Does anyone really need a big mid-range zoom?

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Is an f/2.8 mid-range zoom in your arsenal?<br>

Currently, there is: 17-55/2.8 on DX. But if that lens has taught me anything, then it is the following:<br>

if I ever "upgrade" to FX, then I will not get the 24-70/2.8 (especially given its cost) since it's range at the long end is even more limited and limiting than that of the 17-55 (which translates to 26-82 on FX). Since I need a longer lens on a second camera anyway, it hardly matters where the first one ends - so I may as well use the 16-35/4 VR that I already own (and that makes me wonder if I should hold on to the 17-55 at all).<br>

On DX, I felt that the 17-55 should at least be a 16-60/2.8 (or better 16-70); so for FX, I would demand at least 24-85/2.8 (I doubt a 24-105/2.8 is even possible). </p>

[francisco_salaquanda]

<p>The whole mirrorless and EV growth market demonstrates that camera manufacturers can produce compact wide angel and zoom AF lenses. The stats show that this segment is slicing into the lower priced DSLR market share big time.</p>

<p>I'm able to say the following from my position of being a Nikon shooter since 1970:<br>

Nikon's G lenses are a lazy design and could have been made much smaller if they really wanted to. For a tourist wandering around with something like an FX body with a 70-210 is just saying (rob me or, look at me, I'm pretending to be a real pro!).<br>

These bodies and lenses were not designed for the casual or amateur photographer. In a lot of countries, if you arrive at immigration they will look at your gear and say: "Oh, he's coming to do paid photographic work". Its happened to a friend of mine entering the USA. </p>

<p>I know this is not making a positive contribution, but the fact is, you don't need a big load of DSLR kit to generate great images. And the proof is this: In the month of May, more images were sent into The Guardian newspaper from smart phones than the sum of ALL the other mediums put together. And to top it off, Nokia has released a smartphone that has a photo sensor with 41MP.</p>

<p>I see a major adjustment in the market and it will force the price of prosumer FX DSLR's down considerably. Now my recommendation for the OP: Leave your big kit at home and take a good quality compact camera on your travels.</p>

 

[Two23]

<p>I find I need less and less gear to shoot the shots I want. The only lenses I'm taking for my Nikon on this year's vacation are the Nikons 17-55mm f2.8 and 80-400mm VR. I have a very good Sigma 30mm f1.4 but rarely use it any more. As camera ISO has gone up, my need for f1.4 has gone down.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[mark_stephan2]

<p>As a long time 17-55 user I decided against the 24-70 when I bought my D700 and now that I'm using a D800 I still don't need that lens. I'm getting older, have a natural camera shake because I have muscular dystrophy and find myself using the awesome 24-85VR and smaller primes. When I need a 70-200 or longer I use a monopod or tripod to get steady photo's. For most of my work I carry a 20mm, 50mm, 180mm and the 24-85 and that covers everything except the occasional macro work.</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>I often like to say that the midrange zoom is what 90% of people use for 90% of their photos. In many cases, the ability to immediately transition from moderate wide angle to normal or slight telephoto is very convenient. If you're shooting for pay, it's invaluable.</p>

<p>For my own shooting though, I find that no matter what lens I put on the camera, I end up coming back with photos. There's a saying that when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and you can readily see this in action today. Go to Flickr and go look at the tons of photos people are taking with their DX cameras and 50mm lens, a combination that is historically a little awkward (going out and about with only a 75mm equivalent lens). Or go look at the micro 4/3 forums, where people are buying and finding great use on walkabouts with their 75mm lens (which comes out to 150mm equivalent focal length). </p>

[Two23]

<p>I have to agree with Ariel, above. The more different kinds of photo gear I've used of many different vintages and at least six formats, the more I've come to realize that I simply adapt to whatever is in my hand at the time. For most of this year I've been concentrating on box cameras. There's a c.1950 Zeiss Tengor sitting on my desk next to me that I've just completely gone through, and yesterday I bought a c.1912 Kodak Panoram No. 1 Model 4. I don't even know what focal length lenses those have, and it won't matter in the end.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[tom_elessar]

<p>Almost always all the "does anyone / everyone need X" questions have the same answer: it depends on your needs and not EVERYONE does.</p>

<p>I am now using an Olympus OM-D and primes in most circumstances because the fast zooms are very expensive; if I had the cash for a FF body and good zooms I'd probably have a 24 - 70 2.8 for the same reasons everyone else does. </p>

[dan_south]

How much time do you have? I have a number of opinions.

 

Opinion 1 - It's ridiculous to assume that everyone carries a wide-angle zoom. I don't. I had a 16-35 f/2.8 for my Canon bodies for a while,

but I sold it because I didn't use it that often. I don't like the distortion that ultra wide lenses add to the image.

24mm is as wide as I like to go in most cases. If I ever go the ultra wide route again, Canon's TS-E17 would be my choice, because the

movements would let me manage some of the distortion. If I need to go wider than 24mm now, I stitch to reduce distortion and increase

resolution.

 

Opinion 2 - For most applications, and especially for events, sorts, portraiture and PJ work, ultra wide angles are more of a special effect.

Carrying an expensive lens for special effects isn't practical in my opinion. 24-70/105/120 is a bread and butter lens that I find myself using continuously

 

Opinion 3 - Some people think that the 24-70 is boring. They claim to need other focal lengths to create interesting images, an 85/1.4 for example, or a macro lens or an ultra wide. My counter argument is that when I was

shooting 4x5, every lens that I owned, when converted to 35mm full frame equivalent, fell within the 24-70mm focal length range. I

managed to take some interesting photos with those focal lengths. The range isn't boring in my opinion.

 

Opinion 4 - I don't care for the 50mm focal length. It's a personal preference (non preference). Having 50mm as my only option in the

normal range would drive me nuts. By contrast, I love my Canon EF 40mm STM. With its effective focal length of 43mm, it looks gorgeous when compared with the cramped frame of a 50.

 

Opinion 5 - My current Nikon setup consists of one full frame body and two lenses - 24-70 and 70-200. This has been my primary setup for travel and landscape over the past year. Occasionally I crave something longer (80-400) or with movements (PC-E24 and/or 45). But I never crave anything wider.

 

Opinion 6 - Canon's 24-105/4 is the most versatile zoom that I have ever used despite its notable distortion issues. I tried Nikon's 24-120/4, but unfortunately I wasn't impressed with its sharpness.

[jose_angel]

<p>I used to receive the National Geographic Magazine (before the digital era). Well, I`d say that a very high percenyage of pics were taken with wide angle or tele lenses. I learned how good an extreme wide angle (16mm) for people photography could be, I love it. BTW, it looks that they were Nikon supporters these days.<br /> Maybe they were looking for an "impact" effect... this all about photography, isn`t it? At least I was impressed for such good photographs.</p>

[pge]

<p>For me:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is an f/2.8 mid-range zoom in your arsenal?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, the 35-70mm f2.8</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you find a mid-range zoom useful on your NIkon FX cameras?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, I primarily use a the 50mm F1.8G when I need this range.<br>

KR is right when it comes to my shooting but that doesn't mean anything to the next guy.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>Nikon's G lenses are a lazy design and could have been made much smaller if they really wanted to.</blockquote>

<p>! I'm reasonably sure they're not big for amusement value. There's a lot of glass in there. I do believe that they're not deliberately made small (though they are designed to a budget, which has an effect), but I believe that if Nikon could get the aperture and optical quality from a smaller design, they'd probably do it. Canon's latest 24-70 is an unusual case, but it's possible that Canon <i>are</i> trying to shrink things - they've been deliberately lightening their telephotos. It seems likely that Nikon are doing their best - and, as I've said elsewhere, I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon respin the 24-70 in the next few years.</p>

<blockquote>For a tourist wandering around with something like an FX body with a 70-210 is just saying (rob me or, look at me, I'm pretending to be a real pro!).</blockquote>

<p>(Pedantically, the 70-210 isn't that big because it's not f/2.8, but I'll guess you meant a 70-200.) It is, I admit, an odd tourist camera. Then again, I tend to take my 200 f/2 to weddings... I prefer to be subtle when being touristy, but any FX camera is going to be a problem there. That's what micro 4/3 is for, but it's also why I'm actually happy that my F5 was missing some paint by the time I got it.</p>

<blockquote>These bodies and lenses were not designed for the casual or amateur photographer. In a lot of countries, if you arrive at immigration they will look at your gear and say: "Oh, he's coming to do paid photographic work". Its happened to a friend of mine entering the USA.</blockquote>

<p>Oh, I don't know. The F6 was designed for rich amateurs. The D600 certainly is. A D4, maybe less so, but a lot of - especially nature - tourists turn up with big telephotos. Immigration should know better - I've never had a problem with a big bag of stuff (unless they're <i>only</i> looking out for the 24-70).</p>

<blockquote>I know this is not making a positive contribution, but the fact is, you don't need a big load of DSLR kit to generate great images.</blockquote>

<p>Oh, absolutely. I get a new lens when it allows me to take a photo that my existing kit won't, not to make me "better". Maybe I'd be better if I spent a long time mastering the 50mm, but I'm impatient and have no delusions of talent. Cartier-Bresson made great photos with a limited range of equipment (though I've heard it said that was because nobody can afford more than one Leica lens), I'm sure he'd have made great, but different, images with some additional equipment, but there's a lot to be said for knowing exactly what your kit can achieve. Still, there's plenty of photos that I take that I couldn't do if I only had a mid-range zoom, even at f/2.8. I even like some of them.</p>

<blockquote>And the proof is this: In the month of May, more images were sent into The Guardian newspaper from smart phones than the sum of ALL the other mediums put together.</blockquote>

<p>Well, yes, the best camera is the one that's on you. And what most people have on them is their phone. Especially true for anything newsworthy. If you only care about photos viewed at web sizes, and if the content is more important than the creative image control, a camera phone is a very effective device.</p>

<blockquote>And to top it off, Nokia has released a smartphone that has a photo sensor with 41MP.</blockquote>

<p>Not that it's selling all that well, as far as I know. Actually, I'd quite like a PureView 808, but only for a different style of photos. It's very much a medium-sized-sensor compact with a phone attached. It's no substitute for a larger-sensor device, at least with a decent lens on it.</p>

<blockquote>I see a major adjustment in the market and it will force the price of prosumer FX DSLR's down considerably.</blockquote>

<p>There's a new market segment occupied by the 6D and D600. People we calling for cheaper (new) full frame cameras (ignoring the used prices on the DCS-14n, D700, 5D, 5d2, 1Ds, A900...) so there's a price-gouged market segment below the D800/5D3 level. As I predicted, people are now complaining that the body (especially 6D) doesn't always have the specs to justify the price imposed by the sensor, but it makes some people happy, so that's a win. I've not heard that many people complaining that these cameras are still overpriced - mostly I've heard of people wanting slightly better specifications, something between a D600 and D800 (other than the obvious). I would be a little surprised if Nikon's next FX camera is a $1000 model with a pentamirror, one control dial and no AF drive, but I'm not very good at predicting what Nikon will do, so you never know. Maybe we'll see these cameras get updates faster than the higher-end FX camera range, too. For now, the D600 is a very good camera at appreciably less than the cost of a new D700; I'm taking this as a good thing rather than expecting another big jump.</p>

<blockquote>Now my recommendation for the OP: Leave your big kit at home and take a good quality compact camera on your travels.</blockquote>

<p>I've no objection to the advice that a quality compact can take a lot of good shots, and be more likely to be with you when you need it. If the travels are specifically to take photos, I'll keep my DSLR, thanks - there's still a lot, when it comes to low light, depth of field control, extreme angles, sharpness and focus speed that I can do with my DSLR that no compact on the market can match - even the ones with big sensors.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>The whole mirrorless and EV growth market demonstrates that camera manufacturers can produce compact wide angel and zoom AF lenses. The stats show that this segment is slicing into the lower priced DSLR market share big time.</em></p>

<p>I disagree. Currently mirrorless cameras are declining their share and DSLR is increasing its share of the interchangeable lens camera market. And while for mirroless cameras the manufacturers are able to make compact wide angles, most of these cameras don't have a real-time viewfinder (Fuji an Leica are exceptions) and those that do, it won't work well with long lenses. Still there is no technology for AF tracking moving targets that works as well as tracking with a DSLR and fast tele. So the mirrorless cameras are specialized cameras great for certain applications but not all.</p>

<p><em>Nikon's G lenses are a lazy design and could have been made much smaller if they really wanted to. </em></p>

<p>If they drop the mirror out of the camera, and change the lens mount, then yes, in some cases the lenses could be made smaller, but it's not about designers being lazy. The increasing size of the lenses for DSLRs that has taken in the past 10 years or so is due to 1) the requirement for vastly improved image quality due to cameras reaching 24 and 36MP, 2) the fact that digital sensors require light to arrive to the sensor nearly perpendicularly, 3) features such as fast autofocus and vibration reduction make lenses more complex and a bit larger as well.</p>

<p><em>For a tourist wandering around with something like an FX body with a 70-210 is just saying (rob me or, look at me, I'm pretending to be a real pro!).</em></p>

<p>Well, if the tourist wants to get certain kinds of pictures, a telezoom with FX camera might just be it. Nikon just made a new 70-200/4 which is more compact and similar in compactness and size to telezooms of old, just much better image quality and feature set.</p>

<p>T<em>hese bodies and lenses were not designed for the casual or amateur photographer. In a lot of countries, if you arrive at immigration they will look at your gear and say: "Oh, he's coming to do paid photographic work". Its happened to a friend of mine entering the USA.</em></p>

<em> </em>

<p>Though I usually use primes when I travel in cities, my ambition on the results is rarely greater than when I'm traveling abroad. Thus of course I would use the best gear I can take with me. It is very rare to get a comment on my gear especially when I'm abroad. As for what the gear is designed to do, it is designed to be effective in producing high quality images with flexibility. Why would an amateur not want that? Another thing completely is the situation when you're traveling with family and small children; then I would agree that heavy camera gear is probably going to cause more problems than it solves.</p>

<p><em>I know this is not making a positive contribution, but the fact is, you don't need a big load of DSLR kit to generate great images. </em></p>

<p>To some extent you're correct, though that depends a lot on what kind of circumstances you're shooting in, and what your subject matter is. I bet the Guardian doesn't make the majority of its sports or wildlife images with the lens that comes integrated in the iPhone. Neither would the best images of a candlelit wedding in India or concert at night be best photographed using a camera phone. Try it, you'll see.</p>

<p><em>Nokia has released a smartphone that has a photo sensor with 41MP.</em></p>

<p>Sure, but (the lens on) that camera makes the phone too thick so they haven't included it in newer models. That's the end of that story basically. No camera phone so far has included the most basic camera feature that many people want, which is an optical zoom (let alone interchangeable lenses). This means the applications are limited to certain types of subjects.</p>

<p>Large number of submitted images doesn't mean most of the images are good. They're submitted because almost everyone carries a phone with them and it is so easy to send the image. A lot of readers are appalled at the quality of these reader's images in newspapers and web sites. It's a part of the death spiral of the printed daily media. Almost no one is willing to pay for online content, and beacuse of the free online content, fewer people read daily newspapers in print. Magazines with more thought out content are a different matter entirely.</p>

<p><em>I see a major adjustment in the market and it will force the price of prosumer FX DSLR's down considerably. </em></p>

<p>You wrote an elaborate post with many points to support the claim that an FX DSLR isn't needed. That would <em>increase </em>the prices of such cameras, not decrease them, since the number of units would be decreasing since it's unnecessary according to you. In reality mirrorless is flopping a bit, as people realize the limitations of these little cameras, and DSLRs continue to soar. Yes, the price of entry level FX cameras will gradually decline, in inflation corrected currency, as the production cost of the sensor decreases, but this is a process that takes many years, decades even. </p>

<p><em>Now my recommendation for the OP: Leave your big kit at home and take a good quality compact camera on your travels.</em></p>

<p>My recommendation to the OP is if you care about your pictures, you use the best equipment available to you to make the images.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>I usually walk urban areas now. Small and light is what does it for me. Absolutely love the little 28-70 3-5 4-5. Well made for a plastic lens, Ok medium speed and not a lot bigger than a prime. Wide enough for senics and 70 4.5 does ok portraits. A cheap sleeper when it comes to optics as well. Does most anything "I" need outside. Also carry a 50 1.8. Use it for low light and DOF situations. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>No camera phone so far has included the most basic camera feature that many people want, which is an optical zoom</blockquote>

 

<p>Thank you for the vaguely justified reason to do some advertising for my employer: The Samsung Galaxy S4 Zoom has just been announced. I've not seen one, but I would expect it to have the same "a bit thick for a phone" problem as an 808. (As far as I know you could run Skype or something on a Galaxy NX, but it's not a "phone" by default. And it's a little chubby. But I've not seen one of those either.)<br />

<br />

I think I remember someone (Sony?) doing a clamshell phone some years back with a zoom lens in it, oriented along the hinge. Of course, part of the reason for the resolution in the 808 is supposed to be as a substitute for an optical zoom.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Re. wandering around as a tourist with a camera, I'd neglected to repeat how fond I was of the 28-200 f/3.5-5.6G. It's small, light and plastic, and mine is silver, which a) made it sun proof, and b) made the whole camera look cheap (in the "don't steal me" sense); this is the lens that had a shop owner thinking that I'd gone cheap lens/expensive camera, and made him try to push a mk1 24-120 on me (along with a 20 f/1.8). Fortunately, I go off reviews rather than price tags, though I possibly ought to get a "my other lens is a 200 f/2" sticker for it. Stopped down a bit, it was perfectly capable of doing my D700 justice, and I tended to leave it on the camera as a body cap for whenever "good enough" would do. And the extra 135mm on the long end is pretty useful if you've just spotted something interesting while wandering about. Shame it doesn't really hold up to the D800. Even if the 28-300 was miraculous, the extra size and weight stops it performing the same function. Maybe I should stick to my D700 when being a tourist... (I'd get more raw files on my memory cards that way, too.)</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I travel with my 70-200 f/2.8, and I use the 24-70 with the hood attached. Why wouldn't I want to enjoy the flexibility and optical quality that these lenses offer? If a thief grabs one, he'll be too weighed down to run away. I'll be able to track his lumbering body as I casually call for police backup. What's a pickpocket going to do with a f/2.8 lens? Slip it into his own pocket? Not likely.</p>

<p>The white(!) Canon 70-200 f/4 gets more attention. I never did understand Canon's telephoto lens color scheme. It's impossible to be discreet with a white lens. People don't pay much attention to Nikon's "Black Beauties" (f/2.8 lenses), even though they tend to be hulking masses of metal and glass.</p>

[pete_s.]

I think the quote of Ken Rockwell is taken out of context. He's talking about pros. That's why he mentions shooting with two cameras.

 

 

There are obviously different areas of photography but if we would for instance say photojournalists I believe Ken is correct. Two pro bodies with a f/2.8 wide zoom on one and a f/2.8 tele zoom on the other IS the basic kit. With that setup you are ready to shoot a lot of assignments. For some things like sports you'd have to complement the kit with specialized lenses like the 400mm f/2.8.

 

 

And with two cameras slung over your shoulder you don't need a midrange zoom because the wide is probably 35mm at the long end and the tele starts at 70mm. By just moving around or composing differently you can overcome the need for the 50mm focal length.

 

 

A classic photojournalist combo before the advent of zooms was a 35mm on one camera and an 85mm on the other.

 

 

Most hobbyists don't shoot two bodies at the same time so a midrange zoom makes more sense for that kind of use.

[dan_south]

<p>I've shot events with three bodies (though more typically two) around my neck. One of them, usually my best body, has a midrange zoom attached at all times. The lion's share of my photos come from a midrange zoom and a short tele. Ultra wide only occasionally.</p>

<p>Sports are more telephoto-intensive due to the distances involved. That said, Dave Black uses his 24-70 quite a bit, and he's a big sports guy - Olympics, Super Bowl, horse racing, gymnastics, etc. When he gets close to his subjects, the 24-70 sees a lot of action.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>If a thief grabs one, he'll be too weighed down to run away. I'll be able to track his lumbering body as I casually call for police backup. What's a pickpocket going to do with a f/2.8 lens? Slip it into his own pocket? Not likely.</blockquote>

 

<p>Indeed. I feel assured by the same philosophy if someone tries to make off with my camera bag. "Yes officer, I saw him, it was the one with a hernia."</p>

 

<blockquote>The white(!) Canon 70-200 f/4 gets more attention. I never did understand Canon's telephoto lens color scheme. It's impossible to be discreet with a white lens. People don't pay much attention to Nikon's "Black Beauties" (f/2.8 lenses), even though they tend to be hulking masses of metal and glass.</blockquote>

 

<p>People associate Canon's white glass with the L series. Some of the early lenses (allegedly) had to be white because the fluorite cracked if it got too hot - I've had some black lenses get toasty in the sun, and can believe it. Since Nikon don't use fluorite, they can make black lenses (though exactly why that means they have some silver and grey ones I don't know). With more recent updates, I suspect Canon could go black if they wanted to, but it's now a branding thing - and Nikon may not want to go white because people associate big blag telephotos with Nikkors. Which is ironic, because white doesn't mean L - <i>red</i> (or occasionally green) means L. People know that "L" means "the best" (...lens that Canon makes with that exact specification) and aspire to it; this probably outweighs the risk of theft. Gold ring (which may or may not mean ED) aside, Nikon don't have the same distinction in their product line - they <i>used to</i>, but releasing the "E" series of not-Nikkors had a counterproductive effect on their desirability. Tip for the future: release the cheap lenses first!<br />

<br />

Anyway, there's a convenient after-market in covering white lenses with things that won't spook the wildlife, but in my experience it's silver lenses that look cheap, not black ones. (Unless they're a 500 f/4 Sony, anyway.) It's true that big white glass is a bit attention-grabbing, but the smallest lens with the white coating is, I think, the 70-200 f/4 (though the new 70-300 L may be slightly smaller). All the mid-range stuff is black. Frankly, I'm never sure how subtle I'm being with a 200 f/2 or a 150-500 - I balance "oh my God that's a big lens" against "far enough away that people don't notice I'm pointing it at them". If I want to be subtle, I'll get a Rolleiflex. (And if they weren't so damned expensive, I'd have done so.)</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I think the quote of Ken Rockwell is taken out of context. He's talking about pros. That's why he mentions shooting with two cameras. --Pete S.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The quote does come from a page titled "Nikon Pro Normal Zooms: Analysis." I had gone to that page while reading what he had to say about the 28-70mm f/2.8.</p>

<p>That said, I have often carried two bodies and two large lenses before, even though I am no pro.</p>

<p>I wound up buying the 28-70mm f/2.8, as it turns out. It is not the 24-70 that I wanted, but it was a lot less expensive. My wide zoom is the 17-35mm f/2.8, and my tele zoom is the old 80-200 f/2.8 ED (two-ring version). Every zoom purchase was a compromise, but those compromises have kept me in the game to this point in spite of some hard times.</p>

<p>Thanks for everyone's input. I have read every single comment and found them very helpful.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Indeed. I feel assured by the same philosophy if someone tries to make off with my camera bag. "Yes officer, I saw him, it was the one with a hernia."</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

The heavier, the better!</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>Large number of submitted images doesn't mean most of the images are good.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This, absolutely - it's like arguing that Facebook is <em>the</em> photography site because of the millions upon millions of banal, pointless, worthless smartphoned "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfie">selfies</a>" that festoon it.</p>

<p>Quantity does not equal, imply or in any other sense suggest, quality. A smartphone will (and did) get you <a href="http://www.techi.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Gaddafi.jpg">this</a> but it won't get you <a href="http://www.freelancebrisbanephotographer.com.au/images/events/photography/%7B4F4A38FB-16A0-408C-B105-59.jpg">this</a> or <a href="http://www.scottholsteinphoto.com/data/photos/78_1Photojournalism_Sports_Action_Airborne_BMX_Tallahassee.jpg">this</a> or <a href="http://www.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20091229&t=2&i=38231892&w=700&r=2009-12-29T163515Z_35_GM1DTNAMLCAA_RTRRPP_0_SPORT-NCAA">this</a> or <a href="http://www.unincorporatedmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/M7D8966-copy.jpg">this</a> - today, at least.</p>

<p>Tomorrow, or in ten years time, maybe we will all be successfully shooting sport and wildlife on glorified smartphones (and if it happens, <em>bring it on</em>); but as of right now, <a href="http://www.americanphotomag.com/photo-gallery/2013/03/iphoneonly?page=7">smartphone photojournalism</a> has speed an ubiquity to recommend it (the "straight from smartphone to Twitter" model) which are good things for capturing breaking events, but it's absolutely <em>not</em> about quality (not a single image in that piece does a thing for me, <em>photographically</em>) - and that's precisely how and why it works.</p>

<p>But then again, photojournalism in general isn't <em>about "</em>quality" (going right back to Capa and beyond - quite rightly nobody would adversely evaluate his work from an aesthetic, or a technical, or an image quality perspective, even though in truth they're not - nor need they be - great images in a purely technical photographic sense) - but that's exactly why smartphones are such a threat to its <em>Status quo</em>.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>A LOT of pro shooters use the 24-70. Incredibly useful. </p>

[nico_morris]

<p>It feels odd to me that the makers are obsessed with standard zooms with little f5.6 apertures and then slap on stabilisation as if that will help. On crop sensors the consumers are going to get bored because their shots have so much in focus whether they want it or not. But an SLR is a substantial item and a big constant f2.8 doesn't really agree with me for leisure walk-arounds, so I use compromises like an f2.8-4 which are broadly satisfactory.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I travel with my 70-200 f/2.8, and I use the 24-70 with the hood attached. Why wouldn't I want to enjoy the flexibility and optical quality that these lenses offer? If a thief grabs one, he'll be too weighed down to run away. I'll be able to track his lumbering body as I casually call for police <a id="_GPLITA_0" title="Click to Continue > by Browse to Save" href="/nikon-camera-forum/00bl5e?start=40">backup</a>. What's a pickpocket going to do with a f/2.8 lens? Slip it into his own pocket? Not likely.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's great--if you're "traveling" to Disneyland. But in countries where your camera and lenses represent more than what the average person earns in a year, some subtlety is called for. when i'm traveling, i try not to call attention to myself or my gear. I also make an attempt not to be overly "American" in my attitude towards locals. A little humility goes a long way.</p>