Skip to main content
14 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 1, 2013 at 6:30 answer added kmonsoor timeline score: 0
Oct 26, 2012 at 6:31 answer added Rene timeline score: 1
Oct 26, 2012 at 3:00 answer added Jason TEPOORTEN timeline score: 2
Mar 22, 2012 at 7:16 history edited MikeW CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 1 characters in body
Dec 8, 2011 at 18:48 vote accept pitosalas
Dec 8, 2011 at 17:21 comment added Imre Yes, primes are wonderful. Especially in macro photography. In telephoto usage, though, "zooming with feet" might mean a long way to run.
Dec 8, 2011 at 17:06 answer added Imre timeline score: 1
Dec 8, 2011 at 16:54 comment added pitosalas @Imre, correct! Thanks all for your feedback. What do you think about a non-zoom as an option? Forces me to work within that artistic constraint, and I get a faster lens for the money. Good tradeoff or bad idea?
Dec 8, 2011 at 16:31 answer added Luciano timeline score: 1
Dec 8, 2011 at 16:19 history edited Imre CC BY-SA 3.0
edited tags; edited title
Dec 8, 2011 at 15:58 comment added Imre @Paul 70-200mm (105-300mm equiv) is longer, but not wider than 50mm equiv, and therefore would fit the question just fine
Dec 8, 2011 at 15:57 comment added TZHX +1 to Paul - you really don't find many telephoto lenses starting below 70. 70-200 or 70-300 are quite common, and you can find budget (but still decent) lenses for around $250. Personally I have a Tamron, which I find good if a little slow.
Dec 8, 2011 at 15:32 comment added Paul Cezanne 70-200mm is a common size, you might want to rethink the "not less than 50" requirement. So you have gap, big deal, at those distances take a few steps forward or backwards.
Dec 8, 2011 at 15:11 history asked pitosalas CC BY-SA 3.0