Received: from saf.tzo.com ([140.239.225.181])
 by fanciful.org (wcSMTP v5.6.450.3)
 with SMTP id 29280515; Thu, 06 Feb 2003 15:30:57 -0800
Received: from 199.185.220.221 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2003020618321562588 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Thu, 06 Feb 2003 23:32:15 GMT
Received: from computer ([66.222.145.239]) by priv-edtnes04.telusplanet.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.05.17 201-253-122-126-117-20021021) with SMTP
          id 
          for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 16:30:52 -0700
Message-ID: 
From: "Larry N. Bolch" 
To: 
References: 
Subject: Re: 50-500mm Sigma Lens
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 16:30:50 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106

chris.kenward{at}fanciful.org wrote:

> Is the lens OK to use on top of a bean bag or is it just too heavy and
> unwieldy?
>
> Is it necessary to get something that goes all the way back to 50mm or
> would it be better to get something that goes from say 170mm-500mm?
> After all, we do all have shorter lenses etc.?
>
> All advice appreciated from the group!

Since you ask, I will share my thought processes on acquiring equipment.
Over the decades, I have walked up to the camera counter an amazing number
of times, and walked away with the wallet lighter. I have developed a bit of
an acquisition strategy that holds even though most of the commercial career
is behind me.

My priorities with 35mm lenses have been that they be relatively fast,
compact and mobile, and do at least one thing extraordinarily well. I ended
up with quite an interesting collection - a 24mm superwide, a 28mm
perspective correction lens, a 55mm MicroNikkor,  f-1.8 105mm, f-2.8 200mm
lens. All work very well as general purpose lenses as well.

To reduce bulk and expense, many zoom lenses are slow at the widest and
glacial when zoomed to the max. The longer the lens and the smaller the
aperture, the more difficult it is to focus. I did not mention above that I
also have a 600mm mirror lens made by the folks that built the Hubble Space
Telescope. It is marked f-8.0, but it loses enough light through the glass
and mirrors that it is in effect, close to f-11. Even in bright sunlight, it
is a challenge to focus. It was purchased for a single gig that paid for it
and much more and has rarely been used since.

If I were to get back into 35mm photography, or if the makers of dSLRs
eliminate my objections to them, AND if I had deep pockets for re-equipping
with zooms, my first would be about the equivalent of the lens on the Nikon
CP5000 - 28mm -> 85mm, somewhere around f-2.0 to f2.8. With the .68x
adapter, I get the equivalent of 19mm -> 58mm - another useful range. That
would be my second lens.

Rather than a zoom for very long lenses, I would assess my needs with care
and probably buy a single focal length lens to do the major task. Long
lenses are really very specialized. Buying a single focal length would let
me get the smallest, fastest and best corrected lens, with none of the
compromises necessary with long zooms.

I was getting a lot of concert work from record companies, so I bought the
200mm f-2.8, for example. I had an assignment to fill a frame with Las Vegas
signs for a magazine cover - thus the 600mm. If I were into bird
photography, the 600mm would be superb. While covering US football and
baseball, I found that a 300mm was pretty much ideal.

Now for general photography with the CP5k, I do have a 2x - 170mm
equivalent, but find I rarely need it. I have not purchased the 3x component
since I have never felt a need for it at all.

Now, of course, if you are buying a lens as jewelery, or as a status symbol,
or as a phallic symbol, none of the above applies. I have no interest in
photo equipment for its own sake, only for the problems it solves. Probably
a 10x zoom from 50mm to 500mm would greatly impress the kids who lust for
equipment, but I see too many photographic compromises to make it
interesting to me. The fact that it is 10x does not impress me one iota. I
don't buy technology - I buy solutions to photographic challenges.

When I add a piece of equipment, I first identify the problem it is to
solve. If I have something else in the arsnel that would sort of do the job,
I try to realistically evaluate how much advantage the new item would give
me. I saw the 600mm as useless in the long run, but it got me a trip to Las
Vegas and a hefty fee beyond the price of the glass. I have used it a couple
of times since, so it owes me nothing. Without the assignment and airline
ticket in hand, I would never have bought it.

I was invited to bid on a seven-day architectural shoot of a mansion being
redone as an exclusive hotel. There was one 28mm PC lens in town, and the
dealer agreed to put it under the counter until the bids were opened. I bid
based upon having the lens. (An advantage of a good relationship with your
local merchants!) Got the shoot and got the lens. The day rate was such that
on the first day of the shoot, I had paid for the lens and a good chunk of
the month's expenses as well.  It opened up a whole range of new
opportunities subsequently.

The view through an enthusiast's eyes would be somewhat different from that
of a day-to-day shooter in the trenches. I realize that.

However, I am far more in the ranks of enthusiasts now, than out knocking on
doors for business. None the less, I chose the CP5000 and lenses in the same
way as I would, if they were going to earn their keep. I looked at every
other 5MP camera on the market. Only Minolta and Nikon had a 28mm lens, and
only Nikon had the 19mm component. I do a LOT of street, and knew I would be
mostly working at the wide, wide end. I had the 2x left over from the CP990.
I am clear on my personal photographic goals, and chose the best instrument
to meet them.

Hope this gives you a little insight to my way of evaluating, to help guide
your selection process.

larry!
ICQ 76620504
http://www.larry-bolch.com/

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5