I once bought a 300mm lens, nice to look through, but it didn't get used much and it was heavy. All the girls I knew back then would make these phallic compensation jokes; so I sold it and got into fisheyes: "look, my new lens is only 16mm long"!
For 35mm I keep a 35mm f/1.8 lens on the camera most of the time and sometimes use a 135mm. The only time I use a 300mm is at the local air shows at Gillespie Field and Miramar. MF & LF work is done with standard lenses 95% of the time. The longer lenses are indeed sexy but get limited use.
A group portrait of the former Texas Church Project crew. That's me in the back with a 250mm on a Kowa 6 and a 400mm (on a forgotten SLR) sticking out of Scooter Magruder's head. :o
I don't have the Kowa anymore. Replaced it with an RB67 for which I own a 500mm!!!!
David Facts are facts. However, advice is usually just a suggestion.
God doesn't put great photos where lazy people can find them!
Don't just stand there and point your long lens at something, hoping you can get close enough to shoot it. If you want to take a great photo, get of your ass, climb that hill, get close to the thing you're trying to photograph and work for it!
As much as I'm joking around, there's truth there. One reason I'm shooting photos again is to get my ass off the sofa and go out for a walk. Taking the camera with me is a good way to stay motivated to do it every day.
God doesn't put great photos where lazy people can find them!
My experience with teles indicates that it takes a lot of work to find a decent shot suitable for a tele lens.
There are a few things I noticed:
Apart from the fact that they tend to be a lot heavier to haul around, it involves a lot more running or climbing for just a small change in framing.
People aim for the sharpest tele lenses (APO teles for RZ67 achieve significantly higher prices than non-APO lenses), yet the further a subject is away, the more blurry it automatically gets. So most folks yearning for the super sharp super telephoto lens essentially chase a fata morgana.
Since our eyes have very different resolution off the main axis, we tend to see like a super tele. So whenever we see something in the distance (like a bird flying or some wild life), we think, with a good tele we could fill the frame. Wrong, a 300mm is nothing compared to the center spot of our eyes.
For some reason I keep looking at 210mm and 250 and 350mm lenses when I personally have absolutely no application for long focal lengths on MF (my kids who should eventually become part of my landscape shots are way too fast).
Since I also see this happening to other folks (people buying long glass, then not using it and eventually selling it at a loss) I wonder what drives me (and others) towards telephoto lenses. Is there something unconsciously messing with my/our thoughts?
I'm going to take a dissenting tact here and say you've got things backwards.
It's your conscious mind, the one that's decided you "... have absolutely no application for long focal lengths on MF..." that's messed up. Your subconscious on the other hand, being the repository of your instinctive self, has a much broader view.
Maybe you don't have much realistic practical use for long glass on medium format, but it obviously still has appeal and denying it isn't going to help. You've got a much better chance resisting impulse purchase if you admit the appeal is real and reasonable.
Maybe you don't have much realistic practical use for long glass on medium format, but it obviously still has appeal and denying it isn't going to help. You've got a much better chance resisting impulse purchase if you admit the appeal is real and reasonable.
He's questioning that the appeal is actually not real and driven by the desire to purchase something shiny and new. The same effect drives consumers all day, every day. 95% of the time, they don't need it.
Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.
I've tried the long lens thing, but quite frankly find it a PITA to haul around.
Many moons ago tried out a Zenit photosniper kit. Cool as Flip to look at, but the lens was slooooooooooooow and the damn thing weighed the same a Russian Army tank.
Wouldn't dare use one now. SWAT would leave my ass like a collander just as I was framing up
"Flatter Me, and I May Not Believe You. Criticize Me, and I May Not like You. Ignore Me, and I May Not Forgive You. Encourage Me, and I Will Not Forget You."
I also own a 500mm lens for 6x6, but it stays in the closet. It came as part of the camera kit when I bought it, so it wasn't a specific purchase (the previous owner couldn't stop waxing lyrical about it though). It's slow and weighs more than the rest of the kit, thus a bit of PITA to carry along (and most likely not even use). I prefer the 150mm. Plus now I can stick a 35mm camera and lenses in the void it left in my backpack.
I think (sometimes) long telephoto lenses play into the whole "bigger = automatically better" mentality many people fall into. Fine for sport/wildlife/being a "statement" of some sort (I'm rich and this is my pseudo-penis) but mostly (like many above posters have stated) it is a white elephant (if this "elephant" has a red ring on it's head, you could call it "Elli" or "L"- sorry Canon )
(At this moment in time I would love to trade this 500mm for a 110mm macro & a couple film backs, but I don't think there is that many SQ-A users down here )
Ricus
(GOOD LUCK HOLLAND)
Last edited by Ricus.stormfire; 07-07-2010 at 01:49 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: added something
Originally Posted by perkeleellinen
Adv Reply
)
