Hi, >> The primes other than the 50 are too slow, although the focal lengths are good.
> Pretentious nonsense. For the majority of situations, these lenses are > fast enough. You can call it nonsense if you like, but you've no right to call it pretentious, which is a gratuitous insult and a good way to get another flame war started. I have quite a lot of experience of travel photography. I made it explicit in my post that I was speaking for myself, and everything I wrote is based on my personal experience of travel photography during the last 25 years. If you don't like it then fine, but don't call it pretentious. --- Bob Friday, October 25, 2002, 9:26:30 PM, you wrote: > In reference to a travel kit that includes: >> > 28mm f/3.5 >> > 50mm f/1.4 >> > 105mm f/2.8 macro >> > 200mm f/4 > Bob Walkden wrote: >> >> The primes other than the 50 are too slow, although the focal lengths are good. > Pretentious nonsense. For the majority of situations, these lenses are > fast enough. Most of us can't afford ultra-fast glass. In any case, how > often does one shoot in extremely low light with a 200? And the SMC > 200/4 is an excellent lens. When shooting with the 28, a shutter speed > of 1/15 or 1/30 is quite manageable. And that's easy to achieve at 3.5 > with most films and lighting conditions. No, they're not premium lenses, > but they'll take fine pictures. Hell, I've even shot in the dead of > night with my M 200/4. See >http://www.portfolios.com/zoom.wga?User_number=stenquist&imagecount=15 > They're not as fast as the big money, big glass. But they're not "too slow."
