[eyeswideshut]

The Sigma 135mm F/1.8 ART hasn't been released yet. Its not expected until 2015.

Oh, but mine was released ca. 1970 It's an old, old lens and I'm sure the new Sigma will be worth it's ART designation. They are on a roll right now. Still, a 135/1.8 is just that - a big massive piece of glass with limited usefulness even in the 21. century.

How do you know what lenses Mr. Malcom is including? He is EVP of Pentax. He has nothing to do with the photocopier business or endoscopes. Hoya kept Pentax's medical imaging division, so Ricoh doesn't own that business. Mr. Malcom is specifically talking about photogrpahy and cameras in the interview. When he says he wants to compete with Nikon, he's not referring to the photocopier business.

'Imaging Division' is just that - everything Imaging related. If the Pentax division have something to contribute to lenses subsequently going into a photocopier or anything else it stands to reason that that will count too.
As I said, we are not going to settle this and it really is of little concern to us. Many have gone before wanting to be number one or two Sony and Samsung included - don't worry, just wait and see.

[Winder]

Still, a 135/1.8 is just that - a big massive piece of glass with limited usefulness even in the 21. century.

It is less of a specialty lens than a 100mm macro. The number of people making a living shooting wedding and portrait work is many times greater than the number of professional macro photographers. The 135mm is still a popular lens for professionals. Yes, many have gone to slower F/2.8 70-200 zooms, but many of use still shoot primes 90% of the time.

[philbaum]

[/COLOR]

It is less of a specialty lens than a 100mm macro. The number of people making a living shooting wedding and portrait work is many times greater than the number of professional macro photographers. The 135mm is still a popular lens for professionals. Yes, many have gone to slower F/2.8 70-200 zooms, but many of use still shoot primes 90% of the time.

I believe that. I shoot dress rehearsals all the time for a local theatre org and street pics/street scenes. I find the 50-135 zoom lens is all i need 60% of the time, i think folks forget that the 135mm FL is the old 200mm on FF. And with the larger MP density, its easy enough to crop down if one truly has an image in focus. I've shot Sheakspeare theater productions with a friend shooting a 70-200 lens while i was shooting a 50-135. He just stopped using it after a short time and didn't pick it up again - too heavy i think and the extra range is not needed when one has free range of the audience area.

If one is going to shoot wildlife - by all means - get a 200mm or larger like a 400 or 600. With a 135 on an APS camera and non-wildlife, its perfect. :-) And 1.8 for low light - i'm drooling. Also, a new lens like the Sigma art lens is going to have more plastic optical elements making it lighter - which is a good thing.

[Pål Jensen]

It is less of a specialty lens than a 100mm macro. The number of people making a living shooting wedding and portrait work is many times greater than the number of professional macro photographers. The 135mm is still a popular lens for professionals. Yes, many have gone to slower F/2.8 70-200 zooms, but many of use still shoot primes 90% of the time.

Huh? 100mm macro lenses probably outsell 135/1.8 (or any 135mm lens) about 100:1.
The DOF wide open is so thin that you cannot get the whole subject in focus for portrait work
Very few pros use prime lenses these days.

Just for the record; the only pro wedding/portrait photographer I know use a 35-300/5.6 lens and a 100mm macro..

[Winder]

Huh? 100mm macro lenses probably outsell 135/1.8 (or any 135mm lens) about 100:1.
The DOF wide open is so thin that you cannot get the whole subject in focus for portrait work
Very few pros use prime lenses these days.

Just for the record; the only pro wedding/portrait photographer I know use a 35-300/5.6 lens and a 100mm macro..

I only use primes since leaving Canon, and my only zoom then was the 24-70L (1st generation). The 100mm macro lenses focus too slow for moving people. A guy I shoot wedding with from time to time uses Sony (A900 + A99) and he has the same setup I had when I used my Canon 5D. He uses the CZ 24-70, CZ 85mm, & the CZ 135mm. I rented the 200L several times for weddings where we knew we would be in the balcony or they wanted us out of the way. I currently use my 85mm on my K-3 which gives me close to 135mm on a FF. Most of the professionals I know still use the 85mm as their primary lens.

I don't really compete in the same market as the super-soft, super-slow, super-zoom Rebel shooters.

Why are they shooting weddings with a 100mm macro? Wouldn't the 50-135 F/2.8 be a better choice for its flexibility and faster AF? All of the 100mm macros tend to be really good because its an easy focal length to design for, but they are slow to focus.

[Andi Lo]

FWIW for my wedding work I use a mostly 28-75, 85, and 70-200 with an FF body. For a few shots I use the 15mm fisheye (FF) and the Tokina 11-16 (APSC)

[ElJamoquio]

FWIW for my wedding work I use a mostly 28-75, 85, and 70-200 with an FF body. For a few shots I use the 15mm fisheye (FF) and the Tokina 11-16 (APSC)

How often do you use the 85? You have two other lenses that'll basically take the same pictures...?

[Pål Jensen]

Why are they shooting weddings with a 100mm macro? Wouldn't the 50-135 F/2.8 be a better choice for its flexibility and faster AF? All of the 100mm macros tend to be really good because its an easy focal length to design for, but they are slow to focus.

I have never used a 100mm macro lens. However, macro lenses are generally faster to focus than comparable prime lenses in the focus range we are talking about here since focus throw is geared towards the macro range. My 200 macro is instant in focusing from 2metres to infinity. The drawback is that they are harder to manual focus precisely since even the smallest turn of the focus ring makes a huge difference.
I've never asked why a macro lens. But I can think of a few reasons; nice focal lenght and great optical quality. Why not?

Anyway, focus speed is not an issue of any pros I know; particularly not for portrait and weddings which is frankly not very demanding. I don't think most even use AF for such work.

[Winder]

How often do you use the 85? You have two other lenses that'll basically take the same pictures...?

Just because a lens has the same focal length doesn't mean it renders a similar quality image.

---------- Post added 06-30-14 at 06:19 PM ----------

I have never used a 100mm macro lens. However, macro lenses are generally faster to focus than comparable prime lenses in the focus range we are talking about here since focus throw is geared towards the macro range. My 200 macro is instant in focusing from 2metres to infinity. The drawback is that they are harder to manual focus precisely since even the smales turn of the focus ring makes a huge difference.
I've never asked why a macro lens. But I can think of a few reasons; nice focal lenght and great optical quality. Why not?

Anyway, focus speed is not an issue of any pros I know; particularly not for portrait and weddings which is frankly not very demanding. I don't think most even use AF for such work.

I don't know of anyone currently using MF for wedding work. I used my Contax 645, but its AF.

The 100mm macro lenses I have used (including the excellent D-FA 100mm) are all slow to focus compared to even my not so fast Sigma 85mm.

To quote Pentax smc D FA 100 mm f/2.8 Macro WR review - Autofocus - Lenstip.com

"In fact we were not impressed by any category connected with automatic focusing. It is noisy and slow because when you run through the scale you have to wait about two seconds."

If you don't think wedding work is demanding on AF, try getting the bride and groom running towards you as they leave the chapel and people are throwing rice or blowing bubbles.... Get the kids running around at the reception. The staged formal shots are only about 1-2 hours of the process. The other 4-6+ hours of the day are pretty fast paced. The popularity of editorial style wedding work has made the AF very important.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/201422-why-...s-slow-af.html

[ElJamoquio]

Just because a lens has the same focal length doesn't mean it renders a similar quality image.

I'm aware. I'd like to hear how often he uses it, which is why I asked the question.

---------- Post added 06-30-14 at 05:47 PM ----------

I have never used a 100mm macro lens. However, macro lenses are generally faster to focus than comparable prime lenses in the focus range we are talking about here since focus throw is geared towards the macro range. My 200 macro is instant in focusing from 2metres to infinity. The drawback is that they are harder to manual focus precisely since even the smallest turn of the focus ring makes a huge difference.
I've never asked why a macro lens. But I can think of a few reasons; nice focal lenght and great optical quality. Why not?

Anyway, focus speed is not an issue of any pros I know; particularly not for portrait and weddings which is frankly not very demanding. I don't think most even use AF for such work.

Macros in dim light often rack all the way out and back in. Inside, they're almost always slower than 'normal' lenses, especially since 'normal' lenses are generally one of the 85mm F/1.8 or F/1.4's.

He might have a macro with a focus limiter, which would mitigate that problem somewhat.

[philbaum]

The Sony A99 has an AF focus limiter, works on all alpha mount lenses

Extensive Hands-On Field Review of the Sony A99

perhaps thats what he talk about :-). Sounds pretty neat in any case.

[ChristianRock]

Why are they shooting weddings with a 100mm macro? Wouldn't the 50-135 F/2.8 be a better choice for its flexibility and faster AF? All of the 100mm macros tend to be really good because its an easy focal length to design for, but they are slow to focus.

Details. Rings, plates and silverware, flowers, all sorts of little things that you want to capture to warm the heart of the family. But the number one thing is the rings. You just have to have a good pictures of the rings.

You are probably happy with other close-focusing lenses for that purpose, but some people like to have a dedicated macro with them.

[Winder]

Details. Rings, plates and silverware, flowers, all sorts of little things that you want to capture to warm the heart of the family. But the number one thing is the rings. You just have to have a good pictures of the rings.

You are probably happy with other close-focusing lenses for that purpose, but some people like to have a dedicated macro with them.

I definitely understand the macro detail shots, but a 100mm macro is not a great hand held macro lens. Something along the lines of a 35mm macro would be my choice for those shots. I use my 31mm which focuses down to 12". The detail shots don't tend to get blown up for large prints like the people shots, so cropping hasn't been a problem.

[ElJamoquio]

I definitely understand the macro detail shots, but a 100mm macro is not a great hand held macro lens. Something along the lines of a 35mm macro would be my choice for those shots. I use my 31mm which focuses down to 12". The detail shots don't tend to get blown up for large prints like the people shots, so cropping hasn't been a problem.

Heck I'd just use the normal zoom. Those lenses are doing 1:4 now. Not perfect (you'd likely want 1:3) but good enough for two rings.

[ChristianRock]

I definitely understand the macro detail shots, but a 100mm macro is not a great hand held macro lens. Something along the lines of a 35mm macro would be my choice for those shots. I use my 31mm which focuses down to 12". The detail shots don't tend to get blown up for large prints like the people shots, so cropping hasn't been a problem.

Honestly I don't have one. I use a 135mm with macro lens sometimes and you are right, I get better results with a 50mm (with a macro lens on it). My close focusing at 70mm is also ok... I'd have to use a 100 or 105 to find out. With SR it might be alright.

Oh and I did try some 300mm macro shots with my Tamron 70-300 (1:2) and they turned out alright as well But that lens isn't usually in the bag, unless I really know I'll need long tele and AF...