Regardless of the frame of reference, I continue to find truth in the meaning behind these words.
Earlier this year I rented a 100-400mm F4-5.6L Canon lens. The 'L' stands for 'Leave your wallet and go'. Actually it stands for 'Luxury', but regardless, this is not an inexpensive piece of glass. Renting it was painless enough, but the results were so good that it's got me seriously considering one of my own.
As that kind of financial commitment is currently not possible, I've been experimenting with my 100-300 to find ways to get the most out of it. After playing around a little I've been really pleased with the results.
Here's a quick comparison with similar types of shots:
Eastern Kingbird in the Park with 100-400L
White-Breasted Nuthatch in the Backyard with 100-300
See an appreciable difference in quality?
I don't, and I agonize over minute details of all the photos I take until Randi is ready to drag the keyboard out of my hands and beat me with it. The reason the 100-300 shot turned out so well is that 'the nut between the camera and the shutter' was working a lot better when I took that shot.
As I continue to learn about photography, both technically and creatively, I've become much more aware of the limitations of both myself and my equipment. Part of this is adjusting the way I shoot to make the most my equipment instead of expecting it to do things it was never designed to do.
In this case, the 100-300 isn't particularly sharp until around f11 and has no IS, so it needs a lot of light to keep the shutter speed up. Under these conditions it has the potential to really shine.
Is it more limited than the 100-400L? Sure, but it's also a third of the weight and an eighth of the cost. As long as the boundary conditions in which it operates optimally are understood, it makes for a very nice telephoto zoom.
I have no doubt that I will invest in better glass in the future, but for now I'm working with what I already have and really enjoying learning to make the most of it.
