Ping TOG: Digital SLRs

About 4-5 prime lenses for each system, and you don't want to know, even
at used prices.

And your point is?

Depends what you want from the camera, isn't it? The only camera I don't
have a prime lens for is the digital compact, mainly because fitting one
would be a tad difficult. For all the others, I have no zooms simply
because you either can't get any for the system or because it would be a
waste of a good camera - at the end of the day I bought my old Contax
bodies so I could stick Zeiss primes on them.

 

Not always. Canon/Nikon current fit decent quality lenses hold their
value very well. Unfortunately.

 

I bet most people stick with the kit lens they got with the body and
maybe an extra, longer zoom.

I reckon you have to be very keen, ultra critical or earning money
from your pictures to make it worth spending a huge amount on lenses.
The law of diminishing returns is particularly applicable.

Exactly.

 

I'd disagree here, as Simes says a few primes are a good idea, a nice
85mm f1.8 or thereabouts to really play around with depth of field.
It's always a compromise between image quality, focal length, and light
gathering capability, you'll never get the best at everything in one
lens.

I just bought myself the 10-20 (Assuming it's the sigma one you have)
lovely bit of glass... here's one of my snaps taken with it last
weekend.

http://bighugelabs.com/flickr/onblack.php?id=2335626125&size=large

I find it very odd taking photos with it as you can get so close to the
subject and not notice. What do you reckon to the 17-85 though? I've
heard a lot of mixed reports.

 

Ah well, that's down to folk believing the hype. A lot of older glass is
every bit as good as current stuff, in some cases better.
More and more people are starting to notice it and prices of manual
lenses are steadily climbing. I've got all/most of the glass I want and
can slacken off a bit now.
Of course, there are always those who can't / won't be seen with
anything but current male jewellery, but that's been the case ever since
cameras became small enough to sling round one's neck.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"A scone and tea at half past three
Makes the day a little brighter
Keep your cakes and fancy tarts
And stick them up your shiter."

 

I'm sure that's true

Sure, but it depends on how you're using the lenses. If you want to
maintain all the functions of a modern camera - the obvious one being
autofocus - you're going to have to fork out for lenses which are
compatible.

 

Um.... I've got half a dozen, ranging in cost from a couple of hundred
quid to £1500.

Those cover a lot of bases, but a wide angle (very wide angle) is
useful, as well.

And if you're taking two cameras to an event, as I sometimes do, it's
nice to have both loaded and lensed at the same time, as it were.

 

I have one, and it is indeed the bollocks.

 

They do indeed.

If you buy quality, it lasts.

 

Yup, I remember it from Chimay last year.. just took me a while to
justify it to myself.

 

Why would I want to do that? All that's important is the image, not the
gear that takes it. Everything else is posing.

I have a couple of AF lenses but I rarely use them. In certain
circumstances I do, but having been long used to manual focus lenses and
knowing a lot of shortcuts and tricks in the use of them, I find it no
problem to carry on using them. AF isn't all it's cracked up to be, by
any means.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"A scone and tea at half past three
Makes the day a little brighter
Keep your cakes and fancy tarts
And stick them up your shiter."

 

I'd be surprised if 99% of people can tell the difference between any
lenses. And even fewer would know how to actually test them.

--
Veggie Dave
UKRMHRC#2 BOTAFOF#08
IQ 18 FILMS http://www.iq18films.com
POST PRODUCTION http://www.iq18films.co.uk
Toxic Shock Syndrome Gets More Girls Than Me

 

It is - I bought it as it was cheap and I wanted a wider lens than I had
- and the Canon equivalent was a lot more money for a lens I will only
use occasionally - and it's good -but it does barrel distort and vignette
a teensy bit wide open. To be honest though, I think it's only
noticeable if you're being hypercritical.

The 17-85 IS USM is a fab lens - I love it - it's just great for most
things. If I'm mooching about with the camera, that's the lens that's on
it. The others are in the bag, but the 17-85 is OK for most stuff. It's
the sweet spot price-wise for a lot of very sharp lens. Remember it's EF-
s mount though - so can't be used on full frame sensors. I can use it on
the 40d but not the 1Ds-Mk111 I've just bought (he says proudly)...

 

I posted some test images here a while back now, some were legacy glass,
and some were the latest AF lenses on my 4/3 Olympus DSLR. It was very
hard to tell which pictures had been taken with what lens.

 

So everyone who doesn't use old equipment is just posing? Sounds like
inverse snobbery to me. If you're using a modern SLR, it's likely
you'll want to use the functions it offers. AF is just one of them.
There's nothing wrong with that.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'isn't all it's cracked up to be'. On a
decent camera it's fast, accurate and convenient and if you have half
a clue will give results equal or better than MF. If playing with
older equipment is what you enjoy then fine, but it doesn't
necessarily mean your photos will be any better than if you were using
modern kit.

 

Ding!
And 99% of people don't care.

 

Read what I wrote. All that matters is the image. Else why have a camera
at all? You may as well just write about what you see. I can see I've
hit a nerve, carry on.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"A scone and tea at half past three
Makes the day a little brighter
Keep your cakes and fancy tarts
And stick them up your shiter."

 

I did read all you wrote - seemed pretty chippy to me. If all that
matters is the image why are you so concerned with the equipment other
people use?

As for hitting a nerve - I have one camera and two lenses. It's modern
equipment (< 5 yrs old) and it's decent but I make no apology for
that. Manual techniques simply aren't practical for 90% of the stuff I
do.

 

Um, aren't you corroborating what he's just said? Old lenses were
'current fit' at some time.

 

I simply couldn't give a toss about the gear other people use - what
possible difference could it make to me? You're reading into what I
wrote something that wasn't there and took it as criticism.

Otoh...

I laugh at the gear-headedness of those who think they must have the
latest bit of kit to look the part and/or take better pics [1] - and
that's what I mean about the image being everything. Who cares what it's
made with or by? It's simply not important, within reason, and even then
some utterly timeless pics have come from some very basic cameras.

My point about AF not being all it's cracked up to be stands,
nonetheless. There are plenty of times AF falls down and simply doesn't
work very well. To rely on it is sheer laziness, and if that's all that
is used one may as well have a P&S.

[1] With this proviso - I am immeasurably grateful to the previous
generations of gear-heads who purchased all that fine glass and let it
go for buttons later on. Most of it hardly used at all.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"A scone and tea at half past three
Makes the day a little brighter
Keep your cakes and fancy tarts
And stick them up your shiter."