| Author |
Message |
|
Lonnie Utah
|
Post subject: I really can't think.... Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:46 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:19 pm Posts: 608
|
|
of any other lenses to add to my kit.
Right now I have...
Sony CZ 16-35 f2.8 (my favorite) Sigma 24-70 f2.8 (this might get the most use) Sigma 70-200 f2.8 Minolta 50mm f1.7
(these are all for my A900)
I also have a DT 18-255 that pretty much lives on my A200.
I have been browsing the shops/ebay for other lenses and "Deals". I just can't find a reason to pull the trigger on anything.
What would you add/change?
_________________ Website| Photoblog|Facebook Fanpage
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
pakodominguez
|
Post subject: Re: I really can't think.... Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:51 pm |
|
| Minister with Portfolio |
 |
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 5:38 pm Posts: 2136 Location: NYC
|
|
a Fish Eye! A lensbaby could be fun Otherwise, a 100mm 2.8 macro. How about Flashes? I just got the 20AM (it was, or probably still is, on sale) and it is a nice little piece of gear. the 58AM is beauty...
happy shopping!
_________________ Pako ------------ http://www.phototeka.net/qosqo.php
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
KevinBarrett
|
Post subject: Re: I really can't think.... Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:00 am |
|
| Emperor of a Minor Galaxy |
 |
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:32 pm Posts: 2547 Location: Seattle, Washington, USA
|
|
Hmmm, starting with Macro options....there are a couple of really good nine-bladed-aperture f/2.8 macro lenses out there for less dough than Sony's 100mm. The Tamron 90/2.8 is widely regarded as "the portrait macro," and the Sigma 70/2.8 is astoundingly sharp from wide open and never seems to reach any diffraction-limiting as you stop down all the way to f/22. I know you already have some glass at this speed in this range, but there's no replacement for a macro lens.
Or you could get some really fast lenses, an 85/1.4 for starters, or the 135/1.8 for just a bit more. You might go the other way and look at Sigma's wide-angle f/1.8 primes, but you've already got some VERY nice, reasonably fast zooms overlapping from 24-35mm (and they probably already beat those older Sigmas, anyway).
I am hesitant to suggest any zooms because a.) you've got your bases covered, and b.) I'm a prime guy myself. Have you considered a teleconverter?
_________________ Kevin Barrett -- Photos --
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
bossel
|
Post subject: Re: I really can't think.... Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:47 am |
|
| Viceroy |
 |
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:49 pm Posts: 1075 Location: France, Côte d'Azur
|
|
If you want some reach, add a 70-400 or if you want a good prime, a 135/1.8 or 85/1.4, depending on your focal length preferences.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
PeterPhoto
|
Post subject: Re: I really can't think.... Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:01 am |
|
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:09 pm Posts: 9 Location: Hilversum, The Netherlands
|
If I would have a FF in my camera bag, I sure would go find a diagonal fisheye lens. And since I'm used to the crop factor I'd be on the outlook for a some extra mm in zoom or fixed focal point (up to 300 or 400 mm). But first a fisheye  Best, Peter
_________________ My Redbubble portfolio can be found at: http://www.redbubble.com/people/peterbusser
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Wes Gibbon
|
Post subject: Re: I really can't think.... Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:36 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:16 pm Posts: 119 Location: Peterborough, U.K.
|
|
If you're happy with what you have but feel the need to acquire more, then I'm afraid you have caught The Disease! (That's ULAA, or Unnecessary Lens Acquisition Addiction).
It can be a very enjoyable disease, but it will cost you...
Of course, it all depends on your photographic interests, but I agree that a 100mm macro would be a good addition, and I would want something longer than 200mm, so the 70-400 shoulod do justice to your A900, though you will not want to carry it around at the same time as the Sigma I believe they both weigh about 1500gm.
You probably won't get a great deal of 'serious' use out of a fisheye, or a lensbaby, but they should both be great fun!
And for portraits, the 85mm f1.4 will give you all the cntrol over depth of field that you could wish for.
_________________ Wes Gibbon http://www.WesGibbon.com
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Lonnie Utah
|
Post subject: Re: I really can't think.... Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 5:18 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:19 pm Posts: 608
|
Wes Gibbon wrote: Of course, it all depends on your photographic interests, but I agree that a 100mm macro would be a good addition, and I would want something longer than 200mm, so the 70-400 shoulod do justice to your A900, though you will not want to carry it around at the same time as the Sigma I believe they both weigh about 1500gm. Which is why I think a teleconverter might be a better situation, (since the siggy is already 2.8.) That would give me a 140-400 F4.....
_________________ Website| Photoblog|Facebook Fanpage
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
KevinBarrett
|
Post subject: Re: I really can't think.... Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 5:47 pm |
|
| Emperor of a Minor Galaxy |
 |
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:32 pm Posts: 2547 Location: Seattle, Washington, USA
|
Lonnie Utah wrote: Which is why I think a teleconverter might be a better situation, (since the siggy is already 2.8.) That would give me a 140-400 F4..... I think you'll find it gives you a 140-400/5.6
_________________ Kevin Barrett -- Photos --
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Lonnie Utah
|
Post subject: Re: I really can't think.... Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 5:51 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:19 pm Posts: 608
|
KevinBarrett wrote: Lonnie Utah wrote: Which is why I think a teleconverter might be a better situation, (since the siggy is already 2.8.) That would give me a 140-400 F4..... I think you'll find it gives you a 140-400/5.6 Either way, it's still easier than carrying 2 lenses.... (I might have gotten my wires crossed with the 1.4 tc (98-280 f4)
_________________ Website| Photoblog|Facebook Fanpage
|
|
| Top |
|
 |