Experimentation

I only used three lenses while I was out hiking around today - the three DA zooms. What I find interesting is how well the 10-17 fisheye works for capturing outdoors scenes. If you can pass over the "less wise" shots involving a high degree of tree distortion, it does really, really well when it comes to capturing scenes that are simply too wide to get with an (affordable, anyway) rectilinear lens.

What's also nice is that, even in the face of an f5.6 max, the 50-200 can catch nice identification shots of birds when used alongside spot metering. I don't think most people who complain about how much light it needs (or really any 200ish f5.6 lens) have ever stood around and had the patience to get whatever they're trying to shoot to move into the light. Of course, not everyone has that kind of patience, nor are we always afforded the luxury of the time for it. Whatever, though - today, I didn't have that problem.

Of course, part of this was dictated by circumstance; it was too humid for me, and I foolishly wore two shirts. I think this is the first time I've ever emptied my water supply when out walking around. I didn't have the desire to do a lot of lens changing to suit specific needs, nor did I have anyone with me to help deal with gear nonsense. I actually left my M 135 and M 50 lenses here to make the pack balance to the bottom for once. I also wish the light had been better - the sky gave quite the beating to the 16-45 and 10-17 when it was visible. Oh well; 2 dollars in park fees and 750 dollars in glass well spent.