Please help me choose lenses for my SLR

In article , , Suzie Quinn
was looking at the world oddly when:

In article ,
says...
Suzie Quinn wrote:

In article ,
says...
I would suggest you stick with just the one lens until the Sigma body
dies - about 2 years. THen buy a different and better system from Canon,
Minolta, Nikon, or Pentax.



Huh? I've already owned the camera for almost two years. I don't see any
sign of it about to break.

Can anyone give me an unbiased reply?....any Sigma users?

Troll, or Sigma flack, most likely.

If not, then Suzie is seriously in need of informing herself in these
regards. If she does not, she's chosen the consequences; ignorance,
especially in these times, is no excuse. Sorry....

Excuse me? I own a 35mm camera. This is the 35mm equipment group. I came
here to ask about lenses for my camera. Did I do something wrong? I'm
apologise if my camera is not at your level, but it works just fine for
me.

On the other hand, if Suzie comes back and asks reasonable questions, like
why she's gotten the response she did, she'll get straight answers. The
information available here is highly critiqued by other readers, and so can
be relied upon, in the aggregate. What Suzie does hereafter will
demonstrate her status as poster here.

I'm not interested in demonstrating any status level here. I still don't
see what was so unreasonable about my questions.

..Suzie Q!

I'm probably not quailfied to post in this group either according to that other
person's opinion. But I don't care.

However, I have a interest in Sigma lenses even though I don't have one of
their cameras.

I plan on going digital and was thinking of buying a teleconverter, say, a 1.4,
1.7, or 2.0 so that I could slap it on the back of a lens to see how it would
do when I moved the lens over to a digital camera.

I am thinking about the Sigma 24 to 135 f 2.8-4.5 aspheric IF lens. This wouuld
be intened mostly for portrait purposes.

I think it will act like what Suzie has. Are there some opinions about this
approach?

Michael

Susie, you might try the news group rec.photo.help There is a
lengthy thread there on Sigma lenses.

Dick

Susie

My error. I should have said rec.photo.misc.

That is where the Sigma lens thread is.

Dick

In article ,
, Dick was looking at the world oddly when:

Susie

My error. I should have said rec.photo.misc.

That is where the Sigma lens thread is.

Dick
I, too, thank you for your answer. I'll check it out.

Michael

mike wheeELer wrote:

I'm probably not quailfied to post in this group either according to that other
person's opinion. But I don't care.

Everyone's qualified to post in this group as long as it is on topic.

However, I have a interest in Sigma lenses even though I don't have one of
their cameras.

There are few Sigma lenses worth owning.


I plan on going digital and was thinking of buying a teleconverter, say, a 1.4,
1.7, or 2.0 so that I could slap it on the back of a lens to see how it would
do when I moved the lens over to a digital camera.

That would depend on the camera you're aiming at. More likely
crop would around 1.3 to 1.5 depending on what body you do buy.


I am thinking about the Sigma 24 to 135 f 2.8-4.5 aspheric IF lens. This wouuld
be intened mostly for portrait purposes.

Sigma AF 2.8-4.5 24-135mm 2.88 (2) = average

This is the average of two tests by unnamed magazines as complied
by photozone.de eg, not a great lens.


I think it will act like what Suzie has. Are there some opinions about this
approach?

For portraits a good, ordinary prime in the 85 to 100mm range
would be more appropriate to avoid distortion and allow for
shallower DOF (larger aperture), not to mention a sharper look
than the zoom will deliver. In your case, assuming a digital
upgrade, 100, 135 or 180mm. (just divide by the crop factor of
the digital you have in mind for the 35mm equivalent).

What camera body do you have? That might point to a variety of
used OEM lenses that would be better than any Sigma.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

In article ,
, Alan Browne was looking at the world oddly
when:

mike wheeELer wrote:


I plan on going digital and was thinking of buying a teleconverter, say, a
1.4
,
1.7, or 2.0 so that I could slap it on the back of a lens to see how it
would
do when I moved the lens over to a digital camera.

That would depend on the camera you're aiming at. More likely
crop would around 1.3 to 1.5 depending on what body you do buy.


I am thinking about the Sigma 24 to 135 f 2.8-4.5 aspheric IF lens. This
wouul
d
be intened mostly for portrait purposes.

Sigma AF 2.8-4.5 24-135mm 2.88 (2) = average

This is the average of two tests by unnamed magazines as complied
by photozone.de eg, not a great lens.

For portraits a good, ordinary prime in the 85 to 100mm range
would be more appropriate to avoid distortion and allow for
shallower DOF (larger aperture), not to mention a sharper look
than the zoom will deliver. In your case, assuming a digital
upgrade, 100, 135 or 180mm. (just divide by the crop factor of
the digital you have in mind for the 35mm equivalent).

What camera body do you have? That might point to a variety of
used OEM lenses that would be better than any Sigma.

Cheers,
Alan.

I unloaded my rather old 35mm manual equipment and my 120 outfit and so I have
the fortunate position of being able to pick the lens first with an eye on
which digital body I might want to get in the future. I am leaning towards
Pentax but I lean in different directions on different days.

So I plan on getting a AF body to match the lens mount and pick the lens first.

I have had a Kalimar which was kind of fuzzy. It was 60 to 300 mm and the upper
end was no good.

So... which oem lens would you have in mind? I still want zoom. I used my fixed
on my medium format for far too long when I really liked the "fuzzy" zoom under
most of the shooting I did, simply because it was a zoom.

still shopping,
Michael

"mike wheeELer" wrote in message
news
In article ,
, Alan Browne was looking at the world
oddly
when:

..

Sigma AF 2.8-4.5 24-135mm 2.88 (2) = average

This is the average of two tests by unnamed magazines as complied
by photozone.de eg, not a great lens.

For portraits a good, ordinary prime in the 85 to 100mm range
would be more appropriate to avoid distortion and allow for
shallower DOF (larger aperture), not to mention a sharper look
than the zoom will deliver. In your case, assuming a digital
upgrade, 100, 135 or 180mm. (just divide by the crop factor of
the digital you have in mind for the 35mm equivalent).

What camera body do you have? That might point to a variety of
used OEM lenses that would be better than any Sigma.

Cheers,
Alan.

I unloaded my rather old 35mm manual equipment and my 120 outfit and so I
have
the fortunate position of being able to pick the lens first with an eye on
which digital body I might want to get in the future. I am leaning towards
Pentax but I lean in different directions on different days.

So I plan on getting a AF body to match the lens mount and pick the lens
first.

I have had a Kalimar which was kind of fuzzy. It was 60 to 300 mm and the
upper
end was no good.

So... which oem lens would you have in mind? I still want zoom. I used my
fixed
on my medium format for far too long when I really liked the "fuzzy" zoom
under
most of the shooting I did, simply because it was a zoom.

still shopping,
Michael

mike wheeELer wrote:


I plan on going digital and was thinking of buying a teleconverter,
say, a
1.4
,
1.7, or 2.0 so that I could slap it on the back of a lens to see how it
would
do when I moved the lens over to a digital camera.

That would depend on the camera you're aiming at. More likely
crop would around 1.3 to 1.5 depending on what body you do buy.


I am thinking about the Sigma 24 to 135 f 2.8-4.5 aspheric IF lens.
This
wouul
d
be intened mostly for portrait purposes

mike wheeELer wrote:


I unloaded my rather old 35mm manual equipment and my 120 outfit and so I have
the fortunate position of being able to pick the lens first with an eye on
which digital body I might want to get in the future. I am leaning towards
Pentax but I lean in different directions on different days.

So I plan on getting a AF body to match the lens mount and pick the lens first.

I have had a Kalimar which was kind of fuzzy. It was 60 to 300 mm and the upper
end was no good.

So... which oem lens would you have in mind? I still want zoom. I used my fixed
on my medium format for far too long when I really liked the "fuzzy" zoom under
most of the shooting I did, simply because it was a zoom.

Your combined objective of 'portrait', zoom and eventual upgrade
to digital make it an "all compromise" kind of choice.

Given your goal of digital , if I were in your shoes I'd go
Canon. They are the leader of the pack in digital SLR's and have
an exemplary lens lineup.

If it must be a zoom for portraits that will upgrade to
digital, then a 70|80-200 f/2.8 would be a better choice as the
larger aperture and better optics would be a benefit for that
use. This is a pricey way to go. Others may have less costly
ways to suggest.

For myself, once I xition to digital, my 80-200 f/2.8 will become
my 'portrait' lens (etc.) which with the digital crop factor
(exact factor not known yet) should bring it into the portrait
range ... until I can afford the 135mm f/2.8 STF...

Good luck.


--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

In article ,
, Alan Browne was looking at the world oddly
when:

mike wheeELer wrote:


Your combined objective of 'portrait', zoom and eventual upgrade
to digital make it an "all compromise" kind of choice.

Given your goal of digital , if I were in your shoes I'd go
Canon. They are the leader of the pack in digital SLR's and have
an exemplary lens lineup.

If it must be a zoom for portraits that will upgrade to
digital, then a 70|80-200 f/2.8 would be a better choice as the
larger aperture and better optics would be a benefit for that
use. This is a pricey way to go. Others may have less costly
ways to suggest.

For myself, once I xition to digital, my 80-200 f/2.8 will become
my 'portrait' lens (etc.) which with the digital crop factor
(exact factor not known yet) should bring it into the portrait
range ... until I can afford the 135mm f/2.8 STF...

Good luck.



Yeah, compromise was my thinking.

I had been thinking a long lens alternative to messing with a teleconverter and
this would then be my long lens for digital. Two I have been thinking about:

Sigma 135-400mm F4.5-5.6 APO Aspherical Lens for Pentax-AF Camera
Pentax 80-320mm SMCP F/4.5-5.6 Lens (Silver) for Pentax-AF Camera

I have been leaning towards that second one.

Michael

Alan Browne wrote:

mike wheeELer wrote:


I unloaded my rather old 35mm manual equipment and my 120 outfit and
so I have the fortunate position of being able to pick the lens first
with an eye on which digital body I might want to get in the future. I
am leaning towards Pentax but I lean in different directions on
different days.

So I plan on getting a AF body to match the lens mount and pick the
lens first.

I have had a Kalimar which was kind of fuzzy. It was 60 to 300 mm and
the upper end was no good.

So... which oem lens would you have in mind? I still want zoom. I used
my fixed on my medium format for far too long when I really liked the
"fuzzy" zoom under most of the shooting I did, simply because it was a
zoom.


Your combined objective of 'portrait', zoom and eventual upgrade to
digital make it an "all compromise" kind of choice.

Given your goal of digital , if I were in your shoes I'd go Canon. They
are the leader of the pack in digital SLR's and have an exemplary lens
lineup.

If it must be a zoom for portraits that will upgrade to digital, then a
70|80-200 f/2.8 would be a better choice as the larger aperture and
better optics would be a benefit for that use. This is a pricey way to
go. Others may have less costly ways to suggest.

Apologies, obviously I got my crop factor backwards above. A
28-70|80 f/2.8 zoom could do the job as a 'portrait' lens ... if
a zoom it must be.

But consider that at a 1.5 cropping, the humble 50mm f/1.8 lens
will turn into a 75mm equivalent with lots of DOF available. For
less than $100 you get a pretty good digital portait lens.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--