Finally got my Sigma 14mm Lens -- Wow! And a rant too

I've been using a Tokina 19-35mm zoom for almost a year on both Nikon film
(N90 & N75) and digital (D70) and I've thought it was a very competent lens
and well worth the money (under $200). But since at 19mm on the D70 the
Zoom's angle of view is what I'd see with a 28 on the film camera, I really
felt the need for a wider lens on the digital -- and if I was going to spend
the better part of a grand (12-24's selling for $709 in NY), I wasn't
willing to sacrifice having a hyper-wide lens for the film camera too.

Then I got a chance to get the 14mm for about $425 and jumped at it. I was
a little worried since it's selling new for $900 and used for around $600
(when available) but apart from some minor cosmetic issues (which Goo-gone
will surely fix) and the lack of lens cap(s), I spend a fairly nervous week
until it arrived yesterday.

I took shots with the D70 with the Tokina at 35 & 19 mm and the 14mm Sigma!
Not only is the resolution really good (at least as much as I can tell with
a 5 MP digital -- film will have to wait for later this weekend), but the
contrast absolutely blew the Tokina away! The images sparkle! Even the
"macro" shots of single flowers about 3" in diameter filling the frame are
competent, though no match for the Tamron 90mm macro. It's an incredible
lens.

RANT/
I've believed for a long time (and still do) that prime (single focal length
lenses) are inherently superior to comparable zooms. Maybe a better (i.e.
more expensive) wide angle zoom wouldn't have such a lack of contrast, but
this is eye-opening. Of course when I used my old (okay, ancient) Minolta
XK, I carried around a huge bag with 11 lenses and tele-extender and was
switching them (it seemed) every other shot, but there was never a feeling
that I was giving up anything in the optical quality of the images I got
from them.

Unfortunately, for most lenses these days, a single focal length lens is
presumed to be a professional lens and the aperture is f/2.8 (and larger)
for short and medium lenses and somewhat larger for really long telephoto
lenses which makes the price generally astronomical. For example, I don't
need a 300mm lens at f/2.8 -- I could make do with one that was f/5.6 but
can you find one? Nah! Even when I used the 35mm f/1.8 lens on the
Minolta, I almost never shot it at wider than f/5.6 or so.

Do I love the convenience of a Nikon 24-85mm Zoom that encompasses two of my
favorite focal lengths (24mm and 75-85mm) in one piece of equipment _and_
is a 1:2 macro as well. Hell, yes! Is it a very good lens? Of course. Is
the optical equal of the old Minolta 24mm and 85mm lenses? Certainly for
shooting with the D70 there's no doubt that its totally adequate and if all
I want to make are 4x6 to 8x10 prints, probably all I ever need. But could
I make a decent 16x20 with these images? No. But I made really fine 11x14
from about half of a 35mm Kodachrome frame from the old Minolta lenses
regularly.

So what's an amateur photographer to do? Suffer with the ever-wider zooms
with ever-decreasing optical quality, especially at the zoom limits.

/RANT

Norm

Norm Dresner wrote:

Unfortunately, for most lenses these days, a single focal length lens is
presumed to be a professional lens and the aperture is f/2.8 (and larger)
for short and medium lenses and somewhat larger for really long telephoto
lenses which makes the price generally astronomical.

That's easy to understand -- most casual shooters go for a zoom.

For example, I don't need a 300mm lens at f/2.8 -- I could make do with
one that was f/5.6 but can you find one? Nah!

Yes! And easily, too. I picked up a 300mm f/4.5 ED for a little more
than $200. Used, of course, but in great condition. Manual focus, of
course, but for the price difference, I'll focus manually. The downside
is that on your D70 you'd lose the light meter; you need the "pro" bodies
to meter with those lenses.

So what's an amateur photographer to do?

Look at used lenses. It's one of the great things about Nikon -- older
lenses are many, varied, and readily available.

--
Jeremy |

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
...
Norm Dresner wrote:

Unfortunately, for most lenses these days, a single focal length lens is
presumed to be a professional lens and the aperture is f/2.8 (and
larger)
for short and medium lenses and somewhat larger for really long
telephoto
lenses which makes the price generally astronomical.

That's easy to understand -- most casual shooters go for a zoom.

For example, I don't need a 300mm lens at f/2.8 -- I could make do with
one that was f/5.6 but can you find one? Nah!

Yes! And easily, too. I picked up a 300mm f/4.5 ED for a little more
than $200. Used, of course, but in great condition. Manual focus, of
course, but for the price difference, I'll focus manually. The downside
is that on your D70 you'd lose the light meter; you need the "pro" bodies
to meter with those lenses.


Yeah, BUT! If we were talking about wide angle lenses, I'd agree with you
wholeheartedly -- buildings and landscapes don't move all that fast. But
for "super" telephotos, the primary targets of opportunity (at least for me)
are wildlife and if I have to stop and take a manual light reading with a
separate meter, the bird or deer is gone. I do have a 500mm mirror lens --
and having used one with the Minolta for years, I have no focusing issues
with it -- but for metering, the D70 is worthless and I have to shoot it
only on the N90 to get automatic metering. If I could find a 500mm f/5.6
(mirror) lens for under $500, I'd have already bought it.

Norm

Norm Dresner wrote:

Yeah, BUT! If we were talking about wide angle lenses, I'd agree with you
wholeheartedly -- buildings and landscapes don't move all that fast. But
for "super" telephotos, the primary targets of opportunity (at least for me)
are wildlife and if I have to stop and take a manual light reading with a
separate meter, the bird or deer is gone.

Well, there are three ways to look at it.

First: light metering is important (no doubt about it) especially with a
moving subject, so having a lens that won't meter with your camera won't
help.

Second: the new fancy lenses are so expensive that you won't be buying one
anyway, so you can either not have one, or you can have one without the
ability to meter; and, in most cases, you only need to get a light reading
once (using the histogram) and then you can fire away.

Third: lenses like the manual 300mm f/4.5 can have a matrix chip installed
so they can meter with a D70, for $115, by this guy:

http://home.carolina.rr.com/headshots/Nikonhome.htm

So if you pay $250 for the lens, then have the chip installed, you've got
a 300mm f/4.5 that'll meter with the D70 for $365. Plus shipping. If you
like small animals, you might rather look for a 400mm instead.

--
Jeremy |

"Norm Dresner" wrote in message
...
I've been using a Tokina 19-35mm zoom for almost a year on both Nikon film
(N90 & N75) and digital (D70) and I've thought it was a very competent
lens
and well worth the money (under $200). But since at 19mm on the D70 the
Zoom's angle of view is what I'd see with a 28 on the film camera, I
really
felt the need for a wider lens on the digital -- and if I was going to
spend
the better part of a grand (12-24's selling for $709 in NY), I wasn't
willing to sacrifice having a hyper-wide lens for the film camera too.

Then I got a chance to get the 14mm for about $425 and jumped at it. I
was
a little worried since it's selling new for $900 and used for around $600
(when available) but apart from some minor cosmetic issues (which Goo-gone
will surely fix) and the lack of lens cap(s), I spend a fairly nervous
week
until it arrived yesterday.

I took shots with the D70 with the Tokina at 35 & 19 mm and the 14mm
Sigma!
Not only is the resolution really good (at least as much as I can tell
with
a 5 MP digital -- film will have to wait for later this weekend), but the
contrast absolutely blew the Tokina away! The images sparkle!


Glad you're happy.

"Norm Dresner" wrote in message
...
SNIP

RANT/

In pseudo-HTML parlance, we'd say RANT /RANT, with the content in
between.

I've believed for a long time (and still do) that prime (single focal
length
lenses) are inherently superior to comparable zooms. Maybe a better (i.e.
more expensive) wide angle zoom wouldn't have such a lack of contrast, but
this is eye-opening. Of course when I used my old (okay, ancient) Minolta
XK, I carried around a huge bag with 11 lenses and tele-extender and was
switching them (it seemed) every other shot, but there was never a feeling
that I was giving up anything in the optical quality of the images I got
from them.

Unfortunately, for most lenses these days, a single focal length lens is
presumed to be a professional lens and the aperture is f/2.8 (and larger)
for short and medium lenses and somewhat larger for really long telephoto
lenses which makes the price generally astronomical. For example, I don't
need a 300mm lens at f/2.8 -- I could make do with one that was f/5.6 but
can you find one? Nah! Even when I used the 35mm f/1.8 lens on the
Minolta, I almost never shot it at wider than f/5.6 or so.

Do I love the convenience of a Nikon 24-85mm Zoom that encompasses two of
my
favorite focal lengths (24mm and 75-85mm) in one piece of equipment _and_
is a 1:2 macro as well. Hell, yes! Is it a very good lens? Of course.
Is
the optical equal of the old Minolta 24mm and 85mm lenses? Certainly for
shooting with the D70 there's no doubt that its totally adequate and if
all
I want to make are 4x6 to 8x10 prints, probably all I ever need. But
could
I make a decent 16x20 with these images? No. But I made really fine
11x14
from about half of a 35mm Kodachrome frame from the old Minolta lenses
regularly.

So what's an amateur photographer to do? Suffer with the ever-wider zooms
with ever-decreasing optical quality, especially at the zoom limits.

/RANT

Norm


Nikon 17-35mm AFS is an awesome lens, rivaling and even surpassing many of
the Nikon primes in its range. In fact, you can't go wrong with any of the
modern top of the line Nikon zooms.

Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
. ..
"Norm Dresner" wrote in message
...
SNIP

RANT/

In pseudo-HTML parlance, we'd say RANT /RANT, with the content in
between.


I thought I did in the original posting!

Norm

In article ,
Norm Dresner wrote:
"Matt Clara" wrote in message
...
"Norm Dresner" wrote in message
...
SNIP

RANT/

In pseudo-HTML parlance, we'd say RANT /RANT, with the content in
between.


I thought I did in the original posting!

Nope, your opening "RANT" had a trailing '/' on it inside the
angle brackets, so it was:

RANT/ ... /RANT

I noticed it at the time, but since it was not *really* HTML, I did not
consider it worth a mention.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Norm Dresner wrote:
"Matt Clara" wrote in message
...
"Norm Dresner" wrote in message
...
SNIP

RANT/

In pseudo-HTML parlance, we'd say RANT /RANT, with the content in
between.


I thought I did in the original posting!

Nope, your opening "RANT" had a trailing '/' on it inside the
angle brackets, so it was:

RANT/ ... /RANT

I noticed it at the time, but since it was not *really* HTML, I did not
consider it worth a mention.


You're almost as anal-retentive as the compilers I have to program with ;-))

Thanks for the correction

Norm

In article ,
Norm Dresner wrote:
"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...

[ ... ]

Nope, your opening "RANT" had a trailing '/' on it inside the
angle brackets, so it was:

RANT/ ... /RANT

I noticed it at the time, but since it was not *really* HTML, I did not
consider it worth a mention.


You're almost as anal-retentive as the compilers I have to program with ;-))

Hey -- at least I didn't point it out originally. That was done
by: "Matt Clara" As I said -- i noticed it but did not
consider it worth a mention. :-)

And I deal with enough anal-retentivity in compilers to have
absorbed at least some of it.

Thanks for the correction

You're welcome,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---