for the photographers

[focalintent]

Would you rather have:

• a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens
  
• an 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens
  

The f/2.8 allows for much lower light/faster shooting. The 80-400mm gives you that much more reach. (Assume that, optically, the lenses perform roughly equivalently, e.g. roughly same levels of vignetting, distortion, softness at certain ends/apertures, etc...)

(Why isn't this a poll? Not only do i want to know which folks would prefer, i want to know the whys : )

Comments

[devina.livejournal.com]

Is this my first lens, or do I have some others?

Off the cuff, I'd prefer the first. But I like to get close up to things to take pictures, and don't tend to shoot from a distance. I also prefer natural lighting to a flash. So I'd find it more useful to have a lens that can handle low light.

[sol3.livejournal.com]

I have other lenses - my main lens these days is a 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 : )

I had chances to shoot surfers this weekend though - and, well, 70mm sucks for shooting them from shore.

I have to admit, I do have a knee jerk bias towards wanting f/2.8 lenses : ) - unfortunately I have yet to see a zoom that goes above 200mm at f/2.8 (you can get 300mm primes at 2.8, i believe - but they're also $$$$$)

[sol3.livejournal.com]

I was wrong - sigma makes a 120-300mm f/2.8!