Yes, the RX100 Mk3 is truly an awesome camera.
Yes, the RX100 Mk3 is truly an awesome camera.
This is exactly the reason why you would want it. As almost everyone has tried to explain to you...carrying a bag full of primes and tightly focused zoom ranges is less than ideal for catching those photos that are "unplanned" which should be 99% of your photography as an enthusiast.Originally Posted by KillerB
People always say stuff to me when I'm out with the 1DX and the 300 2.8 at a sporting event and they are like wow nice lens. My response is usually thank you, but you can't put it in your bag and go to the amusement park with it.
If you have the luxury of a shelf full of primes AND highly versatile zooms then go for it. But when you said you only a had few hundred in the budget for a tele zoom I thought you might want advice on how to trim your gear to what you will use 99% of the time with excellent results.
My 24-105f4LIS lives on my camera almost all the time. 24 is plenty wide and 105 is plenty long for almost all of the basic stuff. I have to really deliberate when I want to drag even the 70-200 2.8 out...I must have a need for the 200 otherwise I leave it at home. The 300 gets only limited use when I'm at certain events.
funny_photographer1.jpg
Unless you want to be this guy I suggest being more prepared for the unexpected as an enthusiast than having a huge collection of barely used glass on the shelf.
Last edited by JoeW; September 7th, 2017 at 09:50 AM.
I get what you mean. Overall budget for me isn't an issue, but I do like to get my best bang-for-buck and was wondering how I could best apply a few hundred dollars to fill in any gaps in my gear.
To be fair, I tend not to take the dSLR out at all to places like amusement parks - I end up either taking my Fuji X100T or just my phone when I'm out and about, as opposed to intentionally "taking pictures." Maybe I need to just suck it up and deal with carrying the D7000 more often - then I'd probably find the use for the midrange zoom so I could carry just that lens.
You know, I'm just about ready to toss my Tamron 24-70 2.8 in favor of a Canon 24-105 f4 with IS. I got the Tamron because Canon will simply not put IS in the 24-70 2.8, and the Tamron has it, but my god that Tamron feels like it has shit build quality. And the 70 mm length never feels quite long enough, forcing me to choose between going through the labor of swapping out the lens for the 70-200, or just putting up with the 70mm. The Tamron is the lens I hate to love... Wide aperture, somewhat versatile, has IS, but stopping at 70 sucks, and it feels like a piece of crap. The rubber focus ring recently became all stretched out and now just kinda fits loosely around the lens.
Last edited by Sad, little man; September 7th, 2017 at 04:59 PM.
I don't think IS is as important on a 2.8 that only zooms to 70. Just be careful when shooting in low light, and crop if you need to get to "105".
Right, but being able to shoot in low light is the reason I want a 24-70 2.8 with IS. I want to be able to take nighttime landscapes at a slow enough shutter speed to keep the ISO low so I can recover shadows later. With the Tamron I have pushed my handheld shutter speeds at 24mm down to 1/8 second or so. And it manages it with the IS.
He's using an APS-C DSLR. A 24-105, would effectively be a ~36-160 on his camera, which isn't the friendliest of ranges, imho. Something like the Nikon 16-85mm would be a better option, for the D7000. There's also the 16-80 2.8-4.0, which is the 'pro' version.
Last edited by Jason; September 7th, 2017 at 05:26 PM.
That's the one non-inherent advantage full frames still have over crop sensors... By and large, a lot of the really nice lenses are still made with full frames in mind, some even carryover from film days. They have gotten better at offering more geared towards crop though. And Sigma makes a 50-100 1.8 specifically for crop sensors, which is pretty nuts, and not really a lens you could make for full frame without it being massive.
Tripod or monopod.
I was telling him what I use on my Canon. Not what he should use in his Nikon.
Every brand has their zoom that hits the sweet spot. Just use that one instead of fumbling around for the right prime....in most situations.
I very rarely (like close to never) have ever wanted anything wider than my 24-105. I have owned a few 24-70 2.8 (buy it thinking I need it, sell it because I hate it...repeat) but to me that lens does not feel good in my hands like the 24-105. The hood is awkward, the way it extends, the whole thing. And like SLM said, 70 is just not as versatile as 105 with IS. I think Canon's crop version of the 24-70 is the 17-55 2.8...if I remember correctly...it's been awhile since I owned a APS-C. The 1DMkI, II, III and IV are 1.3 crops...the X bodies are now full frame. Last crop body I owned was a 40D...last of the magnesium bodied prosumer models.
But different strokes dudes. I only learned what I like and use most through much trial and error (buying and selling). The only way to make that process break even is to buy the good shit...in my case the L lenses (not sure what Nikon calls theirs). You can always resell it for what you paid. Not so with the cheap stuff.
So get out there and start experimenting!
Last edited by JoeW; September 7th, 2017 at 07:06 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote