[no694terry]

I just saw the two speeds. Loks like the 3.5 used doesnt cost much more than the 4/5.6 so I'll be looking for a 3.5 for better IQ and speed

[Na Horuk]

Tamron 17-50mm is a good "regular zoom" with an affordable price tag. Sigma might be better, but not by that much.
With the 55-300mm you have a problem. Anything above 300mm and with better image quality than the 55-300mm will be significantly bigger and more expensive.

But I agree with a previous poster - think about getting primes. Fixed focal length lenses give you better aperture, better image quality, in a smaller package for a better price. Get the prime that fits your needs the best. Maybe the DA 35mm 2.4 or DA 50mm f1.8 to start. Affordable, but great image quality. Much better than any kit lens and most zooms

An axe will work, though a band saw would be tidier.

I thought it was about literally cutting a lens in two, as well!

[jatrax]

These Jagoff's don't know nothin'

No fries on their burgers.

Is Isaly's still open? Have not been there for years. Used get the ice cream cones with the really tall ice cream ball on top. Never saw that anywhere else.

My wife asks the local deli to make chipped ham for us sometimes and makes us chipped ham sandwiches. They think she's weird.

She also smuggles kielbasi back in her suitcase every time she goes back to visit. TSA is very confused with 20 #s of Kielbasi. She brought back 5#s of Jumbo last time.

[no694terry]

I dont know about better price. Those 300 primes aint cheap. Granted i know you usually get what your pay for in this hobby but i've lowered my expectations too. I've had 90mm 100mm 105mm macro primes, they never last long in my bag. But i seem to be a stickler to zooms

---------- Post added 06-01-15 at 01:28 PM ----------

i do miss the tamron 17-50, probably my most regrettable lens sale. But i got my origainal 18-135 WR out of it to take to the Dominican Republic.

---------- Post added 06-01-15 at 01:30 PM ----------

No fries on their burgers.

Is Isaly's still open? Have not been there for years. Used get the ice cream cones with the really tall ice cream ball on top. Never saw that anywhere else.

My wife asks the local deli to make chipped ham for us sometimes and makes us chipped ham sandwiches. They think she's weird.

She also smuggles kielbasi back in her suitcase every time she goes back to visit. TSA is very confused with 20 #s of Kielbasi. She brought back 5#s of Jumbo last time.

You can get Isalay's in most grocery stores around here now. put that on some Mancini's bread and wash it down with some Rivertown IPA's

[jatrax]

You can get Isalay's in most grocery stores around here now. put that on some Mancini's bread and wash it down with some Rivertown IPA's

Now you're talking!

Add some pierogi with about a pound of butter and covered in onions and you're really livin'

[no694terry]

Perogi's lus aint for from Mancini's if you still got the balls n'at to go doun da rocks

---------- Post added 06-01-15 at 01:45 PM ----------

now i want a sigma 8-16 ughh

---------- Post added 06-01-15 at 02:14 PM ----------

i actuall took this photo with a 55-300 on my K5

[no694terry]

it true lazy pittsburgh talk, we dropped the "chopped". Pretty soon it'll just be "ipp'd am"


http://www.pittsburghmagazine.com/Best-of-the-Burgh-Blogs/The-412/October-20...gliest-Accent/

now can we get back to my LBA

[narual]

I just saw the two speeds. Loks like the 3.5 used doesnt cost much more than the 4/5.6 so I'll be looking for a 3.5 for better IQ and speed

meh. If you check the https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/84539-sigma-10-20mm-club.html thread there's not much difference between them. The 3.5 has 7 aperture blades instead of 6, so it gives prettier starbursts. At 10mm (and why would you use it longer than that, most of the time?) it's only 1/3 stop difference in light wide open, and you'd probably be shooting either one at 5.6-8 anyway to get a sharper image.

Just keep in mind how much more decent filters will cost with the 3.5 -- 82mm filter thread vs 77mm makes a surprisingly large difference in price

[no694terry]

Just keep in mind how much more decent filters will cost with the 3.5 -- 82mm filter thread vs 77mm makes a surprisingly large difference in price

Extremely good point. I was just comparing the two on pixel-peepers.

I would imagine you need to stick to very slim filters to avoid vignetting on an UWA?

[Des]

The Western PA, or Pittsburgh, version of "You guys" or "Y'all".

The Australian equivalent is "youse". As in, "Whatta youse reckon?"

[no694terry]

The Australian equivalent is "youse". As in, "Whatta youse reckon?"

see thats way too long. "yinz" or if you are askin whats going on its "wut yinz doin"

[narual]

Extremely good point. I was just comparing the two on pixel-peepers.

I would imagine you need to stick to very slim filters to avoid vignetting on an UWA?

I've never had a problem with the 10-20. The filter threads are much wider than front element. I think you could probably even stack a couple. I'm pretty sure on my nikon version I had a polarizing filter and either an ND or a UV or both stacked at some point or another.

The 15mm limited, since it's built so compact, you get one filter before you get vignetting, and you can't use anything that's wider than the standard ring (i.e., something with a bit of extra grip or the extra width slim filters often seem to have) because the built-in hood is very tight to the lens. I've used it with a 10 stop ND filter and a polarizing filter stacked -- definitely some dark corners.

And of course, if you use composition adjustment (the setting that lets you shift the sensor so it's like you're using a shift lens) you'll get vignetting much more often. When I use it to stitch a larger image with my 8mm fisheye, I have to take the hood off or I can see a clear outline of the hood.

[no694terry]

I've never had a problem with the 10-20. The filter threads are much wider than front element. I think you could probably even stack a couple. I'm pretty sure on my nikon version I had a polarizing filter and either an ND or a UV or both stacked at some point or another.

The 15mm limited, since it's built so compact, you get one filter before you get vignetting, and you can't use anything that's wider than the standard ring (i.e., something with a bit of extra grip or the extra width slim filters often seem to have) because the built-in hood is very tight to the lens. I've used it with a 10 stop ND filter and a polarizing filter stacked -- definitely some dark corners.

And of course, if you use composition adjustment (the setting that lets you shift the sensor so it's like you're using a shift lens) you'll get vignetting much more often. When I use it to stitch a larger image with my 8mm fisheye, I have to take the hood off or I can see a clear outline of the hood.

So do you like your F4-5.6 version or would you rather have the 3.5?

The two pros i see is 3.5 at 20mm for indoor, and the 7th blade. Filter cost would defintely be a con

[no694terry]

Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6. Check! It's in the mail, I wanted to buy one of the two on here but they were both on the other side of the planet so i got one from my old trusty used lens place.

[no694terry]

now that i got my wide angle fixed. I need to decide between the easier to carry and much cheaper 55-300 or go all out on a 50-500 Bigma.