Please help me choose lenses for my SLR

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Suzie Quinn, May 15, 2004.

  1. Suzie Quinn

    Suzie Quinn Guest

    Hello everyone. I want to learn more about lense possibilities for my
    Sigma SA-9 SLR. I already possess the 28-105 beauty that came with the
    camera. I want to expand my collection. I will need something wider, & I
    will also need something longer too. Perhaps a dedicated portrait lense
    too? Most importantly, I want them to be compatible with Sigma digital
    SLR bodies too, as I plan to purchase one very soon. I look forward to
    reading your responses. Thanks so much!
     
    Suzie Quinn, May 15, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Suzie Quinn

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    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.
     
    Tony Spadaro, May 15, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Suzie Quinn

    Suzie Quinn Guest

    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?
     
    Suzie Quinn, May 15, 2004
    #3
  4. Suzie Quinn

    bmoag Guest

    Don't pay attention to the equipment snobs. People who are overly consumed
    by technical specifications tend to have limited picture making skills.
    Excellent cameras and lenses can be used to make a lot of bad pictures: I
    have a lot of experience at this.
    The sigma lenses are fine for general use by anyone.
    First of all you have to think about whether you are more interested in
    wide-angle or telephoto.
    For most people 28mm is reasonably wide, but you should see what 24mm (or
    shorter) looks like. Personally, I love wide angle lenses and would prefer
    to expand that part of my lens collection if I were you, particularly if you
    like to take travel photos.
    For most people it is rarely necessary to go beyond 300mm at the tele end
    except for specialized purposes. Also the lenses get bigger and heavier and
    need tripods.
    Avoid the massive zoom range lenses (e.g. 28-200/300) from ALL
    manufacturers: they have terrible distortion and poor sharpness/contrast.
    The Nikon and Canon of these focal lengths are just as bad as the
    Sigma/Tamron etc.
     
    bmoag, May 15, 2004
    #4
  5. 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....

    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.

    Bill Tallman
     
    William D. Tallman, May 15, 2004
    #5
  6. Suzie Quinn

    Suzie Quinn Guest

    Thank you for your kind response. Gee whiz. What a tough crowd there is
    in here!

    My 28-105 seems like a fair performer. I would like something wider. And
    longer...up to 200 or 300 as you indicated. I also want a nice portrait
    lense with a low F number. I suppose I'm hoping to hear from some other
    Sigma owners, but judging from how I have been flamed....we'll see if I
    get any other helpful responses in addition to yours. Thank you.
     
    Suzie Quinn, May 15, 2004
    #6
  7. Suzie Quinn

    Suzie Quinn Guest

    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.
    I'm not interested in demonstrating any status level here. I still don't
    see what was so unreasonable about my questions.
     
    Suzie Quinn, May 15, 2004
    #7
  8. I refuse to help you.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, May 15, 2004
    #8
  9. Suzie Quinn

    Suzie Quinn Guest

    Perhaps a silent refusal would have been more courteous. :(

    I can take a hint.
     
    Suzie Quinn, May 15, 2004
    #9
  10. Suzie Quinn

    howard Guest


    Suzie , the folks in alt.photography are a bit friendlier than this ng.
     
    howard, May 15, 2004
    #10
  11. Suzie Quinn

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    I figured you were the usual troll up to the usual game but I gave a
    straight reply just in case you were for real. But you are not, so into the
    killfile with you.
     
    Tony Spadaro, May 15, 2004
    #11
  12. Suzie Quinn

    Lisa Horton Guest

    You're not missing anything :)

    Lisa
     
    Lisa Horton, May 15, 2004
    #12
  13. Suzie Quinn

    Lisa Horton Guest

    Suzie, there's no really nice way to say this, so I'll be blunt. Sigma
    cameras are not well regarded in general, and here specifically. There
    are good reasons for this, but I see no need to go into them unless you
    want to hear them.

    I think you'll find that there are very few Sigma SLR users, especially
    among those more serious about photography or more in love with the gear
    aspect of photography. Most of the participants in this group fall into
    one or both of those groups.

    As I'm sure you know, your camera will only accept Sigma lenses. Sigma
    makes a lot of really crappy lenses, but they also make some pretty
    decent ones. Alas, the crap lenses have given Sigma a pretty poor
    reputation. The better Sigma lenses, while cheaper than the first party
    lenses they compete with, are still not cheap.

    I've had a few Sigma lenses myself. One was just garbage, when I tried
    to remove a filter the whole front element group came out along with the
    filter. One was cheap, felt cheap, but was pretty sharp. And one I
    still have, an EX series ultra wide. It's pretty satisfactory, but it
    is in no way equal to the Canon professional lenses I mostly use.

    The best advice I could give you would be not to invest too much in your
    current system. I would suggest that when you switch to digital, you
    switch to Canon, Nikon, or even Pentax. All of whom make DSLR's that
    are clearly superior to the Sigma DSLRs. They have the added benefit of
    a much wider selection of lenses. You can use not just the camera
    makers lenses, but also good lenses from Tamron, Tokina, and even Sigma
    and other brands. You'll find a hugely larger selection of used lenses
    available, and the cameras will have better resale value than any Sigma
    cameras. This is sincere good advice.

    I'm not going to criticize your current camera, instead I'll say that
    you can make good photographs with it if you have or get the knowledge
    and skill to do so.

    Lisa
     
    Lisa Horton, May 15, 2004
    #13
  14. Suzie Quinn

    Lisa Horton Guest

    Too bad she doesn't know this group well enough yet to thank you :)

    Lisa
     
    Lisa Horton, May 15, 2004
    #14
  15. Suzie Quinn

    Dan Quinn Guest

    Tony's was a reply to the "Please don't help..." thread. Perhaps he
    will also be of no help to me.
    I'll be posting the same question regarding the Olympus OM2000.
    Dan Quinn
     
    Dan Quinn, May 15, 2004
    #15
  16. Okay, let me ask you: How much experience have you had posting on the
    Usenet, especially in (semi)technical news groups? I would guess that you
    have had none at all. Let me tell you why I think this.

    One of the very first things you discover about the Usenet is that it is a
    global bulletin board, and anything posted thereto is subject to intense
    scrutiny. Questions are evaluated according to news group experience, and
    answers are severely critiqued. What you will read here, in the aggregate,
    is probably as reliable as anything you'll discover anywhere, because
    mistakes are caught and corrected almost in real time (sometimes).

    This is not your friendly local neighborhood coffee klatch about
    photography. There is no consideration for personalities as such, unless
    they represent value here, and that means reliably valid information.
    Friendships do develop here, as I've been fortunate enough to discover, but
    they are generally based on mutual respect for knowledgeability.

    At this point, if you intend to read and post here for anything further, let
    me warn you not to let your eyes glaze over, thinking all this is
    irrelevant. Read and learn!!!

    This is not a matter of whim or eccentricity, but a matter of historical
    precedence. Remember that the earliest computer networks were manned and
    used by academic and government professionals. The Usenet was one of the
    very first internetwork bulletin boards, where one could exchange
    information with anyone who had access to a Usenet server, and it quickly
    became the custom for almost every major network node to provide such a
    server.

    Those old machines were really primitive compared to what we have now, and
    so bandwidth itself (how much traffic you created, how large was your post)
    was strictly conserved. Just the facts, ma'am!! Information only!!!

    And the information had value, because it was a professional asset that
    could be shared. Often much money depended on the accuracy and timeliness
    of the information shared. To that extent, there was a good deal of the
    military influence (the military was heavily involved at the beginning).
    So such chatter as I'm creating here simply was not done.

    And personalities were irrelevant because everyone involved was presumed a
    professional, who honored whatever information was received and evaluated
    it as such.

    Which you didn't do.

    Now, the old days are gone, but the essence remains: this is where you get
    the unvarnished information. It was customary to acquaint oneself with
    recent traffic to discover whether the information one sought was still on
    a server somewhere. That custom still exists in such news groups as these.

    I doubt you did a NG search before you posted. I doubt you did a Google
    search before you posted, either. Those are still valid customs.

    So now you have some idea about what you did wrong. These aren't my own
    requirements, but are the general requirements of making use of the Usenet.

    -------------------

    As far as what camera you have, we might be interested from a purely
    equipment point of view, though in your case, I suspect not. Most of the
    people here would be more interested in your photography that your camera,
    despite the fact that this is an equipment newsgroup.

    And I can tell you that some of my gear is much much less expensive than
    your Sigma. Also is arguably very good equipment, though now fairly old.
    Like most of the readers here, I've found that good equipment makes the
    process of photography more enjoyable, and can enhance the results I get.

    Photographic truth: Cameras don't take pictures, photographers do. Great
    pictures are not made by great cameras, but by competent and diligent
    photographers who manage to luck into the opportunity and are skilled
    enough to make the best of it.
    Your questions are unreasonable here, although not in your local club or
    group, where your feelings are as or more important than the validity of
    the information conveyed. Here, as I have explained, we don't give a damn
    about who you are or how you feel about things. You ask and you get the
    best information available. Period. If you don't like what you get,
    that's your problem.

    Now, having said all that, you deserve an explanation of my particular
    reply. We regularly have posters here who a Sigma fans, who simply cannot
    accept that Sigma isn't what they think it is (that their choice of gear is
    not generally appreciated). We get posters here who make these kinds of
    posts just to stir up controversy. We call those posters "trolls" because
    of their habit of dangling bait to see what will bite in response.

    Your post fit that profile.

    And that's why you got the response you did.

    Bill Tallman

    PS. God(dess) bless Lisa Horton!! She tempers our bluster with compassion
    and accurate information. I've told you why your post was attacked. She
    has told you what you need to know. May you profit thereby!
     
    William D. Tallman, May 16, 2004
    #16
  17. Suzie Quinn

    Suzie Quinn Guest

    Thanks Lisa. I'm not interested in switching brands at this time, but
    thanks for taking the time to politely explain your views without
    unnecessary personal attacks. I also own the Sigma EF 500 DG Super flash
    and some other accessories. As far as I know, Minolta is the only other
    brand to offer a wireless-ready flash. I do not need to own the best
    camera in production. I'm just an amateur, and I have no plans to ever
    become a professional. I'm quite pleased with the performance of my
    camera, and yes, I would buy it again.
    Can you suggest some of the better Sigma lense models? I need a wide
    (wider than 28), a tele (past 105), and a lense suited to portraiture
    with a low F number. Thanks for the responses.
     
    Suzie Quinn, May 16, 2004
    #17
  18. Suzie Quinn

    Sander Vesik Guest

    Well, be prepared to get a lot of flack for simply having said 'Sigma'.

    For wide angle, consider the 20mm f/1.8 EX HSM lens.

    Among other things, it is likely to give you better results than Canon /
    Nikon / Pentax 17ish - 35ish f/2.8 ultrawide zooms.
     
    Sander Vesik, May 16, 2004
    #18
  19. Suzie Quinn

    Lisa Horton Guest

    Canon also offers a wireless flash solution. More extensive and
    flexible than Sigma.

    I'm not going to bash your camera, no point in that. But even as a
    amateur, the more you learn, the less likely your next camera will be a
    Sigma.
    I don't follow their lines much. The EX series is their better series.
    I'm sorry I can't help you more. You might try posting each of these
    questions independently.

    Lisa
     
    Lisa Horton, May 16, 2004
    #19
  20. Suzie Quinn

    ww Guest

    William
    I am what you call a lurker I just read and rarely respond unless I feel i
    can help someone. But after reading this I have to comment. This is the
    biggest self righteous wank I have ever read. BTW Tony get your killfile
    ready cos here I come. What a ride it will be.

    Wayne
     
    ww, May 16, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.