Hi Mike, On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 13:32:22 -0600, Mike Johnston wrote:
> > You always need more [lenses] ... > > No you don't! [snip] Many photojournalists carry no > more than four. Well, it depends on what you're doing and the environment in which you're doing it. I can agree with four a lot easier than one. When I'm shooting at the races, how close I can get is often determined by the location of the fences (I'm not credentialed so I don't have "hot side" access). Since photos of tiny little cars in the middle of huge expanses of grass, asphalt, trees, and sky generally aren't that interesting, I have to get (optically) close. Since the fences are at different distances at different points on the track, I need at least three lenses (90/135, 200, 400). I generally also have two or three short lenses for shots in the paddock. I guess I could live with three, but five lets me get better shots, I believe. Especially since I only use primes. With zooms, I could get by with two plus a long prime, like a 400. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
