What lenses do you use?

[David Kilpatrick]

On dPreview, Phixel made this comment:

"Yes, I believe David Kilpatrick has more Sigma lenses for his Alpha cameras than any other brand. I don't think he owns any Tamrons."

Not really true. I have old Sigma 16mm fisheye M-F and 400mm rechipped, but those don't really count, they cost peanuts and were bought for experiment (I do use the 16mm but the day I find a good used 16mm Minolta AF, bargain Sony 16mm, or bargain Sigma 15mm EX DG I'll upgrade - or a Pentax screw 17mm f4 or something similarly classic quality). I have modern Sigmas 12-24mm, 70-200mm, and 2X converter.

From Sony, I have the 70-300mm SSM G, the CZ 16-80mm, the new 18-55mm SAM (for a while anyway) and our daughter has via passing-on/semi-loan the SAL 16-105mm, and her boyfriend has the 18-70mm on my old Alpha 100 body.

Shirley has the 11-18mm Sony and 18-250mm Sony, but she is doing weight training to get used to the Sigma 18-250mm. It's really difficult with the cost of theses lenses to keep spares, but I know Ailsa wants the 18-250mm Sony in place of the 16-105mm and Colin would like the 16-105mm instead of the 18-70mm... which I really don't need back here!

Now I make the 11-18mm a Tamron, and the 18-250mm a Tamron, at heart. Ailsa also uses a 55-200mm Tamron which is an amazingly good little lens. Fantastic for the money.

Then I have two KM lenses which are really Tamron, and are the mainstay lenses of my A900 outfit - 17-35mm KM D, and 28-75mm KM D. With these, I also have the 28-105mm Minolta RS which is a single lens alternative for walkaround use. However, I found that my 2X Teleplus MC-7 DG converter works pretty well with the 28-75mm creating a sharp f/5.6 56-150mm with amazing close focus, so I have started using the 28-75 with the converter in a pocket.

And for prime lens use - 28mm f/2 RS, 50mm f/1.4 original, 50mm macro f/2.8 original, 100mm f/2.8 macro original, 100mm f/2.8 SF, and 25mm Minolta micro lens, plus my 70-210mm f/4 beercan zoom. I've got a Lensbaby, and an 80mm Arsat and a 50mm Pentacon on Russian shift and tilt adaptors. But most of these remain in the cupboard unless wanted for special work.

It's not a huge lens collection (I see many people have more) and my usual working outfit consists of the A900 with 28-75mm, the Teleplus 2X and 16mm Sigma stuffed in the base of the bag with spare batteries, the HVL-F58AN, and a Macbook 13" with card reader. There is room for either the 70-300mm or the 17-35mm at choice. I may also have a pocket digital audio recorder, or HD video recorder, in the kit. The 12-24mm and 70-200mm Sigmas only come with me when there is a reason. The bag I use is very small, a Tenba from 20 years ago exactly the size of the Macbook with space for camera+lens and one other lens, then an underspace which will fit the flash, 16mm and converter etc.

If Shirley ends up using the Sigma permanently, that will actually be the first Sigma chosen as a 'main lens' for everyday use. But since I got the A900 I've moved from having no Sigmas to having three...

David

[stevecim]

My list is easy

Minolta 50mm 1.7
Sigma 18-5F 3.5-5.60 DC
Tamron 70-300 Di II LD

lets see who has less lenses ?

[bakubo]

These are the lenses I use these days on my A700:

Sony 11-18mm f4.5-5.6
Sony 18-250mm f3.5-6.3
Minolta 50mm f1.7
Sigma 90mm f2.8 macro
Sigma 24mm f2.8

My wife uses these on her A100:

Sigma 18-125mm f3.5-5.6
Minolta 100-300mm f4.5-5.6i

I rarely use these, but from time to time I do:

Minolta 70-210mm f4
Minolta 28-135mm f4-4.5
Minolta 35-70mm f4

These lenses I haven't used in years:

Minolta 35-105mm f3.5-4.5i
Tokina 20-35mm f3.5-4.5
Tamron 28-200mm Super f3.8-5.6
Tokina ATX 400mm f5.6 (I wish I could use this one sometimes, but an internal element is all fogged up now)

I also have these in Canon mount, but no Canon camera at the moment:

Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6
Tamron 28-75mm f2.8
Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 OS

[PhotoTraveler]

I'm trying to reduce my lens footprint.

I got up to like 15 lenses at one point. I've owned or do own the following. 2.8/24RS, 2/28RS, 1.7/50RS, 1.4/50 RS, 2.8/100RS, 4.5/400G, 17-35D, 2.8/28-75, 4/35-70, 28-100D, 24-105, 100-300 APO D, 16-80ZA, 2.8/70-200G, 4/70-210, 1.4x TC, 2.0x TC, 1.7/50 master lens, and then a sigma 18-50.

Just far to many. Most of it was an evolution of upgrades, or a good deal was had. One lens never got sold, it was sacrificed for curiosity (28-100D), I just dismantled it to see what was in it. The Sigma was my second AF lens, I didn't know much at the time, major mistake, it was sold off. I've since got rid of some of the big stuff, 400G (I bought it on a killer deal, used it for a bit, but then sold it to make money (doubled investment)). 100-300D gone, 24-105 gone. Much of what remains is because it's not worth a ton, like the 35-70, plus I want to see that lens on something like an A900. Beercan went away since I'm probably one of the few who thinks it's majority over rated. I don't care if it is optically good, everything else about it sucks.

My goal is to get to a small tight kit. That's where the 16-80ZA came in. It replaces a lot of lenses. But now I'm waiting to see what the latest Sony brings with the A850, and what new lenses come. So the 17-35 might stick around a bit longer.

I really found photography enjoyment goes down with lens count. You end up debating what lens to carry, or carry lenses you don't need. You suddenly want to go out the door to go someplace and start debating lens selection.

I'm trying to fix my telephoto situation. I really don't like the 2.8/70-200G. It's too darn big and overkill. I bought it because the 100-300 wasn't working for me. To slow, didn't like the feel or look it gave. There wasn't another option than the 70-200 at the time. The new 70-300G is very tempting, especially cause of the 16-80ZA matching up with it. But I don't like it doesn't take the TCs (granted it's really slow, but they did it right on the 70-400). I really wish sony had given us more of a 4/70-200 instead.

So the lens reduction will continue. Probably going to ditch some of the primes. I've gone back and forth from being a zoom guy, to prime only. Just depends on mood.

But in the end, I want to carry really no more than 3 lenses at any one time, and I don't want huge/heavy beast.

It's way to easy to justify a lot of lenses "I need this for that...." But a pile of gear is not my goal. A small tight, well working kit is. Cross compatibility is a big deal. So same filter sizes is a big thing. This weekend I went on a sudden 1500mile road trip. I took the 16-80, 70-200, 2/28, 2.8/100. Very odd mix for things. Very different lenses. And of course 3 filter sizes, so I had to grab stuff for all. I was going to a place that can be very harsh, so digging out clear filters, and such too. Not the sort of thing I want to mess with. And of course the 2 primes never got used. The 70-200 got used for a little bit, then put away, and everything was then just one lens, the 16-80.

Having lenses that just sit on your shelf isn't very useful. I rather move them on to others, Gets money back, and gets other folks a lens. Which is a big part in why I only buy Minolta/KM/Sony lenses. Only lens I ever lost money on selling was the sigma. All the rest I've sold for more than I paid for. That won't be the case with others I have (though if I sold every lens I have today, combined with those I have sold, I would be net positive). But it is an advantage to sticking with good lenses, sticking with Minolta/KM/Sony. 3rd parties tank in value, but of course I just object in principle to them (reverse engineering of ROMs and so forth). I do have a problem letting go of them though, I think all of use do. Many of my lenses can't be had anymore, or if they show up, it cost a lot of money. Others like the 35-70 aren't worth selling. I bought it for like 15-20 bucks at a flee market, I'd only get maybe 35 bucks for it, so why bother.

I think I could probably be an advisor to a lens-aholic support group. I'm recovering. It's hard to break the habit.

In the end, right now the lens I use is the 16-80ZA, the 1.4/50 and 2.8/100 get some use. I've almost come full circle to a new version of my earliest good kits (24-105 + 100-300 + 1.7/50). If I get a FF body, it will be a do over again. But of course I need Sony to bring a 4/24-105G or something similar before I can make that move.

[Tony Meredith]

My list is also easy:

Tamron 18-250mm
Tamron 17-50mm
Tamron 90mm macro
Sony 18-70mm kit lens (seldom used anymore)

[Javelin]

I don't think anyone takes Phixel too seriously. you could safely ignore anything he writes and not miss a thing. It Sux that he tried to use you as an example for one of his silly arguments though.

I have a small bag I carry with my 28-135, 70-300G or beercan. I was at a colour ceremony on the weekend at CFB Borden put on by the cadets and I added another bag with Minolta 17-35 and 50mm F1.7 but I ended up shooting the whole event from behind crowds with the 70-300G I just didn't know what to expect. The G works well and without then battery grip attached I can use it with a monopod attached and collapsed folded toward the front and it doesn't get in the shot and keeps me from banging the lens hood around if I'm walking and the monopod only takes a second to deploy if needed. it works with the 28-135 too but it will get in the shot if I'm zoomed out.

If I'm going for macro I can carry beercan or 28-135 and 100mm and tripod. I also have a tamron 90mm (an old version) and I haven't found a good use for it other than I guess portraits. it had an F2.5 aperture but it focuses pretty slow even with the limiter. I've had it out a few times but I always go back to the 100mm in the end.

dern spell checker always tries to turn tamron into tampon

[KevinBarrett]

My kit is mostly Minolta glass, with one indispensable Tamron. All of it goes into a Lowepro Nova 4 AW with fast accessibility and plenty of cards, batteries, cables, an F56 flash gun, and a lens blower.

• a700 + VG - though I contemplate picking up another system, I'd buy this pair again in a heartbeat
• Tamron 17-50/2.8 - My wide angle solution, and my walk-around lens; the range is limited, but I don't have to worry about any quirks or weaknesses
• Minolta 70-210/4 - My telephoto solution; has more CA than I'd like, but focus-hunting is a non-issue, and the colors!
• Minolta 50/1.7 - My portrait lens; dramatic depth of field effects at wide aperture, and razor sharp when stopped down
• Minolta 24/2.8 RS - My normal lens; while I don't use it often, it is superior in every way to the Tamron, a great "back to basics" focal length

Lenses unused: Sony 18-70/3.5-5.6, Quantaray (Sigma) 28-90/3.5-5.6

[redsim74]

My lenses are all Sony/Minolta/KM apart from one Sigma.

CZ16-80 - my current walk-around.

Sony 18-250 - purchased before the 16-80, my one lens solution. Might end up selling it.

Minolta 100-300 APO (Non D) - There for the extra reach. Bought second hand in well worn condition and not great at the long end to be honest, which kind of defeats its intended purpose. Two minds as to whether it needs servicing or selling.

Sony 50/1.4 - Purchased brand new 2yrs ago at half retail price due to overstocking. Back focuses terribly unless stopped down, but never got round to doing anything about it. Seldom used obviously.

Sigma 70-200/2.8 APO HSM - Purchased for sports photography. I follow my (future) brother-in-law's Ironman (swim, bike, marathon) and cycling events. Thinking of picking up the 2x TC given DK's good results.

KM 28-75/2.8 - First decent lens I bought for my KM 5D. Mostly use it for portraits now.

"Beercan" - Bought cheaply but seldom - if ever - used.

Minolta 200/2.8 APO HS G - Pride of my collection. Bought for far, far less than what they sell for now. Seldom used but wouldn't want to part with it.

[stevecim]

If the stars and planets all lined up and hell froze over, I would get the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM II + 2x TC

If the stars and planets all lined up and hell froze over and a miracle or 2 happened I'll get CZ and G lenses

[calpon]

I, unfortunately, have too many interests and this requires more lenses than I would have hoped for.

I almost always have the CZ 16-80 on one A700 and the Sony 70-400 on the other A700 (quick bird shots out the back door).
When I know I will be indoors I have a Sony 50 1.4 on 1 and a KM 28-75 on the other.
When I am shooting sports or wildlife I have the 70-400 on 1 and a Sony 70-200 on the other with the CZ in the bag.
Foliage or other landscapes would be a Tamron 90 and CZ 16-80 with the 70-200 in the bag.
A walk around the city or on vacation walk-a-bouts -16-80 and 70-200
Many times it is one camera and one lens (lens dependent on activity)

I have a Tamrac Velocity 9 that will hold both G lenses attached to each A700 and an extra lens...yes..I have been on full day hikes with this kit. (I have resorted to a 2 camera set-up because I hate to clean my sensor or miss a shot changing lenses)

If it were not for sports and wildlife interests, I believe a simple 4 lens solution would cover everything. (and save me a lot of money)
1. CZ16-80
2. Sony 70-300G
3. Sony 50 1.4
4. Tamron 90 macro

[pakodominguez]

Beercan went away since I'm probably one of the few who thinks it's majority over rated. I don't care if it is optically good, everything else about it sucks.

NO: you are not the only one...
I don't think it sucks, but I think it's over rated and people buy it for crazy prices because somebody else told them it is so good -so they will repet "it is soo good" in order to feel confortable with their new mythical lens.
Same goes for other lenses like the 28-135...

Regards

[pakodominguez]

If I'm going for macro I can carry beercan or 28-135 and 100mm and tripod.

Do you use the 28-135 for macro?
how come?
minimun focus is 1.5 mt!!!

[Winston]

SAL1118
KM 17-35
KM 28-75
Min 100 Macro
SAL70400G

The G is always on one A700 and gets the most use.
The other A700 carries one of the other four.

Unused
KM 7D
Min 75-300
Min 100-400 APO.

Min X-700 (2)
MD 28mm f/2.8
MD 50mm f/1.4
MD 100mm f/2.5
MD 200mm f/2.8

[pakodominguez]

With the 7D my main lens was the 24-105D. Alas, it doesn't resolve properly the A700 and I don't think it will resolve any FF camera.

If I'm doing portraits at home I'll use Minolta 85mm f1.4; Minolta 100mm 2.8 SF and 50mm f1.7 (Before the 100 mm 2.8 SF I used the 100 mm 2.8 Macro but it is not a good lens for portraits at f5.6 or higher: too sharp!)

If I'm going to a small event (a party, an opening or a small corporate event) I'll use mostly the 17-35D f28-4 and if I don't know the venue, I'll probably take a longer zoom, the 28-75D f2.8 or the 35-200Xi

If I'm doing a wedding or another big event, I'll use the 17-35D; 28-75D; 100 SF; Lensbaby Composer for "lensbaby" stuff and 35-200Xi in case I need more reach -it is really a compact lens and it is a good performer in a controlled enviroment (flashes as main lighting) but some times CA is pressent while shooting with day light.

I got the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 that I use for portratis on location (I'm editing a engagement party just right now) it is too big for everything else, including events. But it is a nice lens, really good optically, good Bokeh, and I think I'll keep it. The lens I will sell one of these days is the 85mm f1.4 (beautifull lens, but I don't use it that much, doesn't worth the investment and I'm not a lens collector)

For the trip to Peru last April I took 17-35D; 28-75D and the Tamron 70-200. The 28-75D is a good performer, even for close up. The 70-200 only gave me problems because its size. And every single pic I took with this lens could be taken with the 35-200Xi because I didn't need the f2.8

I have both 50mm 2.8 and 100 2.8 Macro. Those are keepers. Next trip the 100 f2.8 will be on my bag for sure.

The day I'll start working with a FF camera... I'll use the same lenses for the same kind of work! Well, I'll use more the 28-75D than the 17-35D. And the 100 f2.8 even more than now. The 85mm will probably finance the FF body...

I got the 70-210 f4 for 75 US$ and I sold it at 145 US$ the week after I got the Tamrom. No regret. I got the 20mm f2.8 for 145 US$ before I got any Minolta body (I alredy decided I'll going for Minolta Digital) and I sold it last year for about 300 US$ without regret. I got a couple of 28-135 and sold them for the same price I paid for. no regret. I got a Sigme 28-70 2.8-4 UC (another plastic fantastic ) but after a couple of test I sold it for about the same price I paid for.

[peterottaway]

MF film cameras
Minolta MC 50/1.4
Tamron AD2
24/2.5
105/2.5
Minolta MD 28/2.8
MD 28-85/3.5-4.5
MD 50/1.7
MD 50-135/3.5-4.5
MD 70-210/4
MD 200/4
MD 250/5.6

AF film cameras only
Tokina 20-35/3.5-4.5
Minolta 24-105/3.5-4.5

AF digital and film
CZ 16-80/3.5-4.5 APS-C only
Minolta 24-85/3.5-4.5
Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8
KM 28-75/2.8
Minolta 35-105/3.5-4.5 APS-C only
Minolta 35-200 xi/4.5-5.6
Sony 70-300 G /4.5-5.6
Sony 70-400 G /4.5-5.6

So at the moment I haven't been buying any modern wide or moderate zooms as I am waiting to see if an smaller/lighter alternative to the CZ 16-35 turns up and if the 24-105/4 turns out to be real. The 70-200/2.8 's are too large and heavy for the use I would get out of them.