Unusual wedding I'm shooting. Advice needed.

MarkJerling · 04-03-2019, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Docrwm

Probably me, I've been a bit humorless since the 12-24 turned up defective.....sorry.

Ouch! What's the problem with the 12-24?

Docrwm · 04-03-2019, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by MarkJerling

Ouch! What's the problem with the 12-24?

Intermittent electrical problems with MF-AF (along with the f) alternating randomly as its used on each camera. Cleaned contacts but its something more serious. KEH has sent me a refund, FedEx back to them, and apologized. They were the only ones with a Sigma 12-24DG in the US for sale so I'm back to trolling the sales forum and used gear for one.

MarkJerling · 04-03-2019, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Docrwm

Intermittent electrical problems with MF-AF (along with the f) alternating randomly as its used on each camera. Cleaned contacts but its something more serious. KEH has sent me a refund, FedEx back to them, and apologized. They were the only ones with a Sigma 12-24DG in the US for sale so I'm back to trolling the sales forum and used gear for one.

Drat. At least you're not out of pocket.

Docrwm · 04-03-2019, 12:25 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by MarkJerling

Drat. At least you're not out of pocket.

No, they are taking care of it. It's the scarcest lens I've tried to buy that I can recall. I like it (MF still works and I've taken a few pictures at different focal lengths and f settings) and it is certainly incredibly wide for FF. I'll just have to keep searching. I'm just unwilling to carry the 1040g DFA 15-30 behemoth of a UWA lens that costs more than I paid for my K-1 around. Geez the thing has nearly the same size/weight specs that my Tamron 70-200/2.8 has and it costs a fortune!!

MarkJerling · 04-03-2019, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Docrwm

I'm just unwilling to carry the 1040g DFA 15-30 behemoth of a UWA lens that costs more than I paid for my K-1 around. Geez the thing has nearly the same size/weight specs that my Tamron 70-200/2.8 has and it costs a fortune!!

So, studio lens only?

Docrwm · 04-03-2019, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by MarkJerling

So, studio lens only?

It would seem so to me. Heck, the 70-200/2.8 really requires a monopod or tripod for any extended use. It weights 1150g, so only 90g more, and is not more than a couple cm longer. This trend toward huge, and heavy, lenses that are touted as being amazing optically is a bit daunting IMHO. Not that I begrudge anyone a high-end lens but it might be nice to have some variety in the choices other than having to go on a scavenger hunt when you don't want to pay more for the lens than the body. But then, I'm an old Scot.

MarkJerling · 04-03-2019, 05:29 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Docrwm

It would seem so to me. Heck, the 70-200/2.8 really requires a monopod or tripod for any extended use. It weights 1150g, so only 90g more, and is not more than a couple cm longer. This trend toward huge, and heavy, lenses that are touted as being amazing optically is a bit daunting IMHO. Not that I begrudge anyone a high-end lens but it might be nice to have some variety in the choices other than having to go on a scavenger hunt when you don't want to pay more for the lens than the body. But then, I'm an old Scot.

There's a lot to be said for old lenses. And, I have a limited budget for glass so often, old lenses works really well, for me anyway!

**ehrwien** · 04-04-2019, 03:36 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by MarkJerling

And, I have a limited budget for glass so often, old lenses works really well, for me anyway!

You got an extra budget for limited lenses only? Lucky you!

MarkJerling · 04-04-2019, 04:22 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by ehrwien

You got an extra budget for limited lenses only? Lucky you!

Hahaha. Will have to sell the kids kidneys for those!

Racer X 69 · 04-05-2019, 05:04 AM

Originally posted by MarkJerling

Thanks Robert. I realised, once I saw how little space we had at the top, that I needed the 28mm end. However, later, when the light was poor, I switched to the 35-70mm as the 28-80 is not great for focussing in low light.

That's an unusual looking wedding "cake" Mark.

Cheesecake?

cheesy

MarkJerling · 04-05-2019, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Racer X 69

That's an unusual looking wedding "cake" Mark.

Cheesecake?

:cheesy:

Indeed! We thought it was a novel idea. And very enjoyable, I might add.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Advice needed for shooting indoor flower show.	Scotteroni	Photographic Technique	15	04-01-2017 06:05 PM
Pricing advice for an unusual lens (1000/8)	tpe	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	04-02-2012 11:22 AM
Advice needed- Lenses for a wedding	k1000	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	06-29-2011 12:03 PM
Shooting first wedding...need some advice	DanLoc78	Photographic Technique	17	07-05-2008 08:13 AM
Shooting a wedding (need advice)	BigSpender	Pentax DSLR Discussion	35	03-29-2007 09:50 AM

04-03-2019, 12:03 PM	#76
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,406 Original Poster	Originally posted by Docrwm Probably me, I've been a bit humorless since the 12-24 turned up defective.....sorry. Ouch! What's the problem with the 12-24?

04-03-2019, 12:05 PM	#77
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by MarkJerling Ouch! What's the problem with the 12-24? Intermittent electrical problems with MF-AF (along with the f) alternating randomly as its used on each camera. Cleaned contacts but its something more serious. KEH has sent me a refund, FedEx back to them, and apologized. They were the only ones with a Sigma 12-24DG in the US for sale so I'm back to trolling the sales forum and used gear for one.

04-03-2019, 12:22 PM	#78
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,406 Original Poster	Originally posted by Docrwm Intermittent electrical problems with MF-AF (along with the f) alternating randomly as its used on each camera. Cleaned contacts but its something more serious. KEH has sent me a refund, FedEx back to them, and apologized. They were the only ones with a Sigma 12-24DG in the US for sale so I'm back to trolling the sales forum and used gear for one. Drat. At least you're not out of pocket.

04-03-2019, 12:25 PM - 1 Like	#79
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by MarkJerling Drat. At least you're not out of pocket. No, they are taking care of it. It's the scarcest lens I've tried to buy that I can recall. I like it (MF still works and I've taken a few pictures at different focal lengths and f settings) and it is certainly incredibly wide for FF. I'll just have to keep searching. I'm just unwilling to carry the 1040g DFA 15-30 behemoth of a UWA lens that costs more than I paid for my K-1 around. Geez the thing has nearly the same size/weight specs that my Tamron 70-200/2.8 has and it costs a fortune!!

04-03-2019, 04:52 PM	#80
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,406 Original Poster	Originally posted by Docrwm I'm just unwilling to carry the 1040g DFA 15-30 behemoth of a UWA lens that costs more than I paid for my K-1 around. Geez the thing has nearly the same size/weight specs that my Tamron 70-200/2.8 has and it costs a fortune!! So, studio lens only?

04-03-2019, 04:59 PM	#81
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by MarkJerling So, studio lens only? It would seem so to me. Heck, the 70-200/2.8 really requires a monopod or tripod for any extended use. It weights 1150g, so only 90g more, and is not more than a couple cm longer. This trend toward huge, and heavy, lenses that are touted as being amazing optically is a bit daunting IMHO. Not that I begrudge anyone a high-end lens but it might be nice to have some variety in the choices other than having to go on a scavenger hunt when you don't want to pay more for the lens than the body. But then, I'm an old Scot.

04-03-2019, 05:29 PM - 1 Like	#82
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,406 Original Poster	Originally posted by Docrwm It would seem so to me. Heck, the 70-200/2.8 really requires a monopod or tripod for any extended use. It weights 1150g, so only 90g more, and is not more than a couple cm longer. This trend toward huge, and heavy, lenses that are touted as being amazing optically is a bit daunting IMHO. Not that I begrudge anyone a high-end lens but it might be nice to have some variety in the choices other than having to go on a scavenger hunt when you don't want to pay more for the lens than the body. But then, I'm an old Scot. There's a lot to be said for old lenses. And, I have a limited budget for glass so often, old lenses works really well, for me anyway!

04-04-2019, 03:36 PM - 1 Like	#83
ehrwien Site Supporter Join Date: May 2016 Posts: 2,782	Originally posted by MarkJerling And, I have a limited budget for glass so often, old lenses works really well, for me anyway! You got an extra budget for limited lenses only? Lucky you!

04-04-2019, 04:22 PM - 1 Like	#84
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,406 Original Poster	Originally posted by ehrwien You got an extra budget for limited lenses only? Lucky you! Hahaha. Will have to sell the kids kidneys for those!

04-05-2019, 05:04 AM	#85
Racer X 69 Moderator Man With A Camera Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: The Great Pacific Northwet, in the Land Between Canada and Mexico Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,068	Originally posted by MarkJerling Thanks Robert. I realised, once I saw how little space we had at the top, that I needed the 28mm end. However, later, when the light was poor, I switched to the 35-70mm as the 28-80 is not great for focussing in low light. That's an unusual looking wedding "cake" Mark. Cheesecake?

04-05-2019, 09:45 PM	#86
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,406 Original Poster	Originally posted by Racer X 69 That's an unusual looking wedding "cake" Mark. Cheesecake? :cheesy: Indeed! We thought it was a novel idea. And very enjoyable, I might add.