Does anybody else find it absurd... (forum dynamics observations)

Just idle thoughts (home sick/flu):

Let's see, here's #1:

That the 200mm f/2.0 is forum praised as the ultimate portrait lens (on FF) and that it is "obviously" worth going through the trouble of creating the required space towards the subject...

... while every time that the subject of the 135 f/2.0 for 1.6x crop users comes up it is shut down with "way too long".


Another one, #2:

How is it that everybody gets all hyper about a single f-stop when it comes to upgrading zoom lenses from f/4 to the f/2.8 bag pigs, perfectly willing to hire mules and sherpas and look like a dork on the street...

....while the same improvement of a single f-stop is tossed as "not required" when discussing upgrading the f/2.8 zooms to f/2.0 primes.


Anybody has similar observations?

uOpt wrote in post #15491816
Just idle thoughts (home sick/flu):

Take more meds, and these things won't bother you as much

uOpt wrote in post #15491816
Just idle thoughts (home sick/flu):

[DELETED FOR BREVITY]


Another one, #2:

How is it that everybody gets all hyper about a single f-stop when it comes to upgrading zoom lenses from f/4 to the f/2.8 bag pigs, perfectly willing to hire mules and sherpas and look like a dork on the street...

....while the same improvement of a single f-stop is tossed a "not required" when discussing upgrading the f/2.8 zooms to f/2.0 primes.


Anybody has similar observations?

well, people in general get a little(read as, EXTREMELY bat sh*t crazy) persnickety when it comes to having 'better' gear than the 'other' guy they may run in to...

insecurities come to mind...

BUT, its also just plain fun to pursue the best you can buy and measure-bate in the meantime(someone complained about this word, I forgot who you were, but TOUGH! its a great word).

and to think, this is just in the world of small(35mm), and very small(sub 35mm) recording mediums.

Haha, I agree with both observations actually, especially the 2nd one.

I was at the F1 race in Austin in November. I had my 70-300L and 400 5.6L with my 7D. A guy a few rows down had a 7D with a rented 400mm f/2.8..and talked about how "no other lens is going to give the IQ this one will". Based on the shots we were both trying to get (panning shots), there was absolutely no advantage to f/2.8 over f/5.6 at 400mm, he said himself the lens was stopped down to f/7.1 or more on a lot of them....yet he HAD TO HAVE the big lens...and no, he didn't even have TC's with him.

I think some buy gear before they really have put thought into what they are going to use it for...

I mean, honestly... most of the serious discussion that goes on here about gear is completely trivial. It's not a matter of life and death that you choose the correct 70-200 zoom for you, or upgrade your body because it's got 2 more AF points. I think the correct answer to most of the questions posed by people about what gear to buy is something like "dude, just ****ing pick something and go shoot with it."
...that probably wouldn't make for a very lively forum, though

uOpt wrote in post #15491816
Just idle thoughts (home sick/flu):

Let's see, here's #1:

That the 200mm f/2.0 is forum praised as the ultimate portrait lens (on FF) and that it is "obviously" worth going through the trouble of creating the required space towards the subject...

... while every time that the subject of the 135 f/2.0 for 1.6x crop users comes up it is shut down with "way too long".


Another one, #2:

How is it that everybody gets all hyper about a single f-stop when it comes to upgrading zoom lenses from f/4 to the f/2.8 bag pigs, perfectly willing to hire mules and sherpas and look like a dork on the street...

....while the same improvement of a single f-stop is tossed a "not required" when discussing upgrading the f/2.8 zooms to f/2.0 primes.


Anybody has similar observations?

It seems there are folks who view any situation as having multiple solutions, and people who think there's only one right way to approach things (which usually coincides with their way). The black and white approach is way easier to sound-bite, so I think it gets perpetuated more.

I'll add one more. 85 too long on a crop. 135 on FF you must have.

Not so mysterious. Simply, there are dissenting opinions.

On suitability of a given FL...two camps

• Shoot in normal sized areas for studio portraiture (read 'limited') with lots of photographer-subject interaction (posing)
  
• Shoot 'portrait photos' of subjects farther away (actually 'candids'), in some cases because of personal interaction issues caused for photographer when too close to subject
  

• "I am not a wimp, only wimps complain about weight and bulk"
  
• "I know how taxing it can be to carry dead weight around all day when I need that lens for only a couple of shots"
  

• f/4 is too slow, f/2.8 is fast enough -- especially with high ISO capabilities of dSLR
  
• convenience of f/2.8 zoom offsets the inconvenience of fixed focal length faster lenses
  

uOpt wrote in post #15491816
Just idle thoughts (home sick/flu):

Let's see, here's #1:

That the 200mm f/2.0 is forum praised as the ultimate portrait lens (on FF) and that it is "obviously" worth going through the trouble of creating the required space towards the subject...

... while every time that the subject of the 135 f/2.0 for 1.6x crop users comes up it is shut down with "way too long".


Another one, #2:

How is it that everybody gets all hyper about a single f-stop when it comes to upgrading zoom lenses from f/4 to the f/2.8 bag pigs, perfectly willing to hire mules and sherpas and look like a dork on the street...

....while the same improvement of a single f-stop is tossed a "not required" when discussing upgrading the f/2.8 zooms to f/2.0 primes.


Anybody has similar observations?

1. 200mm is stabilized, and while it has praises, not many actually own one or can work with one.

2. 1 stop improvement in a zoom is 1 stop at every FL, 1 stop improvement with a prime is only at a single FL.

grasshopper315 wrote in post #15491985
I'll add one more. 85 too long on a crop. 135 on FF you must have.

this has more to do with the fantastic optics of the 135 more than anything. The 135 is often too long on a FF. The magic the 135 produces on FF > 85 magic on a crop.

everyone seems to need a full frame camera and L glass to shoot crummy pictures of their cats.

shaneotool wrote in post #15492110
everyone seems to need a full frame camera and L glass to shoot crummy pictures of their cats.

and snotty nose offspring !

ed rader wrote in post #15492134
and snotty nose offspring !

and dogs

Charlie wrote in post #15492137
and dogs

everyone likes dogs .

uOpt wrote in post #15491816
That the 200mm f/2.0 is forum praised as the ultimate portrait lens (on FF) and that it is "obviously" worth going through the trouble of creating the required space towards the subject...

... while every time that the subject of the 135 f/2.0 for 1.6x crop users comes up it is shut down with "way too long".

Where is the disconnect?
If Canon made a 216 mm Prime, I'd tell you that that is way too long for FF portraits, even though the 200 is just right!