Dorset_Mike
It's about time mine changed
Reged: 11/05/2006
Posts: 1541
Loc: Poole, Dorset.
|
|
I film days there were loads of lenses in the range 24/28 to 70/80 (ish) quite a lot being constant f2.8 This is being translated for digital as 16/18 to 50/55 again many constant f2.8 which is more or less equivalent given the crop factor. This suggests to me that 3:1 zooms with reasonably fast apertures are an attractive and economically viable piece of kit.
So why do so many people moan that 17-50 is no good they want 17-70 or similar. We don't have a load of 50-150 ish lenses to more or less replace the 70-210s? We still have the 70-210s and only one 50-150 so far, Sigma. Why?
Yes there is a gap betwen 50 and 70, but should we be demanding more 50-150s or should we ask for 16/18-70/80s; but then again has technology advanced enough to make 4:1 zooms with constant f2.8 a bit more affordable?
--------------------
Cheers, MIKE
Save oil, bring back steam.
|
Gordon_McGeachie
Joke Historian
Reged: 19/01/2007
Posts: 3823
Loc: East Yorkshire,
|
|
Here here, but I would love something like a 10-50 f2.8 (constant) for around £250 
--------------------
Old Photographers never die,They just go out of focus.
Jet Noise - The Sound Of Freedom
She Took To The Sky Like A Lovesick Angel.
www.flickr.com/photos/gordon_mcgeachie/
www.flickr.com/people/26089093@N08/
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9095
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
As one of those moaners may I say that I never liked 28-80 types either. For a carry anywhere just-in-case lens I tended to find them just a bit short on too many occasions - which I why I have a 28-105 Canon for film and a 17-70 Sigma for digital. Others though are quite content with these and their equivalents and more power to them I say.
That said my first Canon zoom was a 'kit' 35-105.........which I found to be too long at the short end hence, the 28-105 purchase. I've also aquired an early 35-105 f3.5-4.5, a 35-135 USM and a 28-70 f2.8 Sigma (purchased mainly for the fast aperture and because it was a very silly price...)
Other than the advantages of fast aperture without weight cost I see no real need for 50-150 lenses. Even in film terms the 70/80-200/210 had been largely overtaken by the 75-300 types at all but the highest spec level and I don't honestly see that changing now...
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36293
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
My main standard lens in the latter part of my all-film days was a 28-135, which was a reasonable walkaround lens, although (for me) severely limited at the wide end. Now with (full-frame) digital I use a 24-105, which is a far better fit for me. When I first got a 28-80, it was liberating, but as time went by, it became more restricting - I find 20-24mm very useful, ditto 100mm.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
