Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by cube, Jul 4, 2011.
Never too keen on starting at 70 or 80.
Not sure myself. Most people carry a standard zoom of 24-70(or 80/105) so the bottom end is covered.
No time to change lenses and 2 bodies is a drag. Light with just one lens.
Anything extra beyond 150 wouldn't hurt, as it seems a bit short.
No thanks, a 70/80-200 covers that need more than adequately for me. What is missing for me is a 24-105 f2.8 AF-S VR IF-ED. The 24-70 just doesn't cut it at the telephoto end and I am constantly wishing for more. And while my hand holding technique is decent (and the high ISO capability of my D700 is amazing), VR would be nice to have.
Another missing product!
How about a 15-150mm f/2.8 or faster zoom that is also lightweight and affordable and has good image quality. It would sell loads!
And while they're at it, I'd like an affordable 8-500mm f/2L! But it has to be under $300 and under 5 lbs. That would really complete my lens collection
Some people are using the 50-150 f2.8 DC on FX because this product is missing.
A 50-150 on a DX sensor would be an 75/80-225/250 lens.
I must say I never missed 50-150. Not going into wide angle, and not enough into the long range.
Canon has a 24-105 full frame lens which is an excellent range. Overlaps practically with the 70-200.
Yes, I guess people using that lens on FX crop are not really looking for a 50-150, but already have some gear and don't want to splash for a fast DX body or a 70-200.
It still stands that 50-150 FX would be a very useful range.
Why is there a slow 50-500 and not a fast 50-150?
As I said in your other thread... a fast 50-150 zoom covers the ideal portrait range, which is currently served by a trio or more of high-end expensive (and profitable) primes. This is why there is demand for such a lens and why it will never exist.
No the difference between a 50-150 f2.8 zoom and a trio of 1.4 (or f/2 at the longer end) primes will always be more speed and shallower DoF. To move a three-prime setup to a single zoom would be at the cost of 1-2 stops, taking what start out as excellent portrait primes and turning them into just another PJ zoom.
I'm not sure 50 is really in the ideal portrait range either, as it is effectively the "normal" field of view. For crop sensors, maybe- but there is already a 50-150 product for that (which essentially replicates the function of 70-200 on FX)
There's such a small difference between 50 and 70 mm that I couldn't imagine this being an issue, personally.
Because there isn't a large enough market- if an award-winning lens in this FL gets sold for only two years, that shows the market isn't large enough at the necessary price point.
I would never get a zoom with such a big range as a 50-500.
A 50-150... I don't see any reason to have such a lens. I either need wide angle to moderate long lens (24-105) or I decide I go for the longer lens (70-200).
So, why don't you go for a 70-200?
Let's see an 8-500mm f/1.4L IS w/ that new fangled pop-in 1.4x TC and it might get decent reviews.
If it's smaller than the Hubble space telescope and weighs less than a ton, even better!
I already tried a 80-200, and many times I was shooting at 80, and many times it was too tight.
I would give up some of the longer range, to be able to frame a bit wider.
But 35-105 is too short for this application. I think 50-135 would also be too short if it were available in FX.
What lens are you talking about?
I know that those expensive primes have much wider max aperatures, but I'm not certain that's extremely helpful in portrait photography. I'm no portrait photographer, but I would think that an aperture of f2.8-f4 is most appropriate. Having someone's eye in focus while their ear and nose are OOF is not all that useful.
So I stand by my assertion that a fast 50-150 lens would be extremely useful for portrait photographers but Canon, for one, would never sell such a lens to a market that currently gobbles up their 50, 80, and 135mm L primes for a small fortune.
My bad, the lens I was thinking of wasn't FX. Still, no real market here AFAICT.
In that case, there's a new version of the Sigma 50-150 DC with OS coming out that was announced some months ago.
I think many people don't know about such Sigma options, and much less about the Tokina 50-135.
Yes, and I doubt it'll show the world that there was an amazingly large market- I don't think it'll do poorly, but I don't think it'll be all that earth-shattering either.
I'm confused now, the sigma is a DX lens, essentially the equivalent of the 70-200 for FX. What does it have to do with this thread- which is 50-150 for FF?
I understood he meant that a 50-150 DX was a market failure, so I digressed.
That's like saying there's no 70-200 FX market.