(09-20-2018, 05:37 PM)JJ_SO Wrote:(09-20-2018, 05:12 PM)Rover Wrote: I guess it makes sense as a safari lens where animals may crop up unpredictably either in the distance or pretty close to the vehicle, AND the dust / convenience issues preclude the frequent changing of lenses. It could pair well with something like a 17-40mm lens on a second body to give 2-lens total coverage.
Yeah, but we can't change lenses...
A second body might be a solution...
You seem to have not been paying attention to what I've been saying, so let me rehash it again.
There are the times when changing a lens is not a good idea, such as being in a dusty environment. I experienced it first hand when I was in Xinjiang (Western China) - I had two bodies, although one of them was not weather sealed (Canon 20D). I tried to keep lens switching to an absolute minimum but still got more than enough dust on the sensors of both cameras. I can imagine that fumbling with separate lenses while in a cramped van in the middle of a dusty African road is, well, not a good idea. Of course I'd have a second body for this kind of work but if it's occupied by a wide angle changing the long tele for a shorter one on the fly is going to work about as well (read: not at all).This is not much different to the reason why the Canon 28-300 L lens exists, only skewed even farther into the tele side of things (out in the African plains, 60mm is probably going to be "way wide" anyway).
I can imagine that if I'd ever be on a safari or a similar journey I'd have a 16-35 (or 24-85) + 100-400 setup with two bodies but for some people/areas 400 is not enough anyway so...
I think the same goes for someone who is shooting war in Iraq or something along these lines...