4 ms·

I wonder how many photographers were put off by the cost & weight of a 800mm lens, and how many just didn't actually need a 800mm lens? The only time I can reme

• trm42 6y ago
  For landscapes 400-600 mm are in some cases really nice.
• ivanhoe 6y ago
  Wildlife & nature, architecture, astronomy, any scene that you want to "flatten"...
  • robotmay 6y ago
    Yeah wildlife photography, particularly bird photography, can never have enough focal length. I practice stalking techniques to get closer (which has a much better cost/reward ratio to buying bigger lenses) but if you can fill the frame with a bird you can get awesome shots that just aren't possible otherwise. Currently I'm shooting at 600mm, and I definitely want a teleconverter to get up to ~800mm. After that the prices get truly insane so I think I'll just have to find some bigger birds at that point.
• matwood 6y ago
  I bought a 70-300 Nikon ED VR specifically to take pictures of the moon, and it does a pretty good job. Turns out it's useful for a lot of situations (birds and other wildlife). My vacation setup is normally iPhone + D7100 with the 70-300 attached. That can easily cover most situations w/o changing lenses around too often. I'm planning on picking up one of the Nikon mirrorless FFs soon.