Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: High quality f/4 or f/2.8-4 zoom lenses  (Read 2647 times)

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
High quality f/4 or f/2.8-4 zoom lenses
« on: March 03, 2020, 03:00:05 pm »

I was happy to see in another thread a lot of interest is smaller but still optically excellent zoom lenses for the new MILC systems, like f/4 instead of f/2.8. This seems a natural opportunity given that the far higher usable exposure index (“ISO”) of modern cameras reduces the need for bigger lenses in a big range of high quality photographic work. When “big glass” was for speed with film, f/4 now gives more speed than any lens—zoom or prime—gave with film. And one thing that appeals to me is the wider zoom range that f/4 designs can give while maintaining good optical quality, potentially reducing the lens load from two to one or three to two, in turn making it more viable to have all lenses needed attached to a body and ready for use.

There’s one other change I’d like to see as new lens systems are being built from scratch: moving on from constant minimum f-stop designs to things like f/2.8-4 (or f/4-5.6 at longer focal lengths), which as far as I know can be of about the same weight and cost as f/4 (respect. F/5.6) designs and perform as well at the common apertures, while offering more speed (and DOF control) towards the short end.

The historic advantage of ”constant speed” designs was a limitation of mechanically coupled aperture settings causing f-stop to vary when zooming—a problem long solved.
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1868
Re: High quality f/4 or f/2.8-4 zoom lenses
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2020, 07:53:16 pm »

I was happy to see in another thread a lot of interest is smaller but still optically excellent zoom lenses for the new MILC systems, like f/4 instead of f/2.8. This seems a natural opportunity given that the far higher usable exposure index (“ISO”) of modern cameras reduces the need for bigger lenses in a big range of high quality photographic work. When “big glass” was for speed with film, f/4 now gives more speed than any lens—zoom or prime—gave with film. And one thing that appeals to me is the wider zoom range that f/4 designs can give while maintaining good optical quality, potentially reducing the lens load from two to one or three to two, in turn making it more viable to have all lenses needed attached to a body and ready for use.

There’s one other change I’d like to see as new lens systems are being built from scratch: moving on from constant minimum f-stop designs to things like f/2.8-4 (or f/4-5.6 at longer focal lengths), which as far as I know can be of about the same weight and cost as f/4 (respect. F/5.6) designs and perform as well at the common apertures, while offering more speed (and DOF control) towards the short end.

The historic advantage of ”constant speed” designs was a limitation of mechanically coupled aperture settings causing f-stop to vary when zooming—a problem long solved.

I like what I'm seeing from Voightlander and Sony with respect to primes, especially at the wide end, in keeping the weight and size of the lens in mind when designing the lens. One big factor for me switching to mirrorless system was to save on bulk and weight...and with the "pissing match race" to design the highest image quality lens without any regard to the size of the lens...well that's not for me.

I've learned long ago that chasing the last 1% of anything is a losing battle and really does not amount to any differences in the end, be it in photography, road bikes, fly rods...you name it.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2687
Re: High quality f/4 or f/2.8-4 zoom lenses
« Reply #2 on: March 04, 2020, 08:22:59 am »

I like what I'm seeing from Voightlander and Sony with respect to primes, especially at the wide end, in keeping the weight and size of the lens in mind when designing the lens. One big factor for me switching to mirrorless system was to save on bulk and weight...and with the "pissing match race" to design the highest image quality lens without any regard to the size of the lens...well that's not for me.

I've learned long ago that chasing the last 1% of anything is a losing battle and really does not amount to any differences in the end, be it in photography, road bikes, fly rods...you name it.

The race doesn't seem to be for the highest image quality - rather, for the widest aperture. From f/1.4, to f/1.2, now to f/0.95.

That isn't necessarily a bad thing for primes. After all, one of the main reasons to use primes is for their aperture and subject isolation ability. And, of course, the lighter options are still available if you decide that you can live with f/1.8 instead of f/1.4.

It makes far less sense with zooms. An f/2.8 zoom is twice the size or more of an f/4 zoom, while requiring design compromises that lead it to being less sharp than an f/4 zoom would be, were the f/4 zoom designed with the same budget in mind. So, you're sacrificing size, and, potentially, optical quality. At the same time, the f/2.8 zoom is never going to isolate subjects as well, or be as sharp, as an even faster prime. So it's caught in the middle - capable of doing most things reasonably well, but not as fast as the primes, not as sharp as either primes or what can be achieved with good f/4 zooms, and larger and heavier than both.

There is definitely a place for f/2.8 zooms, and they need to be among the first lenses brought out by a manufacturer, since their place is in event, wedding and photojournalistic-style photography. But most users don't need that. A generalist photographer, who shoots a bit of everything, might need one or two fast primes, at favoured focal lengths for portraits, environmental portraits or whatever else you want subject isolation for, but, for the rest of your focal length range, you'd just need something as sharp, light and small as possible. Good f/4 zooms (which would likely cost as much as good f/2.8 zooms) would do that very well. f/2.8 zooms do both jobs poorly.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: High quality f/4 or f/2.8-4 zoom lenses
« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2020, 02:32:03 pm »

Disclaimer: I am not a zoom aficionado at all.

I have owned - briefly - a Nikkor AF-S 2.8/24-70 ED which hit me for € 1418.42 from my wholesaler back in '09. It was the worst Nikkor that I have bought; the only one in fact that let me down that badly. It was huge, and the image quality sucked. It was absolutely not the handy walk around lens I had imagined. And yes, bought sight unseen because even the wholesaler didn't carry much stock.

A smaller aperture one might well be less bulky, but today even f4 seems a bit of a sacrifice.

Some say that faster lenses than f2.8 are a conceit; no, they are very useful tools that widen your options. If you intend to shoot stopped down to f8 and below, you may as well carry slow primes instead. Zooming with your feet seems entirely feasible if you are dealing with subjects that require great DOF, for I'd guess you would probably not be working off a tripod very much. Time might well be on your side, making zooming a non-essential.

Anyway, in my own defence: never owned a zoom in my entire professional career; it was an amateur's mistake...

:-)

Rob

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2215
Re: High quality f/4 or f/2.8-4 zoom lenses
« Reply #4 on: March 04, 2020, 03:31:15 pm »

Disclaimer: I am not a zoom aficionado at all.

I have owned - briefly - a Nikkor AF-S 2.8/24-70 ED which hit me for € 1418.42 from my wholesaler back in '09. It was the worst Nikkor that I have bought; the only one in fact that let me down that badly. It was huge, and the image quality sucked. It was absolutely not the handy walk around lens I had imagined. And yes, bought sight unseen because even the wholesaler didn't carry much stock.

A smaller aperture one might well be less bulky, but today even f4 seems a bit of a sacrifice.

Some say that faster lenses than f2.8 are a conceit; no, they are very useful tools that widen your options. If you intend to shoot stopped down to f8 and below, you may as well carry slow primes instead. Zooming with your feet seems entirely feasible if you are dealing with subjects that require great DOF, for I'd guess you would probably not be working off a tripod very much. Time might well be on your side, making zooming a non-essential.

Anyway, in my own defence: never owned a zoom in my entire professional career; it was an amateur's mistake...

:-)

Rob

It depends, for instance, I've no use for a fast wide zoom. Longer focal lengths, certainly, but they are all primes.

Horses for our individual courses.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2020, 03:36:12 pm by KLaban »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: High quality f/4 or f/2.8-4 zoom lenses
« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2020, 06:14:40 am »

It depends, for instance, I've no use for a fast wide zoom. Longer focal lengths, certainly, but they are all primes.

Horses for our individual courses.

No arguments there!

Got through my annual (after 80) driving test medical today, so if this place sells I can still drive back to Britain, but who knows whether it or here will have been quarantined by then.

What a friggin' mess it's turning out to be.

Rob

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2215
Re: High quality f/4 or f/2.8-4 zoom lenses
« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2020, 07:31:13 am »

No arguments there!

Got through my annual (after 80) driving test medical today, so if this place sells I can still drive back to Britain, but who knows whether it or here will have been quarantined by then.

What a friggin' mess it's turning out to be.

Rob

Rob, that is good news: albeit amongst a sea of bad.

Best

Keith
Logged

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1864
Re: High quality f/4 or f/2.8-4 zoom lenses
« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2020, 03:16:03 pm »

Zooms are necessary for documentary (journalistic) photography, where absolute crystal-clear image quality isn't as important as having a good, usable image. The reproduction will have more effect on image quality than your original file. And if you're at a sporting event with fences, or a political event with large crowds and security, or even a musical event, or shooting military stuff, you can't always, or even usually, "zoom with your feet." So they have their uses, but why in God's name Nikon is putting out f2.8 zooms for its Z system is not something I've been able to figure out. The first "kit" zoom was an f4, it's fairly compact, and my sample is very good, and it fit well with the compact body. Then, they started with the f2.8s which are not only unnecessary, but huge, and a poor fit for the small body. I'm simply not going to buy them. I would buy a 70-200 (and maybe even the wide-angle room, though I don't much shoot wide) if they were f4. I simply see little use for the huge f2.8 elephant gun zooms any more. I have a (now aging) F system, and I did carry a 70-200 around town a few days ago, stuck on the Z adapter, and the whole assembly sorta sucked. The lack of f4 zooms is causing me to reevaluate my commitment to Nikon, although I've shot Nikon since the 70s. I did carry three f2.8 zooms around Iraq a decade and a half ago, and it was a load then; I'm now old, and I'm not going to do that anymore.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2687
Re: High quality f/4 or f/2.8-4 zoom lenses
« Reply #8 on: March 05, 2020, 05:13:22 pm »

F/2.8 zooms are vital. They're 'do everything' lenses that do a decent job of almost anything, without requiring lens changes - a photojournalist's or event photographer's ideal tool. To that end, they are optimised for versatility over other considerations - they can isolate subjects, but not like a prime, and they are fairly sharp, but not like a prime, and not like an f/4 zoom could be. They are ideal for a role that requires this versatility in a single lens but does not require ultimate sharpness and can manage with big, heavy lenses.

Canon are on to a good thing with their f/2 zooms. Huge and heavy, they take what an f/2.8 zoom can do and do it even better, taking subject isolation to prime-like levels (if not equal to the widest primes) at the cost of weight. For certain wedding photographers, this may be acceptable.

High-end (as opposed to budget-oriented consumer-end) f/4 zooms are different, despite sharing similar focal lengths. They are likely to be used less by the always-ready, shoot-from-the-hip event photographer's or photojournalist and more by those more deliberate, slower-paced photographers who would like a prime's sharpness, but don't need the wide aperture (at least at most focal lengths) and could use a zoom to be able to shoot at a range of focal lengths instead of carrying a bag of primes, since they're rarely using the prime's aperture and subject isolation ability anyway. Unlike consumer zooms, which have a strict price constraint and need to be a one-lens-does-most solution for those who are only ever to bring one or two lenses, these zooms would be designed with much looser price constraints and an emphasis on image quality rather than large zoom range - users of these lenses are likely to be willing to buy and carry several lenses, unless going ultra-light for a specific outing. Like the f/2.8 zooms, they would also need good dust and weather sealing, since they'd commonly be used in adverse conditions.

Beyond the obvious aperture difference, the key difference between a f/2.8 zoom and a premium f/4 zoom is the difference in design focus. F/2.8 zooms are meant to shoot everything and anything, with minimal lens changing, but without necessarily being the best at anything. F/4 lenses would be much more focused - designed to excel image quality wise, with the ability to replace primes within the limits of their aperture range (or at f/5.6 and below, at least), without any pretence of also being ideal for subject isolation. They would likely supplant the slower primes (say, the Zeiss Batis line) while complementing other, faster primes, allowing a user to have prime-level image quality throughout the zoom range, while adding one or two primes for subject isolation or low-light capability at the focal lengths where they are really required.
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1868
Re: High quality f/4 or f/2.8-4 zoom lenses
« Reply #9 on: March 05, 2020, 07:03:27 pm »

Zooms, even f4 versions, are too big and cumbersome compared to light prime if one is to carry their gear around their wrist or neck all day. I have a couple of f4 zooms and much prefer using small fast primes when traveling. I use the zooms when shooting landscapes and need a focal length not covered by a prime. I used to take my f4 zooms with me while traveling, but they saw so little use I decided to not take them anymore. Too slow for inside dim locations or evening shooting and to big / heavy to lug around all day for weeks on end.

My travel kit is all primes ( 25, 35, 85 )...looking closely at the latest Sony 20 1.8
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2687
Re: High quality f/4 or f/2.8-4 zoom lenses
« Reply #10 on: March 05, 2020, 08:07:36 pm »

Zooms, even f4 versions, are too big and cumbersome compared to light prime if one is to carry their gear around their wrist or neck all day. I have a couple of f4 zooms and much prefer using small fast primes when traveling. I use the zooms when shooting landscapes and need a focal length not covered by a prime. I used to take my f4 zooms with me while traveling, but they saw so little use I decided to not take them anymore. Too slow for inside dim locations or evening shooting and to big / heavy to lug around all day for weeks on end.

My travel kit is all primes ( 25, 35, 85 )...looking closely at the latest Sony 20 1.8

That's all well and good if you just need to cover one or two focal lengths.

Many times, you need lots of different focal lengths. You need them to be sharp, you may not need them at wide aperture, but you need them available. 'Foot zooming' is all well and good when shooting people, but isn't an option when shooting landscapes or architecture, due to space constraints, perspective changes or changes in relative size or position between scene elements.

A single zoom will generally be larger and heavier than a small prime (unless you're comparing, say, an f/4 zoom with an f/1.4 prime). But a single f/4 zoom will almost certainly be smaller and lighter than the three or four primes it would replace if you needed coverage throughout the zoom range.

It's not an ultralight option - it's an option to have when trying to maximise your capabilities for a given weight, by adding capabilities where you need them and not adding excess size and weight for capabilities you're never going to use anyway.
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1868
Re: High quality f/4 or f/2.8-4 zoom lenses
« Reply #11 on: March 05, 2020, 08:44:03 pm »

That's all well and good if you just need to cover one or two focal lengths.

Many times, you need lots of different focal lengths. You need them to be sharp, you may not need them at wide aperture, but you need them available. 'Foot zooming' is all well and good when shooting people, but isn't an option when shooting landscapes or architecture, due to space constraints, perspective changes or changes in relative size or position between scene elements.

A single zoom will generally be larger and heavier than a small prime (unless you're comparing, say, an f/4 zoom with an f/1.4 prime). But a single f/4 zoom will almost certainly be smaller and lighter than the three or four primes it would replace if you needed coverage throughout the zoom range.

It's not an ultralight option - it's an option to have when trying to maximise your capabilities for a given weight, by adding capabilities where you need them and not adding excess size and weight for capabilities you're never going to use anyway.

I'm not worried about the overall weight of my kit...it's the weight of the camera and lens hanging off my wrist that is critical.

For landscapes, yes I take along the zooms in my pack and using them off a tripod removes the excessive weight. For travel, cultural, street etc... I use primes for my stated reasons...weight and bulk. When I have a certain prime ( focal length ) I look for images that I can make with that lens and not worry about other focal lengths. Totally different mindset using a single focal length versus a zoom with many focal lengths. For me, I find it much more enjoyable way to shoot and I feel I get more focus on the subjects resulting in stronger images.

So for travel, it's primes all the way for their weight and better use in dim environments. For landscape I take both zooms and primes, but mostly shoot primes.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: High quality f/4 or f/2.8-4 zoom lenses
« Reply #12 on: March 06, 2020, 06:07:52 am »

I'm not worried about the overall weight of my kit...it's the weight of the camera and lens hanging off my wrist that is critical.

For landscapes, yes I take along the zooms in my pack and using them off a tripod removes the excessive weight. For travel, cultural, street etc... I use primes for my stated reasons...weight and bulk. When I have a certain prime ( focal length ) I look for images that I can make with that lens and not worry about other focal lengths. Totally different mindset using a single focal length versus a zoom with many focal lengths. For me, I find it much more enjoyable way to shoot and I feel I get more focus on the subjects resulting in stronger images.

So for travel, it's primes all the way for their weight and better use in dim environments. For landscape I take both zooms and primes, but mostly shoot primes.

For me, that is key.

It's been years since I left home with more than one camera with one choice-of-the-mood lens attached.

Sure, when I was working, I had no choice but to drag everything along.

To amplify a little on my rationale for a single lens at a time: it concentrates the mind in the same way as does refusing to wander around seeking pictures with another photographer - or anyone, in fact, hanging around me and chatting and generally messing with my mind and adding extraneous pressures where and when there should be none.

Rob

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13518
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: High quality f/4 or f/2.8-4 zoom lenses
« Reply #13 on: March 07, 2020, 05:12:05 pm »

For me, that is key.

It's been years since I left home with more than one camera with one choice-of-the-mood lens attached.

Sure, when I was working, I had no choice but to drag everything along.

To amplify a little on my rationale for a single lens at a time: it concentrates the mind in the same way as does refusing to wander around seeking pictures with another photographer - or anyone, in fact, hanging around me and chatting and generally messing with my mind and adding extraneous pressures where and when there should be none.

Rob

Agreed, but it’s possible to use zooms that way also.

- pre set the zoom to the focal length you feel like using at that moment,
- frame
- either shoot as is or just use the zooming capability not to find a FL that works but to fine tube the framing so as to minimize the amount of cropping needed in post

It’s just the way you perceive and use a given capability. Our brain has the ability to control that. 😀

Cheers,
Bernard

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1868
Re: High quality f/4 or f/2.8-4 zoom lenses
« Reply #14 on: March 07, 2020, 08:07:29 pm »

Agreed, but it’s possible to use zooms that way also.

- pre set the zoom to the focal length you feel like using at that moment,
- frame
- either shoot as is or just use the zooming capability not to find a FL that works but to fine tube the framing so as to minimize the amount of cropping needed in post

It’s just the way you perceive and use a given capability. Our brain has the ability to control that. 😀

Cheers,
Bernard

Few differences for me.

1. Zooms weigh more than primes so that extra weight starts to be felt after hours of shooting.
2. Primes are typically faster so allowing better opportunities when things get dim.
3. Not having that ability to just zoom anytime to crop better in the back of my mind clears things up to totally focus on images with the focal length attached to the camera.

Yes one can force themselves to use only one focal length of the zoom...but the question to be asked is why not just use a prime?
Logged

mecrox

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 178
    • My Online Portfolio
Re: High quality f/4 or f/2.8-4 zoom lenses
« Reply #15 on: March 08, 2020, 08:22:38 am »

I had to do a spell of event photography last year mostly indoors and without fast zooms that deliver a decent image at 2.8 at all focal lengths I would have been sunk. They exist for a reason.

That said, if I am out for myself I will use a good prime nearly all the time. I just enjoy it more and as someone said above, I look for images my prime's focal length is suited to and pass the others by. Every new day, there is an infinitely of new images to make. No one is missing out.

For travel I have found the Olympus 12-100mm f4 (equiv 24-200mm) hard to better, plus one prime. The 12-100mm is good at all focal lengths and not too big or heavy. Pretty good indoors for architecture because the stabilisation on Oly cameras is very efficient. A great travel or general-purpose lens.

So fast is good and so is slow. Entirely depends on the circumstances.
Logged
Mark @ Flickr

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 3190
    • Pieter Kers
Re: High quality f/4 or f/2.8-4 zoom lenses
« Reply #16 on: March 08, 2020, 09:01:34 am »

I had to do a spell of event photography last year mostly indoors and without fast zooms that deliver a decent image at 2.8 at all focal lengths I would have been sunk. They exist for a reason.
...
That said, if I am out for myself I will use a good prime nearly all the time...

I do a lot of Art-event photography and do it all with 1.4 primes. 2 stops means 6400 asa or 1600 asa - - some difference.
Logged

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1864
Re: High quality f/4 or f/2.8-4 zoom lenses
« Reply #17 on: March 09, 2020, 12:09:42 am »

I do a lot of Art-event photography and do it all with 1.4 primes. 2 stops means 6400 asa or 1600 asa - - some difference.

Yes, of course. Because you're talking about specialized photography. When I have friends over to shoot portraits, which I much enjoy doing, I almost always use a fast 85 or 105, especially out in the garden when I want the background color but I also want the sitter isolated. That's not the ideal place for a zoom, IMHO, even a fast one. There, you *can* zoom with your feet, or hers.

When doing street, though, a compact f4 24-70 zoom is perfect, and it's not going to break your wrist. I really don't go out in the mood for a particular lens, and I'm not particularly able to say to myself, "There's an infinity of new images to take." When I go for walks around my town, with picture taking in mind, and a Z6, I often take no images at all, or perhaps only one or two, because I really have to think there's something at least a bit exceptional about what I'm shooting. I'm not just taking one shot of a possible infinity, in my mind, anyway. When I see something I really want, images that often exist only momentarily, I don't want the camera to be wearing a 35 and I need a 70. (And then, when I get home, even if I've taken only one shot of something I thought was exceptional, I often finally decide that it isn't.)

Really, this whole conversation is somewhat meaningless. We all have slightly different purposes and tastes, and we find the lenses we need. I will sometimes leave a portrait session and then walk around with an 85 on the camera without feeling especially handicapped by it, just like I don't feel handicapped when I'm walking around seeing images but have no camera at all. 
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: High quality f/4 or f/2.8-4 zoom lenses
« Reply #18 on: March 09, 2020, 06:05:19 am »

Yes, of course. Because you're talking about specialized photography. When I have friends over to shoot portraits, which I much enjoy doing, I almost always use a fast 85 or 105, especially out in the garden when I want the background color but I also want the sitter isolated. That's not the ideal place for a zoom, IMHO, even a fast one. There, you *can* zoom with your feet, or hers.

When doing street, though, a compact f4 24-70 zoom is perfect, and it's not going to break your wrist. I really don't go out in the mood for a particular lens, and I'm not particularly able to say to myself, "There's an infinity of new images to take." When I go for walks around my town, with picture taking in mind, and a Z6, I often take no images at all, or perhaps only one or two, because I really have to think there's something at least a bit exceptional about what I'm shooting. I'm not just taking one shot of a possible infinity, in my mind, anyway. When I see something I really want, images that often exist only momentarily, I don't want the camera to be wearing a 35 and I need a 70. (And then, when I get home, even if I've taken only one shot of something I thought was exceptional, I often finally decide that it isn't.)

Really, this whole conversation is somewhat meaningless. We all have slightly different purposes and tastes, and we find the lenses we need. I will sometimes leave a portrait session and then walk around with an 85 on the camera without feeling especially handicapped by it, just like I don't feel handicapped when I'm walking around seeing images but have no camera at all.

Kinda sums it up, really.

However, I perhaps see the walking around bit differently. If I have no camera with me, photography very, very rarely enters my head; if I do have one, then I am clearly predispositioned and in the mood to make snaps, which means that at such moments I honestly do feel there are as many possibilities as there are panes of glass that a shop front can offer.

That doesn't come without is own problem, though: after a few years, I got to know those fronts too well, and feel that continuing to use them would become repetition rather than new work. Which may be interesting enough for a casual viewer not carrying the mental baggage of history, but not so for me.

That's where working with people becomes so much more rewarding because the operational options are greater: you can let them give your something - as the windows - talk and direct them, or just play games between the two of you, the best way - at least for me. The worst thing is a wooden model who gives you zilch and just blinks at the wrong moment. A polite exit or a feigned equipment malfunction is the only answer.

What happens when I get the latent (there's a throwback!) images/files home? First of all, I take a pretty quick look at them to see the shape, and if I like it or feel I can cut into any part of it, I keep it. I think shape/design/geometry, call it what you will, is really a governing aspect of images. They need a sort of internal completeness (something a square helps, forces? into your framing). After that, it's a matter of understanding what made me press the tit in the first place, and sometimes it's obvious and at other times not quite so much. Then, recognition complete, it's time to work on it to bring it out.

Mostly though, my intuition doesn't let my sense of whether there is something there or not, down. Trusting your intuition is essential: without it you would shoot nothing or, worse, everything. It's back to basic principles: you have it in your make-up, or you do not. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something. I know: having been bought a guitar at around age eleven taught me that sad lesson: wishing ain't enough.

Rob

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: High quality f/4 or f/2.8-4 zoom lenses
« Reply #19 on: March 09, 2020, 03:42:34 pm »

@John Camp: “Really, this whole conversation is somewhat meaningless”.
Agreed that such conversations become meaningless when they are turned into either/or, black and white (and no grayscale) verbal battles.

Perhaps I should have made it clearer up front that I am seeing some role for smaller but still high quality zoom lenses in addition to all the valuable well-established options, and asked in terms of the degree of interest they are likely to attract. Many responses so far are divided between “yes, I would like more such lenses” and “no, I personally have no use for them and nor do [some categories of] professional photographers, so they are pointless”.

P. S. I am happy carrying a camera with lenses like my 12-60/2.8–4 or 50–200/2.8–3.5 all day on an urban or wildlife outing, but I have no disagreement with those who prefer less weight and have less desire to handle a wide FOV range on such outings, or are more willing to make multiple lens changes in the field.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up