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."
