Equipment Sigma 50-500mm thoughts

I must say that prime lenses are falling by the wayside with the computer engineering these days. If the Nikon 14-24 says anything, then I would rather buy top glass zooms that primes. Less glass to carry around for a more flexible range.

 

That entirely depends on the situation. For hikes I'll take 2 bodies, my 24-105 (now 16-35), 100-400, and my 150macro. For weddings I'll take two bodies, 24-105/16-35, 70-200, 50, 85, and 150 macro with a couple of flashes. If i want to pack "light", for lets say a trip to the zoo, I'll take two bodies, 24-105 and my 100-400.

 

Yea? What zoom do you know that can shoot at f/1.2? how about at f/2? Until they get to that point and or when bodies have the ability to shoot at ISO 3200+ with the same IQ as ISO 400, primes will always have a place in my bag. As for flexibility, that is completely subjective...for instance, how is f/2.8 more flexible than f/1.4? Answer: its not.

 

For studio work, primes have their place. You control the scene. But in situations where you can't control things, I prefer zooms.

You are looking forward to the D3 replacement then seeing as how ISO 1600 was rated print worthy by PopPhoto.

And flexibility not in aperture but field of view. If you're stuck against a wall with a 24mm but need to go to 14mm, you have two options
(1) switch from the 24mm prime to the 14mm
(2) zoom out

Hopefully you switched the lens before your image changed.

 

!? What are you saying you mad man you. Have you ever shot an event? What if you showed up at a church...a dark church, and the priest tells you no flash...what then? Bump the ISO all the way up and pray for decent results? Or bust out a couple of fast primes...I'll take the latter. As for controlling things, you fix that by having two bodies...one with a tele prime, one with a wide prime...has been working for a couple of us over the past few years.

Prints from my 3 year old 5D print excellent at ISO 1600 as well...whats your point? There are times where ISO 1600 @ f/2.8 don't cut it...what do you do then? Shoot at 3200?...then what? 6400? They may be fine with a bit of work on a 4x6 print...until your client wants an 8x10.

What about flexibility in a dark venue? That doesn't count? I'm not saying you should only use primes...I am saying they have their use and will continue to do so until technology advances to the point where their abilities become void. I would never show up to an event or wedding without my primes.

 

I just have to say that in film, there was grain and it was accepted as part of the art of photography. But now with digital, you see grain and freak out. ISO 3200 may not be so bad if that's what you are going for.

I'm only 23, I don't have the money to afford 2 bodies with the extensive list of glass you may have. I do what I can, and it works perfectly fine 95% of the time for my shots. I have shot 6 weddings, 2 were inside churches and I was able to get the shot with my 2.8s. I'm not sure how dark your churches are, but there are also ways of working it out with the church for more lighting prior to the ceremony. They are really cooperative as long as you talk to them beforehand.

 

Oh and medium formats rule. If you're talking about clarity, lets all ditch 35mm/APS-C and go medium.

 

I'm not really sure what age (BTW I'm 23 as well) has to do with prime lenses...you say you can't afford them, yet both the 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 are very affordable ($300ea), this is no exception when speaking of Nikon as well. If you have shot 6 weddings so far, surely you can afford to drop some money on a pair of fast primes. OTOH the point of the discussion was that primes have their uses, your statement that they are becoming, more or less, dinosaurs was a bit ignorant seeing as though it couldn't be any further from the truth. Zooms have gotten better, yes, but they haven't gotten to the point where they can take over the entire show. As for film grain, there is a difference between it and digital noise...film offers something digital does not...nostalgia.

 

When I walk out of the house? I carry a Nikon P5100 P&S these days, because I live in a fairly high crime city/state/country (or D300 with the 17-55, it depends a lot on where I am going). When I walk out the door to go to work I carry a D300 with a 17-55/2.8 and a D200 with a 50-150/2.8. That covers me 17-150, which is fine for 99.9% of what I shoot for a living. Those 2 lenses are the DX equivalent to 24-70 and 70-200, a classic PJ 1-2 punch. There is a 50/1.4 in the bag, too; along with 2 SB-800's, clamps and a 5-1 reflector.

Hopeful soon, when the paperwork and bank stuff is done and the Joburg branch of the agancy is up and running, there will be a serious look at the financials involved in moving to a D3x-D3-D700 mix along with a 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 200-400 setup. But that is long hard look.

Tbh, for what I do 2.8 zooms work since I am comfortable using flash - on camera and off. I would like Nikon to update their shorter primes with the recent pixie dust they found. But, it would be more for me and not as a primary income generating lenses, at the moment. I would never go so far as to say they are not valid though, since they have a huge place in portrait, weddings, and sports. Just, right now, I need more flexibility per dollar.

I think the danger in these conversations is that we often forget what we can make work. I made 2 years of good income with those 2 lenses and the D200. I only recently picked up the D300 for a 2 body setup. I have shot annual report portraits with an SB-800 going through the 5-1 with out the skin on to soften the light. Would I like the $50,000 setup? yeah, but I had 2 fun years doing both the insanely boring and the insanely cool with what I had, so I'm in no big rush.

That being said, I'm heading out to take some pictures.

 

Yes noise is not grain. But when you shoot RAW and that noise isn't red/blue/green dots, it does emulate grain quite well.

 

Big plans, JJ..all 15K worth. Would you be keeping your D300, or are you thinking of going completely FF?

 

Well, like I said, I have to take a long, hard look financially. And it certainly won't be a lump purchase. It will most likely start with a body and a lens, and build from there. But, yeah, with the bodies and lenses coming on the market now, the shift to a FF setup makes. I hardly think that there will be shift back to APS in the next 10 years. And tbh, an AF-S 85/1.4 on a crop body.....seems a shame.

As for the D200 and D300, I'll keep them. Part of what we do is train photographers, and often they aren't in a position to splash out on a full kit. So it's good to keep some pool equipment around. I worked 4 months with a D2xs before I had enough scrounged together to get the D200+lens+flash. So I'm in no hurry to ditch them. Besides, it's like a free 1.5x on long lenses. We'll see after January.

 

Yeah I hear you. It took me three plus years to decide to upgrade my pre-existing kit, which was an XT, Sigma 17-70 and a 75-300 IS. It was a tough decision, being as I was going to school for cinematography/film--which turned out to be a decent size waste financially speaking, especially when my monthly reminder shows up in the mail--out goes a $500 check each time. When I got my 5D and 100-400 I immediately missed the 1.6x crop factor...and so I bought a 40D. The two are a perfect combo which virtually doubles the amount of lens choices I have, however I am planning on a 1DIII and or the 5D successor (depending on what Canon has to offer) so who knows what will happen to the 40D.

 

who else currently has need of them? no-one because there isn't another FF body atm other than CaNikon.
Will Sony have equivalent when their FF launches, almost certainly - we already know that there is a 16-35mm on the way (& of course they already have 16mm & 20mm primes). & they'll all be image stabilised.

Again the argument is that nobody else can touch them on FF because nobody else has an FF body (the Nikon guys will tell you that their 70-200mm f2.8 isn't as good as the 80-200mm so they would put that forward instead).
Of course the argument tends to reverse when APS-C is used.
& it will be interesting to see how the Sony 70-200mm compares on FF (it's certainly comparable on APS-C).

Nobody is denying that Canon have some good gear (they also have some that's pretty average - true of all manufacturers, none have the best of everything) but the differences aren't massive & have been closing up as Canon have been relatively laid back for a while whilst others forged on.
Now for all we know they are going to come out with massive improvements at Photokina - but then again they may not.

 

What was said is that Canon's UWA's are nothing to write home about, when in fact that cannot be any further than the truth. As for IS, who needs IS in an UWA? really...not to mention I can't even imagine the cost of a Sony 16-35, what will it be...$1600-1700 (if its even good in the first place)? Just look at the cost of their 70-200 in comparison to Canon's. I stand by my statement that no other current manufacturer can touch Canon's primes or f/4 zooms--and that it is Canon's major strengths in the market...if you would like to try and argue that be my guest. You can say that future competition is on its way all you want, until its actually seen its merely pure speculation.

 

I think this is a huge load of horse poop. Nikon's 70-200/2.8 is a phenomenal lens. It was on film, is on APS and is on a 35mm sensor. The truth is, all the vignetting comments you are hearing about are from idiots shooting a clear blue sky at 2.8. Hardly real world conditions. Easily fixed in camera with the firmware, in post or not at all. And what no one mentions is that it did the same on film. People are developing unreasonable expectations from lenses, from photography in general and it quickly gets propagated through the internet. It's a stellar lens, and I can't wait to have it back in my bag.

 

There seems to be a lot of doodoo tossed around in this thread...after seeing it I often sit here re-reading it--becoming more and more dumbfounded each time.