>> |
Anonymous
>>170434 >you can say the same thing for telephotos, or ultra wides, or extremely wide aperture primes
Yes, which is why I have counted out the long telephotos, the ultra wides, and Nikon doesn't make any f/1.2 lenses right now. If they did, I'd count those out, too.
>and price is of no concern here, we're just tallying lenses
No, it is of concern. Because we're tallying lenses for the purpose of making a purchase recommendation. And price has to be taken into account there. For all practical purposes, a lens a photographer can't afford doesn't exist.
>>170434 >uh, okay, pick one of the wide primes and only one, no one is going to buy all five
Primes work differently, and there are not five fucking wide primes for the D40. I don't know where you're getting that number. There's the 14/2.8, 20/2.8 and the 24/2.8, The 20/2.8 and 24/2.8 could work well together, the 20 as a wider option and the 24mm as a main lens for someone who likes a slight wide perspective, but there's no reason to own two zooms that cover the same area.
>if i'm taking it to a place where i don't want to risk a $1,000 lens or because it's simply too big
This is silly on two counts: if you have a $1,000 lens and it isn't insured, you're doing it wrong. And the size of it is precisely one of my points for the primes: primes are small, zooms are big. Which leads into:
>You're looking at these things off the bare specs when you're saying "all the wide primes on their website is 2.8 and the fastest is only 2.0 so it's not like you're gaining THAT much compared to a 17-55 2.8."
And I don't know how else to do it except repeat myself, literally. Stop looking at lenses as a set of focal lengths and apertures and MTF results and start looking at them as tools to use. The f/2.8 prime is tiny. The f/2.8 zoom is huge, especially on a D40.
|