Please help me choose lenses for my SLR

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

  1. Suzie Quinn wrote:


    Ms. Quinn, this post was not addressed to you.
    If you are referring to the character of the Usenet, you miss the point. I
    was informing you of its historical and traditional usage, very much of
    which is still relevant.

    This newsgroup is a forum for semi-technical discussions. In that regard,
    only the truth has enduring value. That there are other activities
    included is a matter of the choice of the participants. The core purpose
    here, however, is the exchange of information about 35mm cameras. It is a
    violation of the traditional spirit of this venue to propagate false
    information intentionally, and that includes withholding relevant
    information as well.

    I can well understand that you were not aware of this, and that's why I
    explained to for you. Do with that information as you will.
    Not at all! I am suggesting that the chances of doing so are not what you
    are led to believe, however.

    Let me go through this again: it is not the variation between different
    brands of lenses that is the greatest, it is between lenses of the same
    type, by the same manufacturer, and indeed within the same lot!!

    What you pay for is the probability that the lens you receive actually
    performs as advertised! If you buy a Leica, you can take your probability
    to the bank. If you buy Canon/Nikon, it's a gamble the casinos would make.
    If you buy Tokina or Tamron, it's a gamble smart gamblers would make. If
    you buy Sigma, it's a gamble that the marks make.

    What you have serves you well, by your own account. What we have told you
    is that your chances of being as well served by further purchases is no
    where near as good as you have been given to understand.
    Lisa, Skip, and Martin have been gentle with you, as is their wont. No one
    has accused you of proselytizing for Sigma. I have accused you of not
    checking out the information you were given here.
    I really don't know what your situation is, nor is it any of my business.

    There are those who read here but do not contribute. Of general knowledge,
    one of those has been moved to post to this thread, unfortunately unable to
    comprehend the issues, it appears. This cannot be assumed to be generally
    true, however. Whether or not I raise them, the issues themselves remain,
    and will do so long after I'm gone.

    Bill Tallman
    William D. Tallman, May 16, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Suzie Quinn

    Alan Browne Guest

    So, there is no need for a group like r.p.e.35mm? so, why are you here
    Scarpitti ... go away if it is so useless...
    Alan Browne, May 16, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Suzie Quinn

    Nick Fotis Guest


    I've used 3 Sigma lenses in the past in a Canon camera:
    - 28-70/2.8 (plastic outside, "zen" finish). Slow to focus, after two
    years it was in a bad mechanical state.

    - 28-70/2.8 EX . Fast in focusing, rather soft in 2.8, especially
    wide-angle, still going strong after 2+ years. I expect to replace it
    with the Canon 24-70/2.8 soon.

    - 70-300 APO Macro Super. Fine optically, mediocre built quality
    long-term, slow to focus (and seems to worsen after 5 years).
    Replaced it with a (pricey) Canon 'L' zoom lens - but you get what you
    pay for ;-)

    In short: the EX series is much better built mechanically, focus much
    Optically, the latest 28-70/2.8 EX DF and the 70-200/2.8 EX seem to be
    amongst the best in their class. A friend uses the 70-200/2.8 EX in his
    Nikon and he's very satisfied.

    Don't know about other lenses from Sigma, but I feel the selection is a
    bit limited compared to, say, Canon.
    Of course, all companies can (and do) make mediocre lenses (usually,
    these are the cheaper ones).

    Note that, in photography the real investment are the lenses. Me, I
    started with a small Minolta 500si super ages ago, but decided to jump
    ship to Canon before I commit myself to more lenses and accesories for
    the Minolta system.
    Note that, the more lenses you buy for a camera system, you're wedding
    yourself to it.

    Regards from Athens (the original one),
    Nick Fotis
    Nick Fotis, May 16, 2004
  4. Suzie Quinn

    Frank Pittel Guest

    : > Michael Scarpitti wrote:
    : > >
    : > > > 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!
    : > >
    : > > I refuse to help you.
    : >
    : > Too bad she doesn't know this group well enough yet to thank you :)
    : >
    : > Lisa

    : That can be read more than one way, Lisa. I take it meaning that the
    : best thing for her to do would be to forget this crappy system.

    You would be taking it the wrong way then.

    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
    Frank Pittel, May 17, 2004
  5. Suzie Quinn

    Frank Pittel Guest

    : In article <>,
    : says...
    : > I refuse to help you.

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

    : I can take a hint.

    The best thing to do with scarpitti is to ignore him. He doesn't know what he's
    talking about.

    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
    Frank Pittel, May 17, 2004
  6. 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

    mike wheeELer, Jun 20, 2004
  7. Suzie Quinn

    Dick Guest

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

    Dick, Jun 20, 2004
  8. Suzie Quinn

    Dick Guest


    My error. I should have said

    That is where the Sigma lens thread is.

    Dick, Jun 20, 2004
  9. I, too, thank you for your answer. I'll check it out.

    mike wheeELer, Jun 20, 2004
  10. Suzie Quinn

    Alan Browne Guest

    Everyone's qualified to post in this group as long as it is on topic.
    There are few Sigma lenses worth owning.
    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.
    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 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.

    Alan Browne, Jun 20, 2004
  11. , Alan Browne was looking at the world oddly
    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,
    mike wheeELer, Jun 20, 2004
  12. Suzie Quinn

    Skip M Guest

    Skip M, Jun 20, 2004
  13. Suzie Quinn

    Alan Browne Guest

    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.
    Alan Browne, Jun 20, 2004
  14. , Alan Browne was looking at the world oddly
    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.

    mike wheeELer, Jun 21, 2004
  15. Suzie Quinn

    Alan Browne Guest

    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.

    Alan Browne, Jun 21, 2004
    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.