Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 22, 2007, 2:01 PM   #1
TDN
Senior Member
 
TDN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,288
Default

Just sent the payment for what is my most expensive lens up till now

A 2nd hand Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 EX Aspherical. Not the newest version, but I wanted one to go wide as well as moderate tele at concerts with 1 lens, and AF is handy too.
Up till now the MF combo 50mm f1.7 and 105mm f2.8 worked fine, but this'll be easier. I'll still use the 105mm too for the longer shots.

I got it for a decent price I think: €186,45 shipped. Still it's the most money I ever gave for a lens...guess it'll only go downhill with the LBA from here:roll:

I'll post results when it gets here.




Tom
TDN is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 22, 2007, 3:12 PM   #2
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

That's a good focal range if you can get close enough at the concerts. You can't have everything if you want to keep the size/weight reasonable. ;-)

If you spot a Tamron 35-105mm f/2.8, that can work in conditions where you really don't need the wide end as much, too (i.e., your f/2.8 zooms starting at 18 to 24mm).

But, your 105mm f/2.8 prime would be sharper wide open anyway if you wanted to go that long.

Let us know how you like the Sigma, especially shooting with it wide open (or close to it).

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2007, 6:25 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
If you spot a Tamron 35-105mm f/2.8, that can work in conditions where you really don't need the wide end as much, too (i.e., your f/2.8 zooms starting at 18 to 24mm).
JC,
i wish you'd quit advertising lenses. price on this is already too high!!

roy
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2007, 6:30 PM   #4
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I didn't really think so.

I got a Tamron SP 35-105mm f/2.8 Autofocus Zoom in Minolta AF Mount for $119.95 from the used department at keh.com a while back. It was listed as bargain condition with no hood or caps. But, it arrived in perfect condition. ;-) They have some of the most conservative ratings around and will often mark down lenses in less popular focal lengths for minor issues like missing hood and caps.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2007, 7:54 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

most of them on ebay go for 175+ lately. about the same for the 35-105/3.5 pentax A.
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2007, 8:43 AM   #6
TDN
Senior Member
 
TDN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,288
Default

It just arrived!

All I can say is: wow, what a beast of a lens. A 28-70mm with a 77mm filter size!

It's surprisingly light for a lens that big (but I'm used to heavy manual glass, so that might be just me )

I'll post samples as soon as I have 'em.

Tom
TDN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2007, 4:02 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

Hi Tom,

I think that you'll like the FL range and speed. There's a reason why this range is a favorite of wedding photogs. I have the pretty equivalent Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR Di (which was the first lens I bought for the DS other than the kit lens that came with it). For people shots from small groups to individual full length to busts, this is easily my favorite FL range, especially for indoor events with flash. I like the DA* 50-135/2.8 for outdoor events where there's a lot of room, but for closer quarters, the shorter range is better, IMO.

I'd recently gotten the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5, and thought that it might be even more versatile because of the extended range at the wide end, but found the additional stop and a half at the long end a bit too slow for low light focusing, so it's replaced the kit lens and the Tamron for outdoor walk around purposes and indoor use at the wide end for larger groups, but the Tamron will be sticking around for the majority of indoor events.

Looking forward to seeing how you do with your new acquisition.

Scott
snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2007, 4:24 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Peacekeeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,024
Default

Tom

You willl never take that lens off your camera. I have the Sigma EX 28-70 f/2.8, different version to yours, it is the perfect focal length.

Not just a favourite of Wedding photographers but also photo journalsits.

I mainly carry three lenses now, 10-20mm, 28-70 and 300mm prime. Will go to four with the 70-200 f/2.8. I have other lenses but these seem to be the ones I use the most.

Congratulations and commiserations, the LBA only gets worse. :?

Crash
Peacekeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2007, 8:40 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
danielchtong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,890
Default

TDN wrote:
Quote:
Just sent the payment for what is my most expensive lens up till now

A 2nd hand Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 EX Aspherical. Not the newest version, but I wanted one to go wide as well as moderate tele at concerts with 1 lens, and AF is handy too.
Up till now the MF combo 50mm f1.7 and 105mm f2.8 worked fine, but this'll be easier. I'll still use the 105mm too for the longer shots.

Tom
Tom,

What does it mean by 'Aspherical'?
Sigma zoom has quite a few version of f2.8. I got myself a 24-60mm EX DG. And my daughter 18-50mm EX DG macro (still untested and she seems to be ok). And yours 28-70mm F2.8.
Anybody did some comparison among them?
Just curious.
I am using mine mainly for party/group occasion. It is a supplement to my FA28mm & F50mm.
One thing I find is that with either K10d or K100D (with IS/VR/SR) paired up with one of the f2.8 Sigma or Tamron, the resultant combo is quite formidable particularly in comparions with whatever Canon/Nikon can offer. I would say top top choice for prosumer.
Tom
When it comes to bang for the buck, it is top choice. Hope your copy is stellar

Daniel
danielchtong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2007, 9:36 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

Hi Daniel,

AFAIK, most lens surfaces are ground to an arc of a sphere. Aspherical lenses aren't. This is obviously more difficult and expensive, but it allows for the possibility of fewer lens elements in a design, and potentially smaller overall lens size. Since I'm not very well versed in optics, I can't give you anything more specific. I take the word of the mfgs on the benefits of aspherical and low dispersion glass elements.

Scott
snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:19 AM.