>>2787098
Nothing is killing photography except for your unwillingness to engage in it.

>>2787098
How are large, fast lenses killing photography? an f2.8 24-70 needs to be larger than an f4 one. Do you understand how aperture works?

>>2787098
High-end lenses are *enabling* better photography, also because they're now often sharp with pretty wide apertures.

Lazy people who don't want to use them are flooding photography with technically poor images, but that's life.

>>2787119
>not shooting wide open
>technically poor images

Seriously, shut the fuck up.

>>2787119
>High-end lenses are *enabling* better photography

Yeah I'm sure. I wonder how people made photos without all this L glass. Oh wait, they didn't, right. Photography was invented with the first PREMIUM CLASS F2 L LENS

>>2787167
I'll say it again:
> Shoot with glass that sucks at even f/2.8
> Produce technically poor images because too lazy to carry a slightly bigger lens
This is what most people do, and it is sad.

>>2787169
It's not a question about whether photography existed before that.

I said photography got more capable of producing good images with this better glass.

>>2787173
sounds like someone's butthurt they can't afford gear
just fucking rent it as you need it until you make enough to buy it outright
the only reason to get the 2.8 over the f4 is if you absolutely need the extra stop, such as in concert or wedding situations. Otherwise, just get the more f4 with IS
not difficult to understand canonfag

File: tmp_28887-D3S_0861-1200-1570579595.jpg (249 KB, 1200x1397) Image search: [Google]

249 KB, 1200x1397

Lol zoom plebs talking about 'fast lenses'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2787222
I almost never use it at 1.2. It's rare it ever goes below f1.8 desu

>>2787173
What the fuck are you going on about? You realize there are many more aperture settings in which one can pick - any of which, either lenses are capable of producing sharp images?

2.8 is not the panacea of photography.

>>2787271
...and?

>>2787281
...and?

>>2787098
Umm...seriously? A troll thread this idiotic is getting traction?

It's funny how the arms race for the last 25 years has been towards BIGGER AND BEEFIER, and then almost overnight it became uncool to walk around with a giant dslr with a 2.8 zoom and a lens hood.

>>2787312
On the other side we've plus size models.

GOD HATES WIDE APERTURES

GOD HATES WIDE APERTURE ENABLERS

>>2787312
>It's funny how the arms race for the last 25 years has been towards BIGGER AND BEEFIER
How so? My 5Dmk3 is the exact same size as my EOS 3. The 1Dx is the same size as the 1v with grip. Lenses have been getting bigger because apertures have been getting faster, and focal lengths have been getting longer. When you add features, you necessarily have to add some size, so autofocus makes your lens a little larger, but nobody is chasing size, they're fighting it as much as they can.

Compact cameras have also always been a thing, but until very recently, they meant giving up a ton of usability and quality.

>>2787098
BAN ASSAULT APERTURES

>>2788937
TACTICOOL AND BLACK LENSES: THE NEW ENEMY OF MURRICA

>sold all my zooms
>use set of primes now
>f/1.4
>f/1.4
>f/2
>f/1.2
>feelsgoodman

>>2789070
What feels good? Not being able to get half of your subject in focus at such a wide aperture? Still using your "lmao fast" lenses at f/4 and f/8?
Why are you such a gearfaggot?

>>2789535
i would much rather have a fast lens. its much more useable for every thing. have a nice time trying to shoot low iso in anything past tea time you cunt.

guys wait
guys i think
guys
hear me out here guys

did you know that you can own more than one lens? amazing isn't it

>>2789581
i can't fit that in my pocket