burningheart Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Scott
This doesn't directly answer your question as our shooting interests differ but here is my own experience with T+S lenses.
My collection
Canon 17,24,45,90, Nikon 85 the non E version,Hartblei 40,80,120
My choices of focal lengths are 17,24,40,45,80,85,90,120
Combining into groupings I normally make choices from
Group A 17,24
Group B 40,45
Group C 80,85,90
Group D 120
Analyzing what in general I use the most I find in order
24,40,80 with special mention to the 17
Limiting the debate to only focal length I found for my shooting the Canon 90 was too long for my personal landscape shooting style vs 85 or 80. Even when I carried all three lenses out in the Mountains or to Dinosaur Provincial Park I found most often the scene I wanted to shoot the 90 was the least used. Even then 80 and 85 were often too long.
The 45 for myself has one other knock is it hot spots with IR and since I shoot a lot of IR it fell into unjust disfavor. Putting IR aside the 45 is an in between focal length for me. I prefer shooting at 40 or 50. Granted weight-wise the 45 is easier to carry than the monster Hartblei 40. I will often carry a 40 or 50 prime instead.
For landscape the 40-45 I found I used it more than the 80-85-90 but a lot less than the 24 and on many trips the 40+ focal lengths didn't leave the bag.
At the end of the day I found for myself the 40+ are nice to haves and are used but often when it comes down to what to carry in my bag I at times skip those focal lengths or replace them with a prime 40 or 50, and/or a zoom 70-180 or 70-200.
Overkill for 45 and 90 T+S for landscape? No they are tools when you need them you'll have them. As flexible as something else such as a zoom. No, but you will live with as you say bowing.
All that said maybe this year I will focus on different shooting opportunities where I will use the 40-120s more often. That's the great thing about photography the only limits we have are those that we place on ourselves.
|