Hi, no, he didn't ask if it was correct FOR HIM. He asked
"Would you be happy with the following lenses for a travel kit?". He asked for our OPINION. I gave an opinion based on 25 years of travel photography in over 20 different countries, an opinion which many people might think carries a certain amount of weight. The lenses he mentioned are too slow, in my opinion and experience, for travel photography and I would not be happy with them. That's what he asked for, that's what I replied to. Read the stuff properly. He asked for an opinion, he got one. It is *only* an opinion, and anybody can disagree with it, or form another opinion, but nobody has the right to dismiss it as pretentious nonsense. --- Bob Saturday, October 26, 2002, 9:19:17 AM, you wrote: > Okay it's just nonsense. The writer of the original message had asked if > we thought his lens selection was correct FOR HIM. Like most of us, he > probably can't afford the ultra fast glass. Those are the lenses he > owns. His choice was correct. They are not too slow to produce great pictures. > Bob Walkden wrote: >> >> 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."
