Photoclubalpha

You find a magic lamp on the beach and the genie inside grants you 1 wish. You can pick any ONE lens for your camera. What do you pick and why?

Go.

Easy! I pick the one discussed here: http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... =27&t=3326

Simple reason being I can sell it and buy all the lenses (and bodies) I want!

Dusty

Dusty wrote:Easy! I pick the one discussed here: http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... =27&t=3326

Simple reason being I can sell it and buy all the lenses (and bodies) I want!

Dusty

I was going to say the same thing

My favorite lens now is the 28-135 it could be a little wider and faster I suppose. I think i'd really like this one even better on full frame. going through my pictures since I got it I use that lens most and at 28-100 which tells me it could be wider but not necessarily longer. I use the macro setting quite a bit though too

Javelin wrote:My favorite lens now is the 28-135 it could be a little wider and faster I suppose. I think i'd really like this one even better on full frame. going through my pictures since I got it I use that lens most and at 28-100 which tells me it could be wider but not necessarily longer. I use the macro setting quite a bit though too

Are you talking about the old Minolta 28-135? I have one that I've tried on the a850. It has more lens flare then I ever saw using it with film. I'll try it some more, but I think it might be for sale sometime in the coming months.

hrm never got any flare on mine with the A700 unless there was an intense sun in the frame I do get a tiny bit of CA though but only under specific circumstances and it goes away in one aperture step.

Hmmm, the one-lens challenge...there is a cheat in this challenge, and that is the APS-C crop! One lens can serve for two angles-of-view, depending on the camera, so what one lens will be useful on two bodies? For instance, on APS-C bodies 24mm becomes 36 (a good wide-angle/normal option), 58 becomes 87 (a good standard/portrait option), 90 becomes 135 (a more specialized portrait lens), anything longer I just couldn't live with, and I don't want to be stuck with the compromizes of a zoom.

Can I have a 24/1.4 T/S SSM please?

I wouldn't mind a top class 24-105 f4 that didn't cost the earth, the KM24-105 is quite ok on APS-C but not so hot on FF, a really good 24-105 lens would be useful on either format.
Greg

I had similar thoughts to Dusty and the Doc . But, if the genie had to give me one exotic lens from the current alpha line up I suppose it would have to be one that I'm unlikely to own without the help of said genie - so something like the Zeiss 16-35, 24-70, or the Sony G 70-400. Despite all of this though I really want a UWA at the moment and so I'm going to go for the Sigma 12-24 as my current dream lens (at the moment!).

Greg Beetham wrote:I wouldn't mind a top class 24-105 f4 that didn't cost the earth <...>

I second that. It also could be a 24-120 (like 16-80 on APS-C) or 24-135/3.5-4.5 that remains F4 at least til 105 mm

btw I do own the 28-135 and I prefer it over the 28-75/2.8 when the weather is nice and I don't need 2.8. It's really very useful to zoom to 135 sometimes rather than be stuck with 75. Or if it's really sunny and I can stop down to F9 or F8 I take the 18-250 - I'd need that in FF, a decent 28-300

Dream lens? a 24-80 f2.8 SSM (or SAM...) tilt and shift and corrected for macro.
voila!

Regards

I can tell you exactly what I would like to see - a 70-210mm f/4 SSM/SAM, a 24-120mm f/4, and a 12-24mm f/4.

But I would settle for a Tri-Elmar type approach to a wide angle. I do not really need zoom with ultra wides - your feet do a lot of zooming with these short lenses. I would be happy enough with a lens which just switched from 14mm to 20mm with nothing between, using two different rear groups, which could be pretty small with f/4 as the maximum aperture. That would allow a nearly perfect 14mm and 20mm to be included. Better that, than a bendy vignetting zoom...

I'd also like to see a pancake lens for the A230-380 series. The 50mm f/1.8 and 30mm f/2.8 macro are not quite small enough. I have a Loreo 35mm f/11 'lens in a body cap' which works well enough (it is also a PC lens - must remember to try it on the A900, I got it before I ever had the 900). Sony could surely design a similarly flat 35mm f/4.5.

David

I principally photograph travel & landscape and take most of my pictures using the CZ 16-80. Ideally I would like a further development of this super lens stretching the range to 16-135 mm at F3.5-F5.6 at the long end without any reduction in IQ or increased distortion.

So you would like the Tokina 16.5-135mm lens in Alpha mount then?

David

I had a look at that lens Dusty had the link to, hmm I wonder why someone would actually want such a lens, (someone obviously did)....so after adding a telephoto lens weighing 600Lbs to one's kit-bag what then? How does one move it to location...mount it on an ATV? What happens when you travel? (considering that two strong men probably couldn't even lift it, 300Lbs apiece)...the mind boggles...again.
Greg