[popo]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1290983474' post='4544']

Popo, I was referring to the 15-85 in particular here... using, say, a 100-400 or a 50-500 for that kind of thing is not all that bad. I mean, even the 800 and the 1200 primes are f/5.6s <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



GTW

[/quote]

I guess I should have emphasised the word "random" more in there, indicating the scenario is not planned beforehand. In particular, I do use the 15-85 for wildlife, where it is great for physically close up shots of bigger subjects when they do get really close. When I decide to use two cameras on a wildlife trip it is the 15-85 and 100-400 that are out 99% of the time. The stupertele primes are more specific use, when you know you're not going to get close...

[popo]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1290984991' post='4545']

* Inaccurate focus because of less light going to the AF (so forget any real tracking but DOF is so big like on a P&S or a handycam, tracking is not even a real issue)

[/quote]

I can say I've not had any AF problems attributable to a slow aperture - only too few/large AF points in body for my tastes. Or conversely, I've never observed a case where a faster aperture lens has given superior AF accuracy due to that, even in low light. The USM in the 15-85 is pretty quick and accurate, as I often do use it on fast moving subjects at close range, which also gives the lack of DoF issue I keep running into!



The rest of the points again falls into you use the right lens for the job.

[Guest]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1290984991' post='4545']

I guess you didn't read what I wrote carefully because by P&S I was referring to the "kind of shots" that you can do with a 15-85+APS-C that you can't do with a prime.



If it's serious landscapes, portraits, action, etc. you can do all those with a fast prime just as good and most of the time better than with a zoom.



So the kinds of shots that you can get exclusively with a 15-85+APS-C will have:



* Overall shake (due to the reliance on IS, instead of taking a tripod and locking the mirror up)



* Little subject isolation (due to the slow aperture)



* Inaccurate focus because of less light going to the AF (so forget any real tracking but DOF is so big like on a P&S or a handycam, tracking is not even a real issue)



* Subject blur except in good light (again due to slow aperture)



* Bad bokeh (the simpler optics of primes in combination with larger apertures produce better bokeh)



* Heavy CA (due to all the extra glass etc.)



So, effectively, the shots that you can do only with a 15-85 IS that you can't do with a fast prime are P&S-like, lazy-tourist shots. So for that kind of thing I much rather carry a smaller P&S like my Nex-5.



GTW

[/quote]

This is by far the best example how a thread which started with somebody asking for help in choosing a lens becomes hijacked by some narrow minded individual with a religious belief in primes and no experince of the subject he is taliking about. If you have never used something you should really not be talking about it.

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='popo' timestamp='1290986872' post='4549']

I can say I've not had any AF problems attributable to a slow aperture

[/quote]

But there comes a point when AF fails to focus due to a lack of light and slower lenses hit that point before faster lenses.





[quote name='popo' timestamp='1290986872' post='4549']

The rest of the points again falls into you use the right lens for the job.

[/quote]

Sure... for example, there might be a photographic situation where I might choose to risk a lens like a 15-85 than a 24L or something. But the points I was making were [url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/topic/497-60d-with-l-lens-or-7d-with-standard-efs/page__view__findpost__p__4511"]related to jenben's comment[/url] that suggested that lenses like the 15-85 makes using primes less sensible.



GTW

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1290987431' post='4552']

hijacked by some narrow minded individual with a religious belief in primes and no experince of the subject he is taliking about. If you have never used something you should really not be talking about it.

[/quote]

lol... pardon me for noticing the irony here.



Oh btw, here's that list of stuff I've used:

http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/user/10892-genotypewriter/page__tab__aboutme



And some things I've written on the subject, obviously without the kind of knowledge that you have:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/tags/articles



And now it's your turn <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



GTW

[Guest]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1291002748' post='4556']

lol... pardon me for noticing the irony here.



Oh btw, here's that list of stuff I've used:

http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/user/10892-genotypewriter/page__tab__aboutme



And some things I've written on the subject, obviously without the kind of knowledge that you have:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/tags/articles



And now it's your turn <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



GTW

[/quote]



last link "g e n o t y p e w r i t e r doesn't have anything tagged with articles. "

[Guest]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1291000662' post='4555']

B jenben's comment[/url] that suggested that lenses like the 15-85 makes using primes less sensible.



GTW

[/quote]

Nope I didnt say that. There are situation where you definately need primes, extremly shallow dof and extremly low light applications. Primes are, however, no substitution for a zoom, if you need to be flexble and perfect framing is more important than shallow dof in given situation.

BTW, its very hard to believe that you used the zillion of lenses in your "lineup" when you didnt even notice that even an f/4 zoom on Aps-c delivers a lot shallower dof than a Point and shoot plus a faster af performance.But then maybe you were taliking about all the lenses being stopped down to f/32. who knows. Note also that your list doenst not contain the 15-85.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1291018085' post='4562']

Nope I didnt say that. There are situation where you definately need primes, extremly shallow dof and extremly low light applications. Primes are, however, no substitution for a zoom, if you need to be flexble and perfect framing is more important than shallow dof in given situation.

BTW, its very hard to believe that you used the zillion of lenses in your "lineup" when you didnt even notice that even an f/4 zoom on Aps-c delivers a lot shallower dof than a Point and shoot plus a faster af performance.But then maybe you were taliking about all the lenses being stopped down to f/32. who knows. Note also that your list doenst not contain the 15-85.

[/quote]

So you say there are times you need primes, but they are no substitute for zooms.



Fine. There are lenses that are a good compromise, however: f2.8 zooms. And perfect framing is done by the photographer, not by "zoom".



About genotypewriter's comment about P&S's, I already pointed out that he was exaggerating on purpose, and that his argument has a very good point regardless.



I have no idea why you think or feel his list should "contain" the 15-85. Since the 15-85 does NOT alter physics, one does not have to have used one to know its drawbacks (like a limited flexibility in aperture choice, like a lower light problem). And about performance in the range it does offer, there is enough information available about that too. So you pointing out it is not "contained" in his list is a rather weak attack, in my view.



It is fine for you to like lenses like the Canon EF 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM. In its kind it is quite good. But to me it is a really rather limited point and shoot lens, not a creative lens. It does go wide, but with a considerable distortion. So an UWA might be a better idea for 'wide". It does go into portrait tele, but for portrait lens it does not open up wide enough. And I happen to not think that the extra tele range is valuable, as it is not enough tele for when one wants tele... DSLRs are made for switching lenses, and I will much rather put my 70-200mm f4 L USM on.



So, some people may be happy with a small aperture consumer zoom. That is fine, and fine for snapshots anyway. And then there are others who have other priorities and ideas. Like me, like genotypewriter, and apparently like the poster that started this thread.

[Guest]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1291036529' post='4564']So, some people may be happy with a small aperture consumer zoom. That is fine, and fine for snapshots anyway. And then there are others who have other priorities and ideas. Like me, like genotypewriter, and apparently like the poster that started this thread.

[/quote]



Lol, are you so mean in real life as well or is it just internet? :-)))

[Guest]

[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1291042326' post='4566']

Lol, are you so mean in real life as well or is it just internet? :-)))

[/quote]

No he is right. I would not argue with him on that point. I am just glad that people actually do spent money on my snapshots and hang them big on their walls even so I am a damn uncreative person, with no priorities AND a bad lens. Keep in mind: you must never choose the lens according to the job, you must always buy the most creative (reads largest aperture) lens possible, otherwise your photos can only come out crap.