I want my lens ranges back!

[Dusty]

Shooting my daughters fall concert last night at the local High School auditorium, I noticed one of the shortcomings of APS-C. My lens ranges are all off. I was using my new (used) Tamron 80-210. and on APS-C, 80's not wide enough. I could have switched to the kit lens, but then I'd have to switch back for close-ups. And the 210 was a bit long, too. On FF it would have been perfect.

I'm so used to having a 28-80 and 70 -210 lens and a 70-210 on full-frame would have been fine.

There is no lens in the line-ups that cover the classic 70-210 for APS-C. Well, there are - Sigma has a 50 - 150 F2.8, but it runs $1100. Their 50 -200 F4-5.6 is Listed at $500, a bit much for that, I think. Sony sells the 55-200 F4-5.6 for $229. And of course, 55 equals 82.5 on APS-C

I know there are 18-200 and 18-250 lenses, but the longer the zoom, the longer the compromises, even with more advanced lens mfg techniques.

What I'd really like is a 40-150 (let's take advantage of recent lens improvements) f3.5-5.6 or straight 4.0 for around $300 -350.

That would make a good companion to the kit lens and give us back our 'classic' zoom ranges.

Dusty

[bakubo]

Sony, Sigma, and Tamron have 55-200mm lenses and they give you an 82.5-300mm fov. At the short end that is *very* close and hardly different from your Tamron 80-210mm on FF. Plus, you get a bunch more at the long end. Wouldn't one of them be what you are looking for? Getting a 70mm fov is tougher, but even your Tamron 80-210mm on FF doesn't give you that.

[Javelin]

Maybe pick up a 28-135 Dusty ? It's not fast but it's a great lens on APS-C

[alphaPDX]

It isn't really speedy, but my old 35-105 sounds nearly ideal too; mine's the 2nd-gen and you could get one cheaply to try. My primary reason for the Sigma 17-70 is for indoor use in small rooms, but cropping would be in order for an auditorium & it's f/4.5 at telephoto. If you trust Sigma these can be found pretty cheaply, just dont' lose the receipt . My Sigma 18-200 does the daytime jobs, at f/8 it does well & my copy stays f/5.6 out to 180mm - this lens is a Ritz / Quantaray badge so can be had cheaply at times.. and Ritz has a 5-year warranty on Quantaray so in some respects it's preferable to the real thing!

[Dusty]

Sony, Sigma, and Tamron have 55-200mm lenses and they give you an 82.5-300mm fov. At the short end that is *very* close and hardly different from your Tamron 80-210mm on FF. Plus, you get a bunch more at the long end. Wouldn't one of them be what you are looking for? Getting a 70mm fov is tougher, but even your Tamron 80-210mm on FF doesn't give you that.

Well, I picked up the Tammy because it was $25, including a 35-80 and 400i film camera! Im used to the 70mm but the difference is small, in reality. My main complaint is that, even with advances in lens tech, we still don't have what we used to. I would think that someone would give us that classic range, and even improve it a bit. I guess it just struck me because it's the kind of thing I would do with one lens in the film days, and now can't. Maybe Javelin's 28-135 might do the trick. That's more than wide enough, and 135 puts the long end at 202.

I just seems that too many lenses are going to the one size fits all 18-300 superzooms. Some day they'll all be 6-600! Of course, they'll have an f-stop range of 3.5-11.

Dusty

[rogprov]

The obvious answer is get yourself a a900 then you'll be back to what you're used to

[bakubo]

Well, I picked up the Tammy because it was $25, including a 35-80 and 400i film camera! Im used to the 70mm but the difference is small, in reality. My main complaint is that, even with advances in lens tech, we still don't have what we used to. I would think that someone would give us that classic range, and even improve it a bit. I guess it just struck me because it's the kind of thing I would do with one lens in the film days, and now can't. Maybe Javelin's 28-135 might do the trick. That's more than wide enough, and 135 puts the long end at 202.

I have the Minolta 28-135mm. It is a big, heavy lens with a minimum focus of about 6 feet. There is also the Sigma 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 for only $121:

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-28-135mm-3- ... B00005044B

Don't know a thing about it though. Just did a search and it popped up.

[Dusty]

The obvious answer is get yourself a a900 then you'll be back to what you're used to

IF i had the money, I would. I could sell a kidney, but they won't let me!

Dusty

[Dusty]

I have the Minolta 28-135mm. It is a big, heavy lens with a minimum focus of about 6 feet. There is also the Sigma 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 for only $121:

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-28-135mm-3- ... B00005044B

Don't know a thing about it though. Just did a search and it popped up.

The photos shows a manual focus lens, complete with aperture ring, even though it says "for Konica/Minolta". The 28-105 they show is sure AF.

Dusty

[Dr. Harout]

... I could sell a kidney, but they won't let me!

Dusty

You could just sell someone else's kidney... (black joke, I know )

[bakubo]

The photos shows a manual focus lens, complete with aperture ring, even though it says "for Konica/Minolta". The 28-105 they show is sure AF.

It is AF. Probably a photo of the Nikon version. Oh well, I am sure you can use Google as well as me.