October 11, 2007

For the three of you who’ve been following along, you’ll remember that I now have only two lenses in my photography arsenal: the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. Since I sold the Nikon 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 that’s all I have: some very fast glass, but nothing over 50mm.

After having ruminated about it for months, today I decided to remedy the situation: behold the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8.

now I’m covered from 18mm all the way out to 150mm with nothing but f/2.8 or faster. And if I ever need 200 or 300mm I’ll just rent it.

Okay! Now that’s it for big photography purchases for a while. Really. At least until I buy a second camera body.

And, hey, check out these flickr photos. All of them were shot with the Sigma 50-150.


No comments yet

  1. Luv dose fotos. Did teh Ceiling Cat taak dem?

  2. Whoops! Fixed. 🙂

  3. That is not an inexpensive lens. I’ve looked at some of the OEM lenses with image stabilization. They claim you can shoot up to three shutter speeds lower at the minimum rated f stop over a conventional lens. This is great if your subject is relatively still. I still have and miss some Minolta mount manual focus f/2.8 zooms from my film days, which I can’t use on my Canon and Nikon DSLRs.

    Don’t know why the lenses manufacturers can design an f/3.5-5 18mm-250mm lens that is half the length of their telephoto lens. Both the Sigma and Tamron full range lenses are much shorter than their telephotos. It’s not just the f/2.8 capability since the Tamron 70-300 is an f/4. These longer telephotos are heavier in the front requiring more stable ( and expensive) tripods and tripod heads to achieve crisp images at f/2.8. I guess maintaining a constant f stop throughout the entire focal length range requires more glass and spacing.

  4. Funny thing was, I had been at that exact site only a minute before popping over here. I thought there must be some strange quirk that suddenly happened to my browser, because I couldn’t imagine the coincidence, so much so that I viewed the source of this page just to see if the link really was there.

    I saw the LOLCat Bible Translation for the first time yesterday from a link over at First Draft, I think, and I can’t get enough of it.

  5. Bill: I got this lens for about half the MSRP, but yeah, it’s still expensive. Maybe one of the reasons this lens (and my other sigma) are so relatively cheap, small and light is because these are part of their “for digital” line. They only throw an image of digital sensor size, not 35mm. You could not use them on a film camera because it would vignette all your pictures. On the flip side, “film” lenses throw an image much larger than my sensor, which just captures the middle of it. Anyway, making a lens that doesn’t have to create a 35mm image inside the camera means the entire thing can be smaller, lighter and cheaper than it’s film-sized counterparts.

    Snabby: I’m a big lolcat fan. The bible twist is even more hilarious.

  6. If you need to go to 300mm, you can borrow my camera and lens, although it is pretty slow.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: