If Ken Rockwell stating in a lens review that "an f/4.5 lens is slow" is provocative and divisive, what is the following comment┬╣ to an answer to this question?

enter image description here

Apparently it was divisive and provocative enough to prompt the owner of the answer to delete it.

┬╣ Screenshotted so that all may see it

| |
  • 1
    divisiveness on the internet...you don't say? Referencing Ken is no different than any other internet blogger. They could be right, they could be wrong, so take it with a grain of NaCl. In this case, Ken was right. f/4.5 doesn't get to hang out in the fast lens club. – OnBreak. Jan 25 '19 at 19:47
  • @Hueco Wouldn't it be considered fast if it's for an 800 mm though? – G_H Mar 1 '19 at 14:15
  • @G_H nope. A technological marvel, sure. Fast for an 800mm, sure. Fast in general - no, it's still f/4.5. Maybe I'm biased by still shoot film, of which sub 100 ISO is generally in my camera...but "fast" means anything sub f/2.8. I'm starting to look at f/2.8 as not even all that fast...though I think that's more debatable. – OnBreak. Mar 1 '19 at 16:07
  • @Hueco Interesting. I've still got a bit to learn about the exact nature of aperture and what it really means in practice. I also shoot film and even at ISO 400 it can often be a struggle to get enough light at anything above 2.8. – G_H Mar 2 '19 at 17:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .