Photoclubalpha

I have been saving for a fast 70-200 for a while but yesterday I went out on a trip and suffered the APS-C "focal length too long" issue.
Much of the shots needed less than 70mm (on APS-C) and I had my 70-400 on the A700 and 18-250 on the A100. The 18-250 is great for travel etc but I am looking for something of better quality/faster to slot in below the 70-400 so I figured maybe I need to review the options.

So the dilema is: operate at the long end of a short fast zoom such as a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 or Sony 28-75 f2.8 SAM or try something novel like the Sigma 50-150 f2.8 (APS-C only) at the short end.

A friend used one full frame and one APS-C C***n to cover the gap.

Any reasonable suggestions welcomed.

Mike

I've considered going this route, but I always had a difficult time justifying the $750 for a lens that won't work on full-frame. Of course, I have an equally hard time justifying the $2000 expense of getting into the full-frame club, too. So that's $3000 to $4000 to get an a850 plus a fast 70-200mm, or $750 for a Sigma 50-150mm.

Hi,
For the photographic safari to Peru I organized last year (Photoworld #24 http://content.yudu.com/Library/A1l0ow/ ... ferrerUrl= pages 20; 21), after several considerations, I took with me A700 + KM 17-35 f2.8-4; KM 28-75 f2.8 and Tamron 70-200 f2.8 and other the size of the 70-200, I think this is the perfect kit.

Since then I do FF and I was thinking for the next trip replacing the 70-200 by the 35-200 Xi, more versatile and compact. The problem is that the 35-200 Xi is not at it's best at the long end, and it has problems handling underexposure...

Going to the point: get the 28-75 (KM or Sony) and you'll discover it on your body often than any other lens

I had a similar dilema and finally ordered the new Sigma 17-50 2.8 (also have a sigma 70-200)
Can't tell you if it's any good yet because it's on backorder, but the reviews so far are very promising.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28os
http://www.digitalcamaralens.com/Html/O ... onomia.htm

Kevin/Pako

Thanks for that, Kevin hit it on the nail, £2k for a ff body with the extra weight and bulk or stay compact for the moment. The cheap opton for the moment is the 28-75 route, perhaps the Tamron version which is around £360 against £600 for the Sony SAM lens. The annoying thing is that I have an old Tokina 28-70 f2.8 but it focusses a mile out and is only usable with MF.
Same thoughts as Kevin re the 50-150, if and when ff comes to me then it's of little use.

Pako, is the 28-75 good at the 50-75 end?

Mike

mikeriach wrote:
Pako, is the 28-75 good at the 50-75 end?

Mike

Yes, specially at f4 and up to f11 and it's close focus ability (not really macro) is very handy. Try to get the KM, it is not that expensive on ebay. Apparently the Tamron suffer badly of 'sampling". The SAM function on the Sony is good, I had it for a couple of weeks and I like it because it focused faster and more accurate in low light than the KM. But the price...

Regards

It's not fast, only an F4, but I really like my Sigma 35-135. If gives me back the classic 70-210 lens on APS-C, plus a bit more on the wide end. It's FF compatible and built really well. I've just seen a few on e-bay - one NIB for $99.

Dusty

Hi
I'm probably in a minority of one here in thinking that 28mm (or APS eqiv) is neither fish nor fowl being too wide for everyday & too narrow for a lot of opportunities. I use the sometimes maligned 16 -105 (24 - 160ish) & find it the ideal walkabout/tourist lens. But APS-C only obviously.
No, it's not great wide open at the wide end but stop down a bit & it's IQ is fine and it's very flexible. The price seems to have come down a bit I would strongly recommend it to the house. Despite a seeming sluightly plasticy it has survived several drops, skiing falls & the like with no ill effects , so far !!
Good luck
RT