Time to make a decision

[Stacey]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Tony Polson wrote:

> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Tony Polson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Like so many Kiron lenses, this one is an outstanding performer, with
>>> excellent sharpness and smooth bokeh. It might appear that comparing
>>> the long end of a 1970s zoom with the superlative 180mm f/2.8 Nikkor
>>> is not a good idea, but the Kiron lenses were something special, and
>>> this is probably one of the best zoom lenses ever made.
>>
>>And again, this wasn't a "cheap lens" and has nothing to do with comparing
>>a modern cheap sigma zoom to a canon 'L' lens.
>
>
> True.
>
> But it is also true - nowadays - that not all Sigma lenses are bad
> lenses.

I'm sure they aren't, but the CHEAP ones -are- bad news. This Charlie guy's
point was that cheap zoom lenses are as good as manufacturer primes, which
is BS. He's still crying for being called on it.




--

Stacey

 

[Stacey]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Charlie Self wrote:

>
> As far as the $99 price goes, I only know what Rich told me. 30 years
> ago, $99 was worth almost a hundred bucks. Today, it's less than two
> days' groceries for a family of four. But he might have bought it used,
> or he might have gotten a really good deal. He didn't say.

It's still BS, that wasn't a "$99" lens at a time when the nikon was $1000.


>
> Cult lens? WTF is this, a discussion of Tom Cruise? I very much doubt
> Vivitar had that lens made with an aim at cult status.

Sure it was, Vivitar made the "series 1" line of lenses to made a name for
themselves and only made them for a very short period of time in limited
numbers.


>
> You do change the basis for your argument, don't you?


Nope, a cheap lens is a cheap lens. You're talking about a special top shelf
"one model" vivitar made in limited numbers 30 years ago like that's the
way all modern AF 3rd party lenses perform and implied it was their "cheap"
model when it wasn't. Then again you're probably one of those guys that
will spend $1500 on a camera body and slap a $75 lens on it..


>
> I've got a Sigma lens I like,

Lots of other people are as well if they've never used anything but junk.
Ignorance is bliss.

--

Stacey

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 29 Jun 2005 09:03:17 -0700, "Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com>
wrote:

>Jan Böhme wrote:
>> OTOH, then you might
>> want to wait for Sigma's new 10-20 DC HSM, which I have seen announced
>> at a price slightly below that of the Tokina.

>Man, I haven't even HEARD of that one. I'm in no rush. Getting the
>Chancellor of The Exchequer to release another 500 bucks for photo gear
>before Christmas is unlikely. Well, maybe by my birthday, but that's
>still four months away.

This lens is supposed to arrive in Sweden by August, and shouldn't be
later at your place. However, now that I check the website, the lens
is as of now only announced for Canon, Nikon and Sigma mountings.
When it comes for Pentax, I don't know. Minolta and Pentax users are
obviously second-class customers as far as Sigma is concerned.

 

[bc4]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Tony Polson wrote:
>
> Like so many Kiron lenses, this one is an outstanding performer, with
> excellent sharpness and smooth bokeh. It might appear that comparing
> the long end of a 1970s zoom with the superlative 180mm f/2.8 Nikkor
> is not a good idea, but the Kiron lenses were something special, and
> this is probably one of the best zoom lenses ever made.

In this particular case, Kiron was simply a contract manufacturer and
had nothing to do with the sharpness or bokeh of the design. The
design itself was contracted by Vivitar from an American consultant.
The lens would be great if the coatings weren't so poor. Every sample
I've seen, including mine, has a pronounced yellow cast to the image.

The 90-180 does have good bokeh, especially in the 90-135mm portion of
the zoom range but based on my conversations with the designer this
appears to have been a fortunate accident. Ditto the 90/2.5 Series 1
Macro.

Brian

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Scharf-DCA <scharf.steven@gmail.com> wrote:

> The 50 1.8 might not prove to be so useful with the 1.6 crop factor.
> You might be better off looking at one of the 24mm or 28mm lenses for
> your portrait work.

How big, exactly, was the crack rock you were smoking when you came up
with that?

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com