Are Fast Lenses Becoming Obsolete???
- Thread starter Eye-level
- Start date
Zooms are to photography what the remote control is to the TV. Who remembers having to get up to change channel or volume? Modern computers made lens design quite easier. Problems that would have been hard to solve with the sliding ruler are now solved in seconds. But zooms do make people lazier. They just don't want to use their feet anymore.
OK, it's early, end of rant.
OK, it's early, end of rant.
I disagree...they have made fixed lens cameras forever...people want to be able to pick their personal poison...I bet interchangeable lenses will always be more popular than not...
Yes, I have noticed a serious trend here on the use of Primes, with folks asking what should be their first prime, and which prime for which purpose.
It comes down to photographers wanting to extract the last 99% from their equipment, and until Nikkor lens can make a 1.8 Zoom from 15-300 that is small, distortion free, etc,,
but.... if (continued in Why Not a Blog 45)
I don't think they'll ever really be obsolete. Pro's who need fast lenses with great Bokeh will always buy them because ISO doesn't make Bokeh lol. But ISO certainly does make SMWAC's happy (Soccer Mom's With A Camera) for team pics and so on, birthdays and all that family stuff - they don't care about a creamy background (unless it's all over someones face ) they just want the memories captured. But for the pro - they'll always want/need it and for that reason, unless there's some REALLY great ISO magic on the horizon, they'll never be obsolete - just more expensive. My 2c
) they just want the memories captured. But for the pro - they'll always want/need it and for that reason, unless there's some REALLY great ISO magic on the horizon, they'll never be obsolete - just more expensive. My 2cCowleystjames
Senior Member
I have a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 vrII, amazing lens, but I very rarely take it with me, far preferring the 18-300 instead.
Okay the purists may criticise the softness at extreme but is far more portable on a daily basis.
Okay the purists may criticise the softness at extreme but is far more portable on a daily basis.
AC016
Senior Member
Zooms are to photography what the remote control is to the TV. Who remembers having to get up to change channel or volume? Modern computers made lens design quite easier. Problems that would have been hard to solve with the sliding ruler are now solved in seconds. But zooms do make people lazier. They just don't want to use their feet anymore.
OK, it's early, end of rant.
I would politely disagree with you there. My 70-300 keeps me out of jail! If i wanted to get the shots that i get of aircraft with my 35, i would have to climb over a fence and barbed wire and walk up to the runway! I would get great shots, but i would have a lot of people in uniform come down on me REALLY hard. And in regards to wildlife, i don't think you want to be walking up to grizzlies or other large predators. Anyhow, haven't long focal lenses been around for decades anyhow?
Is it just a portability issue that you don't take the 70-200 f2.8? Are we talking about taking it out for photo shoots or just going out with a camera in case you need it?
But 300 mm lenses did exist before that 70-300 zoom... And I'm not condemning zooms, not at all. But it sometimes is nice to work with a fixed focal length and work around the "no zoom" thing. And you get more light on your shot and sometimes have more money left in your wallet.
Zooms are to photography what the remote control is to the TV. Who remembers having to get up to change channel or volume? Modern computers made lens design quite easier. Problems that would have been hard to solve with the sliding ruler are now solved in seconds. But zooms do make people lazier. They just don't want to use their feet anymore.
OK, it's early, end of rant.
Let me continue for you. Zooms are more like the automatic record player versus a really good turntable ( I bet we could figure out an even better analogy). You get convenience but you loose in quality. Zooms make you use reach instead of the correct depth of field and as a bonus they have lower IQ. It's a loose-loose proposition unless circumstances are just right and you work at it.
I have a D800 and am constantly battling low light condition... I live in the Pacific Nortwest... Dark in te woods, and do a lot of night photography, I am slowly collecting all the f1.4 Nikon lenses. Don't think bodies being fast enough is on the horizon. JD