-
Fast Glass, thanks for your further thoughts. And by the way, congratulations on your 300mm f/2.8 IS, which I have rented in the past and found a great lens.
For a trip by car to a national park, I am completely with you. I usually would carry the EF 16-35mm f/4, the EF 50mm f/1.4 and the EF 70-200mm f/4 IS for such an occasion, with a 5D body. I might carry that for 2-3 hours, then back to the car.
The trips I was envisioning would entail 10-12 hours a day on my feet, with occasional short breaks for a light meal or coffee. Then "rinse and repeat" for several days in a row. And I think you are younger than I--the big 70 is looming! So size and weight become important to me.
I realize the standard answer is to learn to love the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1, by liberal use of texture and clarity sliders in Lightroom. Still tempting to use the 28mm as main go-to with the 50mm f/1.8 as the alternative.
Last edited by Minerve101; 01-30-2022 at 06:18 PM.
-
Senior Member
Haha, yes. I didn't realize you are approaching 70. Nothing but respect from me for still being super active at your age. I'm a bit less than half your age. So I understand a lot better with the very long excursions on your feet why you want to go super duper light weight.
Just being on your feet for 10 to 12 hours a day picture taking is a lot for anyone!
But I think you are right about the 24-105mm f/4-7.1. With the idea of being as light as practical possible it makes a lot of sense.
On a side note I was at local zoo all day today. Oh man did my 300 shine over there! Definitely got a lot to comb through but will be posting some soon here.
Last edited by Fast Glass; 01-31-2022 at 02:49 AM.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules