70-300


This lens I was excited about back in August has finally been priced. It’s $99 more than what I had heard it might be, which makes it still rather expensive but not so far off the estimated price that I’m scandalized. It seems like a cool lens, I just wish it was faster. f4-5.6 isn’t really that great. It’s fine if you’re only shooting stuff during the day, or static objects in the dark with a tripod, but if you get into a low light situation at all it’s no good.

We were at a christening a few weekends ago and the church was not dark, but on the dim side. I had my 24-70mm f2.8 lens (my only lens) with me and even with it wide open and the ISO cranked to 3200 I was just barely getting by. People were moving around constantly and quickly, babies were flailing about. I really should have had my flash. Amy was annoyed because she bought it for me and I left it home. 🙁 Sorry! I left it at home because I don’t want to be that guy. The one with the huge flash and all the equipment, but I guess I am that guy so I better embrace it and get the shots I paid for.

Which is all to say, f4-5.6 wouldn’t have been enough there. It would have forced me to use a flash rather than getting a natural feel. Sometimes you can’t avoid it, but I prefer to go natural when I can. Actually, it would have been great to bring along a f1.8 or 1.4 lens with me, but those only come in fixed focal lengths. So I would have been that other guy who has to run all over the place letting my legs do the zoom rather than the lens. Getting in the way, scampering all over. Nor do I have any of those lenses.

Anyway, I’m leaning away from the new 70-300mm for that reason primarily, and thereby towards a variant of the tried and true 70-200mm. I just need to get over the smaller focal range and massive weight. I guess there’s always the 1.4x Extender for added length, and I should probably lift more weight anyway.

,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*