Photoclubalpha

Well, I did get my 70-400G yesterday and posted couple of flowers on phlora thread.
Since it was late night when the lens was delivered and I could not go out today due to
work schedule, I am looking forward to Weekend. This is a 100% (700x700). This was
taken from about 10 feet. The two flowers in phlora are also the test shots. I could not
wait to put the lens on the camera last night. The intent is not to validate the lens
as much as express my sheer pleasure in owning a sweet, sweet lens. As I mentioned,
my brother came through. Now I am so enamored, I am debating between 16-35f2.8, 24-70f2.8
and Doc's favorite 24/f2. I am open suggestions.

With best regards,
Sury

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigsu ... .jpg[/img]
DSC33292crop by BigSury, on Flickr[/url]

Cangradulations It is indeed a fine lens!

My 24-70 is the most used lens in my arsenal. You won't go wrong there!!

Robbie,
Thank you. I am leaning towards 24-70 as well and /Dooc (Dr. Harout) feels 24f/2 is a fine lens and I have
been tempted by that lens too.

With best regards,
Sury

Enjoy it Sury, I am really glad for you.
Personally, I like (re: love) quality tele zooms, but on the wide end I prefer prime lenses.
I am more than sure that the 24-70 ZA is a wonderful lens and I would use it in street, candid and events photography. But if you're out in nature with a tripod and all the time is with you, well, I guess nothing beats the 24/2 ZA (IMHO).
You may argue that the 16-35/2.8 ZA is an option too, for which I agree but yet primes are my lust.
Best would be to have all 3 lenses in a Helium bag

Congrats Sury

I'm sure you will enjoy it. I have both the 70-400 and the 24-70 and feel they compliment each other particularly well. I also have the Sigma 12-24 which you may want to look into.

Have fun

Richard

Thank you Richard. I will look into the Sigma 12-24 as well. I presume you are suggesting
it as an alternative to 16-35.

Doc, you are killing me. Now I need to sweet talk the missus for two. Hmm!!
Let me see how I can swing that one.

I had not done much with wide or primes. Only recently I started getting into wide angle
as I am learning and taking landscapes. The most I have used WA in the past was when
taking photos with the people. I will start getting into the wider use of WA lenses. It was
my lack of awareness than anything else.

With best regards,
Sury

Great addition to your arsenal Sury. I have one too and can't go without it anymore

Have fun.

Mark

Congratulations, Sury!

Very pleaasing to hear that the lens talk is turning into a brilliant lining of reality.

Looking forwaard to your photos and the second addition to your collection to complement the 70-400 G.

Enjoy!

Yildiz

[quote="sury"]... I am debating between 16-35f2.8, 24-70f2.8
and Doc's favorite 24/f2. I am open suggestions.

With best regards,
Sury/quote]

Yes.

Personally, the 24-70 on FF would be my wedding lens, the 16-35 for architecture.

I don't think I could justify the 24/f2 if I had 2 others that covered it's range.

Of course, I don't have the $$ for any of them at present. I normally only spend that kind of money on vehicles!

Dusty

Yes.

Personally, the 24-70 on FF would be my wedding lens, the 16-35 for architecture.

I don't think I could justify the 24/f2 if I had 2 others that covered it's range.

Of course, I don't have the $$ for any of them at present. I normally only spend that kind of money on vehicles!

Dusty[/quote]

I would agree with you on spending/splurging. Thanks for the inputs....

Sury

The SAL70-400--G is one of my two most-used lenses. The other is the Sony Zeiss 24-70. Since you're wondering about this lens, in his review, Michael Reichman (Luminous Landscape) said "the Zeiss 24-70mm F2.8 glass alone is worth the price of admission to the Sony system."

By the way, Roger Cicala of Len Rentals wrote about the the SAL 70-400, "Using it is a pleasure: It is sharper and focuses much faster than the Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 HSM OS for Sony and is light enough that hand-holding it for the whole day didn’t leave me tired. It is a great all-purpose telephoto lens that I recommend highly—better than the equivalent Canon and Nikon telephoto zooms." And he rents Nikon and Canon, too, not just Sony.

John David Cubit wrote:The SAL70-400--G is one of my two most-used lenses. The other is the Sony Zeiss 24-70. Since you're wondering about this lens, in his review, Michael Reichman (Luminous Landscape) said "the Zeiss 24-70mm F2.8 glass alone is worth the price of admission to the Sony system."

By the way, Roger Cicala of Len Rentals wrote about the the SAL 70-400, "Using it is a pleasure: It is sharper and focuses much faster than the Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 HSM OS for Sony and is light enough that hand-holding it for the whole day didn’t leave me tired. It is a great all-purpose telephoto lens that I recommend highly—better than the equivalent Canon and Nikon telephoto zooms." And he rents Nikon and Canon, too, not just Sony.

I think Roger is a little optimistic. I have used my 70-400G for around 1/2 a day continuously (airshow flying display) and my arms ached but I do agree it is a superb lens, I'm just a little out of condition!

Mike

I am with Mike here as far as weight goes. I need to start strengthening my arms.
But I see that as a positive since I will be healthier, physically too.
We have been having rains for the last few days. I am waiting (not too anxiously
since we do need rain, ) for the break in sky and weekend.

Sury

Congratulations Sury. I like the shot you posted. Looking forward to more from this magnificent lens.

As much as I would like the 24-70. I would consider the Ziess 16-80 & Distagon T 24mm F2SSM for just $150 more.

David,
Thank you. Isn't 16080 a DT lens? Just curious. I am smitten by the
SSM and fast focus. Especially after my Tamron 200-500 (I now do manual focus only).


With best regards,
Sury