Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 120
  1. #71
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Quote Originally Posted by cascadingshadows View Post
    I am very excited about my goals and hope I do well.
    As far as what I have for equipment right now I have a Sony a350k camera and two lenses my first is a Sony 3.5-5.6/18-70 which came with the camera when I purchased it my second lens I bought at the same time is a Sony 4.5-5.6/75-300 lens, I currently have no filters, but hope to get some soon, I am working with photoshop cs3 and cs4 for photoshopping, but am still learing how to do that as well my other equipment includeds a cheep tripod.....
    Quote Originally Posted by cascadingshadows View Post
    I get all warm and fuzzy inside with the thoughts of winning the lens and only paying the cost of shipping with only having to do a little reseach...now that my shipping fees are researched as well I feel complete

    Express Mail® Friday, October 2 by 12 p.m $24.70

    Express Mail® Hold For Pickup Friday, October 2 by 12 p.m $24.70

    Priority Mail® 2 days 4.95 $4.80

    Priority Mail® Large Flat-Rate Box 2 days $13.95

    Priority Mail® Regular/Medium Flat-Rate Boxes 2 days $10.35

    Priority Mail® Small Flat-Rate Box 2 days $4.95

    Parcel Post® 6 days $4.90
    You know you don't qualify right?
    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

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Exclamation Warning ... warning

    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    SONY DSLR owners:

    If you do not already have one of these lenses, I invite you to participate in a small contest to win one. This is a friendly contest, so do not get nuts.

    I have a TAMRON AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 LD MACRO (Minolta/SONY mount) lens that needs a new home. It is in very good condition and has been rarely used. A $159 lens, when new.

    To win this lens, you need to write a reply to this thread with the following basis:

    "I believe Don should purchase the SONY AF 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM lens to replace his Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 and TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD lens for the follow reason: (then provide a detailed rationale for why I should do this, which specifications of all three lenses stated and whatever supporting evidence you can come up with)"

    Also, the winner must cover the shipping of the lens to your location from Chicago, Illinois, USA.

    Yeah ... you all may learn something with this. That is not so bad, pushing forward the forum's vast knowledge and experience.

    Good luck and I look forward to reading some interesting discussion and ultimately deciding the most compelling of the lot. Get started ... yeah!

    EDIT: Contest ends: Oct 1, 2009
    Cascade ... you may have to give your SONY lens to someone else ... because Ryan's right!
    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

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    I know it may not seem like a major decision, but $1600 for a lens is ... a bit of change. Especially when I have the range pretty well covered from at least four points (actually more). The lens you seem to be "factually" ignoring weighs a whopping 54 ounces! Have you ever lugged around that much on a DSLR? Well, I have. That gets real tiresome after the first half hour and downright irritating after the second one.

    Gravitational FACTS:

    The TAMRON 200-500 f/5-6.3 weighs only 43 ounces.

    The Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 weighs a mere 34 ounces. That's 20 ounces less for the same range!

    Question: When you are out hiking around ... with ol' betsy around your neck ... you tell me what you want to carry? An extra pound and a quarter, for slightly better IQ ... and the added $1000 cost?

    Convince me, buddy. I am waiting ...
    i think it depends on what you are trying to achieve Don. by your same logic, why not take it a step further and just buy a good superzoom ? then you dont have to lug anything around.

    if you want the best possible IQ you have to make some sacrifices and those are generally about weight, (and cost of course).
    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

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    i think it depends on what you are trying to achieve Don. by your same logic, why not take it a step further and just buy a good superzoom ? then you dont have to lug anything around.

    if you want the best possible IQ you have to make some sacrifices and those are generally about weight, (and cost of course).
    Bigma, 50-500mm, covered and done, end of story.
    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

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    72

    Sigma stuff

    Quote Originally Posted by Elisha82 View Post
    The only Sigmas worth considering are the EX line.
    And I actually like most of the EX HSM line as well.
    However there are many that report the 17-70mm DC non EX is pretty good for the money.
    I did a lot of reading before going with the 17-70, especially with regard to gear stripping & other durability issues. The 70-300 was clearly one with issues, as was the 18-50/2.8 that I contemplated. I have not heard of this trouble with the 17-70, and with cashback deals and my shooting style it was the right choice. So far so good, with my A200! As a bonus I can even use my 1.7x TC with good results, getting even closer than the 1:2-ish that they claim (but it's hard to get light on the subject when you crowd it that closely! ).
    JimR - gear list changes daily
    http://picasaweb.google.com/alphaPDX

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    18

    confused

    why dont I ?

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario
    Posts
    1,903
    Cause you already have the 75-300mm.
    Canon EOS 7D

    flickr®
    FLUIDR

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Talking Don't hate me because I have a lens ... LOL

    Well, I have no limitations, now, when it comes to standard selections of glass. When I go to the two backpacks (I wear one ... and my late dog wore the other -> okay, j/k ... he wore both! ), it is ALL there. Just about any glass-solution required.

    Now, Rooz ... you can comment and pontificate all you want, but I am not hurting for selection. I have no need for T/Cs, like many others. In fact, I still kind of hate using them and 99% of time, never would. Why, when you have the real lens length?

    Popping for the AF 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM seems a "luxury", at this point, and certainly not a necessity. My reasons for lugging that "bad boy" around would be pure vanity, to most degrees.

    As a guy who has gone to all this expense, over time, am I that anxious to "upgrade" it all?

    That's a big, fat ... NO!

    Now, if Christmas provides a path of improvement, I won't buck it ... but, I currently feel there is no need to push for it. I have yet to even mount all the lens I have on the A850. How many of you can say that? Taking images is tough work. It becomes a little easier when you have a decent selection of options to use to ...

    GET THE SHOT!
    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

  9. #79
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Well, I have no limitations, now, when it comes to standard selections of glass. When I go to the two backpacks (I wear one ... and my late dog wore the other -> okay, j/k ... he wore both! ), it is ALL there. Just about any glass-solution required.
    so its not about weight then cos you carry a bunch of crap with you. why not just carry less lens' that weight more but are of a higher optical quality ? it just makes more sense IF what you're after is IQ.

    Now, Rooz ... you can comment and pontificate all you want, but I am not hurting for selection. I have no need for T/Cs, like many others. In fact, I still kind of hate using them and 99% of time, never would. Why, when you have the real lens length?
    you just bought another TC ?? why would you buy it then if you use them only 1% of the time ? just more wasted money. i never suggested you buy them. you have the "real length" sure, but the real length is a false economy cos the lens itself is not a very good performing lens so while you have a 500mm lens, its barely useable. show me a bunch of shots with the tammie that you have taken that prove me wrong.

    Popping for the AF 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM seems a "luxury", at this point, and certainly not a necessity. My reasons for lugging that "bad boy" around would be pure vanity, to most degrees.As a guy who has gone to all this expense, over time, am I that anxious to "upgrade" it all? That's a big, fat ... NO!
    i wasnt referring to the 70-400 in particular. i'm just talking about quality in general.

    I have yet to even mount all the lens I have on the A850. How many of you can say that?
    not many, thankfully. this is not a good thing. it just means you have too many lens' that serve no purpose or serve duplicate purposes.

    Taking images is tough work. It becomes a little easier when you have a decent selection of options to use to ...
    you dont actually have alot of options at all. what you have is alot of lens'. dont confuse the 2 things. so you;re options are limited in the one area thats actually the MOST important...the best IQ.

    GET THE SHOT!
    yes precisely...you keep reminding us. but the issue here is you dont seem to be getting the shot.

    if you like to collect lens' then that's cool. there's nothing wrong with that. but dont try and justify it with anything else but by saying you like to collect lens'. you raised the issue of the weight being a problem but then in the net breath you tell us you take 2 backpacks. its this kind of hypocrisy that devalues your arguments cos they dont make any sense.
    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

  10. #80
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    You know darn well the glass rides around in the truck ... I make the lens selection just prior to the shoot. I may carry three or four lenses directly to a shoot sight. So, let's get real, my friend. Don't cloud the issue with sideways discussion.

    BTW(eigh) ... the 50-500mm f/4 BIGMA weighs nearly 64 ounces! Without the help of a monopod ... you can't stop shaking holding up that bad boy!
    Last edited by DonSchap; 09-28-2009 at 11:10 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

Posting Permissions

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