- Apr 21, 2019
- Pennsville NJ
- Real Name
- Brian Richards
Problem with the 35-100 is that it is somewhat soft at 100mm at f2.8, sharpens real fine at f4.0.I'm planning ahead to next year, when the 150-400 is released. It wont fit in my camera bag unless I take other lenses out, so I'm already looking at the best blend of lenses to carry.
On a recent 88 day trip I kept just 1 photo taken with the 35-100, so that's gone. I kept 751 photos taken with the 12-40, 296 of which were at 12mm. I don't want to go wider than that, but it seems that's a sensible wide angle to retain.
Another 215 were at 40mm. It's unlikely that this was my preferred focal length for most of those, suggesting that I just didn't have time (or was too lazy) to switch to the 35-100.
So the 12-100 would be a sensible option instead. Except.. 125 of those 751 photographs were taken at f2.8 and another 56 at f3.2 or f3.5. Almost none of those were intentionally trying to achieve shallow depth of field, the light levels meant that this was a sensible aperture. (Almost all of the sub-f4 shots have 1/100 or slower shutter speed).
In the UK (where it's generally less sunny than the places I visited on that 88 day trip) approximately half of my photographs with the 12-40 are at f2.8.
So I can ditch the 35-100 but I really would like that extra flexibility, yet it just doesn't seem to make sense to buy a lens as slow as f4.
I'm not sure how I'm hoping people will respond, just wanted to share a personal source of frustration, uncertainty and indecisiveness.