Before you criticize my cavalier approach to decision-making, remember that this is the premier blog for lazy, disorganized, impatient photographers. Below are some pictures I took with the 105 f/2.8 Micro since the previous blog post, and below them I explain why the 105 has been eliminated from contention.
So, here we have a drunken bee, a pretty flower, a very large beet wearing Peepers, and Lord Greystoke’s official portrait. And these images conclusively prove why the 105 f/2.8 cannot be my walk-around lens! How so, you might ask. Well I’ll tell you. The flowers are in my backyard, the beet is in the kitchen, and the cat was sitting on my wife, on the sofa. The 105 is one of my favorite lenses, as I discussed here, but I’ve gone for a couple of walks this week and did not carry a camera. Why? Because the 105 is big and heavy and I didn’t feel like hauling it around.
This proves two things: 1) I’m a wimp, and 2) I can disqualify quite a few of my lenses, including the 11-16 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8. I might also disqualify the 17-55 f/2.8, which is probably as heavy as the 105. (I’d look up their respective weights, but please refer to the first sentence of this post). All of my lenses are optically worthwhile; that’s why I own them. What I’ve realized during this test is that for me, a walk-around lens has to be a lens that I don’t have to think twice about hauling on a six-mile saunter when there’s no particular photo purpose in mind. From my current collection, that leaves only two or possibly three contenders: the 35 f/2.0, the 50 f/1.8, and, because it’s so nice I might make a weight exception, the 85 f/1.4.
I also realize that I should not have sold my 60 f/2.8 micro, because there’s a REASON it was my walk-around lens for so many years, being both versatile and compact. Well, live and learn…