Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 179
  1. #141
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554

    Cool Go long ...

    The actual intent of the 3x T/C was not to be used on the AF 200mm f/2.8 APO G HS ... but, I was curious as to what it could do. The 200mm was handy and offered a low enough aperture to allow auto-focus to occur. The side-by-side was more for my interest than any of yours. Yeah, occasionally I'm a little selfish.

    Anyway ... T/Cs have never been my desired optical solution. I usually like to have the real length, hence the purchases of the 200-500mm zoom lenses.

    The reach of the 200mm is only so far ... and the $3000 AF 400mm f/4.5 APO G HS would be my next desired lens ... but, that $3000 part ... that's still a little tough.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  2. #142
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Ryan ... I cry "FOUL!"

    I did not create the "kit" misfit ... and that you are impugning my position with a totally unfair representation of my advice. The "kit" lens is an inferior construct as dozens upon dozens of victims will attest. I contend that you learn nothing from using a "poor" lens ... other than feeling a deep sense of desperation to remove it from your camera. Making the move from "reasonable quality" glass to "superior" glass is not even a reasonable comparison. You go too far.

    I'm not sure how you can fairly evaluate my position on this or even state something like this ... but, you are fully entitled to your opinion and I apologize for apparently not making my point clear enough that you would not, in your understanding of the craft, fully appreciate it. If the "kit" is your operating lens of choice ... then enjoy it.

    IMO, I am pretty sure you a wrong in making this comparison and I stand on my evaluation of the 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 "kit" lens.

    "PULL!"


    Having you dismiss or mislead the members may be cause for you re-accessing your own opinion.

    I will admit I am dismayed with this result, but again, say what you will.

    Obviously, you can lead them to water, but that doesn't mean they will be drinking any time soon ... (shaking head in disgust)
    None of us are trashing your lenses and saying their horrible, just that their are better alternatives....

    I was trying to say that by moving beyond the kit lens, you can learn to achieve better pictures in the same way that you would be able to move the next level in your photography with better glass. It's all relative based on your experience and prior equipment.

    I still go back to use the kit lens occasionally for various reasons (mainly I'm somewhere where it might be raining or out on the lake). In fact, my picture from POTD yesterday was taken with the kit lens because it was pouring yesterday.
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  3. #143
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    SONY lens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .SONY cost . . . My current lens

    CZ 16-35mm f/2.8 (alternative to Konica-Minolta AF 17~35mm f/2.8-4 (D)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,900.00 . . . $349.00 .........
    ..............
    ..............

    Yeah, I see your point ... add another $5,000.00 in overall cost to my lenses and I can have a fully registered AF MICRO-ADJUST in my brand new α850

    Oh yeah, and the other $5,000.00 I have in unmatchable lenses I'd just have to pitch! Now, that's some sound thinkin'!
    .............
    I can take one heck of a "photographic holiday" for $10,000, using my old, "beat up" glass selection. Peter ... and probably make it look pretty darn good, too!
    Thats not what I and others meant and you know it.
    None of us can afford to fill our bags with Zeiss and G glass, we all make compromises along the way.

    What was pointed out was that selling off some of your gear, i.e.
    Tamron 70-300
    80-400 Tokina
    Tamron 200-500mm
    and maybe something else you probably have, would get you pretty well down the road to purchasing a quality 70-400 G lens. Why you deny the sense in that whilst soundly rubbishing the Kit Lens is beyond me.

    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    The actual intent of the 3x T/C was not to be used on the AF 200mm f/2.8 APO G HS ... but, I was curious as to what it could do. The 200mm was handy and offered a low enough aperture to allow auto-focus to occur. The side-by-side was more for my interest than any of yours. Yeah, occasionally I'm a little selfish.

    Anyway ... T/Cs have never been my desired optical solution. I usually like to have the real length, hence the purchases of the 200-500mm zoom lenses.

    The reach of the 200mm is only so far ... and the $3000 AF 400mm f/4.5 APO G HS would be my next desired lens ... but, that $3000 part ... that's still a little tough.
    You say that the "The side-by-side was more for my interest than any of yours", in which case you shouldn't have posted it. But you also posted derogatory conclusions about the 200mm APO G fitted with the converter. How wrong is that? To post what you did without also pointing out that it's madness to put a 2x TC (3x?) on a top quality prime is bad form and no help at all to Junior members who may take you at your word. BTW, I didn't see you post a side by side of the 200mm APO G and the Tamron at 200mm, why was that?

    I'm sorry if this sounds like a rant but, if you post without thinking it through, you are bound to draw some flak.

  4. #144
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554
    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    I'm sorry if this sounds like a rant but, if you post without thinking it through, you are bound to draw some flak.

    Ok, Peter, heat taken.

    Moving on ... the "kit" lens, in my opinion, has no place in talking about any other lenses. It is considered a "throw away" or "cracker-jack" toy lens, not just by me, but plenty of other "victimized" SONY DSLR users. It is difficult not to call rubbish ... well, "rubbish!" I am not going to candy-coat a POS lens. People can almost instantly improve their output by casting that lens into the deep blue ocean and mounting something just a little more worthwhile(70-300 or 50mm f/1.8).

    I have spent hours, days, weeks ... heck, months, in an effort to provide some insight to better overall photography for our members and others. Allowing that "kit" imposed tragedy to continue, unabated, is just not worthy. I appeal to you all to simply stop contesting it.

    If I choose to continue shooting through my selected glass, then I will. I have been at this a long time ... and plan on continuing. My bag of glass and camera gear probably weighs more than some people's entire life accumulation! I'm not bragging, it's just a fact.

    I do not feel a need to glom onto a SONY AF 70-400mm G SSM ... and pitching my other lenses to do so.

    Photozone has reviewed the Tokina AT-X 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 AF D and writes;

    “As for affordable tele zooms there is not much to choose other than Tokina ATX AF 80-400mm f4,5-5,6, it is overall the cheapest, lightest and smallest, but not the sharpest at 400mm. I also strongly believe that this lens is better than most magazine tests state. For non-publishing application this zoom is more than sufficient! It is well-manufactured lens and easy to operate. A great lens for everybody who is looking for a tele-zoom (travel) lens in this focal range. It can not replace the quality of “primes” though. It might be extended in focal length with a 1.4x 3rd party tele-converter and still produce reasonable results (a Minolta 1.4x TC does not physically fit!).”

    So ... come on, I have the range covered ... the argument is hardly worth the extra $1000 it would cost to redo the range ... just to carry a heavier lens. If you like it, then you carry it.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 09-12-2009 at 12:08 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  5. #145
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554
    As far as the TAMRON AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 LD goes ... I will do this for the forum (supposing and providing you do not already own one of these) ... I will post a thread and the SONY DSLR owner who can provide the best written/posted argument, by Oct 1st, 2009, for "why I should change from my Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 to the SONY AF 70-400mm f/4-5.6", provided they pay the shipping (around $15 within the US), can have it.

    I would rather give it away, than try to sell it. I know it will make a nice telephoto lens for someone on the forum.

    In other words ... put that in your high-end glass pipe and puff on it.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 09-12-2009 at 12:45 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  6. #146
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario
    Posts
    1,903
    You really got to let go your kit-lens hate.
    The 18-70mm is light, extremely fast to AF and has a pretty good range.
    It may not be up to your standard, but it is by no means rubbish!
    There were good and bad samples among the batches along the years. So got really bad ones, some got really good ones and some got mediocre ones.
    Canon EOS 7D

    flickr
    FLUIDR

  7. #147
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by dr4gon View Post
    You know you want it! But see, you don't have a FF sensor, so it wouldn't make as much sense for you.

    I'm just helping you to advocate why Don should elect to better glass. It's no different when Don urges newcomers to ditch their kit lens.
    I know that, dr4gon, on both counts.
    My KM 17-35mm performs quite well on the APS-C. Centres are pretty sharp but the corners will show up quite soft (particularly at 17mm) when I move back to FF. I'm well aware of that from using it on my Minolta 9000. Still, a decent lens for the money. I doubt I'll be owning the Zeiss any time soon.

    Here's a sample 17mm F8 1/320th
    Name:  Black Forest DSC00586.jpg
Views: 78
Size:  1.25 MB

  8. #148
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,421
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    My bag of glass and camera gear probably weighs more than some people's entire life accumulation! I'm not bragging, it's just a fact.
    lol so what ? that's actually a BAD thing...just sayin...

    So ... come on, I have the range covered ... the argument is hardly worth the extra $1000 it would cost to redo the range ... just to carry a heavier lens. If you like it, then you carry it.
    you have that range covered many times over. in fact you have several lens covering several ranges many times over.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  9. #149
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554

    Lightbulb A world of optical opportunity

    Lenses are the way to go ... too little ... too bad!

    I like being able to turn around and just about have my pick of any range ... still a 2800mm/11-inch or a 3910mm/14-inch telescope would be nice. "I'm just sayin' ..."

    The 120-lb or 177-lb weight is a consideration, though. Oh, what to do ... LOL We're talkin' hernia-heaven!

    I figure that's a much better investment that some overweight 70-400mm "repeat range" lens.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 09-12-2009 at 04:20 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  10. #150
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,421
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Lenses are the way to go ... too little ... too bad! .
    correction...GOOD lens' are the way to go.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •