slr camera question

[tfinch2]

Nice Bigma.

I'm thinking about getting one for my Oly when they come out this summer. 1000mm FOV on a 2x crop body. YUM I would have to sell my ZD 50-200mm f/2.8 though to afford it.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
As for $300 a pop, I got my Canon 50mm f/1.8 MKII for $35, my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for $300, and my Sigma 10-20mm for $400. The only lens over $500 in my repertoire is my Sigma 50-500mm, which I got for $650.

Used lenses are where it's AT! FredMiranda's Buy/Sell baby!

You spent $650 on a Sigma? And a 10x zoom at that. There has to be a good bit of distortion and vignetting with that lens. I would not trust any zoom that has more than a 3x difference between widest and longest focal length on an SLR. If I'm spending $650, it's going to be on a Zeiss prime, not on a 3rd party zoom.

ZV

So I'm so sure that the Canon 100-400mm L IS is a piece of crap? And the Nikon 18-200 VR lens is also junk.

The Sigma 50-500 (or lovingly referred to as the "Bigma") is a very good lens.

Here's a couple shots from one by a guy I know:

http://www.buzzdns.com/lion1.jpg

http://www.buzzdns.com/lion2.jpg

The second shot is a 100% crop. This was a HANDHELD shot.

It's excellent for wildlife, sporting events or airshows. It has an excellent range.

So $650 for that lens I would say is a good deal.

Here's another image:

http://www.pbase.com/image/56617876

So no, it might not be as sharp or as fast as a Canon prime or something, but it is in NO WAY a bad lens.



And speaking of Canon, $650 wouldn't be enough to buy the best prime they have. Try $2000.

And if you want a 500mm Prime....that'll be about $5500 TYVM.

I will guarantee you that a $650 prime lens will be sharper than a $650 zoom. And I also guarantee that a $650 conservative zoom will be sharper than a $650 10x zoom.

And yes, $650 won't buy the best prime on the market. It'll buy a decent Zeiss (the special order models can run upwards of $10K), but it won't buy the best.

The point is not that the zoom is junk, just that a prime will always be better. And a Zeiss will be better than a Sigma.

Also, you give me only re-sized images from a digital (how much post-photo editing was done?) and a 100% crop from the center of the frame (the place where even sh*t lenses are good) and you don't give any specs on the images (shutter speed? film speed? aperture?). If the lens wasn't wide open, you really can't use the shot to compare lenses since every lens is decent by F8, and most are decent by F5.6, so if it's been stopped down, the image doesn't tell us anything. Also, what focal length was the zoom at? Most zooms are decent in the middle of the range, but show distortion at wide angle and vignetting at telephoto, if the picture was taken at the mid-point of the zoom range, it again doesn't tell us anything at all.

Photodo's MTF specs for Sigma lenses are nothing special. There are a handful of good performers, but a whole lot of mediocre preformers. (I'll grant that they are better than Tokina or most Tamrons though.)

For my money, I'd rather buy the prime. It'll be faster and sharper than a zoom at the equivalent price point. If the Sigma 50-500 is sharper, faster, and cheaper than Sigma's 500mm prime, then something is seriously wrong with Sigma's ability to fabricate a prime lens.

ZV

EDIT: And yes, in the 400mm+ range a Zeiss can set you back almost as much as a small used car.

I guess I just don't like zooms unless I'm just playing. I love my Zeiss 28-70 for a walk-around lens, but for real work I want my primes. I'm a weirdo though, since I do not like autofocus and won't use it, which limits my choices. The autofocus lenses I've tried have sucky feel when manually focusing, no dampening at all.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
As for $300 a pop, I got my Canon 50mm f/1.8 MKII for $35, my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for $300, and my Sigma 10-20mm for $400. The only lens over $500 in my repertoire is my Sigma 50-500mm, which I got for $650.

Used lenses are where it's AT! FredMiranda's Buy/Sell baby!

You spent $650 on a Sigma? And a 10x zoom at that. There has to be a good bit of distortion and vignetting with that lens. I would not trust any zoom that has more than a 3x difference between widest and longest focal length on an SLR. If I'm spending $650, it's going to be on a Zeiss prime, not on a 3rd party zoom.

ZV

So I'm so sure that the Canon 100-400mm L IS is a piece of crap? And the Nikon 18-200 VR lens is also junk.

The Sigma 50-500 (or lovingly referred to as the "Bigma") is a very good lens.

Here's a couple shots from one by a guy I know:

http://www.buzzdns.com/lion1.jpg

http://www.buzzdns.com/lion2.jpg

The second shot is a 100% crop. This was a HANDHELD shot.

It's excellent for wildlife, sporting events or airshows. It has an excellent range.

So $650 for that lens I would say is a good deal.

Here's another image:

http://www.pbase.com/image/56617876

So no, it might not be as sharp or as fast as a Canon prime or something, but it is in NO WAY a bad lens.



And speaking of Canon, $650 wouldn't be enough to buy the best prime they have. Try $2000.

And if you want a 500mm Prime....that'll be about $5500 TYVM.

I will guarantee you that a $650 prime lens will be sharper than a $650 zoom. And I also guarantee that a $650 conservative zoom will be sharper than a $650 10x zoom.

And yes, $650 won't buy the best prime on the market. It'll buy a decent Zeiss (the special order models can run upwards of $10K), but it won't buy the best.

The point is not that the zoom is junk, just that a prime will always be better. And a Zeiss will be better than a Sigma.

Also, you give me only re-sized images from a digital (how much post-photo editing was done?) and a 100% crop from the center of the frame (the place where even sh*t lenses are good) and you don't give any specs on the images (shutter speed? film speed? aperture?). If the lens wasn't wide open, you really can't use the shot to compare lenses since every lens is decent by F8, and most are decent by F5.6, so if it's been stopped down, the image doesn't tell us anything. Also, what focal length was the zoom at? Most zooms are decent in the middle of the range, but show distortion at wide angle and vignetting at telephoto, if the picture was taken at the mid-point of the zoom range, it again doesn't tell us anything at all.

Photodo's MTF specs for Sigma lenses are nothing special. There are a handful of good performers, but a whole lot of mediocre preformers. (I'll grant that they are better than Tokina or most Tamrons though.)

For my money, I'd rather buy the prime. It'll be faster and sharper than a zoom at the equivalent price point. If the Sigma 50-500 is sharper, faster, and cheaper than Sigma's 500mm prime, then something is seriously wrong with Sigma's ability to fabricate a prime lens.

ZV

While what your saying is all nice and well, you have to look at the cost-benefit of equipment for the amatuer/semi-pro. It's hard to justify big money for a high quality speciality prime that you'll use seldomly unless your a pro.

 

[foghorn67]

300mm.
Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX HSM for around 600 used. Figure about 100-120 for a 1.4x Sigma teleconvertor, or a Kenko for a few bucks more.
100-300 Sigma EX HSM f4. This one is a sleeper, really, really sharp. Around 700 used.
Canon 300f4. Pricey and no zoom (prime). But fast AF, and really sharp. You can't get much better. Plus, if you can't afford it after buying it. You can usually sell it for almost the same when you got it new. Or if you got it used, sell for the same price if you took care of it. (and you will since it will be an 'L' lens.
Or start with a Canon 200 2.8. these are around 600 NEW!!! And sell it for the same in good condition. These are among the sharpest lenses you will ever find.

The 75-300 IS will give you great flexibilty for handheld, but that doesn't freeze the motion of the subject. Just your shakey hands or monopod. There were early issues with this lens, so buy it new. Or at a local shop with a return policy so you can take it back if you got a sucky one. But 5.6 is too dark for me, more then enough for outdoors during the day. And the rotating front element will annoy me, but its USM, so it is silent.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Nice Bigma.

I'm thinking about getting one for my Oly when they come out this summer. 1000mm FOV on a 2x crop body. YUM I would have to sell my ZD 50-200mm f/2.8 though to afford it.

haha, that should be fun. I'm sure you know to tripod mount that big baby 😉
I was thinking about getting a Evolt e330 or the upcoming Panosonic with the same mechanics (forgot the model number) for a point and shoot. My canon and it's lenses are too big to haul around a vacation. Unless I can live without the battery grip, flash and stick to one lens.
I love that Panasonic, reminds me of a clean rangefinder.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I will guarantee you that a $650 prime lens will be sharper than a $650 zoom. And I also guarantee that a $650 conservative zoom will be sharper than a $650 10x zoom.

Will, say, a $650 50mm Zeiss prime be sharper than a 50-500mm Bigma? No... perhaps at 50mm and a bit beyond, but anything 100m and above you'd have to crop the Zeiss prime's pictures like crazy just to get the FOV of the Bigma. The argument is completely moot because it's not even the same focal range. There's no point comparing a 10x zoom to a single prime that's not even close to encompassing the range of a the zoom.

And yes, $650 won't buy the best prime on the market. It'll buy a decent Zeiss (the special order models can run upwards of $10K), but it won't buy the best.

The point is not that the zoom is junk, just that a prime will always be better. And a Zeiss will be better than a Sigma.

Zooms are getting pretty close to primes in IQ. Zeiss will always be better than Sigma, but the price gap alone makes the comparison unequal... not to mention you have to have a camera that'll resolve all that detail in the first place, another $6000+ investment for Canon's top of the line or the price of a luxury sedan for a medium format back.

For my money, I'd rather buy the prime. It'll be faster and sharper than a zoom at the equivalent price point. If the Sigma 50-500 is sharper, faster, and cheaper than Sigma's 500mm prime, then something is seriously wrong with Sigma's ability to fabricate a prime lens.

It's not... and what if you have a 500mm prime and needed to use 200mm, 300mm, 400mm, etc? Again apples to oranges.

ZV

EDIT: And yes, in the 400mm+ range a Zeiss can set you back almost as much as a small used car.

I guess I just don't like zooms unless I'm just playing. I love my Zeiss 28-70 for a walk-around lens, but for real work I want my primes. I'm a weirdo though, since I do not like autofocus and won't use it, which limits my choices. The autofocus lenses I've tried have sucky feel when manually focusing, no dampening at all.

I'm actually extremely partial to primes also. The most used lenses are my 50mm, 30mm, and 180mm primes. I love their sharpness, weight, and brightness. And since I use my 50-500mm at 500mm about 80% of the time, I would really like a 500mm or 600mm prime. But I don't have even close to enough money, so the whole argument is pointless.

Not to mention all I've got is a Rebel XT, and I see absolutely no point in slapping an excellent lens on an inferior body. In my case getting a Zeiss would be akin to just throwing my money away...

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: jamesbond007

Originally posted by: OdiN
And speaking of Canon, $650 wouldn't be enough to buy the best prime they have. Try $2000.

Which lens did you have in mind? I was thinking of the 200 1.8, which goes for $3600-$4000+, depending on condition. Of course, you can't buy it new anymore, so they're always used prices. 😛

The 85mm F/1.2L Mk II - Arguably the best glass Canon makes when it comes to image quality.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: jamesbond007

Originally posted by: OdiN
And speaking of Canon, $650 wouldn't be enough to buy the best prime they have. Try $2000.

Which lens did you have in mind? I was thinking of the 200 1.8, which goes for $3600-$4000+, depending on condition. Of course, you can't buy it new anymore, so they're always used prices. 😛

The 85mm F/1.2L Mk II - Arguably the best glass Canon makes when it comes to image quality.

LOL, can you image the DOF at f/1.2, especially on a FF DSLR or 35mm.

 

[keeleysam]

Originally posted by: OdiN
Yeah if you can't afford the $500ish price for that - then check this lens out:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control...u=169269&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

I know that I have heard of problems with the AF in the 75-300 lens when in portrait orientation, but I'm not sure if it's in this one or the IS version, so you might want to research that.

OdiN, that looks nice. I really cannot afford over $250 for a lens. Any other reccomendations?

Is this the same thing? I can get it for like $120 pricematched and couponed.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: keeleysam

Originally posted by: OdiN
Yeah if you can't afford the $500ish price for that - then check this lens out:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control...u=169269&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

I know that I have heard of problems with the AF in the 75-300 lens when in portrait orientation, but I'm not sure if it's in this one or the IS version, so you might want to research that.

OdiN, that looks nice. I really cannot afford over $250 for a lens. Any other reccomendations?

Keep saving then for a better lens. You'll only end up rebuying what you really want later down the road. I know from first hand experience.

 

[jamesbond007]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: keeleysam

Originally posted by: OdiN
Yeah if you can't afford the $500ish price for that - then check this lens out:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control...u=169269&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

I know that I have heard of problems with the AF in the 75-300 lens when in portrait orientation, but I'm not sure if it's in this one or the IS version, so you might want to research that.

OdiN, that looks nice. I really cannot afford over $250 for a lens. Any other reccomendations?

Keep saving then for a better lens. You'll only end up rebuying what you really want later down the road. I know from first hand experience.

I've got a Sigma 70-300 APO that I shoot with every now and then, but I am partial to the 135 F/2 L. 🙂 Definitely my favorite piece of glass that I use.

$199

It's not the fastest or the greatest, but I get a lot of decent shots. Range and IQ are good for the price.

 

[Staples]

Originally posted by: jamesbond007

Originally posted by: Staples
DSLRs are not going to improve much. Sure the sensors will get more dense and the MP number will go up but as far as the camera, DSLRs are not going to get much better.

What kind of crack are you on? Ever shoot full-frame? Wouldn't we all like improved AF? How about a 40+ frame buffer on a FF camera? Faster Cfn switching? In-camera image-stabilization? LCDs that are better viewable in the sun? Bigger viewfinders? And the list goes on...

Compare any DSLR today to any DSLR from 5 years ago. They sure didn't improve much, did they? :roll: There's always room for improvement, features, and abilities in anything.

Um, compare a film SLR to a film SLR from 10 years ago.

How much of an improvement in the camera (not the lens) do you see? Being that we have seen little improvement in the last ten years and that DSLR bodys are just as good as film SLRs now, we are not going to see much improvements in the future.

Tell me how exactly full frame helps other than with wide angle shots?
The are cameras with room for 40 frames, they are called video camera.

 

[Staples]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: keeleysam
Any reccomendations for a nice zoom lens (300mm?) for my Rebel XT?

Grab the Canon 70-200mm F/4L It's only about $500 (maybe a bit more) and is an awesome piece of glass. It's not 300mm, but on a 1.6X crop body you get a 320mm FOV. That might work for you.

I have that lens and to tell everyone the truth, I hardly ever use it. Most shots I shoot do not require anything over 100mm. I kind of feel bad for spending so much. I doubt I am the only one.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I will guarantee you that a $650 prime lens will be sharper than a $650 zoom. And I also guarantee that a $650 conservative zoom will be sharper than a $650 10x zoom.

And yes, $650 won't buy the best prime on the market. It'll buy a decent Zeiss (the special order models can run upwards of $10K), but it won't buy the best.

The point is not that the zoom is junk, just that a prime will always be better. And a Zeiss will be better than a Sigma.

Also, you give me only re-sized images from a digital (how much post-photo editing was done?) and a 100% crop from the center of the frame (the place where even sh*t lenses are good) and you don't give any specs on the images (shutter speed? film speed? aperture?). If the lens wasn't wide open, you really can't use the shot to compare lenses since every lens is decent by F8, and most are decent by F5.6, so if it's been stopped down, the image doesn't tell us anything. Also, what focal length was the zoom at? Most zooms are decent in the middle of the range, but show distortion at wide angle and vignetting at telephoto, if the picture was taken at the mid-point of the zoom range, it again doesn't tell us anything at all.

Photodo's MTF specs for Sigma lenses are nothing special. There are a handful of good performers, but a whole lot of mediocre preformers. (I'll grant that they are better than Tokina or most Tamrons though.)

For my money, I'd rather buy the prime. It'll be faster and sharper than a zoom at the equivalent price point. If the Sigma 50-500 is sharper, faster, and cheaper than Sigma's 500mm prime, then something is seriously wrong with Sigma's ability to fabricate a prime lens.

ZV

EDIT: And yes, in the 400mm+ range a Zeiss can set you back almost as much as a small used car.

I guess I just don't like zooms unless I'm just playing. I love my Zeiss 28-70 for a walk-around lens, but for real work I want my primes. I'm a weirdo though, since I do not like autofocus and won't use it, which limits my choices. The autofocus lenses I've tried have sucky feel when manually focusing, no dampening at all.

Well I'm not saying that primes aren't good or zooms are better. But the truth is that zooms are getting much closer to prime quality.

But it depends on what you need. I can't be swapping through 3-4 primes during a wedding. I need the zoom. I use a prime for pre-ceremony stuff and for location/background shots. But during a ceremony and reception, I need to be able to zoom in on the action, catch expressions, etc. Don't always have time to walk closer or farther back to catch the stuff.

For studio work and portrature, I really like the 50mm and 100mm Canon primes. But I also like my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. It's great for blurring out a background in a portrait.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: Staples

Originally posted by: jamesbond007

Originally posted by: Staples
DSLRs are not going to improve much. Sure the sensors will get more dense and the MP number will go up but as far as the camera, DSLRs are not going to get much better.

What kind of crack are you on? Ever shoot full-frame? Wouldn't we all like improved AF? How about a 40+ frame buffer on a FF camera? Faster Cfn switching? In-camera image-stabilization? LCDs that are better viewable in the sun? Bigger viewfinders? And the list goes on...

Compare any DSLR today to any DSLR from 5 years ago. They sure didn't improve much, did they? :roll: There's always room for improvement, features, and abilities in anything.

Um, compare a film SLR to a film SLR from 10 years ago.

How much of an improvement in the camera (not the lens) do you see? Being that we have seen little improvement in the last ten years and that DSLR bodys are just as good as film SLRs now, we are not going to see much improvements in the future.

Tell me how exactly full frame helps other than with wide angle shots?
The are cameras with room for 40 frames, they are called video camera.

It is incredibly ignorant to say that DSLR technology is going to see little improvement. One thing that's needed is better dynamic range for one, among other things. You can't compare digital to film in this aspect because with film the media is fixed. You can only do so much with film.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Staples

Originally posted by: jamesbond007

Originally posted by: Staples
DSLRs are not going to improve much. Sure the sensors will get more dense and the MP number will go up but as far as the camera, DSLRs are not going to get much better.

What kind of crack are you on? Ever shoot full-frame? Wouldn't we all like improved AF? How about a 40+ frame buffer on a FF camera? Faster Cfn switching? In-camera image-stabilization? LCDs that are better viewable in the sun? Bigger viewfinders? And the list goes on...

Compare any DSLR today to any DSLR from 5 years ago. They sure didn't improve much, did they? :roll: There's always room for improvement, features, and abilities in anything.

Um, compare a film SLR to a film SLR from 10 years ago.

How much of an improvement in the camera (not the lens) do you see? Being that we have seen little improvement in the last ten years and that DSLR bodys are just as good as film SLRs now, we are not going to see much improvements in the future.

Tell me how exactly full frame helps other than with wide angle shots?
The are cameras with room for 40 frames, they are called video camera.

I'd have to disagree. Sure, a film SLR now compared to a film SLR 10 years ago may be roughly equivalent, but DSLRs are a completely different animal, with completely different capabilities that can be improved upon.

1. Feature sets:

a. When will Canon make a special button for their f*cking mirror lockup, instead of having to go two menus deep to enable/disable it?

b. When will we see ISO Priority mode?

c. Mainstream live histograms?

d. A unified RAW format?

2. Technology:

a. Better sensors that make better photos. I'm sure you've heard people say that the 5D takes pictures that are just more... real, than the other professional cameras, even the 16MP 1DsMKII. New sensor technology.

b. How sensitive and noise-free can we make our sensors? Imagine a clean ISO 12800, enabling people with relatively darker, lighter, and cheaper lenses to still take stunning pictures without being limited by shutter speed.

c. Full frame sensors do better with noise than crop sensors.

d. I'd like to eventually see more cameras with sensors that can outresolve the excellent glass that's put in front of it.

e. Lower power consumption.

f. Larger, faster, cheaper memory cards.

g. Decreased size/weight while still maintaining traditional SLR quality.

h. Improved AF, smarter AF, faster AF, more AF points.

i. IS, better LCDs, bigger viewfinders (from 007's post)

j. Increased DYNAMIC RANGE <- this one's a biggie for me, current dynamic range is absolutely piss-poor.

k. Faster FPS and larger buffers. (A camera with a 40 frame buffer is NOT a video camera... a video camera is a camera with a ~30 or 60 *FPS*) Still and video cameras are NOT the same thing, they are not the same art medium, they are apples and oranges.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
While what your saying is all nice and well, you have to look at the cost-benefit of equipment for the amatuer/semi-pro. It's hard to justify big money for a high quality speciality prime that you'll use seldomly unless your a pro.

You kind of have a point, but you miss that a $650 500mm prime will perform better than a $650 50-500mm zoom. Why not just spend $650 on the 500mm prime and have a faster, sharper lens? How can a company make a 50-500 zoom for $650 and not have a 500mm prime in the same price area? It just doesn't make sense.

Looking at Sigma's site, it appears that they do though. Given that it seems to be the cheapest way to get a 500mm lens from a known manufacturer I'm going to have to retract my previous statements regarding buying it. Yes it's slow at 500mm, but it seems a decent way to get into that length.

Thank Heaven that I shoot landscapes. I almost never need more than a 50mm lens (though I love my wides and macros). One of these days I'll pick up a 100mm and a 300mm prime and I'll have all the telephoto I'll ever need. Possibly substitute a 135mm for the 100 for portraiture.

ZV

 

[saymyname]

Didn't read all 4 pages but thought I'd point out that the $100 rebate for the Rebel XT is about to expire. Make your buys soon. You can get the kit online for $737, no shipping, no tax, -$100 rebate. Not too shabby.

 

[saymyname]

Originally posted by: jamesbond007

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: keeleysam

Originally posted by: OdiN
Yeah if you can't afford the $500ish price for that - then check this lens out:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control...u=169269&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

I know that I have heard of problems with the AF in the 75-300 lens when in portrait orientation, but I'm not sure if it's in this one or the IS version, so you might want to research that.

OdiN, that looks nice. I really cannot afford over $250 for a lens. Any other reccomendations?

Keep saving then for a better lens. You'll only end up rebuying what you really want later down the road. I know from first hand experience.

I've got a Sigma 70-300 APO that I shoot with every now and then, but I am partial to the 135 F/2 L. 🙂 Definitely my favorite piece of glass that I use.

$199

It's not the fastest or the greatest, but I get a lot of decent shots. Range and IQ are good for the price.

Been waiting to get that lens. It hasn't been in stock at BH. How slow is it at AFing and how noisy is it?

 

[jamesbond007]

Staples, no need to reiterate anything fuzzybabybunny already said because he/she already summed it up along with tfinch2. I'll just say I'm glad we can agree to agree. 😉

OdiN, I had a hunch you were going to say the 85 1.2! You can get them used for a dang good price (usually sub-$1500). It's quite the lens, but the AF is too slow for sports, which is what I like to shoot the most. Yeah, different people use different glass, I respect that! Nice choice, nonetheless! An online friend of mine uses it a lot and the bokeh is just AMAZING.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: jamesbond007

Originally posted by: OdiN
And speaking of Canon, $650 wouldn't be enough to buy the best prime they have. Try $2000.

Which lens did you have in mind? I was thinking of the 200 1.8, which goes for $3600-$4000+, depending on condition. Of course, you can't buy it new anymore, so they're always used prices. 😛

The 85mm F/1.2L Mk II - Arguably the best glass Canon makes when it comes to image quality.

LOL, can you image the DOF at f/1.2, especially on a FF DSLR or 35mm.

It's quite manageable if you are experienced.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: keeleysam


OdiN, that looks nice. I really cannot afford over $250 for a lens. Any other reccomendations?

Is this the same thing? I can get it for like $120 pricematched and couponed.

Dude, if you clicked my link, it's like $189 there.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: tfinch2
While what your saying is all nice and well, you have to look at the cost-benefit of equipment for the amatuer/semi-pro. It's hard to justify big money for a high quality speciality prime that you'll use seldomly unless your a pro.

You kind of have a point, but you miss that a $650 500mm prime will perform better than a $650 50-500mm zoom. Why not just spend $650 on the 500mm prime and have a faster, sharper lens? How can a company make a 50-500 zoom for $650 and not have a 500mm prime in the same price area? It just doesn't make sense.

Looking at Sigma's site, it appears that they do though. Given that it seems to be the cheapest way to get a 500mm lens from a known manufacturer I'm going to have to retract my previous statements regarding buying it. Yes it's slow at 500mm, but it seems a decent way to get into that length.

Thank Heaven that I shoot landscapes. I almost never need more than a 50mm lens (though I love my wides and macros). One of these days I'll pick up a 100mm and a 300mm prime and I'll have all the telephoto I'll ever need. Possibly substitute a 135mm for the 100 for portraiture.

ZV

I never said that a zoom's IQ is on par with a prime's (although it's getting close). Sometimes photography comes down to making sacrifices for what you really want. I'd rather carry a 50-500mm and have 95% of the IQ of a prime, then carry a 50mm, 100mm, 200mm, 300mm, 350mm, 400mm, and 500mm primes just to get almost the same range of usabilitiy, but if someone wants to stick with all primes, hey go for it. 🙂

Also, why would Sigma waste it's time making a prime when the market demands a zoom. It wouldn't make business sense for them.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
You kind of have a point, but you miss that a $650 500mm prime will perform better than a $650 50-500mm zoom. Why not just spend $650 on the 500mm prime and have a faster, sharper lens? How can a company make a 50-500 zoom for $650 and not have a 500mm prime in the same price area? It just doesn't make sense.

Thank Heaven that I shoot landscapes. I almost never need more than a 50mm lens (though I love my wides and macros). One of these days I'll pick up a 100mm and a 300mm prime and I'll have all the telephoto I'll ever need. Possibly substitute a 135mm for the 100 for portraiture.

ZV

There are no $650 500mm primes that I'm aware of. That's the problem. I know it doesn't make sense 🙁

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: jamesbond007
Staples, no need to reiterate anything fuzzybabybunny already said because he/she already summed it up along with tfinch2. I'll just say I'm glad we can agree to agree. 😉

OdiN, I had a hunch you were going to say the 85 1.2! You can get them used for a dang good price (usually sub-$1500). It's quite the lens, but the AF is too slow for sports, which is what I like to shoot the most. Yeah, different people use different glass, I respect that! Nice choice, nonetheless! An online friend of mine uses it a lot and the bokeh is just AMAZING.

Well the MkII version is a lot faster with AF.

And no, I don't actually HAVE that lens. I wish I did. But for now here is what I have:

Canon 17-40 F4/L
Canon 24-105 F/4L IS
Canon 70-200mm F/2.8L IS
Canon 50mm F/1.4

I'll probably pick up the Tamron 28-75 F/2.8 for some lower light capability and just to play around with it. I want to see just how much I like it as it's getting rave reviews by other photogs I know.

Also probably will get an 85mm F/1.8. I just can't spend $2000 on a lens right now (after just getting that 70-200 😛)