Considering some lens possibilities

For a guy with $12,000 tied up in that one camera and lens combination, alone ... call it what you will, he is INVESTED.

I know what I am talking about, not everyone that is a professional photographer has done only that. THAT is what I am talking about. This attitude about what system is used, and that professional photographers that is all they do pompus bs. That isn't even an original thought. Now you can argue with your self because I am done with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbatapbr

I know what I am talking about, not everyone that is a professional photographer has done only that. THAT is what I am talking about. This attitude about what system is used, and that professional photographers that is all they do pompus bs. That isn't even an original thought. Now you can argue with your self because I am done with it.

---

i did not mention the SYSTEM at all. i said pros would not use an 80-400 f5.6 zoom lens. and that is a fact so stop talking out of your ass and turning this into a system discussion cos it has NOTHING to do with canon vs sony.

95% of pro photographers that require reach for their work do NOT use 80-400 zoom lens' quite simply because they are not in the ballpark with regard to build quality and optical quality. thats not pompous in the slightest. thats just the way it is.

Until the SONY 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM ø77mm (1500 g/53 oz) came out, this year, there really wasn't much in the "extra-long" 70-300mm class lenses. Tokina had their AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 Mod I (no tripod ring)(960 g/34 oz) and they offered f/5.6 base aperture at 400mm w/ a very tight ø72mm filter ring.

AT-X 840 Mod I
Attachment 45855Attachment 45854

and a handful of release Mod II (w/tripod ring), of which the AT-X 840 "D" Mod II (1050 g/37 oz) is STILL offered for the Canon and Nikon mounts, Priced at $600 ... the 'consumer' range, to be sure.

AT-X 840 Mod II
Attachment 45856

but Minolta really had zip-point-squat in that range w/o the Tokina. They did produce an AF 100-400mm f/4.5-6.7 APO (840 g/30 oz),

KM 100-400mm f/4.5-6.7 APO
Attachment 45858

but it begins moving into another range, leaving a gap and getting a little dark, even though it had the same ø72mm filter ring. Obviously Minolta's design limited the light to f/6.7 @ 400mm.

Even worse, the much heavier SIGMA 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG SO HSM gives back the light, via a ø77mm filter ring ...

SIGMA 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG SO HSM
Attachment 45859

but also more than doubles the weight (1750 g/62 oz)!

Obviously, someone liked that slightly wider focal length and noted the new "void", because they went to a lot of trouble to build one hell of a replacement for this Tokina lens. I suspect production of this lens clearly states that Tokina will not get a shot at the SONY mount, again.

SONY 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM
Attachment 45857

So 'Rooz', I would not be so quick as to dismiss this with anything else ... this is a superior lens and priced accordingly. Considering that SONY still has no fixed 400mm f/4.5 or 500 f/4 lens in the inventory, this is what the "pro" is going to be left with, for their long stuff, unless they go back to older Minolta-glass. I doubt they could complain much with:

• a focusing stop button
• focus limiting
• "on-the-lens" AF/MF switching
• ultra-quiet focusing
• full-frame design

Try one of these platinum-colored beasts out and SEE for thyself. ;)

Rooz, again my point was more about the 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200. That is the standard non-long pro kit. Many use primes instead of zooms, but in a lot of fields (photojournalism, wedding) the zooms are more popular.

As for the long lens, yes, most wildlife and sports shooters (the biggest fields for super telephoto) do shoot primes. But I think some do shoot with big zooms. Scott Bourne did videos last year about the Sigma 100-300 and 300-800. Moose Peterson and Joe McNally have the Nikkor 200-400 in their gear lists. There is some market for super telephoto zooms out there with professionals. And all I was saying was that this is a pro spec lens in a good range, not that Moose Peterson was going to sell his D3 for an A900. So your arguing against a point I didn't even make.

I agree that most pros will use primes for long telephoto.... but I think the Canon 100-400 and Sony 70-400 have a place in the bags of pros who don't primarily shoot past 200mm.

Not that it matters, it's a subjective point. I think in 99% of cases, a wildlife or sports photog will not shoot Sony, in part because of the lack of super fast bodies like the D3 and 1D. But I think for a wedding photog or photojournalist that has the 16-200 range in use 90% of the time, Sony is currently providing a good setup. In my opinion.

In reality there are still plenty of issues with using Sony, most related to not being very popular yet. You can't walk into any decent camera shop and pick up a replacement 24-70 or 58 flash. I'm not arguing that people will switch in droves to Sony. I'd rather have the Nikon or Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS than the Sony. The fact that Don had the money for a Sony, returned it, and now shoots the tamron helps drive that point home. But I think in a lot of areas they are becoming increasingly competitive at the high end. Before the 16-35 came out there were no pro level UWA options, and now there is a good option for UWA, normal, and telephoto zoom, along with a couple of good telephoto primes.

Jason, Sony itself is a major problem with their equipment not being sold in a lot of camera shops. There is one that I go to and they said that Sony's demand on the minimum amount they had to spend kept them from stocking anything from Sony. I think Sony needs to relook at their demands on the average camera shop to help increase their availability in the local stores.

over here, the shops tell me that they don't want to sell Sony cause you can buy them from the Sony Store in the malls.
i guess it is their way of saying that they rather sell Canikon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbatapbr

Sony's demand on the minimum amount they had to spend kept them from stocking anything from Sony. I think Sony needs to relook at their demands on the average camera shop to help increase their availability in the local stores.

---

Thats what both locally owned stores here told me