|
selece Offline [X]
|
I usually work with cheapass old lenses because I like the way they flare. I blame you, Sam Hassas, for my love affair with flare. >_>
Nikon 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2.
Alright, so the 135's not cheap, but the others are (that's the OLD Nikon 1.8 mind you, not the G version). Most of my keepers are shot either on the 135 or the 35 (~75% of my shots). The rest is shot on the 85/1.8 and very, very occasionally the 14-24.
I don't actually like the 14-24 all that much most of the time. It's relatively heavy, clunky, and the widest end has too much distortion for my tastes for a lot of the time. It's by no means a bad lens, it's just not really what I want. (I should sell it.)
I could probably be much happier with something like the 28/1.8 - cheaper and wide enough for the situations where I want something wide, yet not quite so distortion-y. And it's light too! Hmmmm ...
Really, most of my approach to deciding what lenses I shoot with comes down to:
1. Can I get the shots that I need?
2. After 8-9 hours of carrying this, will I want to quit photography?
I used to use the 24-70/70-200, but that got old really quickly. I'm not out of shape either - it's just a considerable amount of weight to be hefting around for a good chunk of the day. The all cheap and light primes approach + belt has been working out much better for me (and my physical health + happiness the next day or two).
|
Aug 10, 2012 at 04:43 PM |
| |
|
|