Longing 4 Long Lens

For a trek planned next summer, presuming I do not go broke before then, a
very long tele-zoom would be desirable.
I am considering the new Sigma 120-400 OS for use with Nikon APS-c sized
dSLRs.
While it is a big honking lens it isn't that much bigger than my old Nikon
80-200 f2.8.
Anyone actually use this howitzer of a lens? The OS seems to be effective
for even hand-holding at high shutter speeds, at least judging by looking
through the lens attached to a camera.

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 11:30:57 -0800, "trouble" wrote
in :

For a trek planned next summer, presuming I do not go broke before then, a
very long tele-zoom would be desirable.
I am considering the new Sigma 120-400 OS for use with Nikon APS-c sized
dSLRs.
While it is a big honking lens it isn't that much bigger than my old Nikon
80-200 f2.8.
Anyone actually use this howitzer of a lens? The OS seems to be effective
for even hand-holding at high shutter speeds, at least judging by looking
through the lens attached to a camera.

Consider also the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28, which has an excellent fast
stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens with a 35 mm equiv range of
27 mm to 486 mm. No dSLR lens comes close.

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others

Consider also the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28, which has an excellent fast
stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens with a 35 mm equiv range of
27 mm to 486 mm. No dSLR lens comes close.

The DSLR lens SAL-18250 comes close.

http://www.alphamountworld.com/models/sal-18250

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:43:09 -0500, wrote in
:

Consider also the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28, which has an excellent fast
stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens with a 35 mm equiv range of
27 mm to 486 mm. No dSLR lens comes close.

The DSLR lens SAL-18250 comes close.

http://www.alphamountworld.com/models/sal-18250

Rebadged Tamron lens that falls short significantly in terms of speed,
telephoto reach, and quality, plus in-camera stabilization is less
effective than in-lens for long telephoto. I personally wouldn't spend
the money for a good body and put a Tamron lens on it, but of course
YMMV.

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others

John Navas wrote in
:

Rebadged Tamron lens that falls short significantly in terms of speed,
telephoto reach, and quality, plus in-camera stabilization is less
effective than in-lens for long telephoto. I personally wouldn't spend
the money for a good body and put a Tamron lens on it, but of course
YMMV.

My Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro is the highest quality lens I own, and I own a
number of Canon L lenses. I can put two 1.4x TCs and one 2x, stacked, and
still get distinct pixels with my 50D and its 4.7u pixel pitch. The bokeh
is awesome, and it is plenty sharp at infinity, too, even though it is a
macro.

It sounds very strange when someone says they will never put "a" Tamron on
a good body. Certain Tamron lenses may be inferior, but not all. My 28-75
Tamron isn't too shabby, either. The only reason I don't use it much is
because I mostly shoot below 28mm, and above 75mm, with my DSLRs. I use my
G9 to cover that range in good light, and use my IS Canon lenses if I want
that range in low light without a tripod.

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:19:28 GMT, John Sheehy wrote in
:

John Navas wrote in
:

Rebadged Tamron lens that falls short significantly in terms of speed,
telephoto reach, and quality, plus in-camera stabilization is less
effective than in-lens for long telephoto. I personally wouldn't spend
the money for a good body and put a Tamron lens on it, but of course
YMMV.

My Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro is the highest quality lens I own, and I own a
number of Canon L lenses. ...

I seriously doubt it can match the original Canon FD 100 mm f/4 Macro.

It sounds very strange when someone says they will never put "a" Tamron on
a good body. Certain Tamron lenses may be inferior, but not all. ...

I've yet to use one that fully measures up to high end Canon glass, not
just in terms of bench test results, but also in terms of smoothness,
quality and durability.

To be clear, I'm not saying all Canon lenses are better than all Tamron
lenses, and I'm talking primarily about original FD series and "L"
series lenses -- Canon does sell some mediocre lenses, notably cheap
ones made by other companies, and many "new" Canon FD lenses were of
lower quality materials than original Canon FD lenses.

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others

In article , John Navas
wrote:

Rebadged Tamron lens that falls short significantly in terms of speed,
telephoto reach, and quality, plus in-camera stabilization is less
effective than in-lens for long telephoto. I personally wouldn't spend
the money for a good body and put a Tamron lens on it, but of course
YMMV.

My Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro is the highest quality lens I own, and I own a
number of Canon L lenses. ...

I seriously doubt it can match the original Canon FD 100 mm f/4 Macro.

the fact that no current camera can use that lens makes it irrelevant.
plus, the tamron 90 is an excellent lens and differences, if any, would
require pixel peeping, something you've said you don't do.

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:31:21 -0800, nospam wrote
in :

In article , John Navas
wrote:

Rebadged Tamron lens that falls short significantly in terms of speed,
telephoto reach, and quality, plus in-camera stabilization is less
effective than in-lens for long telephoto. I personally wouldn't spend
the money for a good body and put a Tamron lens on it, but of course
YMMV.

My Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro is the highest quality lens I own, and I own a
number of Canon L lenses. ...

I seriously doubt it can match the original Canon FD 100 mm f/4 Macro.

the fact that no current camera can use that lens makes it irrelevant.

Hardly, given that many such cameras are in use, including my own T-90.

plus, the tamron 90 is an excellent lens and differences, if any, would
require pixel peeping, ...

As I wrote, I seriously doubt it.

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others

In article , John Navas
wrote:

My Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro is the highest quality lens I own, and I own a
number of Canon L lenses. ...

I seriously doubt it can match the original Canon FD 100 mm f/4 Macro.

the fact that no current camera can use that lens makes it irrelevant.

Hardly, given that many such cameras are in use, including my own T-90.

it's great that a 20+ year old camera is still in use, but that does
not make it 'current.'

plus, the tamron 90 is an excellent lens and differences, if any, would
require pixel peeping, ...

As I wrote, I seriously doubt it.

those who have find it to be an outstanding lens.

John Navas wrote in
:

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 11:30:57 -0800, "trouble"
wrote in :

For a trek planned next summer, presuming I do not go broke before
then, a very long tele-zoom would be desirable.
I am considering the new Sigma 120-400 OS for use with Nikon APS-c
sized dSLRs.
While it is a big honking lens it isn't that much bigger than my old
Nikon 80-200 f2.8.
Anyone actually use this howitzer of a lens? The OS seems to be
effective for even hand-holding at high shutter speeds, at least
judging by looking through the lens attached to a camera.

Consider also the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28, which has an excellent
fast stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens with a 35 mm equiv range
of 27 mm to 486 mm. No dSLR lens comes close.


They guy has a DSLR. Why would he want to go down the s--- level of image
quality that camera offers just to get a wide range zoom?