Your experiences with a long, fixed focal length, say 600mm?

Started 2 months ago | Questions thread
Tom59 Senior Member • Posts: 1,215
Re: Prefer zooms

Christof21 wrote:

Andersonm wrote:

I've gotten pretty experienced with photos in normal ranges, up to about 200mm equivalent.

However, I've been looking at the Olympus 300mm micro four thirds lens. It seems quite sharp, and I love the concept of long range nature photography.

I'm just trying to get my mind around - how could possibly a fixed 600mm be suitable for pretty much anything - wouldn't 95% of subjects be either too close (large) or too far away? If you're a little bit inexperienced, wouldn't almost every interesting opportunity turn out to be the wrong length?

Not a joke at all, I would ask in the M43 forum but people might think I was trolling

I suppose another way of framing the question: let's imagine a bird, about 15cm tall - with a 600mm lens, what would be the closest and furthest away this could be for a sharp and interesting portrayal? How big is the range you have to work with?

I never understood the reason to get a long fixed FL which may be either too long or too short.

Zooms are much much better imho !!

More practical, easy to manuever yes. Better?   I respectfully disagree. All depends on your use for it. As Bill stated above, its not only the focal length but the aperture. Most wildlife are active during low light hours. Early am or late evening. 500 or 600 prime at f4 lets in a lot more light than a 150 600 f6.3 ( or similar) at 600mm or equivalent, depending on the lens used.  The background separation of f4 is much better also. And a prime f4 will almost alway function better when using a tele converter.

A good zoom is a great tool. They both have their merits. Again, depends on the use.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow