2.8, I thought it was huge.  Then, I got the 200-400 f/4 and thought it was huge and then my 70-200 seemed quite portable.  Over time, I got quite used to the 200-400 (supported on a monopod) and ran up and down sidelines all the time (mostly  soccer).  Now, I have a 600 f/4 (used for birding and wildlife, not field sports) and the 200-400 seems quite reasonable to lug around.  The point is, for field work, you can get used to your equipment over time and learn how to best support and carry it.

-- hide signature --

John

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