You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Part #4: Šunik Water Grove / Šunik-Wasserhain
And I am telling myself its not often I am in situations where i need such a long lens, I am not really convincing myself but its actually true LOL
And I am telling myself its not often I am in situations where i need such a long lens, I am not really convincing myself but its actually true LOL
I must admit, that in many situations the 70-200 would have been enough, and the photos would have been sharper too, because it is easier to hold.
But like yesterday morning, when I saw these rabbits and this roebuck (never heard this name before), I was so glad to have it with me :)
thats true enough but at least now you have it in your kit if you ever need that longer reach :)
Yes, but I think, in future I will try to leave the other lenses at home, when I go for wildlife shots.
But what if I see a beautiful beetle or butterfly, and my macro lens is at home 😧
Thats always the issue, I pick one or maybe two lenses to carry into the city to not carry to much but if I do trips in the car i take most of them LOL
Last weekend my wife couldn't even lift my backpack, and I only needed the Sigma telephoto and the macro lens.
We both take too much with us, just in case we might need something 😁
Posted using Partiko Android
Most days I take the 24-240 and one of the smaller lens into the city the 24-240 and macro does make the bag fairly heavy witrh the other things I carry for work LOL
That's it, I have the 70-200 and the 24-105 always with me, and most of the times the 16-35 too. With the macro the backpack would be completely full ... and the only lens I might need during a working day would be the 24-105 😀
Posted using Partiko Android
I used to carry a lot a few years back but now I am feeling my age a little so I am sensible and do not carry to much