My most anticipated Christmas gift came today

[bryanwhite]

Here it is! I can't wait to start using it. Tomorrow, I'm going out playing, despite the ice they're saying will be on the roads.. I'll be gone awhile. I don't suggest waiting for me to get done, either.

And now that I have it, I can't wait for my next portrait shoot.

Oops, forgot the pic.

 

[Jeremy Z]

That is a fantastic lens, and a great bargain. I remember when zooms started becoming acceptable quality, there were all these articles in the photo mags with titles like "Is the prime lens dead??!!" 15-20 years later, we know it is still going strong. Some focal lengths, stronger than others.

It looks like Nikon splurged and gave you the real front cap, but with a crapola rear cap. (Pentax did the same to me on my kit lens) It is pitiful that they won't give up that extra $0.02 worth of profit and mold the good rear caps.

I look forward to seeing some of your indoor snapshots with no flash.

 

[bryanwhite]

It's interesting you mention the "death" of the prime. In the film industry, one reason the zoom shot never became acceptable was that in the old days it was simply impossible: zooming would have meant changing lenses (hence the old TV cameras with five or six lenses in a rotation like a microscope). I've always been a fan of the idea that if I want close shot, I need to get close. If I want a shot from a distance, I back off. I do wish they would make camcorders so that it was impossible to zoom while recording. I find zooming shots to be dizzying and disturbing. For example, go get "Troy" and there's a shot where the camera zooms, ZOOMS into Orlando Bloom. The perspective change without the camera getting closer is unnatural looking, and completely broke the moment for me, in an otherwise okay and even somewhat good, if a bit cheesy, flick. [/rant]

I'm a photog who got into video and back into photography, and bring with me certain ideas on how you shoot. And I hope that rant gives a few people something to think about: zoom is not getting close to your subject.

Even if it wasn't for the great shots I know I can get using this lens, it would be worth its weight in gold for what I've learned with it about how your aperture changes your depth of field. With all of my other lenses, I couldn't really experiment with that well, as they start at f/4 or so and after about f/8 indoors, you can't see much, and I don't care to do my experimentation in a situation where 1) someone's waiting for me to take the <BLEEP> picture, or 2) I will lose the shot forever if I don't take it quickly.

Now, I'm off to shoot up Portland and the surrounding areas.

 

[Alex_B]

death of the primes? that was really discussed by serious photographers? or just by the consumer-press?

if you want superior image quality, you'll always have to go for primes. any zoom is a compromise, maybe these days a very good one, but still it is hard to beat any 50mm prime even with expensive zooms

 

[dewey]

That's an awesome lens... you'll be amazed.

 

[Jeremy Z]

The main thing these days is versatility for a given size/weight of camera bag. With a couple of zooms, a 28-85 equiv. and an 75-300 equiv. most photographers can do whatever they need to do. (and maybe a 50mm prime, hehehe)

That makes for a nice, small, & light camera bag. Compare that to a bag that must carry a body, 28mm, 50mm, 80mm, 105 or 135mm, 200mm, 300mm...

Then, you really have to think about whether you *need* that extra 5-10% image quality, and whether you might miss a shot while swapping lenses. I don't miss the days of frequent lens-swapping. For landscapes, I guess it is fine. But for something that moves faster and has fleeting moments. I'll take a good zoom any day. Even a bad one, hehehe.

As for the death of primes, yes, that was the type of stuff that went on the cover of Pop Photo back in the day.

I know a wedding photographer who does all his shooting with a Nikon body (N90s, I think) and a Tokina 28-70 f/2.8.

 

[Alex_B]

That makes for a nice, small, & light camera bag. Compare that to a bag that must carry a body, 28mm, 50mm, 80mm, 105 or 135mm, 200mm, 300mm...

but most people could live with a reduced selection, like
28, 50, 105, 300

that might be lighter than two zooms covering those lengths

 

[Mad_Gnome]

A typical 300mm lens weighs as much as a basic 28-70mm plus a basic 70-300mm combined. Some people even carry a single 28-300mm zoom. My mother does, and she's perfectly happy with it. I'll stick with my 24-70mm and 70-210mm, personally.

 

[Alex_B]

A typical 300mm lens weighs as much as a basic 28-70mm plus a basic 70-300mm combined. Some people even carry a single 28-300mm zoom. My mother does, and she's perfectly happy with it. I'll stick with my 24-70mm and 70-210mm, personally.

well i was more thinking of zooms like 70-200 or 100-400 which in the canon world each weight around what a 300 does.

and then you have a decent 24-70 L and maybe a wide angle zoom too .. then you are pretty heavy