Who also agrees that primes are a waist of money?

[brokenz]

Once again my flash has saved me. That is what they are made for.

They are made for people that like flash.

More light when a wider aperture just is not enough. In the
situations where I needed a flash like an indoor wedding that I
shot not too long ago, f1.8 could not have made enough difference.

I wasn't there so I'll take your word. Take my word that an extra stop saves me all the time. Most of what I do with my D70 is at 1600ISO.

A flash will do more to add light than f1.8 vs. f2.8 will do any

Agreed. A good argument for someone that wants to use a flash. Lets go outside and see if your SB800 will cover a 15mm semi-fisheye for over the distance of a hundred feet. Can it?

day. The 50f1.4 is for example is too soft from f1.4 till about
f4 anyway and that is not what I want.

OK. Expand your horizons though and answer me this time. Can your original zoom cover what my Sigma 15mm 2.8 is capable of?

Let me use my SB800 and
you use a f1.8 and we will see who gets the best results.

I'll do you one better. I'll use my consumer grade prime (Sigma 15mm 2.8) and you can use any lens you want plus any flash you want. I'll decide the time of day (available light level) and composition. I'll take one picture and give you 20 shots at it. You'll lose. Why can't you just admit that their is no one perfect solution for everyone?

Right again. Go zooms.

Wrong again.
--
http://darkangel.smugmug.com/

 

[Jack Frazier]

you're a brave one for starting this thread.

but i admire how you've stuck to your guns! Not sure why that statement gets under folks. Heck... i do photography for fun... if someone tells me film is better than digital and thats what he/she likes to shoot, more power to 'em.

Lets face it, both types of lenses have there plus's and minus's. I myself go for the fast zooms because i think i get more bang for the buck. But i'd love to have a few fixed focal lengh lenses too-- the 85mm 1.4 for one, the 500mm f4 for two and a fast wide angle for indoors.

I just think its great we have such a wide range of lenses to fuel our hobby. However... having such leads me to suffering from LLD.

Great thread,

--
jack
pbase & dpreview supporter
http://www.pbase.com/jackfrazier/nature

 

[lawnmower]

I am trying to figure out what your obsession is to the 15mm Sigma. It is a wide angle fisheye lens. No more no less. I would rather have the 10mm fisheye Nikon any day if I had my choice. That Sigma is $430 lens. What is the big deal with it. It creates all kinds of distortion. It is a f2.8 lens. Big deal. I wouldn't even want that lens. If you gave it to me I would sell it for about $250 because that is probably all that I could get for it. You are raving about that Sigma like it is the mother of all lenses or something. You can keep it. Great so you have a wide angle fisheye lens. I would rather have the Nikon 28-200G ED-IF with 3 ED elements and 3 aspherical elements any day. I would rather have the 12-24 Sigma any day. You need to talk about a lens that is even in the same league as the 17-55 because the Sigma 15mm fisheye is not the one. The Sigma 15mm is not even a great prime. Now talk about the Nikon 14mm and you have something to rave about.

Once again my flash has saved me. That is what they are made for.

They are made for people that like flash.

More light when a wider aperture just is not enough. In the
situations where I needed a flash like an indoor wedding that I
shot not too long ago, f1.8 could not have made enough difference.

I wasn't there so I'll take your word. Take my word that an extra
stop saves me all the time. Most of what I do with my D70 is at
1600ISO.

A flash will do more to add light than f1.8 vs. f2.8 will do any

Agreed. A good argument for someone that wants to use a flash. Lets
go outside and see if your SB800 will cover a 15mm semi-fisheye for
over the distance of a hundred feet. Can it?

day. The 50f1.4 is for example is too soft from f1.4 till about
f4 anyway and that is not what I want.

OK. Expand your horizons though and answer me this time. Can your
original zoom cover what my Sigma 15mm 2.8 is capable of?

Let me use my SB800 and
you use a f1.8 and we will see who gets the best results.

I'll do you one better. I'll use my consumer grade prime (Sigma
15mm 2.8) and you can use any lens you want plus any flash you
want. I'll decide the time of day (available light level) and
composition. I'll take one picture and give you 20 shots at it.
You'll lose. Why can't you just admit that their is no one perfect
solution for everyone?

Right again. Go zooms.

Wrong again.
--
http://darkangel.smugmug.com/

 

[lawnmower]

You are right. Maybe a little too brave but what do you say, it is the internet. I don't have to worry about these guys trying to beat me up or something. I wouldn't mind having the 85f1.4 but for the money I just can't see it. Now the 24-85 covers some range and is pretty sharp at 85mm and with a flash it does fine. It does great outdoors. I wouldn't mind having the 10mm fisheye but for the money I would rather have the 12-24. I like versatility. I guess it is just preference when it comes right down to it. My 17-55 does great indoors. Look how wide this picture is from the ceiling to the floor. This is a good example. Too me it doesn't get much better than that. No CA at 17mm either. Not bad in poor lighting. I know that it gets wider but with more width comes more distortion.

you're a brave one for starting this thread.

but i admire how you've stuck to your guns! Not sure why that
statement gets under folks. Heck... i do photography for fun... if
someone tells me film is better than digital and thats what he/she
likes to shoot, more power to 'em.

Lets face it, both types of lenses have there plus's and minus's. I
myself go for the fast zooms because i think i get more bang for
the buck. But i'd love to have a few fixed focal lengh lenses too--
the 85mm 1.4 for one, the 500mm f4 for two and a fast wide angle
for indoors.

I just think its great we have such a wide range of lenses to fuel
our hobby. However... having such leads me to suffering from LLD.

Great thread,

--
jack
pbase & dpreview supporter
http://www.pbase.com/jackfrazier/nature

 

[flat five]

a bit off topic here but.....i bought the 17-55 yesterday and i love it already !! )....i kept a 35/2 and a 50/1.4 though......i'll see how it goes and i might be able to offer a real opinion on this in a couple of months.....before, my only real experience in this field was a 105 2.8 overlapping the 70-200 & the 35/50 overlapping the 18-70..... the 35/50 definitely out performed the 18-70.... however, i feel that gap just got a lot smaller with the 17-55...
-flat-

.
.
.

ps-- only a few more blows to be dealt in this battle....get em in while you can....almost to 150...>

 

[brokenz]

I am trying to figure out what your obsession is to the 15mm Sigma.

Not an obsession. Just perfect for "my" needs. Why is this point so hard for you to understand. Your zoom may be the perfect solution for you. That doesn't mean it is the perfect solution for everyone else.

It is a wide angle fisheye lens. No more no less. I would rather
have the 10mm fisheye Nikon any day if I had my choice. That

Not worth the extra money IMO. For those that think it is then great. It's good they've got that choice.

Sigma is $430 lens. What is the big deal with it. It creates all

Yes. Price always determines quality with a lens. Note that I am being sarcastic.

kinds of distortion. It is a f2.8 lens. Big deal. I wouldn't

Semi-fisheye. Read slowly. S E M I - F I S H E Y E. Yes it causes distortions. You are aware of what a semi-fisheye is, correct?

2.8. Very useful with a 15mm lens in low light. The Sigma 15mm 2.8 starts being sharp at 2.8 by the way.

even want that lens. If you gave it to me I would sell it for
about $250 because that is probably all that I could get for it.

Let me know when you get one or sell one for that price. Not going to happen and if it does it will be a very rare deal for someone.

As far as you wanting or not wanting a lens, that's exactly why we have such a large selection of both zooms and primes.

You are raving about that Sigma like it is the mother of all lenses
or something. You can keep it. Great so you have a wide angle

OK.

fisheye lens. I would rather have the Nikon 28-200G ED-IF with 3
ED elements and 3 aspherical elements any day. I would rather
have the 12-24 Sigma any day. You need to talk about a lens that

Not what I was wanting exactly. The 28-200 that is. It would not cover what I need or do what I want. Period. Dispute that fact if you can.

As far as the 12-24 Sigma, I'm debating on whether I need another lens or not. The 12-24 is at the top of my short list though.

is even in the same league as the 17-55 because the Sigma 15mm
fisheye is not the one. The Sigma 15mm is not even a great prime.
Now talk about the Nikon 14mm and you have something to rave about.

Same league? Are you one of those equipment snobs I've heard about? It's not meant to be in the same leaque. It's meant to be in a different league and it do something entirely different. For what I want (not you) the 17-55 is an inferior lens that costs much more. It will not do what the Sigma 15mm 2.8 will do.

Nikon 14mm? I'm waiting on someone to convince me that it will do what I want better. Not saying it wouldn't. Of course that is a prime lens so why did you even bring it up?

Once again my flash has saved me. That is what they are made for.

They are made for people that like flash.

More light when a wider aperture just is not enough. In the
situations where I needed a flash like an indoor wedding that I
shot not too long ago, f1.8 could not have made enough difference.

I wasn't there so I'll take your word. Take my word that an extra
stop saves me all the time. Most of what I do with my D70 is at
1600ISO.

A flash will do more to add light than f1.8 vs. f2.8 will do any

Agreed. A good argument for someone that wants to use a flash. Lets
go outside and see if your SB800 will cover a 15mm semi-fisheye for
over the distance of a hundred feet. Can it?

day. The 50f1.4 is for example is too soft from f1.4 till about
f4 anyway and that is not what I want.

OK. Expand your horizons though and answer me this time. Can your
original zoom cover what my Sigma 15mm 2.8 is capable of?

Let me use my SB800 and
you use a f1.8 and we will see who gets the best results.

I'll do you one better. I'll use my consumer grade prime (Sigma
15mm 2.8) and you can use any lens you want plus any flash you
want. I'll decide the time of day (available light level) and
composition. I'll take one picture and give you 20 shots at it.
You'll lose. Why can't you just admit that their is no one perfect
solution for everyone?

Right again. Go zooms.

Wrong again.
--
http://darkangel.smugmug.com/

--
http://darkangel.smugmug.com/

 

[brokenz]

A Sigma can be defished for those so inclined with free software. I forgot to mention that.

 

[flat five]

the 17-55 doesn't look as cute when mounted on the camera....
does that count ??? >
primes are cuter !
-flat-

 

[lawnmower]

Enjoy your 15mm fisheye. All that I am saying is that I am sure that a whole lot more people would like to get the 17-55 in their hands than a 15mm fisheye Bigma. It is definitely my most used lens. It covers a great range. The 15mm is wide. Period. If that takes care of your needs great. For most it wouldn't. I want the 28-200 if you really want to know so I could care less about the big money lenses. I would probably use it more than any other lens that I have if I ever bought it.

A Sigma can be defished for those so inclined with free software. I
forgot to mention that.

 

[lawnmower]

Get the 17-55. Best all around lens on the market. Go zooms. Ra, ra, shish boom ba. Go zooms.