Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 120
  1. #81
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Elisha82 View Post
    I think IQ wise they are the same except that you run a chance of stripping the gears on the Sigma.
    Hm, i read about that after i got more into photography but I thought it was a rare occurrence... is it a really high percentage sort of thing? I was hoping to save up for a prime lens next but if my 300 self imploded i would be upset, i use it for all my macros :*(
    Sony α300
    flickr

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Don't cloud the issue with sideways discussion.
    lmfao...too funny man.
    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

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    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.



    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.



    i wasnt referring to the 70-400 in particular. i'm just talking about quality in general.



    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.



    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.



    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.

    I agree with what Rooz says. You already have the weight, you already lug all of the weight around with you(whether it's in your car or on your back). Why not have about 3-4 high quality lenses that weigh nearly the same as your menagerie? I'd rather have 3-4 top notch lenses than 10 mediocre lenses any day. The cost nearly a wash, the weight, nearly a wash. You have admitted your CZ is magical, why wouldn't you want that magic in all of your lenses?? And don't speak of cost because you have spent that cost in your huge gear list.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario
    Posts
    1,903
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
    Hm, i read about that after i got more into photography but I thought it was a rare occurrence... is it a really high percentage sort of thing? I was hoping to save up for a prime lens next but if my 300 self imploded i would be upset, i use it for all my macros :*(
    Nothing will happen to the camera. The camera AF motor will strip the gears on the lenses only. It's not a very high occurrence but does happen especially with the lower end Sigma lenses.
    Canon EOS 7D

    flickr
    FLUIDR

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    Well, it's your back ... that's all I'm saying. As a trade-off, for me, I will tolerate a decrease in image quality to a certain point. If and when the time comes ... I made ADD the lenses, but there simply is no rush to "replace" that which acceptably works.

    Thanks, but no thanks. I can "weight."

    "The Last Day of the Contest" is upon us. Who knew?
    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. #86
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    72

    Lightbulb

    I just 'screwed up' and won an elderly Minolta 100-200 for under $60. Why did I do that when I have a really nice 70-210/3.5-4.5? Saving ~50g of weight for one, something Don understands -- plus dyxum & kurtmunger say very nice things about the mini-.. er lite- .. er .. ok, the metal 1st-generation 100-200mm lens that resembles and compares favorably to the 70-210 f/4 . In either case I'll have a nice lens with the other departs.

    Don, I envy you this decision, wish I could join you in finding a great tele zoom for an A850. My dreams are A700-size, my budget even less.. but it's been fun dreaming with you. Some day I'll take that step, that's why I keep the full-frame Minoltas in hand & occasionally bid on a .. er.. metal 1st-generation 75-300 lens that resembles and compares favorably to the 70-210 f/4. You sure you don't want a 100-400 apo? I hear they're pretty good too..
    JimR - gear list changes daily
    http://picasaweb.google.com/alphaPDX

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    Jim,

    I'm still NOT convinced the 70-400 is worth the effort to have to sell my other lenses and pop for it. It's heavy, it's silver-looking ... and it is pretty expensive.

    If I do sell the 200-500 and the 80-400 ... I may get around $1100 for the pair. That still leaves me $500 short. Now, if 'Rooz' could pony up ... instead of giving me a steady drivel of how wonderful life will be, well then ... I could be a "believer", I suppose.

    As 'coldrain' so fondly used to remark ... "and if pigs had wings" ... we had all better duck.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 09-29-2009 at 05:54 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

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Jim,

    I'm still NOT convinced the 70-400 is worth the effort to have to sell my other lenses and pop for it. It's heavy, it's silver-looking ... and it is pretty expensive.

    If I do sell the 200-500 and the 80-400 ... I may get around $1100 for the pair. That still leaves me $500 short. Now, if 'Rooz' could pony up ... instead of giving me a steady drivel of how wonderful life will be, well then ... I could be a "believer", I suppose.

    As 'coldrain' so fondly used to remark ... "and if pigs had wings" ... we had all better duck.
    This 70-300mm would add at least another $100, add in the 180mm F/3.5 macro, and sell the 3x and 2x TC. ....


    or sell the Tamron 70-200mm, I would if I had that 200mm F/2.8 prime....
    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

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    Other than the "riotous" speed of the PRIME lens, they shoot equally sharp, Ryan. Losing the zoom range and lightweight of the 70-200mm f/2.8 seems impudent. I bought the 200mm for sports photography with the Full Frame and the APS-C (where it is effectively a high speed, 5fps 300mm f/2.8). The 70-200 zoom was purchased as a match-up set for indoor work with the 28-75mm f/2.8.

    The SONY 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM is just too dark to be of much use indoors. Heck, it's at f/5 at 200mm!

    If I were hauling all the primes in my backpack, I would be spending more time swapping lens than taking images. Studio work is one thing, but when you are shooting outdoor activity ... things happen quick and I have found that routine lens swapping just does not get 'er done.

    And I kind of have to ask ... why in the heck would I sell my favorite MACRO lens? Do you know something I don't?

    You may be selling your gear for video capability, but I do not suffer from such desires. On the contrary ... I have a little video camcorder. Spielberg has nothing to fear from me.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 09-29-2009 at 10:08 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

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    72
    You do indeed sound at a stalemate, Don. Perhaps you should indeed stand pat with the other two. From outside it seems that one of those two must go, and once the floodgates are open why not swap both for the best? But it's easy for us to spend your money & let you carry around the bulky things for shots you might not even want to take!

    Personally I have a much lower weight limit than you, but other than my 660g Tamron 14 I've stuck with it.. that one seems less miserable due to its short length. That's why I hate pretending I need more than what the 70-210 + TC brings, 360mm at 550g. Maybe I'll like 340g at 500g even more with that 100-200? But I do dislike swapping in/out a TC, so again it's the perpetual balance of convenience, weight, expense, IQ and 'fun factor' that can sometimes override all others. My 17-70 is great fun, my 18-200 more versitile and light, the 14 does things nothing else can do, Minolta glass makes me feel good.. if I get them all, each one gets used less. What's the sense of that?

    As I think I said before though: you are in a no-lose situation, so make the call & enjoy!
    JimR - gear list changes daily
    http://picasaweb.google.com/alphaPDX

Posting Permissions

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