Originally posted by WMBP
Well, I won't call you anything for that. AS I said to Peter (and have confessed here many times in other threads) I have always leaned very heavily on zooms. Well, by "always," I mean, for the last 15-20 years. When I first started with photography in the late 1960s and early 1970s, I shot for years with fixed focal-length lenses. Never thought of it as anything then but necessity: I had no alternatives. Don't think I got my first zoom until the 1980s. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what's causing me to think about trying to use one or more primes more heavily.
Your experience far outweighs me for sure. No questions about that, Will.
I know a canon guy who only uses 3 primes for wedding: 35/1.4 85/1.2 and 135/2
He produces great port folio but he admitted to me once that he hired 4 assist photographers who all used zooms at the weddings. All he does as a main photographer is to "set up" shoot during the normal wedding proceedings. He would miss a lot of moody, atmospheric or touchy wooshy shots that would be helpful to please female party for romance component. This was all the task of assist photographers where 1 out of 100 shots would have to be good at least. So a good zoom and snap snap snap.
He would struggle if he was doing these weddings with just one or two assist using primes!
To mind you that I did a wedding in July. The priest somehow hated my using the flash during the wedding procession in his holy church. His noses flared every time I flashed the camera. Using primes like 50/1.2 would bump the ISO to 3200 that makes everyone appeared as if they suffered extensive premature ageing with the noises...
(No time for proper exposure)
Zooms are in deed better. But there are too many cluttering objects inside any buildings. Wide aperture does reduce these distracting elements within the frames
Originally posted by WMBP
Glad to hear that. I've actually never had a problem with a Sigma lens. Not sure why they've got such a mixed reputation.
Sigma lenses prior to EX, DC or DG are in deed really poorly built and optically tragic. And I mean macroscopicly tragic to any untrained eyes.
But the standard already greatly improved since late 90s. Unfortunately, the rumour is always around and rumour has killed so many well known just personality in our human history.
Originally posted by WMBP Ah, I see. Well, I'll try this new one out very quickly and return it if I don't like it right away. I did sell a Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 a long time ago; I bought that first, then picked up the Tamron 28-75, and decided to keep the Tamron. I sold the Sigma on eBay and got a satisfactory price.
Thanks, roentarre.
Will
Some exceptions for pentax users given the shortage of lens selection early on with k10d release. I sold my sigma 70-200mm f2.8 for a very good price (I was soo happy to make so much profit and got myself a rumoured fabulous zoom Fa* 80-200 instead)
Less well known lenses like sigma 28mm f1.8 or 24mm f1.8 would not command a good re-sale price.
Last edited by roentarre; 09-24-2008 at 08:39 PM.