# fast glass



## Mitch1640 (Mar 22, 2009)

honestly how often do you owners of the 70-200 f2.8 actually use it wide open? or other fast glass, im just using the 70-200 as an example.  people always talk about how important fast glass is, but i rarely hear of people using them wide open, we all know it isnt sharpest there anyways. 

i just sort of feel that fast glass is a little over emphasized.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 22, 2009)

Are you talking about the Canon or the Nikon 70-200?  

I have the Nikon version of the 70-200 and if I do not use it wide open, it is very close to wide open.  About the only time it is not at F/2.8 is when doing portrait photography and I have 600 W/s of Profoto lights blasting the subject.  Then it is up around F/11-F/16 @ 1/250th.


----------



## tsaraleksi (Mar 22, 2009)

I shoot with my 2.8 lenses wide open a lot of the time, really any time that I'm in bad light. Unless I particularly need a lot of depth (groups or something) I will go ahead and open the lenses up, because on the Canon Ls (and their counterpart Nikons) the quality wide-open is usually really good, to the point that I'd rather do that than up the ISO.

Like Jerry the main time that I stop way down with the 70-200 is when doing portraits. I'm much more likely to stop down a shorter lens, actually.


----------



## rufus5150 (Mar 22, 2009)

By and large, an f/2.8 lens will look sharper at f/4 than an f/4 lens. That, to me at least, is my primary motivation going fast, but it's nice to have the option to shoot wide open (frankly, the bokeh at my 50mm at f/1.4-1.8 is silky, silky smooth).


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 22, 2009)

rufus5150 said:


> By and large, an f/2.8 lens will look sharper at f/4 than an f/4 lens. That, to me at least, is my primary motivation going fast



I would have to agree.  All lenses that I know of are not at their sharpest at the widest aperture.  Stop down 1-2 stops and big things start to happen in the sharpness department.



rufus5150 said:


> but it's nice to have the option to shoot wide open (frankly, the bokeh at my 50mm at f/1.4-1.8 is silky, silky smooth).



For sure... but I like the bokeh of fast glass that is above 50mm.  Way nicer bokeh at 200mm and F/2.8.  Compared to 50mm F/1.4 which would still fall under the cream machine of all lenses, the 85mm F/1.4 (not counting a Nottelux F/1.0... lol).

The first time I played with my 70-200 it was at F/4 and "creamier" than when compared to the F/1.8 of the 50mm.  That is to be expected, though as that is how bokeh works.

A couple examples...

F/4 @ 95mm on the 70-200 lens:






50mm @ F/1.8 on the 50mm Nikon "plastic fantastic":





85mm @ F/1.4 on the 85mm Nikkor "cream machine":


----------



## Montana (Mar 22, 2009)

Fast glass also has "side benefits".  Like a brighter viewfinder and depending on the body/lens, faster autofocus abilities.


----------



## Phranquey (Mar 22, 2009)

I shoot with mine wide open quite often. And, Montana is correct...the f/2.8's are usually the top end pieces of glass, which also yields better build quality, the better AF systems, better clarity glass, best glass coatings, etc.

As far as "over emphasized", if you mean over rated, then no, they are not.  They may be a little over priced, but the producers are going to make you pay for the best.


----------



## elemental (Mar 22, 2009)

Another "side benefit" is often better build quality, which can (apparently) make a big difference when you're using it day in and day out on critical projects.

I use every lens I have wide open at least some of the time (though I don't have a 70-200 f/2.8, since I rarely shoot longer than 50mm).


----------



## Overread (Mar 23, 2009)

Also fast glass will generally take a teleconverter well also - my 70-200mm f2.8 gets used with a 1.4 teleconverter on a regular basis (And is then only an f4 lens). Even with a 2* teleconverter its only an f5.6 lens - still very usable (in good lighting when stopped down to f8 )

My macro lenses are hardly ever used wide open and are often stopped down to f13 or smaller-  but the f2.8 view through the viewfinder is most certainly needed on those lense to compose and focus shots - if you were to get smaller the view would be so dark as to be impossible to use (or at least requireing a bright external light source to facilitate focusing


----------



## Battou (Mar 23, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> I would have to agree.  All lenses that I know of are not at their sharpest at the widest aperture.  Stop down 1-2 stops and big things start to happen in the sharpness department.



There is the bulk of the emphasis to fast lenses. If you are toating around a 70-200 2.8L wile your buddy is toating around a 200mm 4.0L and you both take a shot at F/4 the difference in outcome is obvious. Wile you are shooting at the same aperture at the same shutter speed, you have your lens stopped down a touch wile your buddy is shooting wide open.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 23, 2009)

Battou said:


> Wile you are shooting at the same aperture at the same shutter speed, you have your lens stopped down a touch wile your buddy is shooting wide open.



That is another way of saying exactly the same thing.


----------



## Battou (Mar 23, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> That is another way of saying exactly the same thing.



That was the point. 

I was not calling you out, just reiterating what you said before people go into a bokeh tangent because it was the reply the OP sought.


----------



## usayit (Mar 23, 2009)

All the points above are true...  Faster aperture glass is an advantage and exceptions; I much prefer my "slower" 24-105 f/4L over my Tamron 35-105 f/2.8 in all points except max aperture.  

One main disadvantage that hasn't been mentioned is the increase weight and size of faster glass.


----------



## Battou (Mar 23, 2009)

usayit said:


> One main disadvantage that hasn't been mentioned is the increase weight and size of faster glass.



Good point, I had not even thought of that point. Ironically I happen to have a decent example image. It's not perfect but....

Below are two Canon 50mm lenses of the same vintage, one a 1.8 the other a 1.4.





That is just a 1.8 and 1.4, just imagine the difference between a 2.8 and a 4.0 70-200.


----------



## Phranquey (Mar 23, 2009)

usayit said:


> One main disadvantage that hasn't been mentioned is the increase weight and size of faster glass.


 
I don't see this as a disadvantage.  When on a tripod, any vibrations tend to settle out faster.  Yes, when hand-held, larger glass can fatigue the arms faster, but after some practice, you learn they are less susceptable to "jitters" due to their greater mass.


----------



## Overread (Mar 23, 2009)

true to a point - weight is noticable and can cause problems. Its a reason why many people avoid the heavier 180mm macro lenses and favour the shorter ones because they are easier to handhold - and after what I just spent the last 20 mins or so doing (chasing a bee/wasp/fly thing up a window) I am very glad that my 70mm macro is so much lighter than my 150mm macro!


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 23, 2009)

usayit said:


> One main disadvantage that hasn't been mentioned is the increase weight and size of faster glass.


 
Though very true, it is a small price to pay for the ability to get the shot that a slower lens could not ever get you.  The first time I used the 70-200 at a concert, I learned fast all the ways one could hold the camera when not shooting to minimize the effect of it's weight on the arms and neck... but had I not, I would have had both a sore neck and arms becuase of it.  But as an example, at that same concert, I generated hundreds of keepers whereas the guy beside me with the 70-300 F/5.6 generated about 4 keepers out of 3 times more pictures than I took overall (I took about 500 shots, he told me he had about 1500, and he sure sounded like he took 1500 shots!).


----------



## 250Gimp (Mar 23, 2009)

Everyone has different reasons for having the speed of glass they have, but in my opinion you buy fast glass so that if you need it you have it for that once in a life time shot!  The fact that you may not use the max aperature all the time is not really a factor.  Even your f4 or f5.6 lenses still need to be stopped down further to get their sweet spot.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 23, 2009)

Phranquey said:


> I don't see this as a disadvantage.


 
Try holding a Nikon D700 and Nikkor 70-200 for a 4 hour concert, man you'd better be a gym person, becuase that left arm is going to shake, burn and get cramps and do all kinds of wierd things on you by the 3rd hour... lol


----------



## Seefutlung (Mar 23, 2009)

Back to the OP, I shoot all my lenses wide open ... a significant amount of the time because I seem to always be shooting in low light conditions ... or I'm shoot action an require a higher shutter speed or both. As a secondary reason, I like the isolation shooting 2.8 @ 200mm (lack of DOF). 

I have a 20MM f/1.8 which I shoot wide open just for the DOF.


200mm @ F/2.8


----------



## Chairman7w (Mar 23, 2009)

Gah!!!!  WTH???!!!




Seefutlung said:


>


----------



## photogincollege (Mar 23, 2009)

> Gah!!!!  WTH???!!!


It's called a different culture XD.  Though I have no problem with piercings and tattoos on a woman.


----------



## Seefutlung (Mar 23, 2009)

photogincollege said:


> It's called a different culture XD. Though I have no problem with piercings and tattoos on a woman.


 
LOL ... I wouldn't have shot her had she looked like she your average Sacramento WalMart patron.

Gary


----------



## CrimsonFoxPhotography (Mar 24, 2009)

<As far as "over emphasized", if you mean over rated, then no, they are not. They may be a little over priced, but the producers are going to make you pay for the best.>

I don't think that's the point.  One thing that I take from the OP and what I've noticed is that the first thing people often recommend in low light situations is fast glass.  But even in low light situations, you have to be mindful of shooting wide open given the narrow depth of field.  f1.8 if fine for still life and macro, but does you no good if you're doing a fairly active event on the fly (e.g., people moving about, group shots, etc.).  Not that one couldn't make do, just that you'd have to be prudent and creative about your approach, not simply "Oh, you've got an f1.8 so you should be golden."

So to rephrase what I heard [right or wrong] when I read the OP, "What good's having fast glass in low light if you're not going to be using it at fast apertures anyway?"


----------



## Overread (Mar 24, 2009)

Remember that fast glass lets in its full amount of light until you press the shutter button and the aperture blades close (if your not shooting wide open of course) and that means more lights gets in to help the AF and also more light for manual focusing if the AF is not working well. That (in dim conditions) is very important since you will often be shooting with a small depth of field (even if your not shooting wide open) so you have to make sure your focus is at the right spot or else the shot is a waste

ps f1.8 for macro is definitly not a good aperture to use - macro is the other end of the scale - f13 area. f1.8 is usable but your depth of field is going to be so thin that it would take some seriously good positioning to make best use of it.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 24, 2009)

Seefutlung said:


> LOL ... I wouldn't have shot her had she looked like she your average Sacramento WalMart patron.


 
ROFL! 
Usually they are "adorned" like this during a wedding. The piercings are real, but the tattoos are not permanent. They fade after a couple of weeks or months depending on the method used.

As far as the "other culture" comment, I've seen Americans and Canadians with real full face tattoos and piercings that would put her to shame.  I bet they also shop at Walmart too... LOL


----------



## GeneralBenson (Mar 24, 2009)

I think it's just important to have a god understanding of what YOU need.  Not what other people need.  I have 2.8 lenses, and I currently find myself wanted a f/4 lens.  Because it fits a need I have.  I do a lot of outdoor sports photography, (hiking, rock climbing, and all that stuff) and I find the f/2.8 lenses to be too heavy, big and not enough range for what I want.  Pentax makes a 17-70 F/4 (28-105 equivelent) that would be perfect.  Wide enough for landscapes, long enough for getting in on people, fast enough, and much smaller and lighter than my 16-50 f/2.8.  Besides, outdoors, I'm usually shooting at f/5.6-f/11 anyways.  So it's all about appropriate for you.  They're absolutely worth it, if you need them.  But f/4 lenses have a lot of benefits.


----------



## Mystwalker (Mar 24, 2009)

Mitch1640 said:


> honestly how often do you owners of the 70-200 f2.8 actually use it wide open? or other fast glass, im just using the 70-200 as an example. people always talk about how important fast glass is, but i rarely hear of people using them wide open, we all know it isnt sharpest there anyways.
> 
> i just sort of feel that fast glass is a little over emphasized.


 
I do not use my f/2.8 IS wide open that often - most of the time I even forget to turn IS back on.  But if I had bought the slower f/4.0, I will not be able to go faster or have IS when I do need it.  Negative of f/2.8 IS is that it's HEAVY and costs ~$1000 more then the f/4.0 non-IS.

For me, it's about getting the "best" that I can afford without having regret in future - or worse, having to sell and upgrade.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 24, 2009)

I was looking back at some of my flickr photostream... I would say a full 50% are at F/4 or wider.

I even have several shots at 1/8000th and F/2.8 and F/1.4 and I am liking those the best!  There is something about isolating your subjects, even in bright sunlight that just makes that photo pop.

As far as low light situations, wide apertures and shallow DOF... yes, the wider the aperture, the shallower the DOF, however, those that understand bokeh and how it works know how to still use wide apertures and get some VERY decent DOF in their pics.

There are pics I can show you that the background is severely blurred at F/7.1 and pictures at F/1.4 that have a GREAT depth of field.  Knowledge is power.


----------



## Mitch1640 (Mar 24, 2009)

Overread said:


> Remember that fast glass lets in its full amount of light until you press the shutter button and the aperture blades close (if your not shooting wide open of course) and that means more lights gets in to help the AF and also more light for manual focusing if the AF is not working well.




this is an aspect i did not think of/realize. and seems to be quite important.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 24, 2009)

When I was just a yonker helping my grandad with some cattle on a hot July day I noticed that he had on a long sleeve, and realized he wore a long sleeve shirt every day.  I asked him about wearing long sleeves on a hot July Kansas day and the simplicity and truth of his statement was not lost.  

"Boy" he said, "I can always roll these sleeves up and make a short sleeve shirt, but there's nothing you can do with them short sleeves of yours but wear em."

I can make a f1.4 lens a f4 with a quick change of aperture.   I can't make an f4 lens an f1.4 no matter how hard I try.


----------



## TimothyHughes (Mar 25, 2009)

Mitch1640 said:


> people always talk about how important fast glass is, but i rarely hear of people using them wide open, we all know it isnt sharpest there anyways.



For low light shoots like bands in a nightclub, or twilight cityscapes-fast glass is extremely important. I love my 35, 50 and 85mm primes!


----------



## usayit (Mar 25, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> I can make a f1.4 lens a f4 with a quick change of aperture.   I can't make an f4 lens an f1.4 no matter how hard I try.



Oh yes.. but you can't really have a full discussion without first deciding zooms or primes.  Just like an f/4 lens will never open up to f/1.4, a fast zoom doesn't handle like a nice compact zoom nor the fast f/1-1.4 aperture found in primes. 

The way I see it... (and how it fits my shooting habits) fast zooms are practically a waste of money.  They typically are heavy, not compact, and often limited in focal range.  This all negates the advantages of the convenience of a range of focal lengths.  What do you get out of it?.. a max aperture for f/2.8 which in my mind is not good enough.  

If you need speed, get primes with f/1.8 or faster max aperture and excellent IQ.

If you need flexibility, get a high quality zoom focused on wonderful handling and good IQ.

I just find fast zooms a compromise not worth taking...  Timothy above my post figured out the same.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 25, 2009)

> usayit;1567985]Oh yes.. but you can't really have a full discussion without first deciding zooms or primes.  Just like an f/4 lens will never open up to f/1.4, a fast zoom doesn't handle like a nice compact zoom nor the fast f/1-1.4 aperture found in primes.


Sure you can.  My whole premise was simple.  Right tool for the right job.

 I've owned both the 70-200 f4 and the 70-200 f2.8.  They handle the same.  Zoom speed was free, easy, and quick.  Manual focus was smooth, easy, & quick.  Weight wise we are are talking about the difference between 1.55 lbs and 2.8 lbs. A whopping 1.2 lbs difference.  

I carry the 70-200 f2.8 for 8-12 hours at a time along with a 400 f2.8.  Right tools for the job and the 1.2 lb difference is not even noticeable.  But then I come from the days when cameras were steel, motor drives were steel and lenses were metal and glass and weights were heavier.  In terms of weight were not talking about the difference between a Yugo and an oil tanker here.

Scissors are easier to handle than a lawn mower.  But I still choose to push a lawn mower to cut my grass.  Right tool-right job.  For some reason I have never convinced my wife to use the lawnmower to cut out a dress pattern though. Go figure. :lmao:



> The way I see it... (and how it fits my shooting habits) fast zooms are practically a waste of money.  They typically are heavy, not compact, and often limited in focal range.  This all negates the advantages of the convenience of a range of focal lengths.  What do you get out of it?.. a max aperture for f/2.8 which in my mind is not good enough.


Thank-you for supporting my premise, right tool for the right job.  That is the right tool for you. 



> If you need speed, get primes with f/1.8 or faster max aperture and excellent IQ.
> 
> If you need flexibility, get a *high quality zoom* focused on wonderful handling and good IQ.
> 
> I just find fast zooms a compromise not worth taking...  Timothy above my post figured out the same.


Speed and flexibility can call for fast zooms.  Nothing handles better than the right tool for the right job. 

As for Timothy I think that he too has the concept.  Right tool for the right job.  I'm not much of a concert shooter, but the two or three that I have done were all done with fast primes.  R.T.- R.J. 

The OP was wondering if people really use fast glass wide open.  When the need calls for it I do.  When it doesn't, I don't.  But I have the ability to do so when needed.  :mrgreen:


----------



## dxqcanada (Mar 25, 2009)

I have lenses ranging from f/1.7 to f/5.6 ... I shoot primarily wildlife.

When lighting conditions are good I will not shoot wide open.

When lighting conditions are poor I will shoot wide open. Even though the image quality will suffer, it is better than getting a shot with camera shake or subject motion blur.

Even on an sunny day, shooting in a forest cuts a lot of light. Handholding a 300mm or 400mm lens of moving subjects in the woods is not a thing for f/5.6 or higher.

... and I always shoot with nature light.


----------



## zemlin (Mar 25, 2009)

I have a Nikon 80-200.  Even if I'm not shooting wide open, it focuses wicked fast and rarely misses.  I've done a few stage shows though, and the 2.8 made it all worthwhile.


----------



## usayit (Mar 25, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Sure you can.  My whole premise was simple.  Right tool for the right job.



Yup...  btw... I wasn't arguing with yah... sorry.



> I've owned both the 70-200 f4 and the 70-200 f2.8.  They handle the same.  Zoom speed was free, easy, and quick.  Manual focus was smooth, easy, & quick.  Weight wise we are are talking about the difference between 1.55 lbs and 2.8 lbs. A whopping 1.2 lbs difference.



I found them to handle very differently.  The f/2.8 version is practically twice the size and weight.  A long time spent behind the f/2.8 required me to leverage a monopod while I could steady the f/4 lens all day long.  I have no problems dangling the 70-200 f/4 from my neck attached to a backup body while 70-200 f/2.8 slows me down.  When I'm planning to spend the next several weeks on foot, 1.2 lbs is a VERY big deal.  We are talking days not hours.  For the same weight, I could pack a 100-400L AND 50mm f/1.4 and still have more focal range and faster glass for low light.  



> Thank-you for supporting my premise, right tool for the right job.  That is the right tool for you.



That's exactly my point (in agreement).  Different needs different tools.  If low light is what I am shooting for, forget f/2.8.... f/1.8 and faster is ideal.  1.2lbs heavier and the larger size might not seem much to you BUT you are only getting 1 more stop.  My primes which consisted of a 24L 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, and 135L 1.4, provide a faster aperture and just slightly heavier than just the single 70-200mmL f/2.8 IS zoom.

As said before, fast glass IS not overrated but it is not the end all answer for everyone.  There is only 1 lens I own that is consistently shot at wide open...


----------



## table1349 (Mar 26, 2009)

> usayit;1568352]Yup...  btw... I wasn't arguing with yah... sorry.



No need to be sorry.  I didn't see it as an argument and if we can't express opinions around here then we might as well shut this forum down.   Besides we all shoot differently depending on what it is we shoot and what we are trying to accomplish. 



> I found them to handle very differently.  The f/2.8 version is practically twice the size and weight.  A long time spent behind the f/2.8 required me to leverage a monopod while I could steady the f/4 lens all day long.  I have no problems dangling the 70-200 f/4 from my neck attached to a backup body while 70-200 f/2.8 slows me down.  When I'm planning to spend the next several weeks on foot, 1.2 lbs is a VERY big deal.  We are talking days not hours.  For the same weight, I could pack a 100-400L AND 50mm f/1.4 and still have more focal range and faster glass for low light.



This is where our view of handling differs.  I look at the mechanics and found them the same.  The weight is not much of a factor to me.  After shooting F2's with motor drives, bulk backs and heavier glass then either of these two lenses, the stuff these days is so much lighter that I don't notice it.  



> That's exactly my point (in agreement).  Different needs different tools.  If low light is what I am shooting for, forget f/2.8.... f/1.8 and faster is ideal.  1.2lbs heavier and the larger size might not seem much to you BUT you are only getting 1 more stop.  My primes which consisted of a 24L 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, and 135L 1.4, provide a faster aperture and just slightly heavier than just the single 70-200mmL f/2.8 IS zoom.



True, but you can't reach 100 - 200mm at f2.8 if you needed it.  My low light needs come in the form of lots of sports and nature, often in low light as well.



> As said before, fast glass IS not overrated but it is not the end all answer for everyone.  There is only 1 lens I own that is consistently shot at wide open...



The one real advantage I see for fast glass, especially fast zoom glass is that fast glass usually means top quality glass.  This usually means better performance wide open over consumer grade glass when wide open is necessary.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 26, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> The one real advantage I see for fast glass, especially fast zoom glass is that fast glass usually means top quality glass.  This usually means better performance wide open over consumer grade glass when wide open is necessary.



There is one more advantage... that fast glass is almost always going to give you better results at the same apertures than that slower lens, even if at the same apertures that both can reach.

At F/4 a lens that does F/2.8 is a lot closer to it's sweet spot than a lens that is wide open at F/4.


----------



## astrostu (Mar 26, 2009)

Just had an experience last night where I needed my f/1.4.  I have two lenses with me on this trip, and I was trying to photograph the orchids this hotel has in the lobby.  Low lighting, indoors.  My f/4.5 telephoto zoom was just worthless ... I was under-exposed at 1/15th sec and ISO400.  My f/1.4 was STILL underexposed at 1/30th sec and ISO200, but I may be able to pull something out of it rather than a blurry mass.  And yes, I tried flash, but the on-camera flash (didn't bring anything else) resulted in highlight saturation and just unnatural-looking flowers.


----------



## bhop (Mar 26, 2009)

I shoot wide open all the time.  I like shallow dof.



JerryPH said:


> Try holding a Nikon D700 and Nikkor 70-200 for a 4 hour concert, man you'd better be a gym person, becuase that left arm is going to shake, burn and get cramps and do all kinds of wierd things on you by the 3rd hour... lol



I gotta agree, but I use a D200+grip and Sigma 70-200.  After shooting a car show a couple weeks ago, my shoulder was getting sore..


----------



## Phranquey (Mar 26, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Try holding a Nikon D700 and Nikkor 70-200 for a 4 hour concert, man you'd better be a gym person, becuase that left arm is going to shake, burn and get cramps and do all kinds of wierd things on you by the 3rd hour... lol


 


bhop said:


> I gotta agree, but I use a D200+grip and Sigma 70-200. After shooting a car show a couple weeks ago, my shoulder was getting sore..


 
I won't argue with that, but I do have one slight edge in that area....I shot competition rifle for 10+ years. The same muscle groups and breathing rhythms translate great to handheld photography. But, shooting & panning for a full weekend at a racetrack will still kill the shoulders/arms (D2Xs & 70-200).


----------



## table1349 (Mar 26, 2009)

Ok, I just have to toss this out after hearing the weight issues being mentioned.  I am in my mid 50's (That's all ya need to know :lmao and have been shooting since I was 16.  Dudes, the old guy here is telling ya, you all got to get out of the studio and to the gym once in a while.     :lmao:

This is what I was using years ago.  

http://www.netaxs.com/~cassidy/images/equipment/f2/pic00200.jpg

With the bulk back on the front body. Notice the MD underneath. 
http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf2/motordrives/images/bulkfim750250.jpg
(I would have loved to have had the rear bulk back.  That thing is awesome.)
With one of these old beasts on it. 
http://www.destoutz.ch/slides/lens_200mm_f4_598528.jpg

Now granted, I was younger then.  But the weight of that setup compared to today is not even in the same ball park.  I do believe I hear Gold's gym calling or at least Nordic Trac.   


And no, I don't have a photograph of Henry Ford with his first horseless carriage.  (con sarn, smart alecky, young whipersnappers. ldman

The previous message was brought to you just for fun.  :mrgreen::lmao:


----------



## Phranquey (Mar 26, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Ok, I just have to toss this out after hearing the weight issues being mentioned. I am in my mid 50's (That's all ya need to know :lmao and have been shooting since I was 16. Dudes, the old guy here is telling ya, you all got to get out of the studio and to the gym once in a while.     :lmao:


 
Hey, I ain't that young, ya old fart....  I'll say you've been at it about 10 years longer than me, and that's all anyone needs to know.  I used to sling around an FM2 / MD12.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 26, 2009)

Phranquey said:


> Hey, I ain't that young, ya old fart....  I'll say you've been at it about 10 years longer than me, and that's all anyone needs to know.  I used to sling around an FM2 / MD12.



Them was the days weren't they?  All metal all manual gear made to last.  Lenses you could take a tank out with.  Wooden tripods that weighed near the same as a mini cooper or at least the wheel and tire from one.  Developer and fixer fumes always frying the brain.  That was photography by golly.  

None of this mamby-pamby shrunk down.... plastic...carbon fiber...and computer stuff.  

Have you still got the FM2 and MD12?  I sold the bulk back a few years ago to a fellow that was needing one, but I still have the bodies and the MD1 & MD2.  I always wanted an MD100, but they were way out of the ball park expensive.


----------



## Phranquey (Mar 26, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Them was the days weren't they? All metal all manual gear made to last. Lenses you could take a tank out with. Wooden tripods that weighed near the same as a mini cooper or at least the wheel and tire from one. Developer and fixer fumes always frying the brain. That was photography by golly.
> 
> None of this mamby-pamby shrunk down.... plastic...carbon fiber...and computer stuff.
> 
> Have you still got the FM2 and MD12? I sold the bulk back a few years ago to a fellow that was needing one, but I still have the bodies and the MD1 & MD2. I always wanted an MD100, but they were way out of the ball park expensive.


 
I used to use a surveyors tripod...you wanna talk about something that would _stop_ a mini...

Unfortunately, I sold the FM2 setup to help upgrade to the mamby-pamby digital world.  I regret it now..that camera had personality that today's cameras don't seem to have anymore.  I will probably pick up another one in the near future.  I enjoy digital, but a lot of the older cameras seemed to have something about them....kinda like owning the old hot-rod from high school.


----------



## roadkill (Mar 27, 2009)

try a monopod


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 27, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Ok, I just have to toss this out after hearing the weight issues being mentioned.  I am in my mid 50's (That's all ya need to know :lmao and have been shooting since I was 16.  Dudes, the old guy here is telling ya, you all got to get out of the studio and to the gym once in a while. ldman:



LOL!  I'm not that far behind you, but like wine (not vinegar) I get better with age.  

One of the advantages of age is that I've learned to use my head more than my muscle and know when to use good technique for hand-holding a large mass and what positions to use so that I *don't* use any muscle when not shooting.  A nice big wide neoprene neck strap also helps.

I don't really go to gyms perse, I prefer the matt at my local local Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu school.  After something like 25 years of Kung-Fu, Karate, Hapkido and Aikido (man that stuff is all hard on the joints!), the last 6 years of BJJ are a refreshing change and I would say challenge the mind as much as the body in a fasion that no gym can match.  I'm looking to add 1 lesson a week of Krav Maga for some added giggles.

All that to say that being in shape enough to hold a heavy camera for extended times is not really an issue for me unless I get lazy and start using bad technique.

Phranquey, proper rifle shooting technique is a perfect match to using a camera shake free... my friend was a sniper for the Canadian Armed Forces and taught me a ton of things that helped me extend my shutter times without blur.  I know where you are coming from!


----------



## Moglex (Mar 27, 2009)

Does anyone remember that 'pistol grip' thingy you could get to help hold telephotos back in the seventies?

Didn't look as if it would be very effective but could have appealed to some macho types.


----------



## Phranquey (Mar 27, 2009)

Moglex said:


> Does anyone remember that 'pistol grip' thingy you could get to help hold telephotos back in the seventies?
> 
> Didn't look as if it would be very effective but could have appealed to some macho types.


 
Yup, I remember those, and they are about the worst thing in the world you can use.  Maintaining a grip like that will kill your forearm in a matter of a half-hour (or less).


----------



## tsaraleksi (Mar 27, 2009)

When I got into photography I never expected to get strong shoulders as a result, but it's nice! Honestly more than strength even I think adjusting to the weight is pretty important, which can only be done over time. If you pay attention to what you're doing when not shooting at some kind of lengthy event-- for me, something like a race or a track meet-- it's possible to shoot all day with heavy gear and not have a problem. I spent two consecutive weekends shooting a D2x+300/2.8 handheld and did ok, because I was careful! And I'm not especially well built.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 27, 2009)

> JerryPH;1569291]LOL!  I'm not that far behind you, but like wine (not vinegar) I get better with age.
> 
> One of the advantages of age is that I've learned to use my head more than my muscle and know when to use *good technique* for hand-holding a large mass and what positions to use so that I *don't* use any muscle when not shooting.  A nice big wide neoprene neck strap also helps.



:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:     YES!!!!!



> I don't really go to gyms perse, I prefer the matt at my local local Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu school.  After something like 25 years of Kung-Fu, Karate, Hapkido and Aikido (man that stuff is all hard on the joints!), the last 6 years of BJJ are a refreshing change and I would say challenge the mind as much as the body in a fasion that no gym can match.  I'm looking to add 1 lesson a week of Krav Maga for some added giggles.
> 
> All that to say that being in shape enough to hold a heavy camera for extended times is not really an issue for me unless I get lazy and start using bad technique.
> 
> Phranquey, proper rifle shooting technique is a perfect match to using a camera shake free... my friend was a sniper for the Canadian Armed Forces and taught me a ton of things that helped me extend my shutter times without blur.  I know where you are coming from!



Shooting skills are a requirement for my job.  The techniques of shooting and proper use of a camera go hand in hand.  Couldn't have expressed it better if I had wanted too.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 27, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> /Shooting skills are a requirement for my job.


 
Remind me not to piss you off... lol


----------



## Phranquey (Mar 27, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Remind me not to piss you off... lol


 
Funny....I was thinking the same thing, especially with the avatar.  

Grumpy old man with a gun....."Damn kids, git off my land!!"


----------



## table1349 (Mar 27, 2009)




----------

