11-29-2010, 01:15 PM
[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1291018085' post='4562']
Nope I didnt say that. There are situation where you definately need primes, extremly shallow dof and extremly low light applications. Primes are, however, no substitution for a zoom, if you need to be flexble and perfect framing is more important than shallow dof in given situation.
BTW, its very hard to believe that you used the zillion of lenses in your "lineup" when you didnt even notice that even an f/4 zoom on Aps-c delivers a lot shallower dof than a Point and shoot plus a faster af performance.But then maybe you were taliking about all the lenses being stopped down to f/32. who knows. Note also that your list doenst not contain the 15-85.
[/quote]
So you say there are times you need primes, but they are no substitute for zooms.
Fine. There are lenses that are a good compromise, however: f2.8 zooms. And perfect framing is done by the photographer, not by "zoom".
About genotypewriter's comment about P&S's, I already pointed out that he was exaggerating on purpose, and that his argument has a very good point regardless.
I have no idea why you think or feel his list should "contain" the 15-85. Since the 15-85 does NOT alter physics, one does not have to have used one to know its drawbacks (like a limited flexibility in aperture choice, like a lower light problem). And about performance in the range it does offer, there is enough information available about that too. So you pointing out it is not "contained" in his list is a rather weak attack, in my view.
It is fine for you to like lenses like the Canon EF 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM. In its kind it is quite good. But to me it is a really rather limited point and shoot lens, not a creative lens. It does go wide, but with a considerable distortion. So an UWA might be a better idea for 'wide". It does go into portrait tele, but for portrait lens it does not open up wide enough. And I happen to not think that the extra tele range is valuable, as it is not enough tele for when one wants tele... DSLRs are made for switching lenses, and I will much rather put my 70-200mm f4 L USM on.
So, some people may be happy with a small aperture consumer zoom. That is fine, and fine for snapshots anyway. And then there are others who have other priorities and ideas. Like me, like genotypewriter, and apparently like the poster that started this thread.
Nope I didnt say that. There are situation where you definately need primes, extremly shallow dof and extremly low light applications. Primes are, however, no substitution for a zoom, if you need to be flexble and perfect framing is more important than shallow dof in given situation.
BTW, its very hard to believe that you used the zillion of lenses in your "lineup" when you didnt even notice that even an f/4 zoom on Aps-c delivers a lot shallower dof than a Point and shoot plus a faster af performance.But then maybe you were taliking about all the lenses being stopped down to f/32. who knows. Note also that your list doenst not contain the 15-85.
[/quote]
So you say there are times you need primes, but they are no substitute for zooms.
Fine. There are lenses that are a good compromise, however: f2.8 zooms. And perfect framing is done by the photographer, not by "zoom".
About genotypewriter's comment about P&S's, I already pointed out that he was exaggerating on purpose, and that his argument has a very good point regardless.
I have no idea why you think or feel his list should "contain" the 15-85. Since the 15-85 does NOT alter physics, one does not have to have used one to know its drawbacks (like a limited flexibility in aperture choice, like a lower light problem). And about performance in the range it does offer, there is enough information available about that too. So you pointing out it is not "contained" in his list is a rather weak attack, in my view.
It is fine for you to like lenses like the Canon EF 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM. In its kind it is quite good. But to me it is a really rather limited point and shoot lens, not a creative lens. It does go wide, but with a considerable distortion. So an UWA might be a better idea for 'wide". It does go into portrait tele, but for portrait lens it does not open up wide enough. And I happen to not think that the extra tele range is valuable, as it is not enough tele for when one wants tele... DSLRs are made for switching lenses, and I will much rather put my 70-200mm f4 L USM on.
So, some people may be happy with a small aperture consumer zoom. That is fine, and fine for snapshots anyway. And then there are others who have other priorities and ideas. Like me, like genotypewriter, and apparently like the poster that started this thread.