A practice of silliness.

[Anbesol]

Well, I wasn't trying to start an argument. I also didn't mean to say that good image grain at high ISO is a bad thing, or that everybody that likes high ISO is stupid, or fill-in-the-blank.

Cara - I could certainly see how that makes sense with a 300mm f/4. Yeah, the f/2.8 isn't cheap, neither is the 600mm f/4. Anyway, I definitely see where you are coming from.

[Franglais]

No argument. It's even part of knowing your gear.

I went through this today. I was at an indoor event (French Agriculture trade show). I go there every year, eat well (most important thing first) then shoot - portraits of the animals.

I set the camera at 3200 ISO - I know that the D300 will produce very good results at this ISO.

- I started out with the 35mm f1.8 prime and found I was getting exposures of 1/60 f4 - 1/125s f5.6. Certainly no shortage of light and the depth-of-field was enough to cover all the animals face (I'm not a fan of shooting portraits at f1.8).
- After a while I switched to more general subjects. With the "normal" view of the 35mm I had to step back from the subject and PEOPLE KEPT WALKING IN FRONT OF ME agh. I needed a wide-angle and a tele view. I switched to the 16-85 f3.5-5.6. There was enough light for the lens at wide-angle and at the tele end the VR image stabiliser prevented camera shake.

For today's shoot high ISO and a "standard" zoom were a good solution.

Next month I have two stage performances to shoot. That means movement therefore high shutter speed (1/250s) therefore exit the standard zoom even with high ISO and VR. I shall be taking F1.8 primes (best) or f2.8 constant zooms.