>On Sun, 26 Jul 1998, Giles wrote:
>
>> I have no problem with using expensive gear.
>
> Me neither, it's the weight and clumsy handling of the heavier
>optics that I try to avoid unless it's a necessity. It is too
>easy to become technically obsessed.
>
>> For each of the focal lengths, the fastest lens is the best in terms
>> of flexibility of use and outright performance. You get what you pay
>> for.
>
> With all due respect, I do not buy this generalization. The history
>of photography does not bear it out. The best-remembered images weren't
>made with the most expensive equipment. When you're shooting in
>available darkness, the weight of a 24/2.0 is easy to justify, but
>if you're on a tripod, or in good light, it is nothing but extra
>weight.
> "All f/2.0" may be the ticket for you, but there are many ways and paths
>in this medium. If you are making fantastic images with what you use,
>congratulations. But one f/ stop does not fit all, and for many of us,
>the weight of the hardware is a considerable factor. Even Galen Rowell
>speaks of often leaving his 400/2.8 at home, and taking the 400/5.6
>due to weight considerations --- and he is in exceptional physical
>shape. Whatever works...
> *= Doris Fang =*
>
>
Not only that, Galen Rowell has gone on at length sometimes over the
superiority of a slower lens for outdoor photography. The fewer and smaller
lens elements actually increase the versatility of the lens because of the
ability to shoot in any direction and worry less about flare.
Winsor
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
mailto:wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|