« 180,000 Comments | Main | Asymptosis and the Functionally Perfect Lens »

Thursday, 22 September 2016

Comments

Nice, I'm sure, but I'm not shopping for dumbbells. I'll take a Pentax 31 Limited, at 12 ounces, please.

A reasonable set of 3 of these would be wonderful, but ohhhh my back. I'm just grabbing this out of thin air, but I think Edward Weston said that there wasn't anything photogenic more than 500 feet from the car.

Pair these up with a couple of D5's or 1DX Mk whatever and you'll wish you had decided to bring your 8x10 instead.

On the other hand, one of the better values in photo equipment.

As much as I'm a camera weight-weenie, there's something just right about a lens that weighs as much or more than the camera hanging off the back. I wouldn't want to lug one around all day though!

I'm closer to 70 than 60 and I just can't get with these tiny lightweight cameras. I like a camera and a lens with some mass to it. Yes they are heavy, I feel their weight when I go out-often with two of them around my neck or on my shoulders-just like the good old days-except now I often tote a tripod along. I must not be alone. Thanks Sigma! And extra thanks to Fuji for their new MF offering!

I just purchased the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 zoom lens for my Nikon D5100. I should have purchased this lens when it first came out but for some reason didn't consider Sigma a worth while manufacture of lenses. Was I wrong. Nikon has nothing that matches this lens. Yes Nikon has a 17-55mm F2.8 but it's listed at $1499.95. I payed $399.00 for the Sigma (On sale. Reg price $669.00.)

I've only had time to take it out on one day of shooting but it looks to be very sharp lens. Fast focus. The only problem I had was the focus ring. The lens weighs 1.24LBS and you really need to hold the camera with both hands the old fashion way - one on the camera body and the other on the lens. Because the focus ring is always active you can easily prevent the lens from focusing. Just something you need to get used to.

And yes like the ART lens mentioned in this post is has a large filter size at 77mm. I thought it was large until I read the size of the above mentioned lens.

I would like to read some opinions on clear filters. K+B has a couple of clear filters with one having a special coating that helps to bead any water that collects on the glass. It's $53 at B&H.

Is clear filters O.K. or should I still be using a UV filter? In the film days I knew the answer but with digital I just don't know.

PS: Yes I use TOPs link to B&H.

It's a good thing not all photographers are like me, but if I had a full frame Nikon or Canon, I would be totally unable to look past the fact that both make what I assume are already very good 85mm lenses for around $400. f/1.8 is plenty big enough for me.

This lens monster makes the Zeiss Batis 85 f1.8 even more attractive:)

There's the new Zeiss Loxia 85/2.4 that's small, cute, optically brilliant and expensive. Slow, but nice. Different strokes, eh?

as for elements count: i didn't trust my eyes when i saw the lens diagram of the new olympus 25mm/1.2. but they really put in 19 elements (in 14 groups).

wow.

I've always been a zoom lens photographer, but the cheap-ish Canon 85mm f1.8 that my wife bought me for Christmas a few years back is now a favorite of mine. 85mm is a great focal length for snapping photos of my family. It gives me some working distance, focuses like a rocket, and the 85mm focal length gives nice separation of subject from background even without resorting to the wide apertures. Another reason why I love the Canon 85mm -- this point goes against the new Sigma -- is it's size. The 85mmm f1.8 feels perfect on my 5D. It's lightweight, small, but just big enough to feel well balanced on a DSLR. During jacket weather, I often bring just my camera, the 85mm, and Canon's 40mm pancake in my pocket. With that lens combo I can shoot almost everything that interests me and leave the camera backpack at home. I'm sure this new Sigma will take beautiful photos and look really cool mounted on a camera, but sadly, it's not for me. The list price is amazing. Such a temptation.

John Krill, I'll share my opinion on clear filters. I use a protective filter only in situations where there is obvious risk to the front element from blowing sand, splashing water, or at serious elevation to decrease UV. There's been a lot of discussion on the web about this and in my view the consensus is that 1) it's pretty hard to tell if a filter was used from an optical viewpoint except for some flare situations when degradation is obvious. 2) Most lens front elements are pretty sturdy. Some argue that, in a fall, filters are more likely to damage the front element from shattering than protect it since they are often made of thin non-sturdy glass. Everyone is entitled to their choice in this matter but this is mine and I'm sticking to it, for now.

I'm totally on board. I love my Sigma 24 and 50mm Art lenses -- equal to (24) or better than (50) the Nikon equivalents. And with the 85, it looks like I'll have a walkaround set with no Nikon branding at all. (On the other hand, I may never be able to give up the Nikon 14-24mm.)

The two greatest restrictions on lens designers are 1. intended selling price, and 2. size and weight

Although I knew point #2, it's really hit home for me in the past 2-3 years, as more and more lenses come to market designed to perform well on super high-resolution sensors. Many of these new lenses are real monsters.

I just received a Leica SL for testing, along with its "kit" 24-90/2.8-4 (long-ish on the tele end, but only f/4 at that zoom position). I never imagined I'd see a mid-range zoom of this, um, generous size, and it's especially disorienting if you grew up thinking of Leica in terms of the M-system, with its wonderful compact lenses. I'm sure that the 24-90's size is necessary for it to meet its performance aim points, but I keep having to check the name on the front to verify that it is indeed a Leica.

I have a lot of lenses, but since I bought my Nikkor 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 I find I just leave it on my D7200. With VR and the D7200's wonderful high ISO capability, I don't really need a speedier lens. I have become just too lazy to mess with multiple lenses.

The comments to this entry are closed.