Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy734
Weight, physical size, sometimes price. Can you imagine carrying around a 70-200mm f/2.8L II with you all around the city instead of a 135mm f/2L? Sure, you lose the some flexibility in reach, but the weight savings alone on a day-long walking trip is invaluable. You can also take the 50mm or 85mm, etc instead.
That being said, the 70-200mm has it's own distinct advantages, but there are many reasonable explanations of why people would choose to bring a prime or two instead of that beast.
A prime cannot replace a zoom if all you're concerned with is your reach versatility, but you can also argue that a zoom sometimes (or many times depending on your style) cannot replace a prime.
|
I go for hours every weekend with my 70-200mm on the 5D2 around my neck and the 500mm in my right or left hand. The 24-105mm is a vest pocket and the TC and ET have their own pockets. You'll not hear me crying anymore about the shot I missed because all I had was my 105mm.
Oh, in fairness, I should mention that my 70-200mm is f/4. If I were a wedding photog it'd be a 2.8, but I didn't see the point of the extra weight.
Dave