acquiring more lenses

R

RON_RIP

Senior Member
Following a thread here the other day showing the value of using the 300mm 2.8 in doing portraits. Wow, I want one of those. But will I get one, probably not. After all I don't do portraits. But more importantly I'm remind of a similar situation in my woodworking, where I have acquired more tools than any two craftsman can use.
I have 2 chisels. Actually I have about a hundred or so but the 2 I'm thinking of are similar in size and function to each other. One is a hand-forged Japanese white steel chisel made by a master blade maker. It has a white oak handle and is a thing of beauty in it's own right. When I'm feeling particularly craftsman like I remove it from it leather sheaf and indulge myself in using it. The other chisel is a run of the mill inexpensive chisel that I acquired at Ikea of all places. It has plastic or composite handle, but it is Swedish steel.
They both take and hold a credible edge but the Ikea chisel is used 10 times more than the Japenese chisel. I would be hard pressed to say that one was better than the other. I use the inexpensive one more because if I damage it I'm out leads money.
Sometimes I think the same is true of lenses. We all covet the fast glass but examples abound of inexpensive lenses that can do us very well indeed. My 50 1.8D is a prime example of that.
Still the temptation persists. So who knows shari will do down the line. In the words of that great American philosopher, Willie Nelson' The devil made me do it the first time, but the second time I did it on my own"
 
R

Ruidoso Bill

Senior Member
I started that thread and agree a lot with what you have to say. I doubt I would buy such an expensive lens just for the portraits, seem really big and heavy for my shooting style. However with that said, that lens used occasionally for portraits, great for sports, and couple with a teleconverter for some major wildlife etc shooting is also a great idea. The cost is the limiting factor BH sells the vr version new at $5560. That's a lot of $.
 
Last edited:
S

STM

Senior Member
Probably the biggest drawback I see to DX is the fact that since it is a smaller sensor, the corresponding focal lengths are equally shorter. Shorter focal length means deeper depth of field and that means sharper and more distracting backgrounds. If shooting outside, the lens I reach for most frequently is my 180mm f/2.8 ED Nikkor. It is sharp as a razor even at f/4 and it renders the background way out of focus. It also has a very nice and smooth bokeh. For areas where I have lots of space and can stand off from the subject at greater differences, my 300mm f/2.8 ED IF AIS Nikkor is ideal. At f/4 it is very sharp and the depth of field for a full length portrait is about a foot or so deep. It is heavy but I still have no problems hand holding it but use tripod if the light levels are lower. That throws the background completely out of focus.

This is an example of how using a long focal length lens can completely separate the subject from the background without losing a sense of place

Victoria: Photo by Photographer Scott Murphy - photo.net
 
Last edited:
R

RON_RIP

Senior Member
Not the fast glass. And I think the entire point of that video was about the advantages of the 300mm 2.8. I did consider an AIS 4.5 300 but it would not do what the 2.8 would do in isolating your subject from the background so I will just have to keep fighting temptation.
 
Top