03-24-2011, 08:36 AM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1300881071' post='7043']
Frankly I've always been wondering about the hype about these f/2.8 standard zooms in general. They're too short to be useful for portraits (compared to much cheaper primes a la 85/1.8) and not really any better than more moderate f/4 zoom lenses but exceedingly more expensive.
The Zeiss remains a good lens, of course, and it should be easily possible to work around its limitations in most scenes.
Klaus
[/quote]
Well, for me the expense is worthwhile as for my personal shooting there are no 'workarounds'; I use F/2.8 a lot and on DX/APS-C 70mm gets into portrait territory - with good bokeh. I hate changing lenses 'in the field' - arthritis in my hands doesn't help (although I'm not exactly a cripple!} An F/4 alternative is not so obvious in Nikonland.... Others may disgree of course. I do use primes, but rarely, for the reasons above.
Frankly I've always been wondering about the hype about these f/2.8 standard zooms in general. They're too short to be useful for portraits (compared to much cheaper primes a la 85/1.8) and not really any better than more moderate f/4 zoom lenses but exceedingly more expensive.
The Zeiss remains a good lens, of course, and it should be easily possible to work around its limitations in most scenes.
Klaus
[/quote]
Well, for me the expense is worthwhile as for my personal shooting there are no 'workarounds'; I use F/2.8 a lot and on DX/APS-C 70mm gets into portrait territory - with good bokeh. I hate changing lenses 'in the field' - arthritis in my hands doesn't help (although I'm not exactly a cripple!} An F/4 alternative is not so obvious in Nikonland.... Others may disgree of course. I do use primes, but rarely, for the reasons above.